Fuel Question

[Doug V]

You do realize all of us are Mustang/Coyote enthusiasts that are very aware of everything you're posting, right?

There is nothing you know that hasn't been talked about here, ad nauseam, in thread after thread. Please don't try to explain basics to people.

Sorry for the confusion. I understood but wanted to add be cause not everyone is at that level. That's forums are for.

It was not trying to say anything against your post, but swinging back to the original question in this thread, that someone asking about running lower octane fuel. Plus other posts stating they see no difference in performance when using lower fuel. I just wanted to add that it's not the performance issue they should be worried about.

Sponsored

 

[HolubS]

I ran 91/93 octane in my 2018 EB until gas hit $4.00/gal. In Iowa the 91/93 octane costs around $1/gal more than 87. I really don't notice much difference in horsepower, but I don't race my car.

I do get 2-3 MPG better highway mileage, but less than 10% better mileage doesn't offset the 30% extra fuel cost.

 

[Millarduck]

It does not, in any way, shape or form, say it was designed for 87 octane. In fact it's basically saying that the engine was designed to run best on 91+ octane.

Reading comprehension is important.

Reading is important, try it. You seem to struggle with reading comprehension with "designed to" regular versus premium being "recommended" that you did not bother to read the first four words written.

Read the words in the first sentence written by Ford Motor Company:

"Your vehicle is designed [See its shape and form now?!] to operate on regular unleaded gasoline [now genius, comprehend these words, they define what "regular" means] with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87."

In every way it uses the word "designed," see the shape is in letters D-e-s-i-g-n-e-d, and form it is in the first sentence as a single paragraph. That single sentence paragraph means it's important.

So let me dumb it down for you with Ford's own words: Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular gasoline with a[n] octane rating of 87.

So now comprehend that the Mustang (Eco or GT), "...is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline... ."

We can debate the pros & cons of octanes, but don't ghost and insult other's intelligence about what is written by Ford using "designed to."

 

[young at heart]

Sorry for the confusion. I understood but wanted to add be cause not everyone is at that level. That's forums are for.

It was not trying to say anything against your post, but swinging back to the original question in this thread, that someone asking about running lower octane fuel. Plus other posts stating they see no difference in performance when using lower fuel. I just wanted to add that it's not the performance issue they should be worried about.

No confusion, I assure you. Your post was most appropriate and definitely not something that everyone understands totally, myself among those. You unfortunately were needlessly chastised by the forum’s leading contrarian, who frequently seems to prefer arguing and combativeness to breathing.

KK, this is your cue to jump in with a clever comment about what a dumbass I am. You know you can’t resist. Maybe something along the lines of “Well, you said it yourself”…

 

[ralph7]

I have always run the highest octane I could get at the pump in my high compression engines, since back in the 60's when I could get 101 octane American white gas. The Coyote is at 12:1 ratio, I believe, so I will run 93 octane for as long as I own the car.
Besides, why would one want to risk engine damage if the 87 gas is old or somehow compromised?
At least with 93 octane gas, you have more of a safety margin if the gas isn't up to snuff...

 

[KingKona]

Reading is important, try it. You seem to struggle with reading comprehension with "designed to" regular versus premium being "recommended" that you did not bother to read the first four words written.

Read the words in the first sentence written by Ford Motor Company:

"Your vehicle is designed [See its shape and form now?!] to operate on regular unleaded gasoline [now genius, comprehend these words, they define what "regular" means] with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87."

In every way it uses the word "designed," see the shape is in letters D-e-s-i-g-n-e-d, and form it is in the first sentence as a single paragraph. That single sentence paragraph means it's important.

So let me dumb it down for you with Ford's own words: Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular gasoline with a[n] octane rating of 87.

So now comprehend that the Mustang (Eco or GT), "...is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline... ."

We can debate the pros & cons of octanes, but don't ghost and insult other's intelligence about what is written by Ford using "designed to."

It's explaining the minimum octane requirement. It would be just as correct to say a Coyote is designed to run on 87, 91, 93, 96, 97 octane gasolines. The engine absolutely is designed to run best on 91+ octane.

 

[markayash]

Explain to be why 91 and 93 cost so much more.
I am 60 and wasn't that long ago ( maybe a few years ) that the difference between 87 to 91 was 10 cents a gallon and same from 91 to 93.
So if 87 was $2 93 was $2.20..Now its a HUGE difference

 

[Fred Larson]

Explain to be why 91 and 93 cost so much more.
I am 60 and wasn't that long ago ( maybe a few years ) that the difference between 87 to 91 was 10 cents a gallon and same from 91 to 93.
So if 87 was $2 93 was $2.20..Now its a HUGE difference

As I stated in my original post, the delta here is 30 cents/gal, but that is for 91 or 93 with 10% ethanol. Alcohol free 91 or 93 is much more expensive, if you can find it.

 

[ORRadtech]

Explain to be why 91 and 93 cost so much more.

Because they can and we pay for it.
Until there is a viable alternative it will continue.
At 67 I don't expect to live long enough to see said alternative.

As I stated in my original post, the delta here is 30 cents/gal, but that is for 91 or 93 with 10% ethanol. Alcohol free 91 or 93 is much more expensive, if you can find it.

Most stations here are around 30 cents difference. Expect Costco who currently has 87 at 30 cents less than normal stations for a 60 cent difference. It's hard to justify the higher octane at that differential.
Leaded fuel starts upwards of $4.50/gallon here.

 

[Fred Larson]

I paid $2.45 yesterday at Costco for 87.

 

[markayash]

I paid $2.45 yesterday at Costco for 87.

Can save a BUNCH buying 93 at Costco...Haven't checked lately but have saved 50 cents a gallon

 

[ORRadtech]

$2.55 here.

 

[KingKona]

Can save a BUNCH buying 93 at Costco...Haven't checked lately but have saved 50 cents a gallon

So....you burn thorough a 2 gallons of gas at, say, $3.50 to get to Costco and back. Probably more.

OR....

You spend the extra $7.00 at your closest station.

So, you save all of $0.00, and waste precious time.

I get it, if you're already shopping at Costco. That makes sense. Otherwise, it's just too much time and money on your hands.

 

[markayash]

So....you burn thorough a 2 gallons of gas at, say, $3.50 to get to Costco and back. Probably more.

OR....

You spend the extra $7.00 at your closest station.

So, you save all of $0.00, and waste precious time.

I get it, if you're already shopping at Costco. That makes sense. Otherwise, it's just too much time and money on your hands.

Costco is around 6 miles from my house But when I go I also buy Steaks and other stuff.
If its close to your house you will pay for the membership in gas savings alone. But your correct not worth driving a long ways just for fuel.

I don't make a special trip if I need gas but will top off if the line isn't too long. But then again a tank last me 2 weeks or more

Sponsored