Hey,

I got my superchip for my 2000 expedition from Mike a few months ago and i have been nothing but happy. I have just moved from Buffalo, NY to Bozeman, MT and the highest octane i can get is 91 octane. no more 93-94 octane like in the northeast. i have not heard any pinging yet, but am i going to have a issue.

 

Hi Scottybones

Recent trip into Montana, ran into same thing 91oct.

Started out with 92. Needed gas, so filled up with 91.

If there was any change i didnt notice it. I believe the schip is designed for min. 91. (except flip chip)

Anyway, shouldnt be a problem. Have you noticed any difference?

Of course bad gas, etc. can be an issue. I stay away from the no names. Started out with Chevron, then 1st time with Conoco, most of trip on Chevron. Been lucky, no bad gas,,YET! Arco gas has been ok here. Even picked up abit more mpg with schip/92oct.

Amazing all the different octs & blend changes throughout our country. We may even see ethanol as standard additive in the not to distant future. Oh well, as long as we get gas, guess we could live without the chip but....gosh

Good luck. OT

 

Thanks for the reply OT. i am not that worried about it i just wanted the final word from Mike T.

 

Hi Scotty Bones & OT,

OT is right, as long as the 91 octane is a good quality fuel, you'll be fine and won't have any "pinging", etc.

To get the maximum rated power gains from the Superchip requires a high-quality 92 or higher octane, but using 91 is generally fine, as long as it's a good fuel with a decent energy content.

The driver usually can't tell a difference between 91 or 92 octane in the seat of the pants of course, as the 1 point of octane from 92 down to 91, as long as it's good quality fuel, doesn't change much, you only drop a few horsepower, not enough to feel in the seat of the pants.

This is *not* to say that, for example, a drop from 91 octane to 90 octane will be OK, it's usually not, as we're tuning for 91+ octane. We only see 90 octane premium at high altitudes, generally speaking, though there are also a few "gasahol" blends that are only 90 octane, and that is not enough.

You'll be fine with a good quality 91 octane. Stick with the better fuels, as always, and you should be fine!

 

Well, I can agree with the energy count is what matters.
16k miles latter on 91 octane and get the BEST milage with my current source.

When I 1st got my chip back and at the begining of this summer, I ran from Amaco, Texaco, and Citco, the best grades I could get, avg MPG was usualy 15.5-16.25.

Then with the cost of going up, I went to try our local Petro wash gas station but they only had 91 Octane. Ran it on previous coverstations with Mike from when I had my Ranger, that they tune for 91+ and hope that the knock sensor can adjust for no ping. Well, from that fill on I have been running it when possible. I avg 16-17 mpg and a best of 19 mpg. That on a 97 F-250LD 5.4 3.73 4x4. WOW. Also MN has gone to oxy fule all year round. But, so far the best fuel I have run and it costs the same as Regular and gets the best mpg.
Just my experiance

 

Hi thomasjs,

Thanks for your post!

It just goes to show you that the energy content can make a noticeably difference in fuel mileage, all else being equal. This is exactly why we talk about fuel quality so much.

Usually, in most areas of the country, fuels like Texaco & Amoco will have a good high energy content, certainly higher than fuels like Exxon and most of the off-brands or no-names.

It sounds to me like you basically got very lucky with that 91 octane fuel you've been using, with it apparently having a nice energy content, excellent! That won't happen often, where you find an off-brand like that to give better mileage under the same conditions, which is why I say you got lucky. .

Another thing that could well be is that your fuels have been reformulated at some point during this time period, as that would of course skew the results due to the change in energy content.

The real tell-tale would be to go back and try 3-5 tanks each of that same Texaco & Amoco, & make a *current* comparison to see if there really is a difference in energy content *now* compared to that 91 octane that's giving you good results.

The bottom line is, if you're happy with the results you're getting, then like the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I agree, I think I would be *very* happy getting the kind of mpg number in an F-250LD 5.4 that you're getting!

Thanks for your post,

 

Does anybody out here have any findings on energy content with some of the West Coast gas (e.g. Mobil (are they the same as Exxon now?), Arco, 76, Shell...).

I filled up my Lightning yesterday with a tank of Mobil 91 and detonation at the top of the gears is now present. I'm just wondering before I send the chip back if there was a better gas at the same octane rating that might clear this up... no Texaco or Amoco stations in the area

 

Hi DB,

I'm glad you asked, as we have a lot of Lightning customers there in California, so I think we might be able to help a bit with a gasoline brand recommendation.

Chevron is doing a very good job in the Western coastal states of California, Washington & Oregon, so if you do not have access to Texaco or Amoco, go with Chevron and see how your results are.

I would give it 2-3 tanks before deciding if it's done the trick, enough time for the engine to be running on nothing but that Chevron, which will tank a couple of tanks to get all the previous fuel out of the system.

Let us know what happens, & good luck!

 

Thanks Mike! I'll give the Chevron several tankfuls