Accidentally Got 87 vs. 93

[AzScorpion]

The bottom line is you didn't hurt anything with your truck and you know it. Your post was just to boast that you ONLY use 91 octane cuz apparently you're more of a good truck guy than the rest of us. Good for you. Thuper.

You obviously don't know how tunes work. Livernois has several tunes designed for different octanes. James was correct in stating it's "required" when running a 91-93 performance tune. He was concerned that putting 87 in it would mess it up. There's no need to come on here and continually bash someone for asking a question. Time to move on to another thread and stop trolling this one which you're wrong on all counts.

Sponsored

 

[ArchitectThom]

I ran 87 in my truck since new for the first 33k miles. Truck ran great, hwy mpg 20-24. Switched to 93 for a few tankfuls (and currently 91). No observed improvement in mpg or performance, but then I don't hammer on it or tow anything heavy. In fact, I may switch back to 87.

It's almost as if... perhaps... *gasp*... a fancy tune doesn't really do much at all, eh?

But those gas conpanies... I mean... they would NEVER just advertise a certain type of gasoline as better than another and charge you 20% more for it when it does nothing at all for your vehicle.


Would they???

 

[GitRDone]

It's almost as if... perhaps... *gasp*... a fancy tune doesn't really do much at all, eh?

You should try a few tunes and decide for yourself. The lower octane is fine for me since I run a stock tune, but I definitely run 93 in my track car. The higher octane raises the boost and thermal thresholds, which allows tuning for optimum performance.

 

[Glocker]

It's almost as if... perhaps... *gasp*... a fancy tune doesn't really do much at all, eh?

But those gas conpanies... I mean... they would NEVER just advertise a certain type of gasoline as better than another and charge you 20% more for it when it does nothing at all for your vehicle.


Would they???

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my Mustang HATES when I run less than 91 Octane on its tune (did it once by accident). "Fancy tunes" do a lot. Running the correct octane for your vehicle also does a lot of good. A lot of the newer FI cars are now requiring 91 or higher from the factory to keep them running optimally (not just for power, but also for emissions).
This guy can help you with some knowledge and that might help you not sound so confrontational.
Octane Rating from Engineering Explained

 

[Max Crafter]

the bottom line, and i think most people can agree, that octane gives you no benefit, unless you require it.

if youre running a stock truck, toodling around town with 93 in it, you're only taking advantage of the detergents they add to the fuel. You're not requiring a higher octane to reduce/remove knocking, you're not gaining any advantage (if any)on fuel mileage, you're not making the environment any better by some magical chemical process inside your cylinders. You're simply spending more.

Now, if you have modified via a tune, and the tuner has stock options at exxon, of course he's gonna tune it in such a way. he's pushing the limits of your combustion process for improved power. The octane rating doesn't give that power, it keeps the fuel from blowing up before its required to do so....but i digress.
I've seen people rave about the dynos showing an improvement in HP and torque running a higher octane. That's fine and dandy, but do we drive the streets like we are on a dyno? Lets do a dyno run based on the drive to the mall and back and compare again.
Also if you're towing hot and high with heavy loads, Ford encourages you to use higher octane because you will see the performance improvement under such circumstances. You're trying to prevent detonation. that does not equate to equal performance improvements across the board.
Other towing scenarios, maybe you might need it, but from a layman's perspective, unless you can determine if you're developing a knock under your usage, you're still likely wasting money.
I had towed close to 6000lbs once with my Ranger with no issues on power or performance, I got the job done. Did it knock? no friggen idea, I didnt hear anything, didn't feel anything, but as well as it worked out for me, I cant say it'll be the same for anyone else. I burned two full tanks, I saved myself $30 running 87. If someone drove with me in an identical setup, running 93, can they tell me where they did better and made that $30 worth it?

 

[Max Crafter]

Well this is directly from the Ranger owner's manual and pretty much conflicts with your arguments.
"For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel is most noticeable in hot weather as well as other conditions, for example when towing a trailer."

"most noticeable" is the key. think about it.

 

[Dgc333]

FWIW, the ECUs in Fords Ecoboost engines are tuned to produce the most power on 93 octane but have the ability to "detune" to allow you to use 87 octane with a corresponding decrease in power. The owners manual for the Focus ST I had listed the power on 87 and 93 octane (10 HP difference). The Bronco's 2.3 has the power advertised on the Ford web site as 275HP on 87 octane and 315HP on 93 octane. Not sure why Ford's marketing chose to only advertise the Ranger HP on 87 octane but there are enough dyno tests published that show a stock Ranger running on 93 octane makes about 300HP. The 2.3 in the Mustang is rated at 320HP on 93 octane. There are many dyno tests published that show it makes about 275HP on 87 octane.

The Ford ECU is always pushing the timing to the verge of detonation, if it detects it, the timing is backed off. This continuously happens while the engine is running. There is a parameter called Octane Adjust Ratio (OAR) that is stored in the ECU. This value is increased or decreased as it learns how much it can push the timing as a representation of the octane being used. This allows the ECU to predict what the timing needs are and is the reason why it takes a portion of a tank of gas before you see the full benefit of going from 87 to 93 octane.

