dealership said do NOT run higher octane in sport

[Daheim111]

In Germany we use "normal" gas called Super 95...but there are also the V-Power and so on from Shell and Aral with about 100 octane...this means I can try "100" without any limitations ?!?

 

[613GT500]

There's two turbos attached to this engine and if you're using anything less than 91; it's a damn shame.

 

[PlatinumOwner]

There's two turbos attached to this engine and if you're using anything less than 91; it's a damn shame.

Exactly, high compression engines require high octane if you want to be safe and run it efficiently . Sure, the computer can retard timing if you run a lower octane but it's definitely not optimal. The reason the computer retards the timing is because it detects that it is knocking with the 87 AKI(R+M) octane fuel. Besides, why pay extra for an EcoBoost if you aren't going to spend a few extra dollars for the remaining 10-15% power that your engine can provide? I have been tuning turbo engines for a while and always notice there is more soot the tailpipes of vehicles that ran lower octane as well- definitely not good if you are concerned about intake valve buildup on your EcoBoost - the main reason they added port injection to the 2nd generation 3.5L EB.

In Germany we use "normal" gas called Super 95...but there are also the V-Power and so on from Shell and Aral with about 100 octane...this means I can try "100" without any limitations ?!?

Europe uses RON numbers instead of AKI(R+M) so the numbers are much higher. Your 95 is equivalent to about 89 AKI(R+M). Yes, you can absolutely use 100 as long as it is unleaded- this will be equivalent to about 93 in North America. It may take a couple tanks to notice the full performance benefit. The computers add timing & increase boost much slower than they retard timing & lower boost.

 

[reserved50]

I personally wouldn't bother with 91 and higher for normal driving unless you have a performance tune. These things aren't tuned for max performance from the factory. Especially on an unloaded vehicle it wont affect much with out the extra load/weight. If you don't know any better keep running high octane.

 

[Daheim111]

@PlatinumOwner: interesting ! RON vs. AKI...have to learn/read something more...consequence for me is to use 100 octane (RON) daily...

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

If you do the research you will find the 3.5L ecoboost engine will produce about 20% higher HP & Torque on premium fuel.
BTW The 5 liter Ford V8, the 5.3 & 6.2 GM v8's all produce about 15-20% more hp & torque running E85 than with 87 octane fuel
If you have ever actually carefully checked the performance & mileage of your ecoboost engine using 87 octane then 91-93 octane I think you will find much improved performance & better fuel mileage

 

[Zinc]

I seriously doubt that using premium will pay for itself in increased mileage. If premium weren't sold at ~ $.50 above 87 octane it may be a different story. 20% seems high for the difference between 87 & 92 octane. I haven't found that. What little looking that I have done say no to negligible power difference between running the 2 fuels. Granted there are a lot of factors at play and temperature, terrain, and other factors could skew results.

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

The brochure for the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 GMC Sierra State that the HP rating for the 5.3Lt on 87 Oct is 355HP and with E85 it is 380HP
If you go to the ecoboost forums there are many entries touting tremendous differences in ecoboost performance when using premium verses 87 octane fuel.
I personally have felt a dramatic difference in throttle response & overall driveability before upgrading to Livernois calibrations
Tried to find the documentation where the performance difference is documented but haven't yet.
Will keep looking
I would bet you would experience a significant difference as well in your platinum's performance & probably in your Mustang GT also.

 

[Zinc]

I got out of an Infiniti because of the cost of premium fuel (and the seats were not comfortable). I may try a few tanks to try it, but we put 30K miles a year on the 4 wheel vehicles and another 10K a year on the bike with just 2 of us. Yeah, the bike is premium only, but we are just running 87 in the new Fords. Will reply next week, which should get me 3 tankfuls of premium when I fill it tonight. Still, with only about 2000 miles on the Explorer, it may not be broken in enough to get real world mileage figures. Worth trying though.

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

I think you will see a significant difference
I know I did
I have a 2016 EXP Sport with 38,000 miles it now

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

Zinc
You must be retired like my wife & I
We do not have a street bike
We have a Polaris RZR Turbo for trail riding in the mountains

 

[Zinc]

In my dreams we could retire! We each drive 50 miles to work at least 5 days a week. So, we spend a lot of time on the road commuting and put 200 + miles on our vehicles every day. Neither vehicle makes sense for commuting, but my wife always wanted a Mustang and after battling stage 4 cancer for the past 2+ years, she more than deserved to have her dream car. The Explorer was bought the same day as she traded in her minivan and we need a vehicle to tow the bike to/from her parents in SC and to take on our 20 yr anniversary trip next May.

 

[Odrapnew]

Regarding mileage differences, according to my data(60k+ miles worth), I get better mileage with regular(87) than premium(91,92, and/or 93). We're talking about 0.3mpg difference. "Winter gas" had the most effect on mileage followed by day to day driving situations.

As for the power difference, I don't see my Sport losing 20% by running 87 vs. 93. That would make it about as slow as a V6 Explorer, which is slower than my wife's CX9, and I can tell you that's not the case.

I would love to see a dyno test that runs premium and regular on the same vehicle on the same dyno. I haven't found any data that shows that direct comparison.

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

I would like to see a dyno test as well
I could really feel the difference on my explorer sport & my SHO before the reprogramming with the Livernois tune
Have not tried the Livernois 87 octane tune verses their 93 octane tune

 

[peterk9]

I seriously doubt that using premium will pay for itself in increased mileage. If premium weren't sold at ~ $.50 above 87 octane it may be a different story. 20% seems high for the difference between 87 & 92 octane. I haven't found that. What little looking that I have done say no to negligible power difference between running the 2 fuels. Granted there are a lot of factors at play and temperature, terrain, and other factors could skew results.

As I posted in another thread, here in Canada 91 octane is an extra 0.91 cents and 94 is an extra 1.04 a gallon. That equates to approx. an extra $18 for a full tank.

 

[Zinc]

Wow, Peter! I can assume you happily use the lower octane at that premium. That just seems ridiculous for the difference. Any idea why so much more in CA for the higher octane?

 

[peterk9]

Wow, Peter! I can assume you happily use the lower octane at that premium. That just seems ridiculous for the difference. Any idea why so much more in CA for the higher octane?

Gasoline has always been more expensive here. At brand name stations the price of a gallon (87 octane) in my area is approx. $4.58 of which about 35% is taxes.

 

[mjlkwolfe@gmail.]

That does seem pretty excessive
Price her in Arizona is $0.30 for premium at the Mobil

 

[Zinc]

So I knew I needed to fill up the Explorer on the way home from work last night. Sure enough, all of the gas stations were charging between $.40 and .50 more for 92 octane than for 87. I feel plenty of power with the 5000 behemoth that I couldn't bring myself to try premium even though it would have only been about another $3.00, a far cry from the premium that Peter would pay.

Peter - Do you know why premium unleaded is so much more per gallon in CA than in US? I understand the fuel and extra cost of most everything else, just don't get the huge difference in octane costs unless they tax one more than the other. Thanks!

 

[peterk9]

Overall, 94 octane appears to be $1 more than 87 which sells for $4.58 (CDN) a gallon. 91 would be $5.45 and 94 would be $5.58. Keep in mind that our gallon has 20% more volume than a U.S. gallon. These are converted prices that I read at the Petro Canada (Sunoco) pumps yesterday. As you can see, there is little difference between 91 and 94 octane.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/canada...ices-higher-than-u-s-because-of-higher-taxes/
I might try a couple tanks of 91 just to see if I notice any difference but like I've mentioned before, I'm very happy with the current performance.


Peter