Switching regular gas to premium - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 03-15-2016, 12:09 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
Hawkstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Sioux City
Region: Iowa
Posts: 1,273
Not so fast, Mr. Science...

If your ONLY concern is power, is ethanol good? Sure. If feeding your Pony the healthiest fluids is your top concern, is ethanol good? No.

I could do a big write up to make my case, but I think this article from Popular Mechanics sums it up best.

Ethanol gas article

Personally, I believe in feeding my cars the best fluids I can find. That includes Royal Purple oil (I haven't had a drop of burn since I put RP in her after I bought it used) and I will be having the ATM fluid changed every 30k miles with just a pan drop and filter change which is only $125. I don't ever consider it throwing money away, I consider it investing into my car so that she runs as good and tight at 100k as she did at 10k.

My point is, while your science aspect considering the HP properties of ethanol is solid and appreciated (I'm not picking a battle), for some people quality of car fluids matters more than power gains.
Hawkstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-15-2016, 01:44 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkstang View Post
Not so fast, Mr. Science...

If your ONLY concern is power, is ethanol good? Sure. If feeding your Pony the healthiest fluids is your top concern, is ethanol good? No.

I could do a big write up to make my case, but I think this article from Popular Mechanics sums it up best.

Ethanol gas article

Personally, I believe in feeding my cars the best fluids I can find. That includes Royal Purple oil (I haven't had a drop of burn since I put RP in her after I bought it used) and I will be having the ATM fluid changed every 30k miles with just a pan drop and filter change which is only $125. I don't ever consider it throwing money away, I consider it investing into my car so that she runs as good and tight at 100k as she did at 10k.

My point is, while your science aspect considering the HP properties of ethanol is solid and appreciated (I'm not picking a battle), for some people quality of car fluids matters more than power gains.


Hey, its all in the sake of discussion; you have expressed your views based on your findings and opinions, and now i will do the same.

While that is a well written article, i find it a bit ... well, wrong.

1. My first issue comes from the paragraph titled "Keeping water where it belongs," and i will post an excerpt(s) here:

When the H2O in the gas gets above a critical percentage—its saturation point—all of the water and alcohol drops out and settles into the bottom of the tank. This is what chemists call phase separation; the various components of the fuel are no longer a homogeneous mixture.
... The engine won't run when the fuel pickup is sucking up the alcohol–water mix.

This statement is 100% true. However, the context is not. While it is possible for the solution to fall out, the conditions are just not ones that the majority of people will see on a regular basis. The only time ethanol causes hard starts is when you are running 100% E85 in a very cold climate. The small percentage of ethanol in normal gasoline is just not going to absorb enough water on a day to day basis to do any damage. This involves a very specific set of conditions: High concentrations of ethanol, irregular driving habits, and drastic temperature changes.

2. Secondly, the "Other Alcohol Issues" paragraph:

Alcohol is corrosive and can degrade plastic, rubber or even metal parts in the fuel system that weren't engineered to use alcohol-bearing fuel.

This is also 100% true, again however, the context is not. We have done just tons of testing on mazdaspeed forums, soaking various pieces in various concentrations of ethanol, methanol, petroleum, etc. Starting in like ... i want to say 2010 (it has been a very long time since we did these tests, my dates may be off) all vehicles were required to have ethanol compliant fuel systems. Even soaking various rubber seals, O-rings, gaskets, lines, etc in 100 ethanol for days / weeks showed no ill side effects on modern fuel systems. The most they would do was swell, but again, those conditions are just not ones that would happen in the real world.

3. My other problem with that article is that it leads you to believe ethanol is the reason your fuel system gets gummed up. Again, having done testing on multiple cars / platforms / fuel systems, the majority of the problem does not come from high concentrations of ethanol, but rather from switching to ethanol from petroleum.

Normal gas is disgusting. It has tons of chemicals, solvents, additives, and those things will settle in your tank, lines, etc. When you start running high volumes of Ethanol (like when you switch to E85) on a car that has been running exclusively pump gas for 30, 40, 50 thousand miles, the alcohol in the fuel starts scrubbing all that crap left behind and clogging fuel pumps and injections and filters, etc. Ethanol burns incredibly clean, you should see some of the engine tear downs from cars that have been running high concentrations of ethanol, you could eat off of them.

Again, that article is well written, and i guess well informed, but i just do not agree with the context of it at all. You make a valid point though, that people run what is important to them; for me it is the octane, for others it may be the mpg improvement or the fear of water causing some potential damage. To each his own.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 01:51 PM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
Hawkstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Sioux City
Region: Iowa
Posts: 1,273
If you are going to say a Popular Mechanics article is "wrong", Im not going to bother reading any further.

To each their own, but I think there are enough articles out their on either side to not be able to say difintively whether ethanol is "good" or "bad". There's also a lot of politics and big money involved. So for me it boils down to personal preference.

Like many, I prefer to keep my Stang ethanol free.
Hawkstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-15-2016, 02:00 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkstang View Post
1. If you are going to say a Popular Mechanics article is "wrong", Im not going to bother reading any further.

2. To each their own, but I think there are enough articles out their on either side to not be able to say difintively whether ethanol is "good" or "bad". There's also a lot of politics and big money involved. So for me it boils down to personal preference.

3. Like many, I prefer to keep my Stang ethanol free.
1. "Mustang v6 beats mustang GT." Is that a true or false statement? Depends on the context, that was my main problem with the article. Their facts were true, just not applicable.

2. Agreed, may as well lump it in with the catch can discussions.

3. And there are no problems with that
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 02:09 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Hawkstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Sioux City
Region: Iowa
Posts: 1,273
Wow dude, you live for this stuff huh? Lol

You win... Now you can sleep tonight.
Hawkstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 02:22 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,444
I do, i'll put a star on my board next to this thread
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 02:47 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,259
Without any science behind this post, I was under the impression that ethanol burns hotter than regular gas (ethonol free) and can damage the engine with long term use.
Any truth to this?

:Edit:
Just read Hawkstang's link. I have to agree, ethanol not nice to engines.
I just run 91+ octane that doesn't contain ethanol.
Sent from the future.
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 07:02 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
bamaboy2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Carrollton,
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Ethanol does help with performance, it raises the knock threshold. Think E(thanol)85 ... It does however impact MPG. That being said, running 100% E85 requires ~40% more fuel, 50% E85 is around 20% more, 25% E85 is around 10% more fuel, and lastly, the roughly 10% ethanol most places carry would only be around 3-4% more fuel. Almost not even enough to notice



yeah, probably 2-4 if i had to shoot from the hip and guess. That being said, the computer does have the ability to add timing, to a certain degree, until it detects knock and backs off. The fact of the matter is that 93 will allow it to add timing over what it will be able to achieve on 87. Now, again, that assumes a few things:

1. That the car is in fact limited on 87 ( i dont find this too hard to believe)
2. That the computer has enough authority to raise timing to the point where switching to 93 is in and of itself beneficial.
3. The 7-8 whp we saw was above some margin of error.

Another thing to take into account ( i didnt read the article, but i am going to assume i am right on this) is that i am assuming the 7-8 whp gained are peak gains? I would take curve gains into consideration as well. Even if we say theres a 3 whp error, 4 whp over the entire power band (it may be more, it may be less) will make a car faster, whether your butt can indicate it or not.



