Yep!
I spent 60K+ on the vehicle, why wouldn’t I want the best performance?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
87 vs 89 vs 93 octane - my findings
- Thread starter Jeremygsu
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Yep!
I spent 60K+ on the vehicle, why wouldn’t I want the best performance?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
07navi
Full Access Members
I spent $7,500 on mine but I would opt for the high octane if it gave more power.
Trainmaster
Old School Member
I owned an Excursion at the time Ethanol became a mandated additive to gasoline sold in New York. After that time, my mileage dropped by 2 - 3 MPG. Could have been some other reason perhaps, but the loss in mileage was backed up by several things I've read...
You mean the V10 that was notorious for TERRIBLE MPG got worse? Sorry, loved the V10, but those things got bad MPG.
Might have been the fact that the motor didn’t adjust to it well. Motors designed for it, it is not the evil it is made out to be. On the Turbo charged motor it is magic!
My Explorer ST makes between 50-75 additional HP on E50 vs 93 tune. Takes my 0-60 from 4.06 to 3.75. MPG is 2 worse, but that is E50, standard gas is around E10. Big difference there. Well worth it!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Expedition Dave
Full Access Members
That test was done on a Raptor, with a higher strung engine than our factory 3.5s--I don't know if that makes much of a difference for fuel mileage though. Also I thought I read that the Platinum's 400 hp tune only came if you ran premium too? Please feel free to check my facts on that...
TTBOMK, there are two well known advantages to paying for higher higher octane:
1. Considered to have more cleaning properties (which is one way they reduce the octane's volatility to resist knock, also resulting in less BTUs).
2. More power IF the engine is smart enough to respond to it (or simply not pull timing when it experiences a lot of knocking).
The mileage advantage may come simply from a bit more power earlier per accelerator / injector squirt, so you use less to get to speed. For me this is theoretical b/c on paper 87 technically has more power per gallon.
These Ecos are smart. They see octane and crap gas quickly and adjust--but they are a lot quicker to pull power (timing) than give it back IMHO for engine safety reasons.
For me, I stick with Top Tier gas, 87 octane (here at sea level) and if I am towing I up the octane (especially under higher ambient 80 F+). To see better results, I sometimes get a full tank of higher octane prior to the tow experience, and do some WOT runs to get the system to "see" the added octane. I tow very rarely.
None of this comes from very much scientific experience, just seems to make sense to me. But I do prefer to save the $8 +/- bucks per fill-up until I feel I need it.
YMMV--literally
TTBOMK, there are two well known advantages to paying for higher higher octane:
1. Considered to have more cleaning properties (which is one way they reduce the octane's volatility to resist knock, also resulting in less BTUs).
2. More power IF the engine is smart enough to respond to it (or simply not pull timing when it experiences a lot of knocking).
The mileage advantage may come simply from a bit more power earlier per accelerator / injector squirt, so you use less to get to speed. For me this is theoretical b/c on paper 87 technically has more power per gallon.
These Ecos are smart. They see octane and crap gas quickly and adjust--but they are a lot quicker to pull power (timing) than give it back IMHO for engine safety reasons.
For me, I stick with Top Tier gas, 87 octane (here at sea level) and if I am towing I up the octane (especially under higher ambient 80 F+). To see better results, I sometimes get a full tank of higher octane prior to the tow experience, and do some WOT runs to get the system to "see" the added octane. I tow very rarely.
None of this comes from very much scientific experience, just seems to make sense to me. But I do prefer to save the $8 +/- bucks per fill-up until I feel I need it.
YMMV--literally
That test was done on a Raptor, with a higher strung engine than our factory 3.5s--I don't know if that makes much of a difference for fuel mileage though. Also I thought I read that the Platinum's 400 hp tune only came if you ran premium too? Please feel free to check my facts on that...
TTBOMK, there are two well known advantages to paying for higher higher octane:
1. Considered to have more cleaning properties (which is one way they reduce the octane's volatility to resist knock, also resulting in less BTUs).
2. More power IF the engine is smart enough to respond to it (or simply not pull timing when it experiences a lot of knocking).
