93 octane to 87

[Spartan]

Time for school...

Wrong. 87 is recommended for the ecoboost and the v6. The manual says the minimum you should put in the coyote is 87. Not really a sterling recommendation. More of "if you really have to, you can". The motor runs better and gets better gas mileage on premium. Nothing but 93 and top tier went in my 12 and that's all that will go in my 15.

Wrong. Go read the manual (pg 137). The 87 is the RECOMMENDED FUEL for the V8/EB. They even state for improved performance they recommend 91/93.

The Coyote was designed to run on 87 otherwise if it wasn't it wouldn't have an RECOMMENDED 87 rating and would have a 89/91/93 REQUIRED Octane sticker on the door. So 87 is all you need to put in the 5.0 because it's designed for 87 fuel.

Yep it gets better performance (only 1%) on premium but the timings are made for 87 otherwise it wouldn't have that 87 recommended sticker.

If 93 was required it would say REQUIRED like Audi engines do and have a 91/93 sticker.

2.3L EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 Engines We recommend regular unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. Some stations offer fuels posted as regular with an octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. We do not recommend fuels with an octane rating below 87.

To provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty usage, such as trailer tow.
​

Yes it's designed to run on 87 in the sense you can put cheap tires on the car either.
Like I said, it's a high compression engine and it will start to knock when you use 87 but the knock sensor will catch it and detune the timing and cam position to protect the engine. You will lose 5-10% horsepower not 1%.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Go look up the official response from Ford. It's 1%.

The 5.0-liter V8 calls for 91-octane gas to maximize power, but Ford admits that with 87-octane, you only lose 1% of the horsepower.
​

Regarding the EB HP loss on 87:

According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque.​

Let me know if I need to get the school bus to pick you two up for school tomorrow. ;)

Sponsored

 

[Blk2015GT]

Time for school...



Wrong. Go read the manual (pg 137). The 87 is the RECOMMENDED FUEL for the V8/EB. They even state for improved performance they recommend 91/93.

The Coyote was designed to run on 87 otherwise if it wasn't it wouldn't have an RECOMMENDED 87 rating and would have a 89/91/93 REQUIRED Octane sticker on the door. So 87 is all you need to put in the 5.0 because it's designed for 87 fuel.

Yep it gets better performance (only 1%) on premium but the timings are made for 87 otherwise it wouldn't have that 87 recommended sticker.

If 93 was required it would say REQUIRED like Audi engines do and have a 91/93 sticker.

2.3L EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 Engines We recommend regular unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. Some stations offer fuels posted as regular with an octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. We do not recommend fuels with an octane rating below 87.

To provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty usage, such as trailer tow.
​

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Go look up the official response from Ford. It's 1%.

The 5.0-liter V8 calls for 91-octane gas to maximize power, but Ford admits that with 87-octane, you only lose 1% of the horsepower.
​

Regarding the EB HP loss on 87:

According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque.​

Let me know if I need to get the school bus to pick you two up for school tomorrow. ;)

Agreed. SO much misinformation being spread.

 

[jasonstang]

So you are telling me going from 87 to 91 on a 11:1 compression ratio engine I am only gaining 4HP? I call BS.
Just found this graph. Yes the peak is only 5HP but look at the rest of the graph see how much difference there is.
Look how unsmooth the line is when on 87? That's your engine pulling timing.
Looks like the factory tune was limiting something closer to the redline. This is a 2011 5.0L.

 

[Spartan]

That's like $1 a day. You throw away more than that per day.

Doesn't matter if it's a $1 a day, it adds up over time for a ton of people.

I mean everything adds up for people...for some that extra savings a year is a small vacation or a new iPhone or something.

 

[Spartan]

So you are telling me going from 87 to 91 on a 11:1 compression ratio engine I am only gaining 4HP? I call BS.
Just found this graph. Yes the peak is only 5HP but look at the rest of the graph see how much difference there is.

I'm telling you what Ford said to the magazines. That's their #s and what I go by. I trust Ford on their HP ratings.

