Used Premium Fuel for the First Time

[Bradley Thornton]

I've pondered the technology required to build an "octane sensor".
I believe there is no such thang.
I think it's just a good old fashioned knock sensor. And as We All Know...for it to sense knock, knock has to be there.
So...the computer advances timing/leans out the injection until the knock sensor senses knocking, then pulls back the timing and/or squirts more fuel; you get less power and lower mileage with lower octane.
So if you run low octane, your engine be a-knockin. And I bet it knocks with high octane too, just possibly less, depending on how good the knock sensor/software is.
I have a fren has an older 3.5l EcoBoot F One Fiddy with over 100K on it. He just spent about $8900 getting a remanufractured motor since some of the pistons came apart between the small end of the rod and the crown, rods thru the case, ugly scene.
He said there's thousands of complaints on high mileage 3.5ls.
My guess is; motor gets old/combustion chamber deposits raise compression/knock sensor perhaps not a-werkin Sofa King Good/detonation and kuhPHOOMbah!!!
But I'm sure there's peeps on here smarter than me...

https://www.promracing.com/high-flow-flex-fuel-ethanol-content-sensor-assembly.html

Sponsored

 

[Bradley Thornton]

My opinion for what it is worth.

Will 87 hurt the motor 100% not.

Does it have less power 100% (Not only that but across the entire curve thats why you see it at all areas not just wide open throttle.

Is it worth it (NO) its not needed and $ for $ doesn't save you money. BUT if you want the best overall driving experience its a must.

As others have said this motor was built for 93 and tuned for 93, Then they tuned it down based off load and many other things to work on less octane.

Many think they feel the transmission when drive most if they went to 93 would find all that would disappear.

Now with all that said and I sound like I run 93 I don't unless I'm pulling a load for any distance.

Why $ for $ I don't need it. I have a race car this is just a toy made for driving slow don't put it under load often.

 

[Tilzbow]

The engine hits peak power earlier as well.

@Tilzbow here’s the chart

Thanks! I think there was also a comparative power band chart out there too that showed pretty flat near peak torque with the higher octane.

Sort of a related question:
What is the simple answer as to why would a city of 100+ population in west Texas not have ANY fueling stations with 93 octane? 91 octane is the highest available.
I’ve used 91 since day one in my 2.7
Thanks

Probably the same reason I can’t find it here with a total population in excess of 500,000.

 

[MileHighCitizen]

i disagree but that is me. 15hp is 4.5% more. i'm not drag racing, and hp is more than fine for most use cases. torque gain is probably a little more significant even though it is 1.2% seeing what the function is.

There's nothing to disagree about. Just trying to explain why it's important to some.

It's not about drag racing; it's about making the engine work less to accomplish the same feat. If an engine is working 4.5% less to accomplish something, it will last 4.5% longer over its life. When you expand that over the life of the car and other similar maintenance and care of 2-5% gains; it can add up over 10 years and 200k miles.

Longevity by proper use, like eating healthy and going to the dentist every year. Take care of the things you can, and they'll take care of you.

 

[F OR D]

There's nothing to disagree about. Just trying to explain why it's important to some.

It's not about drag racing; it's about making the engine work less to accomplish the same feat. If an engine is working 4.5% less to accomplish something, it will last 4.5% longer over its life. When you expand that over the life of the car and other similar maintenance and care of 2-5% gains; it can add up over 10 years and 200k miles.

Longevity by proper use, like eating healthy and going to the dentist every year. Take care of the things you can, and they'll take care of you.

yeah i get it. i guess it's not disagreeing as much as the use case. i'm not worried about the cost difference as much as the benefit to cost. i should probably swap to 93 due to the low miles i drive.

for me, i'm a average driver, not aggressive, do standard maintenance and oil changes, and limited tow. i don't stomp on it, and even though it works "less", i am not pushing it for the performance benefits. i'd even add for any long drive i'm in eco anyways.

if i keep it for 100k, get 18mpg per tank, the cost difference for 93 is around 4k more. minus performance an extended 8/100000 warranty that covers a lot more is 2k removing the better for your engine scenario.

here were the dynos on a f150 eco v6 regarding performance.

