93 OCTANE TUNE ADDS 50WHP!

[brucelinc]

The 2018 is rated at 460 hp at 7000 rpm. The article shown says there is NO gain at high rpm. That is BS. If there was no gain Ford wouldn't make it crystal clear that their number is based on 93. In fact, it would be a marketing advantage to say it is achieved on 87.

Dyno results on one test example is not conclusive. In fact, dyno results can vary depending upon many factors. I have more confidence in the engineers who designed the engine and pcm capability.

I have a co-worker who enjoys his latte and foo-foo coffee that costs $5. I am perfectly happy with a 99 cent cup from McDonalds. I am not going to criticize his choice of drink because it is worth it to HIM. I only use 93 octane fuel in my car because it is worth it to ME.

Sponsored

 

[texasboy21]

It's more of a ripoff the more you indulge in it's use. For me, it doesn't make sense. The money saved for those that drive very little

https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content...ium-Fuel-Phase-II-Research-Report-FINAL-2.pdf

Premium gives a 2.3% fuel economy bump. That’s less than 1/2 mpg. Considering it’s 20% more expensive, it’s obvious which choice is more economical.

Again, read the report and you’ll see less than 10hp in the midrange and nearly nothing up top. Anyone noticing a SOTP difference either has bad fuel or is experiencing a hellacious placebo effect.

These are dyno tested results.

Here is a dyno of 87 vs 93 octane dyno on a Coyote 5.0 (11-14 however). While I agree with the fella above regarding the variance of one dyno to another, and how one example is just that, one example, my personal results correlate to OP of the thread referenced below.

My position stands - there is a slight decrease in peak power (which is likely negligible when considering things like station to station gas quality, engine wear from one car to another, etc.) however there is a substantial loss of mid-range power. If you can provide some coyote specific data that shows otherwise I would love to see it.

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

**Just in case the dyno pic doesn’t show in the thread it can be seen quoted here:

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/87oct-vs-93oct-dyno-sheet.82583/#post-1866243

Regarding the AAA doc you posted, I can agree with the 3.2% increase in power (measured peak figure) with 93 octane as it correlates perfectly with the peak power increase over 87 octane on the dyno I posted.

Further, on pages 24-25 of the AAA doc the static dyno testing shows a INCREASE of 4.3% in HP from the 2000-4000 rpm range using premium vs regular gas, which again falls in line with both personal experiences and the dyno thread I posted. In the 4000-6000 rpm range the power increase with premium is a 3.6% increase, thus more HP gains to be had in the mid range.

Page 31 of the AAA doc compares a premium to regular gas dyno and AGAIN shows a slight increase in peak power with 93, but mid range gains throughout the power band.

With all of this data I dont know how anyone could say there is NOT a difference in both peak and mid range power.

 

[millhouse]

The 2018 is rated at 460 hp at 7000 rpm. The article shown says there is NO gain at high rpm. That is BS. If there was no gain Ford wouldn't make it crystal clear that their number is based on 93. In fact, it would be a marketing advantage to say it is achieved on 87.

Dyno results on one test example is not conclusive. In fact, dyno results can vary depending upon many factors. I have more confidence in the engineers who designed the engine and pcm capability.

I have a co-worker who enjoys his latte and foo-foo coffee that costs $5. I am perfectly happy with a 99 cent cup from McDonalds. I am not going to criticize his choice of drink because it is worth it to HIM. I only use 93 octane fuel in my car because it is worth it to ME.

Read the test paramaters. That is the most scientific test you will find comparing 87 to 93 on a coyote period. These tests are absolutely conclusive, and fall inline what was reported on the s197 coyote.

Ford makes it crystal clear their numbers are based on 93 because they know it loses 10hp. It's a marketing advantage to claim as much horsepower as possible.

I don't know why everyone still argues this, it's been 10hp since the S197 coyote.

Here is a dyno of 87 vs 93 octane dyno on a Coyote 5.0 (11-14 however). While I agree with the fella above regarding the variance of one dyno to another, and how one example is just that, one example, my personal results correlate to OP of the thread referenced below.

My position stands - there is a slight decrease in peak power (which is likely negligible when considering things like station to station gas quality, engine wear from one car to another, etc.) however there is a substantial loss of mid-range power. If you can provide some coyote specific data that shows otherwise I would love to see it.

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

**Just in case the dyno pic doesn’t show in the thread it can be seen quoted here:

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/87oct-vs-93oct-dyno-sheet.82583/#post-1866243

Regarding the AAA doc you posted, I can agree with the 3.2% increase in power (measured peak figure) with 93 octane as it correlates perfectly with the peak power increase over 87 octane on the dyno I posted.

Further, on pages 24-25 of the AAA doc the static dyno testing shows a INCREASE of 4.3% in HP from the 2000-4000 rpm range using premium vs regular gas, which again falls in line with both personal experiences and the dyno thread I posted. In the 4000-6000 rpm range the power increase with premium is a 3.6% increase, thus more HP gains to be had in the mid range.

Page 31 of the AAA doc compares a premium to regular gas dyno and AGAIN shows a slight increase in peak power with 93, but mid range gains throughout the power band.

With all of this data I dont know how anyone could say there is NOT a difference in both peak and mid range power.

That "substantial" loss in mid-range power you speak of is 10hp. That to most is unnoticeable. Look at the AAA dyno, it shows it. I'm not seeing anything substantial, nor does their opinion on 87 octane for the mustang.

"At the low end and higher end of the speeds tested, the horsepower and torque numbers were essentially the same for both fuels. However, the premium gasoline produced a marginal increase in the midrange."

