How does your GT run on regular gas?

[KingKona]

Not to start a whole octane debate but if your truck doesn't call for premium you are getting exactly zero benefit other than a lighter wallet.

Most cars, like the Mustang, will have more power, and get better MPGs, on premium.

Very few vehicles call for premium, but if you have one, you'll damage the engine not using premium.

Sponsored

 

[SpeedLu]

Nothing but 93+ for the gods' chariot. 87 octane is for eco shitboxes and trucks

 

[Doolin64]

I do love everyone's comments about the fill up difference and it's no big deal. if you can't afford it don't drive the car, etc, etc. There's a bigger picture at play here. Homes cost more, food cost more, fuel costs more, so on and so forth. Wait until all our insurance rates go through the roof to help off set the increased costs of the vehicles, parts and inflation.

My point is that not everyone here is independently wealthy. Some car owners, even Mustang owners live on a budget that goes paycheck to paycheck. I'm not here to call out someone's financial choices. But drastic increases in costs such as fuel, even at $15 a fillup can have an effect on people. After all, we all own sports cars here and only a small percentage of us take them to a track and exploit their potential. We don't bash on those who are mallcrawler malldragger crowd. So who cares if someone runs 87 when the manual states it's fine to do so. You will receive reduced performance but once again few of us will A) recognize it B) exploit it.

 

[analogman]

FWIW, the 2014 5.0 V8 produces 420 hp on 93 octane, and 402 hp on 87 -

https://www.cars.com/reviews/our-view-2014-ford-mustang-1420689347829/

Premium yields a 3% increase in maximum horsepower. The newer Coyote 5.0 in 2015+ cars likely would experience a similar 3%-ish change in maximum output (somewhere out there, someone has probably done dyno runs on a newer 5.0 on 87 vs 93 octane).

I know I personally couldn't feel a 3% difference in the seat of my pants.

Another point is, how much power are you actually using? In normal street driving, most people are not using anywhere near the maximum power output of the engine, thus not even approaching the 3%-ish difference at the maximum. Track driving would be a different situation.

The cost difference of one fillup with 87 vs 93 is not meaningful for most people. In my area the difference right now is about $0.58/gal, meaning about $9.28 for a full tank. Assuming one tank per week would make it around $483 a year, which may or may not be meaningful to some people (or more or less, depending on how much you drive).

Compared to the cost of a new Mustang, you could say the difference in annual costs of running regular vs premium isn't a big deal ($483 on a call it $45,000 car = about 1% of the purchase price per year).

But another way of looking at it might be, why spend the money if you don't need to? Is there something else you'd rather do with $500-ish a year? If you're a Silicon Valley tech bro or venture capitalist worth a few hundred million dollars, then you probably wouldn't even think about $500 a year (but then, you're probably not driving a Mustang either). But for most people, while $500 a year might not force you into bankruptcy, is there anything else you'd rather spend your money on?

It seems the bottom line (based on the objective data) is that premium gas isn't necessary in the Mustang for normal street driving (different situation for track rats). It certainly can't hurt, and the only downside is the cost. So it's a personal choice: with call it $500 in your pocket, do you get more pleasure out of putting premium in the tank, or would you get more pleasure spending the money on something else?

 

[Bikeman315]

Most cars, like the Mustang, will have more power, and get better MPGs, on premium.

This is incorrect unless the manufacturer indicated that 91 gas will give you better performance. Like our Mustangs. Otherwise it makes zero difference. Money down the drain.

Very few vehicles call for premium, but if you have one, you'll damage the engine not using premium.

This is also not necessarily true. As I said earlier my Brother in Law uses 87 in his Volvo XC60. 91 is required. Now depending on your car and the way you drive it the possibility to damage the engine is no doubt there. That said just using 87 will not actually damage the engine, at least in the sort term.

 

[Farkel]

I haven't seen any verified MPG comparisons, but if it's true that premium gets better mileage, then that also needs to be factored in. If you have to fill up more often with regular you're not saving what the price alone would indicate. Just as an example, if premium costs 10% more but gets 10% better MPG, the price you're paying per mile is virtually the same as if you bought regular gas. Just my opinion, but I'll continue to run top tier premium.

 

[geezer stang]

I have been running my 2019 GT on Shell Nitro 93 since I got it. I’m asking people who use regular gas how your car runs on it. With the price of gas l’m thinking of switching. Gas prices are getting out of hand.
[/QUOTEi run a mixture of 87/89(top tier only)in my 21 base gt,and usually log about 17mpg(city)i have not noticed any pinging,i see no measureable difference when i run 93?

 

[ice445]

FWIW, the 2014 5.0 V8 produces 420 hp on 93 octane, and 402 hp on 87 -

https://www.cars.com/reviews/our-view-2014-ford-mustang-1420689347829/

Premium yields a 3% increase in maximum horsepower. The newer Coyote 5.0 in 2015+ cars likely would experience a similar 3%-ish change in maximum output (somewhere out there, someone has probably done dyno runs on a newer 5.0 on 87 vs 93 octane).

I know I personally couldn't feel a 3% difference in the seat of my pants.

Another point is, how much power are you actually using? In normal street driving, most people are not using anywhere near the maximum power output of the engine, thus not even approaching the 3%-ish difference at the maximum. Track driving would be a different situation.