 

[jasonstang]

Doesn't matter if it's a $1 a day, it adds up over time for a ton of people.

I mean everything adds up for people...for some that extra savings a year is a small vacation or a new iPhone or something.

I think people who buy Mustang's probably already doing pretty good with their lives. You don't go buy a 2 door gas guzzling sports car if you care about fuel economy.

 

[Spartan]

Saying the EB loses 11.3% power and the GT 1% power on 87 is not marketing. It's their factual data from Ford engineers.

Marketing is what you see on here...

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/

 

[jasonstang]

Saying the EB loses 11.3% power and the GT 1% power on 87 is not marketing. It's their factual data from Ford engineers.

Marketing is what you see on here...

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/

1% peak power.
See the graph I attached.
It's about 40hp mid rpm which is close to 10%.

 

[Old Car Guy]

You.....

I'm cheap as possible, Kroger card ftw. ;)

You have Kroger down there in KY..... Ha! :cheers:

I will use some of my fuel points up when I get to Phoenix this Thursday, with the rental car.......

 

[paul123]

I recommend 87 gasoline and Toyota Prius low rolling resistance tires for your Mustang. Really stretch your commute dollar :lol:

 

[Spartan]

I think people who buy Mustang's probably already doing pretty good with their lives. You don't go buy a 2 door gas guzzling sports car if you care about fuel economy.

Cars are one of the biggest splurge/regrets people make. Heck there are posters here asking should they get one and you read about their $$$ situation and you're like "are you seriously even considering this"....

Logic/common sense does not go with cars for a lot of people.

 

[Emt1581]

Cars are one of the biggest splurge/regrets people make. Heck there are posters here asking should they get one and you read about their $$$ situation and you're like "are you seriously even considering this"....

Logic/common sense does not go with cars for a lot of people.

I doubt cars (at least Mustangs) can hold a candle to boats in the splurge/regret dept.

-Emt1581

 

[paul123]

Cars are one of the biggest splurge/regrets people make. Heck there are posters here asking should they get one and you read about their $$$ situation and you're like "are you seriously even considering this"....

Logic/common sense does not go with cars for a lot of people.

Ford Explorers aren't exactly the most "frugal" cars:

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/explorer
Price:
$31,995 - $53,915

http://www.caranddriver.com/kia/soul
Price:
$16,515 - $21,915

 

[Blk2015GT]

I think people who buy Mustang's probably already doing pretty good with their lives. You don't go buy a 2 door gas guzzling sports car if you care about fuel economy.

So I should want to just throw away $400 a year just because? :shrug:

If you're handing out hundreds by all means dictate what gas we put in our cars to save some money.

$400/year filling up once per week (or more as some people do a lot more driving) adds up to some nice mods. $400 is a no-tune CAI which can put back on 15-20hp alone.

A horsepower argument is ridiculous in a daily driver to begin with, even a 10% loss is MORE than enough hp; more than most cars on the road still. If you want the performance push to do some spirited driving or track pop in 93. Does 435 vs 392 really matter to go to the grocery store or post office?

 

[Socalmustang]

So I should want to just throw away $400 a year just because? :shrug:

If you're handing out hundreds by all means dictate what gas we put in our cars to save some money.

$400/year filling up once per week (or more as some people do a lot more driving) adds up to some nice mods. $400 is a no-tune CAI which can put back on 15-20hp alone.

A horsepower argument is ridiculous in a daily driver to begin with, even a 10% loss is MORE than enough hp; more than most cars on the road still. If you want the performance push to do some spirited driving or track pop in 93. Does 435 vs 392 really matter to go to the grocery store or post office?

To be fair, the couple dollars you save won't be noticeable each time you fill up. It's only going to be a couple bucks each time.

Unless, you calculate the savings each time and put all that money somewhere for the whole year....but at the end of the year, you're not going to feel like you saved an extra $400 and think you're going to buy a nice inexpensive mod.

not hating or saying you shouldn't use 87...just saying you won't notice that money you're saving in your everyday life.

If you had a prius, then you bet you'd notice those savings add up

Sponsored