• 87 octane 0 to 60 run: 5.9-seconds
• 93 octane 0 to 60 run: 5.3-seconds
• 87 octane quarter-mile time: 14.5 seconds
• 93 octane quarter-mile time: 14 seconds
• Speed trap findings: 4 mph difference
• 87 octane shows 1.9 psi dip in turbo response

this is really a discussion that will keep happening on new threads here and for every vehicle that can run both with no clear winning answer. i think there are at least 5 of these threads

 

[Dmorty217]

I get a smooth 13.8 mpg so though this sounds promising, I’m not probably signing on for it.

 

[WonkyBronky]

It's a turbo motor. Why would you use anything lower than 91 octane?

 

[Blucifer]

Maybe I do have poor quality 87, but I'm fairly confident it's not a placebo as I'm typically quite conscious of this kind of bias.

In your experience, is there no discernable difference between various octanes?

Yes. My suv feels more responsive acceleration-wise when on premium. With regular, there's a noticable delay when accerating quickly

 

[SpringBreak98]

Haven't let my tank get lower than half a tank since I got it in August, BUT I have let it get below a quarter tank this week. Going to fill all the way up Friday on highest octane they have at the station and find out for myself.

 

[rtazz17]

There is certainly a noticeable difference, especially with the 2.3 but it should really only be noticeable under more spirited driving when you're really running higher boost.... possible the other gas was just shit gas too which would impact things.

Right but the op said his vehicle was sputtering on 87. Thats 100% not true unless you got crap fuel and in this day and age fuel is rarely contaminated and not for weeks at a time. It will obviously be peppier but thats it. I run 87 ALL the time. There is zero sputtering and runs great

 

[Paul Gagnon]

I've been running 87 since I got my Bronco. The difference here is ~83¢/gal. That's a huge increase in price and as much as I am curious about the performance difference, the extra $15/tank just isn't worth it for me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Right but the op said his vehicle was sputtering on 87. Thats 100% not true unless you got crap fuel and in this day and age fuel is rarely contaminated and not for weeks at a time. It will obviously be peppier but thats it. I run 87 ALL the time. There is zero sputtering and runs great

Yeah hence my reference to possible bad gas.... pretty much what I was saying.

 

[okccj]

Yeah hence my reference to possible bad gas.... pretty much what I was saying.

I don't know if "sputtering" was the right word, but not a silky smooth idle when first starting the vehicle in the morning and some slight hesitation when not fully up to temp.

Where I live we only have 87, 89, and 91.

 

[Sparkherd]

https://www.promracing.com/high-flow-flex-fuel-ethanol-content-sensor-assembly.html

I NEEDS me one on the 466 in my 85 F-250!!!
Naw, it don't giveashit!!!

 

[Billnchristy]

yeah i get it. i guess it's not disagreeing as much as the use case. i'm not worried about the cost difference as much as the benefit to cost. i should probably swap to 93 due to the low miles i drive.

for me, i'm a average driver, not aggressive, do standard maintenance and oil changes, and limited tow. i don't stomp on it, and even though it works "less", i am not pushing it for the performance benefits. i'd even add for any long drive i'm in eco anyways.

if i keep it for 100k, get 18mpg per tank, the cost difference for 93 is around 4k more. minus performance an extended 8/100000 warranty that covers a lot more is 2k removing the better for your engine scenario.

here were the dynos on a f150 eco v6 regarding performance.

• 87 octane 0 to 60 run: 5.9-seconds
• 93 octane 0 to 60 run: 5.3-seconds
• 87 octane quarter-mile time: 14.5 seconds
• 93 octane quarter-mile time: 14 seconds
• Speed trap findings: 4 mph difference
• 87 octane shows 1.9 psi dip in turbo response

this is really a discussion that will keep happening on new threads here and for every vehicle that can run both with no clear winning answer. i think there are at least 5 of these threads

I totally get that from your standpoint. OTOH, just putting in premium at the cost of a few bucks a tank is basically a free piggyback tune. People pay decent money for a few extra psi and .6 0-60 and .5 1/4mi would be considered a successful upgrade and you can have it for the low-low of 40c per gallon more.

Sponsored