Octane vs MPG, 87 vs 93, anyone compared?

[dalola]

Guys, I was just wondering if anyone logged MPGs with 87 and 93, and what the difference was. Not the pros and cons of octane or anything else related to octane, engine performance, engine longevity, or if the Earth is round or flat.

Thanks to the few of you who actually answered me.

lol....whats really funny is, the very first response to your original question was right, SPECIFICALLY in regards to an EB Maverick. The fuel upgrade will indeed get you ~1-2 +or - mpg, pending numerous other circumstances.

Most of this thread is like a can of ignorance that just blew up. Good Lord....

Sponsored

 

[GPSMan]

Isn't dry gas just alcohol? Was used to soak up water back in the day. Have not seen that stuff in years.

Basically, in a nut shell, yes.

Most gas has 10% ethanol. 200 proof.

10% of a gallon is 12.8 ounces.

The ethanol can easily dissolve 10% water. Now you have 180 proof.
180 to 186 is the limit that won't separate in your tank.

10% of 10% is 1% or 1.28 ounces.

Each gallon of gasoline can effectively dissolve and remove 1.28 ounces of water. EACH Gallon.

So that's 1.28 x 15 or 19.2 ounces per 15 gallons pumped.

If you are putting in 19 ounces of water each time you pump gas, well, I think you should change your source of fuel, and maybe your procedure!

I guess the biggest unknown is how much water the E10 already has before you got it.


MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

 

[rlhdweman]

We have built in basis, now take your experiment to the next level

Have someone (other than you) fill your maverick up for the next 5 fill-ups; they won't tell you what fuel grade was added. At the end of your 5th tank, have a look at the mileage and have your friend tell you what was in each tank. This is the only way to get past our internal biases.

Not necessary, I have run this test for decades on various vehicles, the difference between non ethanol gas & E-10 is proven, you can fool people, but you cannot fool the vehicles ECU, science & physics will not allow a different outcome.

 

[James K]

Has anyone compared their mpg running 87 verses 93? I'm curious if there is a gain and if so is it enough to overcome the price difference.

Octane does make a difference on MPG but not enough to warrant the cost when looking at MPG. However, there are a couple of additional saving when considering octane. Higher octane is actually gentler on an engine and may give you longer engine life. Also, higher octane most often has additional cleaning agents which can help hold down carbon buildup (although EB is DI). I generally spend the money but have used 87 octane and saw about 3 MPG difference on highway. I try to never tow using 87 and while it only adds 1 MPG (found out when I was empty and no premium available) the truck was noticeably different towing and I have the 4K package.

 

[James K]

Not necessary, I have run this test for decades on various vehicles, the difference between non ethanol gas & E-10 is proven, you can fool people, but you cannot fool the vehicles ECU, science & physics will not allow a different outcome.

Science has always allowed different outcomes and is constantly being revised. Oh, the proof of E-10 would be 20, not 200.

 

[janderson85]

Sure is a lot of posts. All I know is that in the manual it suggest using higher octane for towing and summer temp for better performance.

 

[RLader]

I tested 87e10 vs 91 no ethanol, the difference in my 200 mile test loop was 29.7 for the 87e10 & 32.6 for the 91, hand calculated. I believe the difference is more the ethanol than the octane, but the Maverick definately will patch farther with the 91. I do not have 87 without ethanol available where I live to test it.

My F-150 with a five liter engine lost ten percent mileage when the government made the gas companies add ten percent ethanol. Ethanol boosts octane not mileage. IMHO

 

[GPSMan]

Science has always allowed different outcomes and is constantly being revised. Oh, the proof of E-10 would be 20, not 200.

Proof is a term usually used in food grade alcohol and not used in gasoline.
it refers to alcohol and water not alcohol and gasoline.

However, 199 to 199.8 proof ethanol, as water free as practical, is added to gasoline, 10% by volume.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

 

[Mark S.]

Not necessary, I have run this test for decades on various vehicles, the difference between non ethanol gas & E-10 is proven, you can fool people, but you cannot fool the vehicles ECU, science & physics will not allow a different outcome.

Hand computation on a single tank is not sufficient--there are too many variables. The only way to get an accurate comparison is over several tankfuls. The Owner's Manuals for Ford's EcoBoost Mustang and Bronco Sport say to get accurate hand measurements you should track miles over at least three tanks.

For what it's worth, I own a Bronco Sport with the 2.0L, so the drivetrain in my car is largely the same as that in the 2.0L Maverick. I tracked mileage by hand over several thousand miles of driving. Driving more miles averages the variables yielding more accurate comparisons. I compared regular and premium, and ECO and NORMAL driving modes. You can view the results in this thread over at the Bronco Sport forum. To answer OP's question: there was no significant difference in fuel economy between regular and premium gas.