The cost difference of one fillup with 87 vs 93 is not meaningful for most people. In my area the difference right now is about $0.58/gal, meaning about $9.28 for a full tank. Assuming one tank per week would make it around $483 a year, which may or may not be meaningful to some people (or more or less, depending on how much you drive).

Compared to the cost of a new Mustang, you could say the difference in annual costs of running regular vs premium isn't a big deal ($483 on a call it $45,000 car = about 1% of the purchase price per year).

But another way of looking at it might be, why spend the money if you don't need to? Is there something else you'd rather do with $500-ish a year? If you're a Silicon Valley tech bro or venture capitalist worth a few hundred million dollars, then you probably wouldn't even think about $500 a year (but then, you're probably not driving a Mustang either). But for most people, while $500 a year might not force you into bankruptcy, is there anything else you'd rather spend your money on?

It seems the bottom line (based on the objective data) is that premium gas isn't necessary in the Mustang for normal street driving (different situation for track rats). It certainly can't hurt, and the only downside is the cost. So it's a personal choice: with call it $500 in your pocket, do you get more pleasure out of putting premium in the tank, or would you get more pleasure spending the money on something else?

The peak power difference is irrelevant, where you really lose the most is in normal lazy driving. The ECU down low likes to throw a lot of ignition timing to make up for the fact the engine is on the smaller side for a V8. That's the most likely situation to find knock, especially on a hot day or when climbing a grade or something. Thus timing will be pulled back. Even if it's a minuscule 5% reduction in torque output compared to what the engine can pull on 91, that's still likely noticeable.

Either way I don't care what people do with their money, obviously the car will run pretty much the same for most people, most of the time on 87. In my case I don't even have the option, since we have "85" here which I can't use because it's dogshit. The difference in price between mid grade 88 and 91 isn't enough to matter so I just use 91.

 

[Cory S]

I haven't seen any verified MPG comparisons, but if it's true that premium gets better mileage, then that also needs to be factored in.

87-93 has the same BTU/gallon of energy. One will not get a measurable MPG between the two.

Gasoline isn't magic in most cases. There's no "regular", no "high test", no "premium" These are all marketing words. It's all just standard unleaded gasoline now at the pump since basically the mid 70's. You have lower octane and higher octane to choose from. That is all.

 

[KingKona]

This is incorrect unless the manufacturer indicated that 91 gas will give you better performance. Like our Mustangs. Otherwise it makes zero difference. Money down the drain.

Virtually all modern engines have management systems that include knock and oxygen sensors, that advance or retard ignition timing based on the presence or lack of knock.

So, yes, it's almost entirely correct. Almost universally correct.

You mention "91 gas", where I think you mean premium. But the reality is that almost all modern engines can run on any pump-gas, but do so with better performance and efficiency with higher octane fuels.

Hell, I'd like to try really high octane race fuel in my car. Anyone do that? Something like some 98 octane or higher?

I wonder how much advance Coyotes can work with?

 

[theruleslawyer]

Virtually all modern engines have management systems that include knock and oxygen systems, that advance or retard ignition timing based on the presence or lack of knock.

So, yes, it's almost entirely correct. Almost universally correct.

You're stuck on something about "91 gas" for some reason. But the reality is that almost all modern engines can run on any pump-gas, but do so with better performance and efficiency with higher octane fuels.

Hell, I'd like to try really high octane race fuel in my car. Anyone do that? Something like some 98 octane or higher?

I wonder how much advance Coyotes can work with?

I suggest you read about e85 tunes. There are significant gains.

 

[KingKona]

I suggest you read about e85 tunes. There are significant gains.

I've read about them. Sounds great.

 

[WildHorse]

Premium yields a 3% increase in maximum horsepower

That just shows how conservative the FACTORY tune is.

 

[LSchicago]

It used to be able to. I never put 87 in though.

 

[331GT]

I do love everyone's comments about the fill up difference and it's no big deal. if you can't afford it don't drive the car, etc, etc. There's a bigger picture at play here. Homes cost more, food cost more, fuel costs more, so on and so forth. Wait until all our insurance rates go through the roof to help off set the increased costs of the vehicles, parts and inflation.

My point is that not everyone here is independently wealthy. Some car owners, even Mustang owners live on a budget that goes paycheck to paycheck. I'm not here to call out someone's financial choices. But drastic increases in costs such as fuel, even at $15 a fillup can have an effect on people. After all, we all own sports cars here and only a small percentage of us take them to a track and exploit their potential. We don't bash on those who are mallcrawler malldragger crowd. So who cares if someone runs 87 when the manual states it's fine to do so. You will receive reduced performance but once again few of us will A) recognize it B) exploit it.

i think it's a mindset too rather than simply having or not having the means to afford something. i can afford to run 93 exclusively, no problem. i can afford many things i dont spend money on, no problem. could i afford to buy a fancy $4 starbucks every day? sure. would i rather make the same shit at home for a fraction of the cost? yup. im not at all rich either. the aggregate of saving a bit here and there can add up to a meaningful difference. if im going to beat the piss out of the car, ill use premium, no question. if im going to have the cruise set to 70 to get to work and back, why spend the extra for zero gain. again, it's a mindset, not based on means. if i had Elon's bank roll I still wouldnt have the mindset to "waste" money just because i have it. I use quotes because im not saying using 93 is "wasting money" but rather just explaining the train of thought.


and damn, i told myself i wouldnt get into another one of these threads, so much for that

Sponsored