What octane do you use

[1BadAss16CS]

87 and 89 octane is crap fuel in any high performance engine. They are designed to run on 93 octane, and therefore low octane is detrimental. Not to mention that almost all oil companies these days add detergents to their premium fuel that they don't put into their regular fuel. Chevron (Techron) and Shell (V-Power) are perfect examples.

And for the last damn time...the 2.3 and 5.0 engine ARE NOT DESIGNED TO RUN ON 87 OCTANE. It's simply COMPATIBLE with 87 octane. That's not an opinion, that's a FACT. An engine designed to run on 87 octane will not produce any additional power when using 93 octane, period. I already explained to you how the calibration engineers allow for cheap people like yourself to run low octane fuel, it's simply a de-rate strategy. The engine itself is not "designed" that way.

As far as owner's manuals, they are published to show the cheapest way the vehicle can be operated. That is a direct result of "cost to own", which many sources will publish when comparing vehicles. Which, of course, is a push from the marketing people.

In other words, the minimum octane, the minimum oil quality, and the maximum fluid change and service intervals are published in the owner's manual. 87 octane isn't actually "recommended"; it's simply stated that way to ensure that the target audience doesn't avoid purchasing the vehicle due to fuel cost. With a car like the Corvette, they publish that the vehicle requires high octane fuel, because the price point and the target audience of that vehicle will not be deterred by such information. It's a much different audience than buyers of a $20,XXX Mustang.

Please, do tell...what engineers have you spoken with that told you otherwise? You can "call BS" all you want, the bottom line is you have no experience in the automotive field or anything to back up the nonsense that you are posting. It's simply your opinion, nothing more. And you're not doing anyone any favors by posting it.

Guess you missed my post. :cheers:

As far as the 5.0L engine goes you will lose 1% and that comes directly from FORD themselves.

Secondly, Ford does recommend 87 octane for normal useage... meaning not racing or driving it hard which falls into "severe duty". That is FACT.

Another FACT = all engines knock. The technology in todays ECU/knock sensors are so good it can adjust ignition timing on a cylinder by cylinder basis. The ECU will learn an ignition trim that scales the entire ignition table up or down depending on how much knock it picks up. I'm sure your familiar with OAR.

You'll never harm a stock 5.0 engine running 87 octane.

So stop blowing smoke up everyones ass.... low octane is NOT detrimental.

Sponsored

 

[AZ_Ryan]

Guess you missed my post. :cheers:

As far as the 5.0L engine goes you will lose 1% and that comes directly from FORD themselves.

Secondly, Ford does recommend 87 octane for normal useage... meaning not racing or driving it hard which falls into "severe duty". That is FACT.

Another FACT = all engines knock. The technology in todays ECU/knock sensors are so good it can adjust ignition timing on a cylinder by cylinder basis. The ECU will learn an ignition trim that scales the entire ignition table up or down depending on how much knock it picks up. I'm sure your familiar with OAR.

You'll never harm a stock 5.0 engine running 87 octane.

So stop blowing smoke up everyones ass.... low octane is NOT detrimental.

:amen:

 

[FordTechOne]

Guess you missed my post. :cheers:

As far as the 5.0L engine goes you will lose 1% and that comes directly from FORD themselves.

I saw your post, and I intentionally ignored it because it's NONSENSE. You found some second hand information from a publication that is in no way associated with the manufacturer. It's not accurate information.

When the Coyote was released in 2011, Ford rated the horsepower on both 87 and 91 octane, and here are the results:

Horsepower

412 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 91 octane
402 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 87 octane
Torque
390 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 91 octane
377 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 87 octane

Unlike you, I have a source to back up my data:

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

So the difference between 87 and 91 octane is 10HP and 13 lb-ft of torque, and that was measured when the engine was only rated at 412HP. When you factor in the additional power that the 2015+ models have and the fact that the advertised horsepower is only produced on 93 (not 91) octane, you're easily looking at a 20-25HP with low octane fuel. Still think it's 1%? :lol:

Secondly, Ford does recommend 87 octane for normal useage... meaning not racing or driving it hard which falls into "severe duty". That is FACT.

The only fact is that you clearly don't understand marketing or cost of ownership considerations. You think that they "recommend" 87 octane, yet the engine only makes it's advertised power on 93 octane? See anything wrong with that?

Another FACT = all engines knock. The technology in todays ECU/knock sensors are so good it can adjust ignition timing on a cylinder by cylinder basis. The ECU will learn an ignition trim that scales the entire ignition table up or down depending on how much knock it picks up. I'm sure your familiar with OAR.

I'm more than familiar with what you speak of, yet you don't seem to grasp the concept very well.

No, all engines don't "knock". An engine will only knock when the detonation resistance of the fuel (octane) is not adequate for the design of the engine. In other words, running 87 octane in an engine designed to run 93 octane will result in knock. Running 93 octane in the same engine will result in zero knock under normal conditions. I have one of my vehicles tuned for 91 octane, and I run 91 octane. I know you'll find this extremely hard to believe....but....when I datalog, there are zero knock counts. Amazing.

You'll never harm a stock 5.0 engine running 87 octane.

So stop blowing smoke up everyones ass.... low octane is NOT detrimental.[/B]

The only person blowing any smoke is the smoke coming out of your ears because you're obviously extremely upset that you are just plain wrong.

Are you willing to stand behind everyone who experiences an engine failure due to low octane and cover their repair bills for them? Don't give out bad advice.

If you honestly consider engine knock "NOT detrimental", then you obviously don't have a clue as to the effects that octane can have on a high performance engine. I've seen more than a few engines come apart due to low octane fuel; perhaps you should stop by and tell everyone how "not detrimental" the fuel octane is :lol:

 

[1BadAss16CS]

I saw your post, and I intentionally ignored it because it's NONSENSE. You found some second hand information from a publication that is in no way associated with the manufacturer. It's not accurate information.

When the Coyote was released in 2011, Ford rated the horsepower on both 87 and 91 octane, and here are the results:

Horsepower

412 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 91 octane
402 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 87 octane
Torque
390 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 91 octane
377 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 87 octane

Unlike you, I have a source to back up my data:

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

So the difference between 87 and 91 octane is 10HP and 13 lb-ft of torque, and that was measured when the engine was only rated at 412HP. When you factor in the additional power that the 2015+ models have and the fact that the advertised horsepower is only produced on 93 (not 91) octane, you're easily looking at a 20-25HP with low octane fuel. Still think it's 1%? :lol:



The only fact is that you clearly don't understand marketing or cost of ownership considerations. You think that they "recommend" 87 octane, yet the engine only makes it's advertised power on 93 octane? See anything wrong with that?



I'm more than familiar with what you speak of, yet you don't seem to grasp the concept very well.

No, all engines don't "knock". An engine will only knock when the detonation resistance of the fuel (octane) is not adequate for the design of the engine. In other words, running 87 octane in an engine designed to run 93 octane will result in knock. Running 93 octane in the same engine will result in zero knock under normal conditions. I have one of my vehicles tuned for 91 octane, and I run 91 octane. I know you'll find this extremely hard to believe....but....when I datalog, there are zero knock counts. Amazing.



The only person blowing any smoke is the smoke coming out of your ears because you're obviously extremely upset that you are just plain wrong.

Are you willing to stand behind everyone who experiences an engine failure due to low octane and cover their repair bills for them? Don't give out bad advice.

If you honestly consider engine knock "NOT detrimental", then you obviously don't have a clue as to the effects that octane can have on a high performance engine. I've seen more than a few engines come apart due to low octane fuel; perhaps you should stop by and tell everyone how "not detrimental" the fuel octane is :lol:

I'm going to sit and argue with some know it all on the internet because I really don't care...

But with the statements above you've proved to me hands down.... you know nothing of modern technology and tuning. You have no idea on how the ECU works or timing corrections. Keep goole searching and reading internet articles. You might catch up at some point.

Go tell any good tuner that all engines don't knock and see what they tell you. :lol:

 

[Lost]

87 and 89 octane is crap fuel in any high performance engine. They are designed to run on 93 octane, and therefore low octane is detrimental. Not to mention that almost all oil companies these days add detergents to their premium fuel that they don't put into their regular fuel. Chevron (Techron) and Shell (V-Power) are perfect examples.

And for the last damn time...the 2.3 and 5.0 engine ARE NOT DESIGNED TO RUN ON 87 OCTANE. It's simply COMPATIBLE with 87 octane. That's not an opinion, that's a FACT. An engine designed to run on 87 octane will not produce any additional power when using 93 octane, period. I already explained to you how the calibration engineers allow for cheap people like yourself to run low octane fuel, it's simply a de-rate strategy. The engine itself is not "designed" that way.