After market tunes are expecting/requiring the minimum octane advertised for the tune. This allows the tune to be more aggressive with timing and boost to at the expense of not being able to accommodate running safely on low octane fuel safely.

 

[Glocker]

the bottom line, and i think most people can agree, that octane gives you no benefit, unless you require it.

if youre running a stock truck, toodling around town with 93 in it, you're only taking advantage of the detergents they add to the fuel. You're not requiring a higher octane to reduce/remove knocking, you're not gaining any advantage (if any)on fuel mileage, you're not making the environment any better by some magical chemical process inside your cylinders. You're simply spending more.

Now, if you have modified via a tune, and the tuner has stock options at exxon, of course he's gonna tune it in such a way. he's pushing the limits of your combustion process for improved power. The octane rating doesn't give that power, it keeps the fuel from blowing up before its required to do so....but i digress.
I've seen people rave about the dynos showing an improvement in HP and torque running a higher octane. That's fine and dandy, but do we drive the streets like we are on a dyno? Lets do a dyno run based on the drive to the mall and back and compare again.
Also if you're towing hot and high with heavy loads, Ford encourages you to use higher octane because you will see the performance improvement under such circumstances. You're trying to prevent detonation. that does not equate to equal performance improvements across the board.
Other towing scenarios, maybe you might need it, but from a layman's perspective, unless you can determine if you're developing a knock under your usage, you're still likely wasting money.
I had towed close to 6000lbs once with my Ranger with no issues on power or performance, I got the job done. Did it knock? no friggen idea, I didnt hear anything, didn't feel anything, but as well as it worked out for me, I cant say it'll be the same for anyone else. I burned two full tanks, I saved myself $30 running 87. If someone drove with me in an identical setup, running 93, can they tell me where they did better and made that $30 worth it?

I don't agree. I can feel my motor is smoother, accelerates smoother, and accelerates quicker. There is a marked improvement driving the truck on 93 vs 87.

 

[Racket]

I have a specific 93 daily tune and a specific 93 performance tune. I have a lone ranger tune for any octane. If a specific octane of gas isn't required, then what's the point of having specific octane tunes? Wouldn't everyone just use the lone ranger tune?

The 'Lone Ranger' tune sounds like.... the stock tune... but I imagine there would have to be some change to the factory settings.

When I had Torrie write my tune I specifically asked for a 'midgrade' tune which I figured is 89 and up octane. When I asked Torrie what running higher octane would do be said 'more performance' and maybe it's the turbo but I believe him. I've since run E30 (94 octane) and have occasionally seen 88 octane (E15 per Ford is Ok). I haven't inquired from Torrie if he sees issues but it may be worth an inquiry if it becomes popular nationwide.

 

[got3fords]

the bottom line, and i think most people can agree, that octane gives you no benefit, unless you require it.

if youre running a stock truck, toodling around town with 93 in it, you're only taking advantage of the detergents they add to the fuel.

What? 93 octane has different detergents?

 

[Dgc333]

What? 93 octane has different detergents?

It used to before fuel injection became main stream but these days there is a government mandated minimum that is the same for all octanes. Top Tier gas will have more than the minimum but again it will be the same for all octanes.

 

[Wytchdctr]

What? 93 octane has different detergents?

Shell claims their 93 has more cleaning junk in it. Not sure if true or marketing. I tend to use Shell because it's by the house.


As far as the person that doesn't understand fuel/ignition maps relative to boost and octane rating etc etc etc.... id reccomend reading Corky Bells maximum boost for some basics (even if you already have a turbo installed and that book is more about adding a turbo) - then come back and attempt to make fun of someone and/or mess with them and/or weak sause internet troll - when they are in fact correct. 87 when the tune requires 91-93 can be bad. If i do that im flashing back to stock or driving it very gently until then tank is empty. That sort of misfire at the pump would scare me even more now that the actual temps are over 100. So, stop trying to read the owners manual in this "argument" when stock it can run 87 and not explode. Missing some logic.

Be happy your stock and much slower 2.3t can take on 87 without damage. I'll remain happy that I have more power and a better shift pattern for whatever the cost difference is between 87 and 93. Glad I don't have a long commute so it doesn't matter too much. Stopped drinking recently. More than made up for the amount I am spending in liquids in my life.

 

[got3fords]

Be happy your stock and much slower 2.3t can take on 87 without damage. I'll remain happy that I have more power and a better shift pattern for whatever the cost difference is between 87 and 93. Glad I don't have a long commute so it doesn't matter too much. Stopped drinking recently. More than made up for the amount I am spending in liquids in my life.

Actually as the OP I am not stock and hence the worry. Otherwise totally agree!

 

[Wytchdctr]

Actually as the OP I am not stock and hence the worry. Otherwise totally agree!

Sorry should have quoted or tagged; that was directed at the 93 isn't needed guy. I knew you were not stock and needed the extra octane.

 

[got3fords]

Sorry should have quoted or tagged; that was directed at the 93 isn't needed guy. I knew you were not stock and needed the extra octane.

No worries. Thought something like that was the case.

Sponsored