Premium fuel for longevity?

[Dice Roll]

I’ve had good luck on most stuff in getting an mpg gain by running 89. 87 fuel doesn’t have as much btu in it. Some stuff will boost timing enough to see a net gain.

haven’t tried that in the expy as I tend to fill at Costco so not an option.

 

[Expedition Dave]

Thanks Lou! Personally, I think it is a bit of "false advertising" unless it does deliver 375/470, and a bit more with higher octane.
Hmmm... thought they would have learned from the Cobra fiasco lol

 

[Lou Hamilton]

Thanks Lou! Personally, I think it is a bit of "false advertising" unless it does deliver 375/470, and a bit more with higher octane.
Hmmm... thought they would have learned from the Cobra fiasco lol

Outside of power performance, I used 87 for the first 3000-3500 of ownership. My average mpg was around 13.1. I am now at 14,000 miles on my Expedition and the mpg using 93 is around 16. One difference if that I never towed with 87, but there has been about 500-600 miles of towing with 93.

Take that for what it is worth, but overall, I feel I get better mpg using 93. Do I feel I have a solid ROI by using 93? Probably not yet, but maybe eventually I will.

 

[Matticus]

I’ve had good luck on most stuff in getting an mpg gain by running 89. 87 fuel doesn’t have as much btu in it. Some stuff will boost timing enough to see a net gain.

haven’t tried that in the expy as I tend to fill at Costco so not an option.

Do you have something to back up your BTU claim? I'm not a fuel expert, but everything I have ever read from the "experts" has stated that octane rating has zero to do with the amount of energy a gallon of gasoline contains

 

[haviland]

My '17 is the 4th Expy I've had. For over 50 years I have been buying the cheapest gas available and the lowest octane. I have had ZERO fuel issues.

This latest Expy gets about 4 to 5 better mpg than any of my earlier ones. It also pulls our 8,000 boat rig better as well. Better power and more mpgs, and they said it couldn't be done. Thanks eco-boost and the efforts to mandate better economy! (Too bad those efforts have been temporarily stalled.)

 

[RobertM]

Two different discussions here. Octane and additives. I can assure you top tier additives are snake oil. Higher Octane can have benefits under the right circumstances, like trailer hauling.

 

[Grey ghost]

You make more power and get better mileage with the higher octane fuels. 87 octane retards your timing and puts you on the low edge of adjustability so if you happen to get a bad batch of gas. Or some other variable you could cause a problem.
I don't understand the logic of buying a reasonably expensive vehicle and trying to save what 3 bucks on a tank of fuel. Buy a Kia they probably will run on lamp oil.

 

[LokiWolf]

There is some excellent advice in this thread, and some fairly inaccurate info all the same. For clarity, I have hours of experience logging on Ecoboosts with various fuels and tunes, and I have a BS in Chemistry...so I might know what I am talking about.

1) Let's clarify BTU and Octane first. They are not directly related. In the past there was a correlation(will explain in a sec). 87/89/91/93 from the same station should have the same BTU's in most cases. Assuming they are all the same E(Ethanol) content. That being said, in the past(30+) years ago, it was actually quite the opposite of what one of the posts said above, 87 had higher BTU's than most 93 out there. The reason being the refinement process. The process actually had the negative result of decreasing the energy content, between the byproducts and additives, but the Octane was higher. Octane is merely the fuels ability to resist knock. Ethanol treated gas, typically E10, will have less BTU's than E0 and will get slightly less MPG if compared back to back under the same conditions.

2) Power Ratings, recommended Octane, and factory tuning. Power ratings and MPG's are based off a Federal standard using a fuel that is basically equivalent to 91(E10) Octane gas. It actually isn't really Gasoline, but it is a standard, so that all manufacturers that use the standard are on the same playing field. Anything less than 91(E10) and you are getting less than rated power most likely. EcoBoost motors to state it simply do not "Tune Up" to fuel they detune. Basically they ask for a certain power level(rated), and the Turbo, Fuel system and other things meet that demand. If knock is sensed, timing is pulled, fuel is decreased, and boost is decreased.

3) Ethanol vs Non-Ethanol Fuel. E10 is ALWAYS better for an Ecoboost vs E0. Ethanol has additional advantages like cooling and cleaning above it's octane advantages. Yes, if driving easy E0 91/93 will get you your best MPG, and will be slightly better than E10 91/93. E10 91/93 will yield the most power stock, and give the best experience all around.

Here is a good article to read...actual Data:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28565486/honda-cr-v-vs-bmw-m5-ford-f-150-dodge-charger/

 

[Matticus]

1) Let's clarify BTU and Octane first. They are not directly related. In the past there was a correlation(will explain in a sec). 87/89/91/93 from the same station should have the same BTU's in most cases. Assuming they are all the same E(Ethanol) content. That being said, in the past(30+) years ago, it was actually quite the opposite of what one of the posts above, 87 had higher BTU's than most 93 out there. The reason being the refinement process. The process actually had the negative result of decreasing the energy content, between the byproducts and additives, but the Octane was higher. Octane is merely the fuels ability to resist knock. Ethanol treated gas, typically E10, will have less BTU's than E0 and will get slightly less MPG if compared back to back under the same conditions.

Could you cite a source for your BTU claim? I've been hearing different variations of this (literally for decades) but have yet to see a definitive piece of information that supported the claim that, all other things being equal, gas stations had different levels of energy density based on the octane rating. This is the first time I've heard the explanation that it was due to the refinement process. Why would the refinery refine fuel meant to be 93 octane more/less than the gasoline meant for the other octane levels?

 

[LokiWolf]

Could you cite a source for your BTU claim? I've been hearing different variations of this (literally for decades) but have yet to see a definitive piece of information that supported the claim that, all other things being equal, gas stations had different levels of energy density based on the octane rating. This is the first time I've heard the explanation that it was due to the refinement process. Why would the refinery refine fuel meant to be 93 octane more/less than the gasoline meant for the other octane levels?

BTU’s and Octane are not the same thing or directly related. Go do some googling that is not related to an Automotive forum. The processes have gotten better. 93 is more refined crude, hence why it is more expensive. It take more effort to get crude to 93 Octane.

The same people that think 93 Octane has more BTU’s are the same people that think Ethanol is bad for a modern fuel system. When in reality it was the opposite in the past. 93 E0 will have more BTU’s than 93 E10, so in Canada where many stations have E10 87, but E0 93/94, the Premium will have higher BTU’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro