Best Octane for your EB

[Chops]

I use 91 because 93 is hard to find where I drive. I might have to search more thoroughly…




Edit: I asked google why 93 was not available where I live:

“The primary reason is elevation. At Tucson's higher altitude, the thinner air and lower atmospheric pressure reduce the engine's tendency to "knock" (pre-ignition). Because of this, the automotive industry considers 91 octane in elevated western states to perform equivalently to 93 octane at sea level. Therefore, fuel distributors do not supply 93 octane, as 91 satisfies the engine requirements of almost all premium vehicles. “
Source - google

Sponsored

 

[HeyBales]

So unlike the human body - where you run it at altitude and then get a performance gain when you go to lower elevations, don't go lower with your full tank and expect to impress until you refill.

 

[Chops]

So unlike the human body - where you run it at altitude and then get a performance gain when you go to lower elevations, don't go lower with your full tank and expect to impress until you refill.

Eddy Merckx set his hour record at high elevation Mexico City. Thinner air improved his aerodynamics more than the thinner air weakened his lungs.

My high elevation Maverick gets the best of both worlds

 

[matmondro]

93 is very readily available here in most of Michigan. I will run it in my EB if I'm towing. Otherwise, I just run 87.

 

[billbillw]

That video is AI slop. It doesn't show any engine damage difference like the teaser photos show. It is all about a small increase in fuel economy, which is probably more significant on the F150/2.7 than it is on a Maverick Ecoboost. Also, I haven't seen a 30 cent gap between 87 and 93 in Georgia for probably 10 years. It is currently closer to 70 cents at most stations.

 

[billbillw]

I use 91 because 93 is hard to find where I drive. I might have to search more thoroughly…



Edit: I asked google why 93 was not available where I live:

“The primary reason is elevation. At Tucson's higher altitude, the thinner air and lower atmospheric pressure reduce the engine's tendency to "knock" (pre-ignition). Because of this, the automotive industry considers 91 octane in elevated western states to perform equivalently to 93 octane at sea level. Therefore, fuel distributors do not supply 93 octane, as 91 satisfies the engine requirements of almost all premium vehicles. “
Source - google

That's only part of the answer. It also has to do with the limited amount of premium fuel that can be made from a barrel of oil. Out west, there are more high performance (European) vehicles that require premium (especially in California), so the demand for octane out of that barrel of oil is higher. They provide 91 as a stopgap. 91 is the highest you can get even at sea level locations out west.

 

[Chops]

That video is AI slop. It doesn't show any engine damage difference like the teaser photos show. It is all about a small increase in fuel economy, which is probably more significant on the F150/2.7 than it is on a Maverick Ecoboost. Also, I haven't seen a 30 cent gap between 87 and 93 in Georgia for probably 10 years. It is currently closer to 70 cents at most stations.

I have a good nose for the dreaded “AI Slop” and would not post a YouTube video that I felt was “slop”.

Yes, the thumbnail was misleading - teasing that a long term test was being performed when the test was a short term one.

“And the national average cost difference between regular and premium gas ranges from $0.50 to $0.90 per gallon. This roughly 20% to 25% price premium typically translates to an extra $450 to $600 a yearfor drivers covering 15,000 miles. [1, 2, 3]”
Source - google

Meaning the test understated the extra cost of using premium by quite a bit. Maybe the mpg & 0-60 tests were also exaggerated?

All that said, I think the most important takeaway is that using 87 octane puts your ECU in constant retard mode. Not healthy for an engine to go full retard.

 

[Idahomaverick60]

I use 91 because 93 is hard to find where I drive. I might have to search more thoroughly…




Edit: I asked google why 93 was not available where I live:

“The primary reason is elevation. At Tucson's higher altitude, the thinner air and lower atmospheric pressure reduce the engine's tendency to "knock" (pre-ignition). Because of this, the automotive industry considers 91 octane in elevated western states to perform equivalently to 93 octane at sea level. Therefore, fuel distributors do not supply 93 octane, as 91 satisfies the engine requirements of almost all premium vehicles. “
Source - google

I have lived and driven all over the US and never seen 93. Have seen 92 twice while traveling. In my town even the ethanol free is 91. (Elevation 750 at the river/ ~1400 at the airport)

 

[Idahomaverick60]

That video is AI slop. It doesn't show any engine damage difference like the teaser photos show. It is all about a small increase in fuel economy, which is probably more significant on the F150/2.7 than it is on a Maverick Ecoboost. Also, I haven't seen a 30 cent gap between 87 and 93 in Georgia for probably 10 years. It is currently closer to 70 cents at most stations.

60 to 80 cents in north Idaho. A dollar over in Portland some places. I have tested multiple tanks and get exactly ZERO difference in mileage. But noticeable improvement in passing acceleration.

 

[MavStangVa]

I have lived and driven all over the US and never seen 93. Have seen 92 twice while traveling. In my town even the ethanol free is 91. (Elevation 750 at the river/ ~1400 at the airport)

Come to Virginia. 93 everywhere, 91 not to be found.

 

[billbillw]

I have a good nose for the dreaded “AI Slop” and would not post a YouTube video that I felt was “slop”.


All that said, I think the most important takeaway is that using 87 octane puts your ECU in constant retard mode. Not healthy for an engine to go full retard.

I think you need to get your nosed checked.

The full retard is not really the issue you make it sound. It is simply less spark advance. There is a range of timing that will make an engine smooth with a given range of octane, temperature, RPM, load, and boost. Ford has designed it to be safely operated with 87 octane. Yes, the power output is reduced slightly, but unless you are towing or pulling repeated full throttle accelerations, nobody will notice a difference otherwise. I've been using 87 in mine since it was new in 2023 and is has more than enough power for me to get in trouble on the streets.

 

[zorki1c]

The sticker on the gas filler cover says 87. That’s what we use at altitude 2500 feet and it runs fine

 

[zorki1c]

I have a good nose for the dreaded “AI Slop” and would not post a YouTube video that I felt was “slop”.

Yes, the thumbnail was misleading - teasing that a long term test was being performed when the test was a short term one.

“And the national average cost difference between regular and premium gas ranges from $0.50 to $0.90 per gallon. This roughly 20% to 25% price premium typically translates to an extra $450 to $600 a yearfor drivers covering 15,000 miles. [1, 2, 3]”
Source - google

Meaning the test understated the extra cost of using premium by quite a bit. Maybe the mpg & 0-60 tests were also exaggerated?

All that said, I think the most important takeaway is that using 87 octane puts your ECU in constant retard mode. Not healthy for an engine to go full retard.

So Ford says 87 is fine because they want u to ruin your engine?

 

[Chops]

I think you need to get your nosed checked.

Why do you consider it AI slop?

The graphics are in perfect harmony with the dialogue. No generic out context visuals found in AI slop.

The test protocol is robust. If AI - the test was well thought out & presented. Maybe you’re one of those that think all AI is slop. Not a healthy attitude imo.

I can’t but think you take most offense at the put down of using 87 octane? There are good arguments to be made for using 87. Express those points instead of resorting to the tired “AI Slop” gambit?

 

[Chops]

So Ford says 87 is fine because they want u to ruin your engine?

Ford says clearly says 87 won’t ruin your engine. States it clearly. I believe that of course.

They also state that 91 or above will give you better performance. Performance that goes beyond just acceleration, especially in the long run.

But no - EB engines will not be ruined by using 87. Don’t be a such a drama queen please.

Sponsored