Used Premium Fuel for the First Time

[Wark]

base 4dr 2.3L

First 380 miles on 87 - 22 mpg highway , 21 mpg city
Balance of 7,789 miles on 93 - 24 mpg highway, 23 mpg city

The price difference between 87 and 93 in my area ranges between $0.50 and $0.75. Using a $0.75 premium, and the 2mpg benefit for 93, it costs me about $250 more per year assuming 12000 mi / year.

The 2.3L operates a lot better at startup with the 93, especially on hot days. By seat of pants method, it feels more responsive throughout the transmission range. For the cost, I'll keep filling with at least 91.

Also, I know the distance to empty (DTE) feedback changes based on driving habits, but does it also take into account fuel type sensed? I put in 91 one time and it knocked my DTE down by 25 miles.

Sponsored

 

[Tilzbow]

This might be apples to oranges but I’ve got a 2.7 liter I6 super charged Mercury Verado 400HP on my boat that I picked up new in late 2020. My fastest speed ever was 66 MPH and 6,600 RPM the day I broke it in, running 93 octane. That winter the 93 octane disappeared in this area and premium suddenly became 91 octane. Since that first tank of fuel I’ve never broken 62 MPH or 6,200 RPM and I’ve run several times in similar conditions so in the case of my boat motor it seems it made a difference.

 

[JABronco87]

I’m curious about maximum boost pressures using 87 vs 93. I have not run anything but 87 in mine so far. Next time I do a 21.5 gallon fill up, I may switch. However, I want to get a handle on maximum boost pressures under maximum acceleration at say 50 MPH first, then compare.

Boost pressure will be the same. What will change is the knock sensors allowing a little more timing with the higher octane causing it to run better. My 19' F150 2.7 was tuned and i had a monitor to watch literally any parameter I wanted. Boost was always the same (computer limited) except for maybe a slight difference towing or something. But if you watch the timing it would advance slightly with better fuel.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Placebo

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.

 

[andrusoid]

...and I could tell a real difference in the way the Bronco drove.
I'm not one to accelerate aggressively so that's not what I noticed, rather an overall smother drive. Sometimes in the past I would find just a bit of sputter when using 87 octane, nothing major but not an entirely smooth experience. After using 91 octane the drive is smoother, especially prior to the vehicle fully reaching temperature.

2022 BD
2.7 Auto, non-Sas

It's the only way I roll. These days it's really not that much more than 87.

 

[okccj]

Any reason to think that 87 or 91 octane would have any impact on longevity/reliability of the vehicle, or is it all performance/feel differences?

 

[Broncobadlands2023]

So many people will tell you it doesn’t matter when the numbers from Ford outline a performance increase lol. The engine is made with premium in mind, it can just handle 87.

 

[Broncobadlands2023]

Its real, just very little especially considering how you use the bronco. 15hp and 5trq is close to nothing.

maybe if you do a real tune, exhaust, etc. it adds up and is worth it.

The engine hits peak power earlier as well.

@Tilzbow here’s the chart

 

[internationlriders]

I hate to say this so blatantly but it's the truth, these ecoboost engines were built and tuned specifically to use premium fuel, they're additionally programmed to use regular in case of the following: folks who refuse to pay for premium, and in case there is no premium available in an area. This is just Ford protecting their engines. If this was a BMW forum and folks suggested using 87 octane fuel because the car could 'run' on it, I think there would be a forum explosion.

Other than the first dealer fill up which I suspect was regular, I've never put regular fuel in since purchasing. I do also run a the Panda Power module on it's higher settings which requires premium and this 2.7 runs fantastic!

 

[Wark]

Any reason to think that 87 or 91 octane would have any impact on longevity/reliability of the vehicle, or is it all performance/feel differences?

The turbo will last longer with premium fuel to resisting pre-ignition due to additional octane.

 

[Sparkherd]

The Coyote V8 can detect higher grade gasoline and calibrates itself differently. No reason Ford couldn’t have used similar technology in these engines, although these days, just be thankful yours runs at all.

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...

 

[Rdonohoe]

base 4dr 2.3L

First 380 miles on 87 - 22 mpg highway , 21 mpg city
Balance of 7,789 miles on 93 - 24 mpg highway, 23 mpg city

The price difference between 87 and 93 in my area ranges between $0.50 and $0.75. Using a $0.75 premium, and the 2mpg benefit for 93, it costs me about $250 more per year assuming 12000 mi / year.

The 2.3L operates a lot better at startup with the 93, especially on hot days. By seat of pants method, it feels more responsive throughout the transmission range. For the cost, I'll keep filling with at least 91.

Also, I know the distance to empty (DTE) feedback changes based on driving habits, but does it also take into account fuel type sensed? I put in 91 one time and it knocked my DTE down by 25 miles.

That first tank of fuel is not a good baseline. In my experience all new motors get worse mileage in the first 1 or 2k miles due to the break-in period.

 

[AMTRV]

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

 

[Cable Guy]

My Audi will literally stall at stop lights on 87 octane. Milage is noticeably better too even going From 87 to 89. Another jump from there to 91 or 93. Makes a significant difference for forced induction motors in my experience.

 

[Hkak45]

Any reason to think that 87 or 91 octane would have any impact on longevity/reliability of the vehicle, or is it all performance/feel differences?

I put 93 in my 2.3L ecoboost strictly for better longevity. I could care less about the performance gain as it's minimal but it just runs smoother with premium vs regular fuel in my opinion. I'm going to find the study but there are numerous reports out there about direct injection small turbo engines longevity being greater with premium vs regular after 100k plus miles.

Sponsored