Explorer Sport - fuel? | Page 5 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

Explorer Sport - fuel?

What grade of fuel do you use in your Sport?

  • Regular 87

    Votes: 34 30.9%
  • mid grade 89

    Votes: 8 7.3%
  • Premium 91-93

    Votes: 58 52.7%
  • I use more than one grade

    Votes: 5 4.5%
  • I'm tuned I have to run Premium

    Votes: 6 5.5%

  • Total voters
    110
Also note that the engine will adjust to LOWER octane nearly immediately when knocking is sensed but it will be slower to adjust for a HIGHER octane. There have been other conversations on what will cause the engine to readjust to higher octanes but it sounds like resetting the ECM (by unhooking the battery for a while) or making some runs at WOT will speed the process.

Note that all the reports that say there is no advantage to using higher octane fuels have a phrase like "unless your vehicle is designed for it." The Ecoboost in our Ex Sports IS designed for it, but can also self-adjust for lower octane fuels.

And it's not alone in that. My 2005 Chevrolet is capable of the same adjustment but with a few different behaviors (that probably aren't of much interest on a Ford forum.)
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Keep in mind the added performance using mid range or premium comes with a significant increase in cost. Using today's cost its 25% more for premium over 87 octane. Considering the added cost only provides a slight increase in performance, no increase in MPG, I don't see the point.
 






So following the chain of thought, would 94 octane result in any additional power? I believe that running 87 would lower power to protect the engine because of potential knocking, but I've also read a thread somewhere in here where it's stated that running 87 also lowers MPG. The idea of lowering one's MPG because of a lower grade of gas doesn't make sense, although with direct injection I'm less sure of that answer.

The tranny is the weak part of this setup and has been stated by Ford during an interview as part of the reason why the torque is so much lower than the in the F-150 (the Explorer transaxle vs the F-150 direct transmission to the backend). Otherwise, this vehicle would be much more tunable.

The higher octane is so that the car can perform at max performance without knocking and reducing power. If the engine is designed for to have its max power made at 93 octane. An octane like 94 would just be more insurance that it won't knock, but it won't increase performance because the engine isn't tuned to run at pressures higher than what 93 octane fuel would accommodate.

The only way you can get higher performance is when you use a tune that creates engine environments that require octane higher than the designed 93 and the use of the higher octane is to prevent the engine from combusting itself to death.

Also, don't confuse higher octane with more energy. The only difference is between the fuels is the ability to reduce pre-detonation.
Energy density between all octane fuels is the same, the only time energy density would be different is if you had ethanol in the fuel which has a lower energy density.

As quoted from wikipedia about compression ratio:
"A high compression ratio is desirable because it allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given mass of air-fuel mixture due to its higher thermal efficiency. This occurs because internal combustion engines are heat engines, and higher efficiency is created because higher compression ratios permit the same combustion temperature to be reached with less fuel, while giving a longer expansion cycle, creating more mechanical power output and lowering the exhaust temperature."

Unless if you're increasing compression ratios, 93 is the max you'd ever need in these cars.
 






Keep in mind the added performance using mid range or premium comes with a significant increase in cost. Using today's cost its 25% more for premium over 87 octane. Considering the added cost only provides a slight increase in performance, no increase in MPG, I don't see the point.
I'm with you. Paying an extra 25% isn't worth the minimal performance improvement for me either. I don't tow or drive hard. The extra $$ is better off in my pocket than the oil company's and the government's. :):thumbsup:

Peter
 






The extra octane makes a noticable difference if you bought a tune from one of the providers.

I use Chevron 94 and it's significant, but you're right it's at a cost.

Also noticeable on the exhaust tips, I see none of the black carbon deposits I did with 87.
 






Back
Top