87 vs 93 tune for better mpgs?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 10, 2008 | 06:53 PM
  #31  
jpdadeo's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,409
Likes: 1
From: Sunny FL
The spread between 87 & 93 is as low as 20¢ around here, that’s why I use it, a tank of 93 is only 5 bucks or so difference
 
Reply
Old Jun 10, 2008 | 06:59 PM
  #32  
ThumperMX113's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
93 octane burns slower which has been shown to be better for injectors over time. Also some people say it's going to burn cleaner inside the motor. 93 octane isn't as hard on the fuel filter, either.
 
Reply
Old Jun 10, 2008 | 07:07 PM
  #33  
rch10007's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville, TN
Originally Posted by ThumperMX113
93 octane burns slower which has been shown to be better for injectors over time. Also some people say it's going to burn cleaner inside the motor. 93 octane isn't as hard on the fuel filter, either.
I don't understand how a "knock" rating is going to perform miracles with the mechanical parts of your engine.

Did you happen to check out the link I posted earlier?
 
Reply
Old Jun 10, 2008 | 07:19 PM
  #34  
south_ms_sprcru's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 873
Likes: 0
From: Hattiesburg, MS
Originally Posted by MikeSuperCrew
I've got my 5.4 (2002 F150 SuperCrew) on 87 with a SuperTuner. I didn't notice a mpg difference until 2 weeks ago I decided to max out the psi in my tires (stock goodyears) @ 35psi. My mileage went up over 1mpg, last tank was best ever @ 15.8mpg. The other thing I'm doing at the pump is pumping very slow, using either the first click on the nozzle or holding it to pump slow. By doing this I've noticed I'm not pumping as much gas as I used to. If I filled up at half tank, by holding the nozzle full open, it would be at least 18 gallons. Now I'm pumping 14.5 gallons. Just goes to show how much air you are paying for by pumping fast....Just my $.02

Mike C
so your saying that you are under the impression that you were paying for 3.5gallons of air when you were pumping fast? im not calling you a liar by any means but i just dont get how that works...i mean yeah a small amount of air will get it, theres really no way around it that i know of...but three or four gallons of air?
 
Reply
Old Jun 10, 2008 | 07:30 PM
  #35  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,887
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
That was a great link, rch!

And, Thumper, I'd expect high octane gas to actually burn "dirtier", since it burns slower. Sure, we compensate a bit for that with increased timing, but we can't do anything about the compression. Therefore, I'd expect a higher hydrocarbon reading in the exhaust using high octane gas. You reach a limit on timing advance, and I think that happens too soon for complete combustion.

I also don't see why high octane gas would be kinder to injectors either.

And, wouldn't unburned hydrocarbons tend to "carbon up" the cylinders and spark plugs more too? (Leading to the famous "breaking plugs" problem when they are changed)?

These are just questions. I'm certainly no expert! But, I read a lot and EVERYTHING I've ever read or heard from reputable sources say don't use gas having a higher octane rating than your engine needs.

I also appreciate that using high octane gas with advanced timing gives more power. (Since it gives a nice, controlled "push" on the piston during the downstroke rather than a harder, faster, explosion). If that's what you're after, fine!

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 01:49 AM
  #36  
kclark80's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: indiana
So, those thinking they will get a little of both worlds, performance and economy by taking the middle road and ordering a 89 tune and running 89 octane is pointless? its either 87 or 93. why are 89 tunes offered? just asking because i was about to order the 89 tunes cause I dont want to pay for 93 unless its worth while. performance and $$ in the long
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 07:54 AM
  #37  
rch10007's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville, TN
Kyle - the octane rating or "knock" rating has NOTHING to do with performance or economy. It is merely the formula required to run your motor without "pinging". I won't get into pre or post detonation or timing or compression or all the other things that DO affect performance and economy...but if your truck was built to run on 87, anything else is a waste of $$$.