As far as owner's manuals, they are published to show the cheapest way the vehicle can be operated. That is a direct result of "cost to own", which many sources will publish when comparing vehicles. Which, of course, is a push from the marketing people.

In other words, the minimum octane, the minimum oil quality, and the maximum fluid change and service intervals are published in the owner's manual. 87 octane isn't actually "recommended"; it's simply stated that way to ensure that the target audience doesn't avoid purchasing the vehicle due to fuel cost. With a car like the Corvette, they publish that the vehicle requires high octane fuel, because the price point and the target audience of that vehicle will not be deterred by such information. It's a much different audience than buyers of a $20,XXX Mustang.

Please, do tell...what engineers have you spoken with that told you otherwise? You can "call BS" all you want, the bottom line is you have no experience in the automotive field or anything to back up the nonsense that you are posting. It's simply your opinion, nothing more. And you're not doing anyone any favors by posting it.

Meh. For 1% hit in power, and mostly highway driving anyway, I'll take my chances. Equivalent to losing a lawnmower in power.

 

[Braski]

:doh:Holly shit, just put in what you can afford! I can't believe this thread is on page 13. I will chime in again when it hits the 20's.:headbonk:Honestly though, why put in any less than what is available. If your worried about gas prices or mileage you shouldn't of bought a mustang. Gas prices are at a 10 yr low, treat her to at least 93 if you can.

 

[Lost]

:doh:Holly shit, just put in what you can afford! I can't believe this thread is on page 13. I will chime in again when it hits the 20's.:headbonk:Honestly though, why put in any less than what is available. If your worried about gas prices or mileage you shouldn't of bought a mustang. Gas prices are at a 10 yr low, treat her to at least 93 if you can.

I put on 1000 miles last week. This week at least 500. Runs great on the cheap stuff.

 

[SpeedLu]

It's blasphemy to put 87 octane in the god's chariot. That ish is for econo shitboxes like civics.

 

[Hack]

:doh:Holly shit, just put in what you can afford! I can't believe this thread is on page 13. I will chime in again when it hits the 20's.:headbonk:Honestly though, why put in any less than what is available. If your worried about gas prices or mileage you shouldn't of bought a mustang. Gas prices are at a 10 yr low, treat her to at least 93 if you can.

Right. I can afford to throw an extra hundred in the bin every week, so why don't I just run aviation fuel?

I don't buy gas based on what I can afford. I base it on Ford's recommendations. 87 for the GT. Buying 93 for a regular commute is just throwing money away. I do run 93 in my GT350 when I can because Ford recommends it, but I also run 91 at times because I understand that Ford says 91 is also acceptable. The GT350 has a higher compression ratio than the GT, so the octane recommendations for the two cars aren't the same.

 

[DarkestHour]

93 or 91 if the local BP is closed. The car will statically scale timing based on OAR value(-1 is advancing timing, 1 is retarding timing) and also advance or retard dynamically based on feedback from the knock sensors. Spent plenty of time tuning another Ford platform so I'm well versed in how this works but you will never catch me putting anything lower than 91 in the engine.

 

[Spartan]

What is on the door and in the manual is all you need to run...87. No harm to the engine. Otherwise that number would be higher. Just like it is on a German car. Otherwise Ford would get in lawsuits if their was engine damage or harm.

/facts.

 

[DarkestHour]

What is on the door and in the manual is all you need to run...87. No harm to the engine. Otherwise that number would be higher. Just like it is on a German car. Otherwise Ford would get in lawsuits if their was engine damage or harm.

/facts.

Sure, if you want to introduce higher risk of blowing up your EB or don't care for performance in your engine. Seems silly to me to spend $30k+ on a car and not being able to afford 91 octane.

 

[BmacIL]

Sure, if you want to introduce higher risk of blowing up your EB or don't care for performance in your engine. Seems silly to me to spend $30k+ on a car and not being able to afford 91 octane.

On a stock tune there is no risk of this in either engine.

 

[daltron]

 

[mustang1]

if Ford recommends 87 for "normal" duty, and higher octane for "severe" duty, then it seems like they expect at least some potential for detonation and timing pull on 87 / severe.

So what is "severe" duty ?
5500-6500 RPM?
WOT in 6th gear?

Sponsored