See the above, ethanol is good.
That is true with timing when I only ran 93 for over a year it shifted right 6.5k then when I started running 87, it didn't shift until about 6.7-6.8k everytime I went to have fun?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app

---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Did this make sense lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app
bamaboy2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 07:47 PM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaboy2014 View Post
That is true with timing when I only ran 93 for over a year it shifted right 6.5k then when I started running 87, it didn't shift until about 6.7-6.8k everytime I went to have fun?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app

---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Did this make sense lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app
I'm not sure what kind of shift logic the auto follows, so i really cant comment on whether or not the gas was the culprit.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:42 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
The cars computer relies on several sensors to decide when and how to shift.
• Input shaft speed sensor - Engine speed on the transmission side of the torque converter
• Output shaft speed sensor - Road speed
• Throttle position - How far the accelerator is pressed
• MAP sensor - Engine intake vacuum, which is a function of throttle position and engine load.
• Temperature - Shift firmness varies based on transmission temperature to account for the fluid's properties over the wide range of operating temperatures.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 08:57 PM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
bamaboy2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Carrollton,
Posts: 186
Appreciate the info yall just figure I ask. I found it really werid when I switched the couple of times

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mustang Evolution mobile app
bamaboy2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 11:16 PM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
Odai1437's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Greensboro
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 32
Thanks for the input everyone, I tried a tank of premium and I realized that on 87 I would notice white smoke from the exhaust sometimes at stop lights but that did not happen when i used premium, any thoughts on that?



Instagram: Odaii_7
Odai1437 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 08:37 AM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 27
My buttdyno says the car feels smoother on 93, smoother and slightly more expeditious acceleration. No mods and no dyno to prove it, it may just be in my head but occasionally when the prices drop low enough I'll fill with 93.
javallama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 09:51 AM   #49
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
Unless you do a tune to Allow the 93 octane to do its job, You are just wasting $$$$$.
You can really use 93 if you want to because it sure won't hurt anything.
( It just costs more)
Ronnie
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 10:01 AM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie948 View Post
Unless you do a tune to Allow the 93 octane to do its job, You are just wasting $$$$$.
You can really use 93 if you want to because it sure won't hurt anything.
( It just costs more)
Ronnie
That may be true, in addition I hear some people say that 93 gas is usually cleaner coming out of the underground storage, since less people are pumping it sediment and such doesn't get stirred around as much. Online I've seen people say that they wont get get when the refilling tanker is going as that also stirs lots of sediment. I have no sources to back it up, simply another observation!
javallama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 10:17 AM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Newington
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by javallama View Post
That may be true, in addition I hear some people say that 93 gas is usually cleaner coming out of the underground storage, since less people are pumping it sediment and such doesn't get stirred around as much. Online I've seen people say that they wont get get when the refilling tanker is going as that also stirs lots of sediment. I have no sources to back it up, simply another observation!
Gas Pumps have filters on them to trap the sediment, just like a oil filter for your car does. I worked at a Ford Dealer for 23 years and we had our own gas station and never had a customer problem with tankers filling the underground tanks while people were filling their cars.
2013 RedMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 10:20 AM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie948 View Post
Unless you do a tune to Allow the 93 octane to do its job, You are just wasting $$$$$.

( It just costs more)
Ronnie
Incorrect.
Our engines will automatically adjust timing to produce more power from higher octane fuel.
This has been covered many times, and while its not by a huge number it is a number so in turn your statement is false.

You WILL get more power from a tune and 93 BUT you will also benefit from just using 93 on the stock tune.
Engines of the past running 93 octane would make zero difference in power, the 3.7 on the other hand is a completely different story.
http://v6mustangperformance.com/news...ine-explained/
Sent from the future.
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 10:57 AM   #53
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
There is no and I mean """NO""" noticeable difference in the Miles per Gallon you will get with 93 octane over the 87 Octane in a 3.7 V6. If there is any at all, It is "NOT" measurable.
I have already tried it and the MPG was the same as I had with 87 Octane. ( Pencil & Paper)
As far as the engine running different, I felt absolutely no difference at all.
As for feeling more power, Nope,
The only thing I felt was the 45 more cents per gallon I was paying for 93 octane.

Now, You know I have a V6 so I can not speak for a V8 which they suggest 93 octane anyway. I'll bet if you ran 87 in a Coyote V8, You will probably feel a difference in loss of power and maybe lower Miles per gallon.

