93-octane necessary?

[GCATX]

When I bought my truck new in August, my first full tank was 93. After that tank, I decided to switch down to regular for a couple tanks. The acceleration difference was night and day, charts and graphs be damned. This is the first vehicle I have felt a difference between grades. Mostly diesels before. Been running 93 ever since.

I am generally trending at 16 mpg I spend a lot of time doing 80-90 on the highways around here. I may try regular again for a few tanks to see what the mileage hit is, and maybe see if I can live with the reduced 'tardedness again if the mpg doesn't take a big hit.

I fill up about once a week, work truck 25k/year.

 

[Edbert]

I wouldnt be suprised if the increased fuel economy of higher octane negates the savings of lower octane/lower economy.

There's an impact on mileage but generally under 10%, while the cost savings can be as much as 25%.

I usually split the difference on the entire argument and use mid-grade, then again that means I'm getting the worst of both sides

 

[poltrup]

Wow, where to start…? This quoted statement is a perfect example of the absolutely false "information" posted on this forum. There's no such thing as "premature" detonation other than in war movies. If you're this badly miss-informed, I recommend google as the learning tool for now. Just search "detonation" and "pre-ignition" to learn some facts...

So... where did you get lost... at the tuners are used to advance timing? or at forced induction is used to increase compression? OH! I know - you skipped over the part where they are "necessary" components to increase performance - but if you don't attenuate them with higher octane fuel you increase the odds of "pre-igniting" (to use your choice of words because "they matter") the air/fuel mixture before top-dead center causing your gasoline truck to run like a diesel.

But that's OK - you keep on keepin' on... because yer smart.

 

[Higgs Boson]

So... where did you get lost... at the tuners are used to advance timing? or at forced induction is used to increase compression? OH! I know - you skipped over the part where they are "necessary" components to increase performance - but if you don't attenuate them with higher octane fuel you increase the odds of "pre-igniting" (to use your choice of words because "they matter") the air/fuel mixture before top-dead center causing your gasoline truck to run like a diesel.

But that's OK - you keep on keepin' on... because yer smart.

I think he is playing with semantics, there is no such thing as premature detonation because that is technically preignition. preignition is when the mixture lights before the spark plug fires. detonation is knock, which is caused by the spark plug firing too early so technically it's not "pre" spark plug, but pre ideal lead.

 

[lawdog]

In a high performance, twin turbocharged engine, you're not going to get the maximum performance/HP out of lower grade gas, period. Years ago I had an Audi A3, and that car was noticeable slower with lower grade gas. A B5 bi-turbo S4 I had was similar. I try to run 93 when I can, mix in 89 or 91 if it's really exorbitant where I am until i can get back to my go-to spots.

 

[MDJAK]

I can also tell a difference in power upon hard, not WOT, acceleration between 87 and 93.

Also, Costco sells premium right now for about $2.69 a gallon, which is about 30 cents cheaper than regular gas at stations nearby me.

I was in Canada last year, Nova Scotia to be exact, and there was no such thing as 93, only 91.

Decades ago I owned a then new Kawasaki 650 Sr motorcycle. I put a can of 103 octane boost in the tank. I almost got thrown off the rear of the bike on WOT. Huge difference.

 

[GCATX]

So, I switched back to 87 octane, now finishing my 3rd tank after running 93 for 7 months/14k miles, to see again how notable the difference in power and save $18 or bucks a tank. Just like before (shocking), the difference is night and day. It seems to pull so much timing that when it downshifts with moderate throttle it makes the required engine noises, but doesn't really accelerate hard like on 93. Avg MPG was only down about .5 miles per gallon.

Maybe I'll try a few tanks of midgrade. If that's not satisfactory, I'll go back to premium. For you guys that have only run 87, I don't think you know what you are missing, or maybe you just don't care. To each his own.

 

[brianh87]

I'm new to the ecoboost world, other than a brief stint in a Focus RS, so I'm not too familiar with tuning them. But since 2011 in the Coyote mustangs, Ford introduced adaptive spark control, where ignition timing would be advanced or retarded based on knock sensor activity, as well as several other parameters. A good bit more power could obviously be produced with 93 than 87. 2018 Mustangs have even more programming in the PCM, with the addition of both DI and MPI. It would only make sense that Ford has the same kind of strategies in another one of their premier engines in the 3.5 eco. Especially when boost comes into the equation. Yes, I'm a firm believer that running 93 is worth it. Running 87 won't hurt the truck, it will just prevent you from unleashing the full potential of it.

 

[Jason Snokhous]

I’ll just leave this here. #facts

 

[SRPRACING]

The stock tune is basically an adaptive tune. It can run 87-93. Based on the KR, and LOR/OAR the pcm will run a bit more timing and boost till it senses Knock vice versa. Ideally you would get better MPG running anything higher than 87 since more timing is involved, but in stock form it only adds a Negligible amount to make a difference. You have to take in the fact that we’re driving a beast of a machine. Also everyone drives different. As long as you run 87 and up you are golden.