The mileage advantage may come simply from a bit more power earlier per accelerator / injector squirt, so you use less to get to speed. For me this is theoretical b/c on paper 87 technically has more power per gallon.
These Ecos are smart. They see octane and crap gas quickly and adjust--but they are a lot quicker to pull power (timing) than give it back IMHO for engine safety reasons.
For me, I stick with Top Tier gas, 87 octane (here at sea level) and if I am towing I up the octane (especially under higher ambient 80 F+). To see better results, I sometimes get a full tank of higher octane prior to the tow experience, and do some WOT runs to get the system to "see" the added octane. I tow very rarely.
None of this comes from very much scientific experience, just seems to make sense to me. But I do prefer to save the $8 +/- bucks per fill-up until I feel I need it.
YMMV--literally
The BTU is less in 93 vs 87 is not really a thing anymore. The additives and formulations have been worked out to limit that side effect. Cleaning properties are not really an issue anymore with Ethanol in the mix. That is one of it’s advantages, it is a better solvent.
Correct, quick to pull timing, but eases it back.
All Ford Power ratings are based off premium fuel...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Aspen03
Full Access Members
In indy it's generally anywhere from 60-80 cents more for 93 vs 87. I've seen it close to a $1 difference a couple times but consider thise been one offs as its not typical.
Most motors dont advance timing w E85, like Loki said it's the opposite. What's usually happening is your motor is running at its true potential without any knock, technically that means it's making more power than "normal" but that's because you were deficient to begin with.
I used to run a supercharged 3800 Series 2 that was tuned specifically for E85. The fuel let you do all sorts of craziness with it. First off you could nearly max out WOT advance at 22-24 degrees vs the 15 you'd see at stock and I was also able to drop pulleys by 2 sizes, make another 1.6psi of boost and picked up who knows how much hp. I was t boned shortly after and never made it to the dyno. It was significant however, barking tires shifting into 2nd w a GM 4spd auto isnt an easy task. 0-60 was basically 5sec, .7sec faster than pre tune mods.
That platform was also rather aggressive at pulling timing during a KR event. The add back tables were also quite conservative and if you experienced KR on a track run you were pretty well done as the add back to full timing wouldnt occur until virtually the traps.
Theres a local station I get E0 90 only a couple minutes away. I've always used it for my generator and lawn equipment. Funny you mention the EGO. I was on the fence about a new mower last week and considered it. I picked up the 80V Kobalt self propelled. A friend had the first generation of it and let me give it a try. It was pretty convincing despite having a fairly full blade. The new one w the 6AH battery is even better. I can mow twice on a charge. It cuts better than my gas mower, it might as well be silent compared to it. I was on the phone half the time I mowed last night. I can also mow at 9PM and mo one cares. Lowes ran a $100 discount on it making it pretty attractive price wise and 30day no question return so I went for it. Gave it a proper coat of sealant on all the paint and clean up is nothing. Grass wont stick to the bottom.
Expedition Dave
Full Access Members
Thanks for the fuel update Loki 
Still, for my jam i bought the truck for other reasons but do enjoy the juice this sucker has. To this day i can remember my four previous 5.4 Expy's being not much more than noisemakers when you floored 'em above 70 mph!
This thing HAULS at highway+ speeds at 4,000 feet in elevation (I add the "+" as speed limits in parts of Texas are 80mph) and to date am happy with the 87oct for my daily driver. But I totally get your point.
At my current location, 92oct is .50 more a gallon and for me as part of my "efficiency" is keep my $ per mile/tank more reasonable.
I would be curious to see someone do that same test with an Expy or standard F150 though...
Still, for my jam i bought the truck for other reasons but do enjoy the juice this sucker has. To this day i can remember my four previous 5.4 Expy's being not much more than noisemakers when you floored 'em above 70 mph! This thing HAULS at highway+ speeds at 4,000 feet in elevation (I add the "+" as speed limits in parts of Texas are 80mph) and to date am happy with the 87oct for my daily driver. But I totally get your point.
At my current location, 92oct is .50 more a gallon and for me as part of my "efficiency" is keep my $ per mile/tank more reasonable.
I would be curious to see someone do that same test with an Expy or standard F150 though...
