Do you need premium gas?

[JASmith]

AAA conducted a test comparing peak power and fuel efficiency with 87 and 91 on several different cars/engines, including an F150 with 3.5L ecoboost https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content...ium-Fuel-Phase-II-Research-Report-FINAL-2.pdf. The ecoboost had 5% better efficiency and 2.1% more power on 91. The difference - in both efficiency and power- was significantly lower for some other cars and even negative in two instances. Based on that data, I'd wager that the 2L loses 10hp at most on 87. I know VW recommends premium on my turbocharged engine and the only reason is peak power, which they list as losing a whopping 3hp when using 87.

Sounds like the AAA tester either didn't know what they were doing, or California fuel is worse than people realize.

The closest modern example in power to the 2.0L Ecoboost is the Mazda 3 Turbo. Mazda advertises 250hp on 93 octane (same as Ford) and 227hp on 87 octane. Source: https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2021-mazda3-hatchback The ecoboost is even more reliant on the turbocharger for performance than the Mazda since its a 25% smaller displacement engine, so my estimate of 25hp loss in the summer is conservative if anything.

Car and Driver tested the F150 on 87 octane and 93 octane and found a 20hp difference and 0-100mph decrease from 16 seconds on 87 octane to 14.2 seconds on 93 octane.

Power at the wheels dropped from 380 to 360 horsepower with the change from 93 to 87 octane. That difference seemed to grow, and we could even feel it from the driver's seat at the test track. Compared with premium fuel, regular feed sapped the F-150's urgency both leaving the line and in the meat of the tach sweep. The rush to 60 mph softened to a still-blistering 5.9 seconds, and the quarter-mile stretched from 14.0 to 14.5 seconds, with trap speed falling 4 mph. Tapped into the Ford's CAN bus, we recorded a peak boost pressure roughly 1.9 psi lower during acceleration runs on regular gas, down more than 10 percent compared with the 18.1-psi peak on premium. The high-octane gas also helped when soft-pedaling the accelerator, elevating 75-mph fuel economy from 17.0 to 17.6 mpg.

That testing was done on a cool morning, if it had been a Texas summer the power difference would have been far more dramatic on the F-150 as high ambient heat drastically increases chance of ping.

Sponsored

 

[CoryDallas8123]

I have one on order, XLT lux pkg and 360 in Alto Blue. So ready for it to get scheduled.

Alto blue is a great color on this truck. Solid choice.

 

[CoryDallas8123]

I'd throw out there, regardless of what octane you run try to add a fuel cleaner at each fill up. I run Conklin Fuel Mate Plus, 3 oz. per fill up. Helps keep everyone in the engine clean and happy.

https://www.conklin.com/product-catalog/vehicle-products/fuel-mate-plus

 

[MLowe05]

I'd like to throw out there that there is a lot of misinformation - even right here in this thread.

There is no need for a fuel system cleaner every tank.

Why is the Mazda3 the closest modern example? Why not my G70? It has a 255hp 2.0T that "recommends" premium. I haven't put it on a dyno, but I can tell you that it makes 0 noticeable difference whatsoever in either performance or MPG. I don't often.. or ever.. do any 0-100mph runs on public roads, and if I did my concern would be fines/jail/suspended license and not less than 2 seconds difference it took.

You can't really dismiss AAA as "not knowing what they're doing" and then hype C&D. Both tests can be valid and have somewhat different results. But my favorite part is that premium increased MPG by six tenths of 1mpg. At a cost of 60-70c extra per gallon.

You can decide if that's worth it for you. I can't make that math work out for me, even though money is not an issue.

 

[CoryDallas8123]

I'd like to throw out there that there is a lot of misinformation - even right here in this thread.

There is no need for a fuel system cleaner every tank.

Why is the Mazda3 the closest modern example? Why not my G70? It has a 255hp 2.0T that "recommends" premium. I haven't put it on a dyno, but I can tell you that it makes 0 noticeable difference whatsoever in either performance or MPG. I don't often.. or ever.. do any 0-100mph runs on public roads, and if I did my concern would be fines/jail/suspended license and not less than 2 seconds difference it took.

You can't really dismiss AAA as "not knowing what they're doing" and then hype C&D. Both tests can be valid and have somewhat different results. But my favorite part is that premium increased MPG by six tenths of 1mpg. At a cost of 60-70c extra per gallon.