Like I said, If a person wants to use 93 octane in their Cyclone 3.7 V6 Mustang, It sure won't hurt the cars engine at all.
They say on a dyno the 93 will produce about 4 to 7 horsepower but on the dyno you are at a high RPM and maybe it is true for the added horsepower at high RPM's, but we do not drive at top Rpm's and in just normal driving I would probably bet there is no difference at all.

It is really up to the V6 3.7 Mustang owner about what brand or octane of gas they like. If they feel better and feel the extra power with 93 octane, I say "GREAT" use it.

If you are really looking for a power increase that works, Get a couple of "STP" stickers and put them on your car, They are known to add a lot of horsepower.
Ronnie
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 12:00 PM   #54
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
Switching regular gas to premium

I can see both sides of the argument of whether it's just wasting money or not.

But think about it this way, it costs about $6 more to fill up with premium gasoline and in turn you're gaining about 8 HP. So that's 1.33 hp/$1.

I can't think of anything you could do for your car that yields a better horsepower/dollar investment.

Just another way of thinking about it.


IG: the_notorious_vig_
__________________
IG: workshardplayshard
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 12:14 PM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastFord13 View Post
Incorrect.
Our engines will automatically adjust timing to produce more power from higher octane fuel.
This has been covered many times, and while its not by a huge number it is a number so in turn your statement is false.

You WILL get more power from a tune and 93 BUT you will also benefit from just using 93 on the stock tune.
Engines of the past running 93 octane would make zero difference in power, the 3.7 on the other hand is a completely different story.
Ford Mustang 3.7L V6 Engine Explained | A 3.7L V6 Mustang Owner Resource for Modifications and Repairs
Sent from the future.
I have heard about the gain using 93 octane but as with Ronnie, I've tried it more than once and could not notice any difference. Mileage wise or otherwise.
I couldn't see where that referenced document, "Ford Mustang 3.7L V6 Engine Explained" made any mention of it. Did I miss it?
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 12:53 PM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIG View Post
I can see both sides of the argument of whether it's just wasting money or not.

But think about it this way, it costs about $6 more to fill up with premium gasoline and in turn you're gaining about 8 HP. So that's 1.33 hp/$1.

I can't think of anything you could do for your car that yields a better horsepower/dollar investment.

Just another way of thinking about it.

IG: the_notorious_vig_
I believe the assumption(mentioned above somewhere) was an average of about 4 whp over the entire power band. So based on your HP/$ viewpoint that now becomes .67 HP/$1.
But I think you're missing the fact that the $$ amount increases with every mile and gallon of gas purchased whereas the alleged HP gain remains the same.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 01:17 PM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,259
Yes, like stated earlier while the increase is small the point was that it is there and not a total waste of money on a engine that can advance timing when the knock sensors do not detect any knock.
It is an advantage our 3.7s have over older engines that cannot adjust timing on their own.
Whether its felt or not is not the point and is opinionated and not fact, which is fine everyone has opinions.
Just trying to clarify.
Now a total waste of money IMO was the 300$ I spent on my hot air intake 😜. Again just my opinion.
Like Ronnie mentioned its really up to the owner if they want to use premium or not for the small gain, our cars will run just fine with regular 87 and produce the advertised 305hp, and I understand why anyone would feel its wasting the extra 6$ or so per fill up, the gains are minimal, but they are there.
Sent from the future.
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 01:38 PM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
But it is a bit strange to me that Ford mentions the increase in performance with higher octane on the 5.0L but I've never seen anything mentioned, by Ford, along these lines for the 3.7L.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 01:53 PM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Newington
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 191
They rate their Eco Boosts using premium and then tell you what you will loose going down to 87 octane.
2013 RedMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 02:43 PM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013 RedMustang View Post
They rate their Eco Boosts using premium and then tell you what you will loose going down to 87 octane.
"believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see"
The following is from Fords 2015 Owners Manual first edition
Click image for larger version

