"DO NOT USE 93 OCTANE" ?

[Judge Rufus]

I worked in the refining industry for 20 years. There's no need to put anything in your vehicle over 87 octane unless the manufacturer says the engine requires premium fuel.

Using higher octane when it's not required will jut make your engine knock if you quit using the higher octane. It might give you a slight power increase, but not really worth what you're paying for it.

Sponsored

 

[baozebub]

Since y'all seem rich as hell I'll chime in and say at $7/gallon here for 93, all I've ever used is 87 and had zero issues, getting 19mpg in the city @ 3,400ft of elevation.

Unless towing something I see no need nor benefit to running a higher octane. Unless you drive the shit outta your Bronco or have infinite free money (like many here seem to) save it lol.

Turbo is not big enough and revs don't go high enough where I'd think you see any noticeable difference under normal conditions. If you like to drive fast, sure more octane and the computer will do its thing, but I think for the average Joe its a waste in a Bronco

Totally agree with this. I’ve had no issues with 87. The 2.7 is effortless in this car and I don’t mind not having the few extra lb-ft of torque. It’s tuned as a truck engine, so won’t need to go high RPMs, where most timing issues occur.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It is inconceivable

Yeah, this is gonna happen ...https://youtu.be/dTRKCXC0JFg

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I worked in the refining industry for 20 years. There's no need to put anything in your vehicle over 87 octane unless the manufacturer says the engine requires premium fuel.

Using higher octane when it's not required will jut make your engine knock if you quit using the higher octane. It might give you a slight power increase, but not really worth what you're paying for it.

I have two words for you ... Top Tier.

 

[Landvalue]

If it were me I’d call him and ask what he meant.

 

[mpeugeot]

Totally agree with this. I’ve had no issues with 87. The 2.7 is effortless in this car and I don’t mind not having the few extra lb-ft of torque. It’s tuned as a truck engine, so won’t need to go high RPMs, where most timing issues occur.

What?!?

No, knock is most likely to occur at the occur at the torque peak, although with direct injection engines you also have to worry about LSPI...

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

 

[Roger123]

It was supposed to be hilarious.... I forgot the "sarcasm" font. Lol.

It was, some people get pretty worked up on the 'net.

 

[buschris]

Because you don't need 93. or even 91

 

[Lèòn]

...were the first words out of my salesman's mouth...after I took delivery of my 2DR/WT/SAS (2.7L) last week.
Can anyone tell me why?
Struck me as V E R Y odd.

Thanks!

To your salesman,

 

[Aman]

Because you don't need 93. or even 91

The engines don't require 91 or 93, but they do perform better with higher octane gas.

 

[buschris]

The engines don't require 91 or 93, but they do perform better with higher octane gas.

Marginal performance that 90% of drivers will not feel or benefit from. Coming from a cost analysis here. If the grades were priced 15 cents apart like they used to be, I'd say go for it! Personally, it's hard to justify over a buck per gallon more for 91/93

 

[Dmk08]

I recently tried a tank of 93 to try and make the 2.7 feel smoother. It actually made it feel more choppy AND I got less MPG. Back to 87 octane for me.

 

[SkiRig]

I have the Ford performance tune in my WT so I use 92. It has always been super smooth and the power really feels effortless. I’m really pleased with the performance of the 2.7 as it sits. I’m paying extra at the pump but I don’t have to drive it a ton, so I haven’t minded, and feel like I’m getting something for it

 

[Ninjak]

I use 93. I have the Ford Tune and other upgrades. Also in S. FL, 87 is 365 93 is 399 so........yeah.

Sponsored