Regular vs premium anyone else notice huge difference?

[Indy650]

also the claim that 91/93 gives better mpg is not always true. Actually I find it often to make a fairly small difference. Some vehicles more than others. And like I've said like 5 times now there is a very small chance your'e gonna notice the difference in the way the truck runs "seat of the pants" style. On a dyno it is quite noticeable.

Sponsored

 

[SubVet]

Chevron is said to be a great gas. When I lived in NJ there weren't any Chevron stations and there aren't any in SC.
So Shelll 93 it is for me.

Don't you have BP? They are also top tier and the fuel is fresher as Costco and BP are both top tier and get refilled tanks more often that most.. THats all we use. BP and Costco.

 

[joeb427]

Don't you have BP? They are also top tier and the fuel is fresher as Costco and BP are both top tier and get refilled tanks more often that most.. THats all we use. BP and Costco.

Yes but I prefer Shell 93..

 

[MikeD]

In Seattle, at the Chevron I fill up at, generally mid grade is 10 cents more than regular, and premium is 10 cents more than midgrade. Diesel is generally the close to the price of regular, nearly always less than mid grade. Right now unleaded is $3.57. State taxes here are 49.4 cents + 18.4 cents Federal. I've been told distribution costs are a bigger contributor to our higher fuel costs than taxation.

I am in the Midwest visiting family for Christmas and was filling up a borrowed car and couldn't help but notice how much of a range there is between the different fuel grades at a Shell: regular 87: $2.59, midgrade 89: 2.99, premium 93 $3.39, diesel 2.99. Compare that to Seattle where premium is normally a $0.20 increase from regular, not $.80! I can see why the value proposition for premium varies so much by person and location.

 

[ausable]

I am in the Midwest visiting family for Christmas and was filling up a borrowed car and couldn't help but notice how much of a range there is between the different fuel grades at a Shell: regular 87: $2.59, midgrade 89: 2.99, premium 93 $3.39, diesel 2.99. Compare that to Seattle where premium is normally a $0.20 increase from regular, not $.80! I can see why the value proposition for premium varies so much by person and location.

Exactly!!!!!!!! Some places the difference is a buck a gallon.

 

[Montana Ranger]

that few bucks a tank adds up over the life of the truck.
do the math, it's not as insignificant as you believe.

I can think of better things to spend a couple grand on.

I'd argue that one of the reasons I get to buy a >$30K truck in the first place is because I'm thrifty about where I spend $3-$5 a hit elsewhere in my life.

 

[MTB-BRUH]

I'd argue that one of the reasons I get to buy a >$30K truck in the first place is because I'm thrifty about where I spend $3-$5 a hit elsewhere in my life.

Everyone is different I suppose. A lot of people buy a Starbucks coffee a few times a week. I don’t mind spending a couple bucks on my truck for better fuel but I ain’t gettin no mocha frappe latte for $7, heck no

 

[ch47dmechanic]

this thread should just be closed. Google is a great tool, a caveman can easily deduce from a few searches that a forced induction engine (turbo for you simple folk) likes 91 better than 87 but if your'e a cheapskate you will be fine running 87 unless you are going to be in a situation where you are often running under high boost.

While I agree with your first thought to a point, what you're suggesting is going to turn non-learned people into phony engineers. It's the same reason WebMD and the like have turned the population at large into people that think they can easily second guess what someone with eight years of post-secondary education and a doctorate in medicine spent nearly a decade learning about and then many more years practicing in the real world. Google is not the answer to everything. Older forced-induction gasoline engines needed higher octane but modern engines do not in many cases. Advancements in engineering have changed that requirement. That said, are there situations where higher octane fuel is more beneficial? Sure...and those have already been described both here and, of course, in the owners manual. But for the vast majority of people, there's nothing wrong with just following the guidelines in the manual and not trying to pretend like they know more about the engine or internal combustion engines in general than the educated people that actually engineered the engine in their vehicle in the first place. 95% of what I've read here is based on the same old wives tales that I've heard for decades on the shop floor and in the field being spread by people that cannot support the veracity of the stories outside of, "But there's a dyno sheet on Google that says..." or some anecdotal evidence that has no scientific merit whatsoever.

Phil, the actual Ford Engineer, has already backed up what I'm about to say but apparently it's worth saying again. The engineers tested the engine on 87, its output was verified on 87 and running 91 is really only going to net improvements under certain conditions like towing, high temperatures or higher elevations. Coming from my own anecdotal experience though, I spend a lot of time driving in the Sierras in the summer time for camping and such. You know what many of the smaller gas stations don't have up there? Fuel with an octane rating higher than 87. Guess they don't expect people with turbos to be driving around the area much, eh?

 

[MTB-BRUH]

I just want ya'll to know that i actually designed the Ford 2.3 ecoboost in my garage, i know more than you and this engine will not run on 87, it is a figment of your imagination and your engine never started. I am right your'e wrong.

 

[ch47dmechanic]

The problem is that people entirely dismiss the potential benefits of higher octane performance wise in an Ecoboost engine. Higher octane is absolutely NOT required and typically won't show any improvements in day to day driving. But...some people buy cars and beat the hell out of them. Tfl truck has a statement FROM Ford stating that's the trucks are tested on 87 and make more power on premium. I trust the engineers that built the truck more than random opinions on a forum.

