Regular vs premium anyone else notice huge difference?

[Enitan]

For science:

The tank I wrote the post originally on
87: 287 miles 16.085g to fill = 17.842mpg

Ran it to near empty and filled with up with premium
93: 447 miles 16.088g to fill = 27.784mpg

((odd side note...no clue how the gas gods ended up getting me within 3 thousandths of a gallon I should have printed the receipts but those darn things end up in my pocket and make for a nasty mess of dryer confetti which buys me a one way ticket to the couch))

Temps have been similar
Driving conditions similar

Not to mention the truck feels like a bloody nascar racer on the 93.

30¢ per g difference.....I’ll keep running 93 in it that’s for sure.

Sponsored

 

[Enitan]

Secondary reply: I didn’t mean to cause all these arguments (ok maybe not full on arguments but none the less there have been some....heated replies), I literally posted to see if anyone else had seen the same huge difference between 87 and 93.

See my previous reply with my calculations of 87 vs 93. YMMV but I’ve noticed a huge difference between the two grades of fuel.

 

[THLONE]

So, you are saying that you got 10 MPG better with 93 over 87 once?

 

[RedlandRanger]

One thing I experienced on my recent Christmas trip - about 700 miles - I filled up with a non tier 1 gas (87) before leaving and my mileage was lower than normal on the first leg of the trip (a little over 16 calculated, which to be fair had a headwind for part of the way). I filled up at a tier one station and the next fillup was 19 calculated. The last fillup was with 89 and I got just over 20. So while I didn't see a whole lot of difference going from 87 to 89, I definitely saw a difference in non tier 1 gas. The trip was a lot of up and down with a fair amount of 70+ MPH driving, almost all of it freeway/highway. It seems like anything above 60 or so reduces mileage as well. For this trip the truck was pretty well loaded (3 people, 1 dog and the bed under my tonneau was full of stuff - luggage, presents, etc).

Some more anecdotal evidence. I will steer clear of non tier 1 fuel as much as possible from here on out. It really did seem to make a difference.

 

[chasvs]

Yeah, I notice the COST is 20% More and I get 5% Better mileage. Doesn't seem worth it!

 

[ch47dmechanic]

Yeah, I notice the COST is 20% More and I get 5% Better mileage. Doesn't seem worth it!

Even if I got higher mileage running premium, which I do not, that's exactly the way I'd be thinking about it regardless. The higher cost does not net sufficient enough benefit to warrant spending more in the first place.

I think it's also important to point out that many of you are making your claims using 93 octane as your fuel source and while you may be able to get it easily, it's not exactly universally available here in California and many other places. In fact, there's only one gas station that I'm aware of in the entire Bay Area that sells anything over 91 and it's pretty out of the way to get to and quite pricey. See the attached photo from the pump.

For those that can't see it well, the prices are as follows:

• 87 - $3.55
• 94 - $5.69
• 96 - $6.39
• 98 - $6.99
• 101 - $7.59

93+ is universally unavailable at literally every major gas station in California. Only individual/private/mom-n-pop stations have it and like I said before, it's few and far between and profusely expensive. Thus, 91 is the best you're gonna get and in some cases, that's even hard to find depending on where you live. As for that dyno sheet that was posted, the differences are not so dramatic that I could say comfortably that your average or even above average driver would notice a six horsepower difference at the wheels. YMMV...

 

[Dokkenmire]

Even if I got higher mileage running premium, which I do not, that's exactly the way I'd be thinking about it regardless. The higher cost does not net sufficient enough benefit to warrant spending more in the first place.

I think it's also important to point out that many of you are making your claims using 93 octane as your fuel source and while you may be able to get it easily, it's not exactly universally available here in California and many other places. In fact, there's only one gas station that I'm aware of in the entire Bay Area that sells anything over 91 and it's pretty out of the way to get to and quite pricey. See the attached photo from the pump.

For those that can't see it well, the prices are as follows:

• 87 - $3.55
• 94 - $5.69
• 96 - $6.39
• 98 - $6.99
• 101 - $7.59

93+ is universally unavailable at literally every major gas station in California. Only individual/private/mom-n-pop stations have it and like I said before, it's few and far between and profusely expensive. Thus, 91 is the best you're gonna get and in some cases, that's even hard to find depending on where you live. As for that dyno sheet that was posted, the differences are not so dramatic that I could say comfortably that your average or even above average driver would notice a six horsepower difference at the wheels. YMMV...

Those are all 93 octane runs in the dyno shown...

 

[ch47dmechanic]

Those are all 93 octane runs in the dyno shown...

Ok so you get six more horsepower with 93. What's it gonna be with 91, three or four tops? You're not going to feel that with normal driving.

 

[ch47dmechanic]

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I recalled the 2010 Mini Cooper S (these were turbocharged, not supercharged) that we had stated on the fuel door that it "required" 91 octane fuel, but that you could run 87 if that's all you could get. When I looked up the owner's manual just now, I found this section:

So their engineers were comfortable in saying that knocking was nothing to worry about and it wouldn't damage the engine? I'd be curious as to Phil or any other engineers take on that ideal.

 

[Dokkenmire]

Ok so you get six more horsepower with 93. What's it gonna be with 91, three or four tops? You're not going to feel that with normal driving.

Its not 6 more horsepower, it's just showing 3 separate runs on 93 octane. They were just going for an average baseline before adding a tune.

 

[ch47dmechanic]

Its not 6 more horsepower, it's just showing 3 separate runs on 93 octane. They were just going for an average baseline before adding a tune.

Ok, so then what's the average RWHP rating for the engine on 91? According to this thread...

https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/thre...e-2-3l-ecoboost-ranger-dyno-compilation.1828/

...you're looking at 2-3 HP using 91 over 87. I still think some folks are suffering from Butt Dyno Syndrome.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I recalled the 2010 Mini Cooper S (these were turbocharged, not supercharged) that we had stated on the fuel door that it "required" 91 octane fuel, but that you could run 87 if that's all you could get. When I looked up the owner's manual just now, I found this section:

So their engineers were comfortable in saying that knocking was nothing to worry about and it wouldn't damage the engine? I'd be curious as to Phil or any other engineers take on that ideal.

Hi Jason,

It appears this knock is on start up only...not sure the manual is indicating detonation. need an engine engineering person to assess the knock. Does the Mini have a knock sensor?

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Company Retired

 

[Dokkenmire]

Ok, so then what's the average RWHP rating for the engine on 91? According to this thread...

https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/thre...e-2-3l-ecoboost-ranger-dyno-compilation.1828/

...you're looking at 2-3 HP using 91 over 87. I still think some folks are suffering from Butt Dyno Syndrome.

You're not serious are you? The stock truck on 87 with 15 percent drive train loss makes around 230-235 to the wheels. The thread you posted totally discredits you lol. They're showing 3 runs on 91 ALL making over 250hp. Did you bother to read the post from Livernoise Motorsports?

 

[Doc]

You're not serious are you? The stock truck on 87 with 15 percent drive train loss makes around 230-235 to the wheels. The thread you posted totally discredits you lol. They're showing 3 runs on 91 ALL making over 250hp. Did you bother to read the post from Livernoise Motorsports?

You can check with @CoastieN70 on this forum (Livernois tune ) he is one of the first ones that got their rangers tuned, Livernois is a good one.
Regards

 

[Onlyone]

You can check with @CoastieN70 on this forum (Livernois tune ) he is one of the first ones that got their rangers tuned, Livernois is a good one.
Regards

And I think I’ll listen to @Livernois Motorsports over some jackwagon on a forum, not wanting to acknowledge fact.

Sponsored