Name:	<a title=2015 Mustang Owners Manual.jpg Views: 47 Size: 370.4 KB ID: 198464" style="margin: 2px" />
I believe some of this info seen here is different than other Ford printed documents.
But also of interest is the blurb on only 87 octane is to be used in the 3.7L.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 02:53 PM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,259
Pretty much means DON'T use anything lower then 87...
Its a minimum octane required.....
Common sense has to be applied here.
Sent from the future.
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 03:01 PM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
heebe_geebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: midwest
Region: Missouri
Posts: 114
Finding 93 octane around me isn't an option . I'd have better luck winning a lotto than find ethanol free anything within 20 miles...
__________________
2014 MCOA, V6 PREMIUM, PERFORMANCE PACKAGE, COMFORT PACKAGE, SECURITY PACKAGE, DEEP IMPACT BLUE WITH SILVER CUSTOM COBRA STYLE STRIPES, AIRAID TUBE, TINTED 35%, PIONEER 8000 NEX, REAR CAMERA, BORLA TOUR AXLE BACK, K&N FILTER. JLT OIL CATCH CAN, CUSTOM MADE HOOD STRUTS, BBK SHORTY CERAMIC

heebe_geebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 03:03 PM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,259
We only have Pertro Canada that has 94 around me. Shell and all the others only have 91 as their highest grade fuel.

Sent from the future.
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 03:03 PM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastFord13 View Post
Pretty much means DON'T use anything lower then 87...
Its a minimum octane required.....
Common sense has to be applied here.
Sent from the future.
Pretty much means BUT doesn't say it.
It should say what it means!!!
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 08:28 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
Hawkstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Sioux City
Region: Iowa
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastFord13 View Post
Yes, like stated earlier while the increase is small the point was that it is there and not a total waste of money on a engine that can advance timing when the knock sensors do not detect any knock.
It is an advantage our 3.7s have over older engines that cannot adjust timing on their own.
Whether its felt or not is not the point and is opinionated and not fact, which is fine everyone has opinions.
Just trying to clarify.
Now a total waste of money IMO was the 300$ I spent on my hot air intake 😜. Again just my opinion.
Like Ronnie mentioned its really up to the owner if they want to use premium or not for the small gain, our cars will run just fine with regular 87 and produce the advertised 305hp, and I understand why anyone would feel its wasting the extra 6$ or so per fill up, the gains are minimal, but they are there.
Sent from the future.
The hot air intake made me lol... I had one on mine too but sent it back after a week. $300 to make my engine run hotter and so loud that I couldnt hear myself think just wasnt a wise investment.

As far as quality gas, if I spend $5 extra on a fill I think if all the crap I buy every week that I could do without and it will negate that $5. Eat one party pizza for lunch instead of Arbys and you have it covered.
Hawkstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 09:01 PM   #66
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
I feel like it's hard to use the AMs dyno as proof of anything regarding dyno gains. 4-7 hp is well within dyno margin of error as well as different days, temps, etc.

I can say I've used premium before in my 3.7 and didn't notice any difference although your not going to feel 4 hp. It's so hard so say because some stations actual fuel may be better or worst then what is advertised. I have a few stations around me I try to go to and certain ones I try to avoid as it seems like some do consistently seem to make my car run better and get Bette mpgs


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2016, 07:53 PM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
IanTheFancy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 50
I used to doit and had no problems but now my mustang is not stock at all, and i always use 93octane, but it's definitely okay.
IanTheFancy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Premium vs regular gas scurfie 2011-2014 Mustang GT 37 06-22-2015 09:30 AM
recaro leather seat option - are rears the same as regular premium seats? paradigm 2011-2014 Mustang GT 0 07-18-2013 03:37 PM
Switch from premium to regular gas NEED HELP Nick Proben 1979-1995 Mustang GT 41 04-27-2013 08:02 PM
regular or premium?? richgangsta41 2011-2014 Mustang GT 13 01-27-2013 09:52 AM
Regular or premium Whitelightning 2011-2014 V6 Mustang 33 06-30-2012 11:55 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



11:55 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.