So do I. Which is why I repeated Phil's statement. However, if they "make more power on premium" as so many of you claim, what business sense does it make for Ford not to use that purported data to help sell more trucks? Why sell your product with a lower power output listed? I still say far too many of you guys are guilty of "Butt Dyno Syndrome". Posting dyno sheets from Mustangs doesn't mean that the 2.3 in the Ranger can or will have the same results without tuning. They're not the same engine just because their displacement is the same.

 

[Dokkenmire]

So do I. Which is why I repeated Phil's statement. However, if they "make more power on premium" as so many of you claim, what business sense does it make for Ford not to use that purported data to help sell more trucks? Why sell your product with a lower power output listed? I still say far too many of you guys are guilty of "Butt Dyno Syndrome". Posting dyno sheets from Mustangs doesn't mean that the 2.3 in the Ranger can or will have the same results without tuning. They're not the same engine just because their displacement is the same.

Because it still has best in class towing, payload, and mpg on cheap gas? What benefit would Sct, Long Beach dyno, and 5 star tuning get from posting dyno results for the Ranger showing power improvements on 93 octane WITHOUT a tune? They have to prove that their tune actually does something or they're going to get called out on it...

 

[Indy650]

While I agree with your first thought to a point, what you're suggesting is going to turn non-learned people into phony engineers. It's the same reason WebMD and the like have turned the population at large into people that think they can easily second guess what someone with eight years of post-secondary education and a doctorate in medicine spent nearly a decade learning about and then many more years practicing in the real world. Google is not the answer to everything. Older forced-induction gasoline engines needed higher octane but modern engines do not in many cases. Advancements in engineering have changed that requirement. That said, are there situations where higher octane fuel is more beneficial? Sure...and those have already been described both here and, of course, in the owners manual. But for the vast majority of people, there's nothing wrong with just following the guidelines in the manual and not trying to pretend like they know more about the engine or internal combustion engines in general than the educated people that actually engineered the engine in their vehicle in the first place. 95% of what I've read here is based on the same old wives tales that I've heard for decades on the shop floor and in the field being spread by people that cannot support the veracity of the stories outside of, "But there's a dyno sheet on Google that says..." or some anecdotal evidence that has no scientific merit whatsoever.

Phil, the actual Ford Engineer, has already backed up what I'm about to say but apparently it's worth saying again. The engineers tested the engine on 87, its output was verified on 87 and running 91 is really only going to net improvements under certain conditions like towing, high temperatures or higher elevations. Coming from my own anecdotal experience though, I spend a lot of time driving in the Sierras in the summer time for camping and such. You know what many of the smaller gas stations don't have up there? Fuel with an octane rating higher than 87. Guess they don't expect people with turbos to be driving around the area much, eh?

my mention of google was because if you have a brain and find quality info from reputable sources you can learn a lot. Im not saying blindly follow any old dyno sheet on google. 5 Star is a great company and their test of stock tune with 93 is a great example of what you can find. Personally I have been building race engines for over a decade and have been a professional mechanic for over 2. My sources aren't "old wives tales" they are first hand experience that I have discovered on my own and from my peers. I've had dozens of turbocharged engines on the dyno including the 2.3 and I can say for a fact it runs better and makes more power on 93. Also, I have said pretty much the same thing Phil said which is that 87 is FINE and you most likely aren't going to notice a difference between 87 and 93 in the driver seat. I'm done with this thread I was just trying to share my knowledge with everyone.

 

[IdahoRanger]

I switched from decaf to regular and the only thing that happened is now I have the dreaded vibration.

 

[Dokkenmire]

I switched from decaf to regular and the only thing that happened is now I have the dreaded vibration.

That sucks. I've only felt the shudder once and luckily can't duplicate it.

 

[VAMike]

So do I. Which is why I repeated Phil's statement. However, if they "make more power on premium" as so many of you claim, what business sense does it make for Ford not to use that purported data to help sell more trucks?

Because if they sell based on the premium numbers then they're required to tell people that they have to use premium fuel. Likewise if they got a little higher mileage with premium fuel their numbers at fueleconomy.gov would have an asterisk and the estimated annual cost would go up. Lots of people just won't buy a vehicle that requires premium fuel, so Ford did the smart thing and designed for the most common case. (Because normal people don't care about a couple of extra hp and do care about having to spend more every time they fill up.)

I still say far too many of you guys are guilty of "Butt Dyno Syndrome". Posting dyno sheets from Mustangs doesn't mean that the 2.3 in the Ranger can or will have the same results without tuning. They're not the same engine just because their displacement is the same.

There's no real question that higher octane fuel will allow a turbocharged engine like the one in the ranger delay anti-knock strategies like retarding the timing or running rich. That's physics and a little chemistry. If you can delay or avoid anti-knock measures you will see a bit more power out of the engine and may see a small improvement in fuel economy. The only question is whether for your use the additional power is worth the additional money. The engine will work fine either way because it's designed to do so. (And to go back to the title of the thread--no, the difference will not likely be huge unless you're doing something pretty unusual.)

Sponsored