 

[brucelinc]

From the text:
"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)"

Wow, 20 wheel HP in the 4500-6000 rpm range is huge. That would be close to 25 HP at the crank. If I read this correctly, this result was with the original Coyote. Again only one example but very impressive and more than I expected although in line with the 5% that I mentioned earlier.

I wonder about the differences with the new generation.

 

[millhouse]

From the text:
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)

Wow, 20 wheel HP in the 4500-6000 rpm range is huge. That would be over 25 HP at the crank. If I read this correctly, this result was with the original Coyote. Again only one example but very impressive and more than I expected.

I wonder about the differences with the new generation.

It's no where near 20hp. Read the report, look at the graph. Draw tick lines if you must. 25hp is half way between the 250hp and 300hp mark...there is no jump anywhere close to that on that graph.

I'd love to see the data behind your 3mpg increase using premium. Sorry, not buying it.

Around my neck of the woods, premium is at least $.50 more than regular.

Again, read the report. 15,000 miles with a 25% fuel increase cost along with an increase of 2.3% of fuel economy means premium is $349 of savings. I personally drive 18k miles per year.

Your math is way, way, way off.

 

[cosmo]

Apart form the performance loss from 87 due to less efficient combustion, hook up an OBD II scanner to your car and do pulls with 87 octane and 93 octane and watch your timing. You'll pull noticeably more timing with 87 octane as it's sensing the unstable combustion (knocking). Note: knock sensors DETECT knocking and react by pulling timing. This is exacerbated by high RPM loads, which of course is the Coyote.

93 octane gives a slight boost in performance and is a nice security blanket. That, to me, is worth the upcharge.

 

[millhouse]

I do! It's in the report!

Did you run MPG comparisons on the same day with the same temperature and humidity? Did you run it in the same direction and account for elevation changes? Was the wind direction the same? Was the fuel analyzed to assure equal quality?

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? I assume not, or you would understand the importance of variable control

And for the record, yes, I have run 93 (for a few weeks). There is no SOTP difference and no appreciable change in my normal economy. With that said, I still trust a laboratory test with one variable over my own results.

 

[millhouse]

Apart form the performance loss from 87 due to less efficient combustion, hook up an OBD II scanner to your car and do pulls with 87 octane and 93 octane and watch your timing. You'll pull noticeably more timing with 87 octane as it's sensing the unstable combustion (knocking). Note: knock sensors DETECT knocking and react by pulling timing. This is exacerbated by high RPM loads, which of course is the Coyote.

93 octane gives a slight boost in performance and is a nice security blanket. That, to me, is worth the upcharge.

The coyote has been out long enough to know that 87 octane is no detriment to engine longevity. Those knock sensors detect knock before any hint of damage is realized, and it's most important during low rpm/high load conditions. It's more important to not lug your engine. I equate the sensor detection to that of a shart. You know it's coming, and you can stop it before any damage is done.

 

[brucelinc]

The graph below is the result I referenced earlier. Again, this is one example an on an early Coyote (factory rated at 412 crank HP @ 6500) but the result is striking in terms of the benefit of 93 IN THIS CASE. I am not going to argue about this anymore but I just make the point that looking at ONE study or ONE comparison with ONE vehicle is not scientifically conclusive. It would be nice to see Ford's own internal data on this. In any case, I can understand using 87 if someone uses their Mustang as a daily driver, drives a lot of miles, and is willing to sacrifice some performance or can't tell the difference.

 

[millhouse]

The graph below is the result I referenced earlier. Again, this is one example an on an early Coyote (factory rated at 412 crank HP @ 6500) but the result is striking in terms of the benefit of 93 IN THIS CASE. I am not going to argue about this anymore but I just make the point that looking at ONE study or ONE comparison with ONE vehicle is not scientifically conclusive. It would be nice to see Ford's own internal data on this. In any case, I can understand using 87 if someone uses their Mustang as a daily driver, drives a lot of miles, and is willing to sacrifice some performance or can't tell the difference.

Ford specs had the S197 Coyote with a 10hp loss using 87 octane.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/foru...77ft-tq-402hp-according-ford.html#post2119586

"The output of 412 horsepower at 6500 rpm and 390 pound-feet of torque at 4250 rpm (that’s with premium fuel; regular unleaded drops the figures to 402 horses and 377 pound-feet)"...
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-mustang-first-ride

Horsepower

• 412 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 91 octane
• 402 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 87 octane

http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/m5lp-1003-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-coyote-engine/

This is exactly in line with the AAA test report.

 

[texasboy21]

Cool, so we have come to the conclusion that 87 makes less power, as backed up by forum member dynos, and the AAA doc.

Now, what about MPG on 87?

Forum members state a loss of MPG with 87 as does the AAA doc. The percentage of MPG loss does not outpace the increased in cost per gallon however (regionally that may differ - your results may vary).

So, do you want cheaper gas with less power and MPG or do you want to pay the premium for premium (ba dum tss) and have the optimum MPG and power?

I personally will take the better power AND mpg.. its a no brainer.

 

[brucelinc]

Thanks Millhouse. It seems the midrange is more a factor than peak. Also, not sure how much is applicable to the new gen Coyote. Also, the data provided shows premium to be 91....not 93 that Ford now requires for full power.

Just one other totally antecdotal and one-off experience: I always ran 93 in my 2016. However, I found that by mixing 2 gallons of 102 race fuel to 5 gallons of 93, my car was a full tenth quicker in the quarter. On 100% race fuel, it was actually a bit slower. The PCM was able to adjust to and make use of the roughly 96 octane mix but not to the 102. I haven't tried fuel mixtures in my 2018 since my local source for 102 no longer exists.

Sponsored