You can decide if that's worth it for you. I can't make that math work out for me, even though money is not an issue.

To each their own.

I've been adding fuel cleaner in all my vehicles for going on 21 years now. No motor problems in any, and none were new vehicles. Last was going on 180,000 so not crazy high miles but not nothing. Just my take and I added it as a suggestion to "try" not speaking in absolutes.

 

[MakinDoForNow]

Saw a vid on Youtube and they said that to get the mileage as advertised by Ford you had to run premium gas. Has anybody heard that? Tim Bartz what do you say you Maverick wizard?

I think I read somewhere that premium is used for determining mpg ratings since the increased octane rating helps to improve mpg slightly. Many years ago I ran regular for couple months followed by premium and found that cost per mile for gas was the same to the 3rd decimal. Don't know if that still holds. I tend to run regular now and may or may not add Lucas gas treatment as it's supposed to help disperse water that can be attracted to the alcohol and clean and lubricate things. Am still getting 30-31 mpg on CR-V with 125,000 miles and tires having 4-4.5/32" tread so speedometer off 1-1.5%? From new tire readings?

 

[stoptothink]

I'd like to throw out there that there is a lot of misinformation - even right here in this thread.

There is no need for a fuel system cleaner every tank.

Why is the Mazda3 the closest modern example? Why not my G70? It has a 255hp 2.0T that "recommends" premium. I haven't put it on a dyno, but I can tell you that it makes 0 noticeable difference whatsoever in either performance or MPG. I don't often.. or ever.. do any 0-100mph runs on public roads, and if I did my concern would be fines/jail/suspended license and not less than 2 seconds difference it took.

You can't really dismiss AAA as "not knowing what they're doing" and then hype C&D. Both tests can be valid and have somewhat different results. But my favorite part is that premium increased MPG by six tenths of 1mpg. At a cost of 60-70c extra per gallon.

You can decide if that's worth it for you. I can't make that math work out for me, even though money is not an issue.

Similarly confused as to why the 2.5LT Mazda engine is any better an example than my 1.4T VW engine? VW recommends premium, yet states its testing nets 3 peak HP over 87. I'm not wasting my time testing that because even if it was 5x that amount, I wouldn't be able to notice the difference in normal driving.

If you are going to the track, sure get the premium, but the chances of actually noticing a difference on the street are slim. And even if you could notice, does that matter to you? Similarly, money is not an issue (this truck is costing us ~1 month of household income), but the financial math doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ron Neal]

I am going to follow the owners manual and run regular most of the time but will bump up to premium when towing/hauling or when I feel its beneficial. My 20 Ranger EB ran fine on regular and my wife's Kona 1.6 turbo has never seen anything other than regular. My supercharged MG gets the premium.

 

[MLowe05]

Many years ago I ran regular for couple months followed by premium and found that cost per mile for gas was the same to the 3rd decimal.

Now I won't claim to be a math whiz or anything, but you're not going to achieve anywhere close to that now. I will take you at your word about many years ago, when premium was .20c more per gallon, even though that doesn't seem like it could work either.

Right now my local station prices are:

87 - $2.999
89 - $3.449
93 - $3.799

Filling up our G70 usually takes 14 gallons. That works out to $41.99 for 87 or $53.17 for 93, a difference of $11.18. The car will go about 350 miles on either grade, there is no difference.

That's about .119c per mile for 87 or about .152c per mile for 93.

To get the same cost per mile, the G70 would have to go and additional 95 miles per tank on 93. That would mean that fuel efficiency would have to increase 7 miles to the gallon on premium. We don't see any difference, but if there is one at all it is probably more like 1/10th of what would be necessary to make financial sense.

Lastly, my favorite internet car forum trope is the whole "if you can't afford 93, you can't afford the car.." -- no, none of us accumulated any wealth at all by throwing money in the garbage.

 

[MLowe05]

Similarly confused as to why the 2.5LT Mazda engine is any better an example than my 1.4T VW engine?

The Mazda analogy was pulled out of thin air and is invalid. Mazda released figures for both octanes. Until Ford does that, the two are not comparable.

 

[Down]

Now I won't claim to be a math whiz or anything, but you're not going to achieve anywhere close to that now. I will take you at your word about many years ago, when premium was .20c more per gallon, even though that doesn't seem like it could work either.