There is a link above that gives a decent explaination of high performance vehicles and fuel. It's worth a read and there are other sites that explain, in great detail, why 93 is NOT better for a motor than 87. That's another thread though.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 09:44 AM
  #38  
ThumperMX113's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by rch10007
Kyle - the octane rating or "knock" rating has NOTHING to do with performance or economy. It is merely the formula required to run your motor without "pinging". I won't get into pre or post detonation or timing or compression or all the other things that DO affect performance and economy...but if your truck was built to run on 87, anything else is a waste of $$$.

There is a link above that gives a decent explaination of high performance vehicles and fuel. It's worth a read and there are other sites that explain, in great detail, why 93 is NOT better for a motor than 87. That's another thread though.
It's not a matter of if it was built for 87. It's a matter of tuning, not production or manufacturing. Agreed, more octane allows for more timing to be pulled from the motor which in turns gives you the more power and better fuel economy.

We can argue all day long about this and that but the answer is cut and dry.

87 vs 93 tune for better mpgs?
Yes 93 octane is better for mileage. Not only am I saying it is, from my own testing, but someone who has tuned thousands of vehicles, etc.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 11:34 AM
  #39  
Justin@VMP's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
I don't believe 93 burns any slower, but rather has a higher resistance to knock than 87.

In some vehicles running 93 will allow the computer to advance timing slightly, and add a little power, but not as much as you would get from a full blown premium fuel tune.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 12:33 PM
  #40  
jpdadeo's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,409
Likes: 1
From: Sunny FL
Originally Posted by Justin@VMP
(Snip
I don't believe 93 burns any slower, but rather has a higher resistance to knock than 87.
bingo
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 01:50 PM
  #41  
mSaLL150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
I run 87, gas prices for 91 are way too ridiculous in CA right now. I drive mostly highway, and on the 87 tune (highway only) i am consistently getting between 18.6 and 19.2 MPG on my 87 Troyer Performance Tune. I keep it at or below 70mph the whole time.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 04:29 PM
  #42  
rch10007's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville, TN
Originally Posted by ThumperMX113
It's a matter of tuning, not production or manufacturing.
I'm not sure that a designer of a 15:1 motor would tune for 87 - the engineering of the motor is what calls for the octane rating, not the other way around.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 04:36 PM
  #43  
hizo64's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
From: Good Ol Southern NM
Originally Posted by MikeSuperCrew
I've got my 5.4 (2002 F150 SuperCrew) on 87 with a SuperTuner. I didn't notice a mpg difference until 2 weeks ago I decided to max out the psi in my tires (stock goodyears) @ 35psi. My mileage went up over 1mpg, last tank was best ever @ 15.8mpg. The other thing I'm doing at the pump is pumping very slow, using either the first click on the nozzle or holding it to pump slow. By doing this I've noticed I'm not pumping as much gas as I used to. If I filled up at half tank, by holding the nozzle full open, it would be at least 18 gallons. Now I'm pumping 14.5 gallons. Just goes to show how much air you are paying for by pumping fast....Just my $.02

Mike C
HOLY CRAP!! You serious? Man I might have to expierement mith that.
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 04:43 PM
  #44  
ThumperMX113's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
Regardless of how fast you pump gas is not going to change the amount of gas you pump ... Think about that for a few seconds ...

Originally Posted by rch10007
I'm not sure that a designer of a 15:1 motor would tune for 87 - the engineering of the motor is what calls for the octane rating, not the other way around.
What are you talking about? 15:1?
 
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2008 | 04:57 PM
  #45  
rch10007's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville, TN
Originally Posted by ThumperMX113
It's not a matter of if it was built for 87. It's a matter of tuning, not production or manufacturing.
You said the above. ^^

It IS a matter if it was built for 87 or not. Some motors are built to run 110 and you aren't going to tune them for 87.

The answer of 93 giving you more MPG's is NOT cut and dry. If you ran 87 in a motor that calls for 93 - you will see a drop in MPG but you don't get a gain by running 93 in a motor designed for 87. It doesn't work like that. Can you create a situation where it can - sure, but it ain't as a daily driver and therefore a moot point.

Does you car have a knock sensor? What do you think it's function is?

There is less energy in higher octane fuel and adjusting your timing is not going to net you an increase that you can measure.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 AM.