93 octane?

[magnetic16gt]

I've been using Hennessy for the last 10k miles. Seems to work fine. I've been adding Red Bull whenever I hear knocking.

Some people say I can use Black Velvet, but we all know that non-single batches can cause pinging and lack of power.

Besides, I bought a GT so I feel I should spend a lot of money on it because why did I else did I buy racecar?

Sponsored

 

[Blk2015GT]

Besides, I bought a GT so I feel I should spend a lot of money on it because why did I else did I buy racecar?

I know, I mean damn man why such a cheap bastard?

Should just blow every penny you have on your car, get with the times! ;)

 

[magnetic16gt]

I know, I mean damn man why such a cheap bastard?

Should just blow every penny you have on your car, get with the times! ;)

I troll the Corvette forums as well ever since I had my '99 C5. A lot of people start a thread with "what kind of fuel economy do you get?" before deciding to purchase one. Usually ends up with a bunch of people asking why fuel economy matters when driving a Vette, if you have to ask, you can't afford it, blah blah.

Some people daily drive their cars and the cost savings of better fuel economy/ 87 octane is not insignificant. For as much driving as I do, it's about an 800/year difference between 87 and 93. If I didn't daily it, I'd probably tune and use 93. I see the argument for both. Then again, I'm rolling on snow tires while flying through salt mounds, so I'm not quite sure I need to milk every horsepower through the winter.

 

[Grintch]

I'm all for money savings, but in this case, it's a pretty weak argument in relation to the type of vehicle we own and how much our vehicles cost imo. If money savings from gas was that big of an issue, I would have bought a Honda Civic.

It's a 20% cost savings for a 2% performance difference. Need that extra 2%, put the good stuff in a couple days before you need it. Running 87 makes a lot more sense to me than saving a little money buying an ecoboost rather than a GT.

Speaking of the Ecoboost, it makes a much bigger difference with it than the GT. Like 2 to 3x times. So they get more benefit from sticking with premium gas.

 

[AlmostFamous]

It's a 20% cost savings for a 2% performance difference. Need that extra 2%, put the good stuff in a couple days before you need it. Running 87 makes a lot more sense to me than saving a little money buying an ecoboost rather than a GT.

If saving $3 on a fill-up was that important to me, I would have bought a Prius.

 

[millhouse]

I have no problems with you using 87 octane and I wouldn't argue against you if that's your choice, but telling others it's a great money saving financial decision is an extremely weak argument.

How is telling others that saving $350 per year a weak argument? You literally lose almost nothing in the process. I won't fault anyone for spending the extra money, but everyone arguing against using 87 seems to think the mustang is a super car that requires nothing but racing fuel. It's an average priced sedan that requires nothing more than 87.

Hold on! $600/yr... $50/mo. for a '16 mustang GT!? :eyebulge:

are you covered for... anything?! Insurance for uninsured motorists is more than that.

Haha, I'm actually closer to $975/year, but my fuel savings are closer to $400. Not quite half, but not too far off.

 

[AlmostFamous]

How is telling others that saving $350 per year a weak argument? You literally lose almost nothing in the process. I won't fault anyone for spending the extra money, but everyone arguing against using 87 seems to think the mustang is a super car that requires nothing but racing fuel. It's an average priced sedan that requires nothing more than 87.

Then save the $3 on each of your fill-ups. :shrug:

 

[terryz]

SAVING is the wrong word, it means you have to give up something in exchange for the extra a few hundred $ every year.

There's literally no performance different for DD, so you do not really give up anything.

NOT WASTING is more appropriate.

If I can feel a difference, or if there's any concrete evidence that higher octane gives better low-end torque, better throttle response, etc, I will switch to 91 right away. I don't see such an evidence that I could gain anything for WASTING a few hundred bucks every year.

 

[AlmostFamous]

If I can feel a difference, or if there's any concrete evidence that higher octane gives better low-end torque, better throttle response, etc, I will switch to 91 right away. I don't see such an evidence that I could gain anything for WASTING a few hundred bucks every year.

Take it for what it's worth. 2 stock 2011-2014 Mustang GT dynos. 91 vs 93 and 87 vs 93.

91 vs 93: Final run it made like 3 rwhp more and 0 rwtq more than the two best 91 octane runs.

87 vs 93: 6 RWHP peak difference. Not that much, but look at the difference in the mid range, especially 4500-6000 rpm. Looks to be ~20 RWHP difference in places (corresponding increase in torque, of course)

5.0 GT Stock dynos 91 octane vs 93 octane

First two runs the car made essentially NO more power.
Then on the third and final run it made like 3 rwhp more and 0 rwtq more than the two best 91 octane runs.

They probably put in the ability to adjust up to 91.5-92 on the high rpm range which gives it a couple extra hp but no additional torque.
I think we can safely say using 93 octane instead of 91 octane gains you 3-4 hp up in the higher rpms for a bit, but as you can see it's not sustained over a large rpm range. So it just may be an anomaly that it made the additional 3 rwhp at the peak.
So 91 octane state people don't need to feel bad, without a tune, guys in 93 octane states aren't getting really any more power out of their stock 5.0's

http://themustangsource.com/forums/f726/5-0-gt-stock-dynos-91-octane-vs-93-octane-487398/

87 vs 93 Octane Dyno Graph

Below is a dyno graph showing the difference between 87 octane and 93 octane. According to the shop, no other changes were made to the car/tune/etc. Similar weather for both passes, car at normal operating temperatures.

Note: 6 RWHP peak difference. Not that much, but look at the difference in the mid range, especially 4500-6000 rpm. Looks to be ~20 RWHP difference in places (corresponding increase in torque, of course).

[

http://themustangsource.com/forums/f726/87-vs-93-octane-dyno-graph-484635/

 

[terryz]

Take it for what it's worth. 2 stock 2011-2014 Mustang GT dynos. 91 vs 93 and 87 vs 93.

This is good evidence.

I assume the difference between 87 and 91 octane is similar to that between 87 and 93 considering how close it is between 91 and 93 from the first chart. This means about ~10-20 ft-lb torque between 2500-5000. Not too small a difference.

 

[Dudie7]

I burn 93 exclusively...I want every ounce of performance available every second I'm in her. For me, it's just that simple. If I gotta worry about the cost of fueling her, it's time to put her up for sale. Just my two cents.

 

[Clink]

What CAI do you think gets the best MPG?

 

[machsmith]

Huge difference between 91 and 93 in my '14 GT500. Pinged like crazy every time I used 91 and got on it. Put in 93 ethanol and pinging stopped and instead of it I got pure uninterrupted acceleration.
Tuned it out and did some bolt ons for 760HP and it was a screamer with 93.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

If saving $3 on a fill-up was that important to me, I would have bought a Prius.

I burn 93 exclusively...I want every ounce of performance available every second I'm in her. For me, it's just that simple. If I gotta worry about the cost of fueling her, it's time to put her up for sale. Just my two cents.

I'm with you guys. I didn't buy my wife a 40K sports car. Just to worry about an extra 200 dollars.When the day comes that I can't afford the gas. I'll sell it and buy a bicycle.

 

[millhouse]

I'm with you guys. I didn't buy my wife a 40K sports car. Just to worry about an extra 200 dollars.When the day comes that I can't afford the gas. I'll sell it and buy a bicycle.

This is where you all are getting it wrong. It's not about being able to afford premium fuel. It's about not wanting to throw our money away. If you could cut your cable bill by $25/month by eliminating the channels you never watch, would you? I myself cut cable out completely.

Sponsored