Right now my local station prices are:

87 - $2.999
89 - $3.449
93 - $3.799

Filling up our G70 usually takes 14 gallons. That works out to $41.99 for 87 or $53.17 for 93, a difference of $11.18. The car will go about 350 miles on either grade, there is no difference.

That's about .119c per mile for 87 or about .152c per mile for 93.

To get the same cost per mile, the G70 would have to go and additional 95 miles per tank on 93. That would mean that fuel efficiency would have to increase 7 miles to the gallon on premium. We don't see any difference, but if there is one at all it is probably more like 1/10th of what would be necessary to make financial sense.

Lastly, my favorite internet car forum trope is the whole "if you can't afford 93, you can't afford the car.." -- no, none of us accumulated any wealth at all by throwing money in the garbage.

Not countering your point but prolly worth keeping in mind that part of your discrepancy is that you jump straight from 89 to 93. Lots of us have to put on a Sherlock Holmes hat to find anything north of 91 in our metros.

My local gas station is currently 2.99 for 87 and 3.49 for 91, which would automagically knock 30c a gallon off your figures. Not a huge number by any means but if we're debating regular vs premium gas, we've already went down the nit-pick rabbit hole. Might as well go all the way in.

 

[JASmith]

Why is the Mazda3 the closest modern example? Why not my G70? It has a 255hp 2.0T that "recommends" premium. I haven't put it on a dyno

So you admit you have absolutely no data other than your gut feeling? How could you possibly even be able to tell the difference as an individual since you have no way to evacuate the old fuel?

You realize that if you have 87 in the tank and you put in 93 octane, you will still have 87 octane in the lines until that is exhausted, so you would notice zero change initially, and then the 93 octane wouldn't be 93 octane as you have diluted it with whatever remains in the fuel tank.

That's the most unscientific nonsense I've read today.

stoptothink[/B]] Similarly confused as to why the 2.5LT Mazda engine is any better an example than my 1.4T VW engine? VW recommends premium, yet states its testing nets 3 peak HP over 87.

Source? If you can't find one, at the very least list the make and model of your vehicle so we can verify your claim.

The Mazda analogy was pulled out of thin air and is invalid. Mazda released figures for both octanes. Until Ford does that, the two are not comparable.

What are you talking about? The Mazda numbers are from a 2022 vehicle with the source of the claim posted. I didn't make that up.

And use your brain, if there was no difference between 87 and 93 octane then Ford would not recommend 93 octane nor publish on all their documentation that 250hp was only achievable on 93 octane if octane didn't matter. That's common sense.

 

[CoryDallas8123]

Not countering your point but prolly worth keeping in mind that part of your discrepancy is that you jump straight from 89 to 93. Lots of us have to put on a Sherlock Holmes hat to find anything north of 91 in our metros.

My local gas station is currently 2.99 for 87 and 3.49 for 91, which would automagically knock 30c a gallon off your figures. Not a huge number by any means but if we're debating regular vs premium gas, we've already went down the nit-pick rabbit hole. Might as well go all the way in.

That's awesome. I think we need to throw out there driving habit, ambient air temperature, altitude, humidity.

This argument, no longer a conversation, is now peak internet "IM RIGHT" "NO, IM RIGHT!"

hahahaha.

 

[MLowe05]

So you admit you have absolutely no data other than your gut feeling? How could you possibly even be able to tell the difference as an individual since you have no way to evacuate the old fuel?

You realize that if you have 87 in the tank and you put in 93 octane, you will still have 87 octane in the lines until that is exhausted, so you would notice zero change initially, and then the 93 octane wouldn't be 93 octane as you have diluted it with whatever remains in the fuel tank.

That's the most unscientific nonsense I've read today.

You think I can't track and calculate fuel expenses, or how this works? I am not the one randomly making up stuff - deciding which tests are valid, deciding which engines are comparable, etc.

So you have dyno'd a Maverick 2.0EB running 87 and 91-93, then? No? And the tests that did involve dyno testing just showed they "didn't know what they were doing."

Right. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. That was obvious when you randomly selected the Mazda 2.5T out of thin air. Throw your money away if it makes you feel better.

 

[IPunchCholla]

To each their own.

I've been adding fuel cleaner in all my vehicles for going on 21 years now. No motor problems in any, and none were new vehicles. Last was going on 180,000 so not crazy high miles but not nothing. Just my take and I added it as a suggestion to "try" not speaking in absolutes.

Sponsored