What Octane are you using for the 5.0?

[packerfan]

Here's the sign from where I filled up with gas on Saturday on Long Island:

They actually dinged me an extra $0.16 for using a credit card, so I ended up paying $3.25, but whatever.

Point is, you've got a $0.70 cent difference per gallon in cost. I drive about 10,000 miles a year, and I've been averaging 16 mpg in this car... do the math on that and it comes out to a difference of $437.50 per year between regular and premium.

The question becomes... is that tiny little difference in performance you get between 87 octane and 93 octane worth $437.50 per year? So far I've been giving it 93 octane to be cautious, but at some point I'm going to decide that the engine's been broken in enough and doesn't need to be babied. I'm certainly never going to notice the 1% drop in horsepower.

So glad i do not live in ny. Down here in va its on average a 30 cent avg difference between regular and 93 octane. So its not as big a savings to use 87 in all areas.

Sponsored

 

[Celestias]

Switched from 91 to 87 as recommended in the owners manual. I don't have access to 93 grade fuel and after reading that 87 is the recommended fuel and some information from another thread which stated the GT loses only 1% HP for using 87 over 93, I decided for whatever minimal gain I was getting on 91 if any, it wasn't worth it. 430 HP is enough for me and it's doubtful anyone gets the full 435 even on 93 with how many variables there are.

As for costs. If the average is 60 cents higher in my area and I fill up 15.5 gallons once per week, it's a savings of approximately 9 dollars per fill up. That ends up saving me about 460 dollars per year, all for something that is hardly going to be noticeable. I could understand if you have no need for that money or absolutely need that extra 5 HP, and if I was losing performance to the level that 13% that the Ecoboost does I would definitely use it.

 

[OppoLock]

Switched from 91 to 87 as recommended in the owners manual. I don't have access to 93 grade fuel and after reading that 87 is the recommended fuel and some information from another thread which stated the GT loses only 1% HP for using 87 over 93, I decided for whatever minimal gain I was getting on 91 if any, it wasn't worth it. 430 HP is enough for me and it's doubtful anyone gets the full 435 even on 93 with how many variables there are.

I thought 93 (or 91 if that's your highest) was the recommended octane for both the GT and EB?

 

[badass03ragtop]

93 octane. Yesterday, regular $2.06/gallon. $2.29 for 93.

 

[Free Agent]

Mods can we get an octane thread sticky where all these get put into? They seem to pop up every couple of weeks and the same old points get made over and over. Its good information, it just gets old rehashing the same subject continuously.

 

[Qwkynuf]

So glad i do not live in ny. Down here in va its on average a 30 cent avg difference between regular and 93 octane. So its not as big a savings to use 87 in all areas.

I have been running premium, mostly because I am only seeing a $.20 delta. Below is the Gasbuddy report from today at the station where I fill up most often. There are a couple of "off brand" stations in town which are somewhat lower, but I have had good luck with Chevron fuels and allow myself this small luxury.

 

[Branden]

Its not just the horsepower,though I guarantee you all this 1 percent stuff is nonsense because I can always sense a tangible difference immediately using 92 over 87. But regardless 87 is just garbage gas, its not as good for your engine regardless. I mean I can tell every single time how it runs rougher, feels worse. It feels like its adding stress. I wouldnt use 87 ever for that reason alone.

I get the anecdotal evidence about it feeling rougher, but I've personally never experienced that. I don't notice a difference in how the car runs based on octane.

Can you elaborate on garbage gas? What are the other downsides to 87, other than performance? Will it decrease engine life? Legit question, because the only argument I've heard in the previous threads was in regards to "save xxx dollars for 10 hp". I mean, if there's a good reason to use it in the 5.0 then I'd absolutely do it.

 

[Celestias]

The manual says it recommends 87 for GT and V6. But I did read the ecoboost needs higher octane for the boost to operate normally, else it will be -13% HP on 87. There is another thread I believe where someone uploaded the photo of the page that talks about it if I could find it. For me, only having access to 91 and realizing I'm not even getting that extra 1% that 93 provides, made the choice easier. But even if I did have access I might not think it's worth it for my driving habits to spend the extra. If I was racing and I'd go with 93 and anything else that would allow me to squeeze a few more HP out of it.

 

[Asharus]

The manual says it recommends 87 for GT and V6. But I did read the ecoboost needs higher octane for the boost to operate normally, else it will be -13% HP on 87. There is another thread I believe where someone uploaded the photo of the page that talks about it if I could find it. For me, only having access to 91 and realizing I'm not even getting that extra 1% that 93 provides, made the choice easier. But even if I did have access I might not think it's worth it for my driving habits to spend the extra. If I was racing and I'd go with 93 and anything else that would allow me to squeeze a few more HP out of it.

pretty sure it was me. this is straight out of the manual

 

[blitzburgh]

so at 400.00 or so a year its like 7.00 a week.

If that's price to give the engine the best you can for power/cleanliness/longevity etc I will pay it. If you chose not too....your choice.

What I like is some people drone on about saving 400.00 a year and they smoke. Drink. Will pay 12 dollars a beer at a club/bar/football game.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

so at 400.00 or so a year its like 7.00 a week.

If that's price to give the engine the best you can for power/cleanliness/longevity etc I will pay it. If you chose not too....your choice.

What I like is some people drone on about saving 400.00 a year and they smoke. Drink. Will pay 12 dollars a beer at a club/bar/football game.

It's all a matter of what exactly it is that you're paying for.

I'll pay $400 for a really good meal at a really good steakhouse and not think twice about it if it's awesome quality -- it's worth the money. You're getting something that you're truly enjoying for that money. I quit smoking, but I spend WAY more than $400 a month on booze (that's about two good nights out at the bar if I'm buying drinks for ladies in addition to myself) -- and I really enjoy that.

But what are you getting for that $400 worth of premium gas vs. regular gas? You're getting four or five horsepower that you will literally never notice the difference on. You're basically spending it on nothing at all. And people who won't blink at spending $400 on something that gives them $400 worth of enjoyment will, absolutely, have qualms about spending $400 on something that they will derive absolutely zero enjoyment from since they'll never notice it.

 

[Asharus]

some people are just brainwashed into thinking that premium is the end-all gas "premium or nothing"

this is actually the first car ive had in a while that requires less than premium, so I've found it really hard to switch to 87, but that doesn't mean im not open to doing it.

 

[jmhtang]

Would love to do a double-blind test on those who claim they can tell the difference between the 87 and 93 octane. Maybe they can…maybe they can't. Would be interesting, though.

 

[Free Agent]

Would love to do a double-blind test on those who claim they can tell the difference between the 87 and 93 octane. Maybe they can…maybe they can't. Would be interesting, though.

I'd like to see a back to back test of a stock '15 5.0 on 87 vs. 93 on the dyno with complete graph to see area under the curve and peak HP differences. I think that would go a long way to ending this debate.

 

[jmhtang]

I'd like to see a back to back test of a stock '15 5.0 on 87 vs. 93 on the dyno with complete graph to see area under the curve and peak HP differences. I think that would go a long way to ending this debate.

I agree. But the subjective claims I find amusing. Reminds me of my audiophile days when people could claim to hear differences in solid state electronics, tubes, turntables (remember them?), phono cartridges, etc.

Sponsored