 

[Blkraven66]

Up in the north (NJ) during the winter the gas is switched over to "winter blend " . I have definitely seen a drop in mpg's . I've used 87 octane ever since day 1 of ownership. I've seen a 3.5 mpg drop since winter came in .

 

[Mark S.]

Up in the north (NJ) during the winter the gas is switched over to "winter blend " . I have definitely seen a drop in mpg's . I've used 87 octane ever since day 1 of ownership. I've seen a 3.5 mpg drop since winter came in .

I believe part of the decrease you see is related to formulation, but it's also related to the temperature. Ford's EcoBoost engines run very rich while the engine is warming up to get the catalytic converter up to temperature as rapidly as possible. The more short trips in the cold, especially if there is enough time between to allow the engine compartment to cool down, the more then engine will be running rich.

 

[Blkraven66]

Agreed

 

[mamboman777]

Bingham Maine.

High grade/test/premium whatever you wanna call it up here is sold ethanol free. We have alot of recreational machines (ATVs, snowmobiles, side by sides) that come through and people don't like using ethanol in them or their home care equipment (lawn mowers, weed wackers, log splitters, generators and so on) it is more expensive but people swear by it.

As for the gas in mavericks I ran 87 when I got it for the first tank and got around 28mpg since then I have only ran a higher grade and I average around 30-32mpg depending on road and weather factors. I drive Xlt fx4 eb and have had mine since October 21 have over 22k on mine. That being said my sister used it and filled it with regular on me and my range did drop. Regular gas (87) I get about 440ish miles to a tank. Higher grades I get 500miles.
IN MY OPINION and BASED OF MY EXPERIENCE It is worth it but the difference for me in the gas prices is about 30 or 40 cents so 4dollars a tank give or take

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind or tell you that it isn't worth it to run 93 over 87, but I did want to provide a financial analysis.

Using national averages as posted here on 12/27/2022:
https://gasprices.aaa.com/page/2/

To travel 500 miles at 28 mpg costing $3.104/gallon would be $55.43. To travel 500 miles at 32 mpg costing $3.848/gallon would be $60.13.

Cost analysis almost never puts 93 ahead of 87 based solely on the mpg. That said, there are other costs that may come with running 87.

I fully acknowledge that there are other reasons to run 93 and in no way think less of you for doing so. Your money, your gas. More power to you. (An unfortunate pun)

 

[rlhdweman]

Hand computation on a single tank is not sufficient--there are too many variables. The only way to get an accurate comparison is over several tankfuls. The Owner's Manuals for Ford's EcoBoost Mustang and Bronco Sport say to get accurate hand measurements you should track miles over at least three tanks.

For what it's worth, I own a Bronco Sport with the 2.0L, so the drivetrain in my car is largely the same as that in the 2.0L Maverick. I tracked mileage by hand over several thousand miles of driving. Driving more miles averages the variables yielding more accurate comparisons. I compared regular and premium, and ECO and NORMAL driving modes. You can view the results in this thread over at the Bronco Sport forum. To answer OP's question: there was no significant difference in fuel economy between regular and premium gas.

Do 14 tanks of fuel count in my Maverick count?, Do 100's of tanks over 25 years in a dozen vehicles count? It sure does! There is a significant difference in fuel economy between regular & premium if the regular is E-10 & the premium is not, if they are both E-10 then there is not a significant difference. If you want a real shocker go to the EPA's website & check out E-85 vehicle stats, then it's a loss of over 30%.

 

[matmondro]

Partially answering OP's question; yes, you should see a slight difference in MPG and HP when changing between 87 and 93 octane gas; but no, I have not tested this myself with my Maverick.

What I can tell you is that when I had my Focus ST (same motor), yes there absolutely was a difference when running the two different octane levels. Through similarity, I would assume the same for the Maverick. The ST had a boost gauge on the dash (I am a firm believer the Maverick should have one from the factory too LOL), and you could tell on 87 that the car was not creating as much boost. This is a result of both a difference in ignition timing, but also the wastegate (NOT the blow-off valve, they are two different things) on the turbo opening sooner (this is electronically controlled by the ECU). I'd have to test it myself with my Maverick to get a concrete number, but in the ST it was typically a 1-2 MPG increase when running 93. It slightly offset the cost increase of running 93, but not completely.

Also, @Blkraven66 mentioned above on the Winter Blend gas. This is also true, if you live in a cold climate that switches between summer and winter gas, you'll notice a drop in MPG during the winter. On an old Ranger I had, the drop was only 2 or 3 MPG, the ST it was around 6 to 7 MPG. I'm noticing in the Maverick it seems to be around 3 or 4 MPG, but I'll give it the rest of the winter with more tanks to get a real definitive answer on what the drop actually is.

Sponsored