Tocapet
Full Access Members
My '09 does fine on 85 Octane. Here in Colorado, regular is 85, midgrade is 87 and premium is 91. It's because of the altitude. My owner's manual specifies 87, but it runs great on 85 and if I put 87 in it I can't tell any difference. There is also ethanol-free gas available, but the cost is outa sight.
No engine 'sees' the fuel it's burning. When you buy a 5.0l Mustang(or some Lincolns), it uses 91 or higher. However, the manual says 'will run on lower octane, with reduced performance. The knock sensor detects spark detonation and pulls/retards the timing. When you put 87 octane in the newer V6 Expeditions, your running at reduced performance. The 5.4l uses a much lower compression and runs full power on 87. Ford cleverly re-worded the new Expedition manual to say, 'premium recommended for towing and maximum performance.' In short, if you can afford it, use 91 or higher in the new Expeditions.That test was done on a Raptor, with a higher strung engine than our factory 3.5s--I don't know if that makes much of a difference for fuel mileage though. Also I thought I read that the Platinum's 400 hp tune only came if you ran premium too? Please feel free to check my facts on that...
TTBOMK, there are two well known advantages to paying for higher higher octane:
1. Considered to have more cleaning properties (which is one way they reduce the octane's volatility to resist knock, also resulting in less BTUs).
2. More power IF the engine is smart enough to respond to it (or simply not pull timing when it experiences a lot of knocking).
The mileage advantage may come simply from a bit more power earlier per accelerator / injector squirt, so you use less to get to speed. For me this is theoretical b/c on paper 87 technically has more power per gallon.
These Ecos are smart. They see octane and crap gas quickly and adjust--but they are a lot quicker to pull power (timing) than give it back IMHO for engine safety reasons.
For me, I stick with Top Tier gas, 87 octane (here at sea level) and if I am towing I up the octane (especially under higher ambient 80 F+). To see better results, I sometimes get a full tank of higher octane prior to the tow experience, and do some WOT runs to get the system to "see" the added octane. I tow very rarely.
None of this comes from very much scientific experience, just seems to make sense to me. But I do prefer to save the $8 +/- bucks per fill-up until I feel I need it.
YMMV--literally
According to @JExpedition07 some of the newer 5.4(3Valve) actually were tuned for higher Octane, specifically E85. Don’t know the 5.4 really well, as I only owned one for a few years, from 02-05. Curious as to which of you is correct.
The EB based Expy’s you are correct. They detune(pull timing and boost, lower Torque demand) based on KR events.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Flexpedition
Full Access Members
07 & 08 3rd gen 5.4 were non E85 and rated at 300HP.
09 thru 14 3rd gen 5.4 are E85 flex fuel capable and HP was bumped to 310.
The 5.4l 3V has a 9.8:1 compression ratio and does not need premium. The flex fuel model has a different fuel pressure regulator and full stainless lines. They don't make more power on E85. The MPG's go down. All of the 5.4l's made 310hp in the last year of production in 2014
Last edited:
MPG’s and power are inverse of each other in relation to percentage of Ethanol. On my Explorer the E50 tune makes WAY more power than my 93 tune, but also gets less MPG than 93.
So 2014 Expedition motors were produced in 2010?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Here we go again, making claims with no proof. How many times now? Lets see dyno results for 'way more power'. E50? really? How many Expedition owners use it or can even find it.
JExpedition07
That One Member
On E-85 the 5.4L 3V is rated at 320 horsepower and 390 lb ft of torque. Had to look it up it’s been a while. Looks like F-150 got Flex Fuel in 2008 one year ahead of the Expedition that’s why I mentioned 08+, was going off the pickups. There is a definite tuning difference. Straight from Ford on page 2:
http://www.auto-brochures.com/makes/Ford/F-150/Ford_US F-150_2010.pdf
Several EcoBoost Expeditions tuned by 5Star, and ZFG run on as much as E50 on a daily basis with Stock Pumps. Dude, get outside of this forum and actually go do some tuning.
On my Explorer 93(E10) gets me to 4.06 0-60, same environment, E50 gets me 3.75 0-60. No other differences in hardware. Both are on tunes tweaked for each fuel, with 10+ revisions. Doing the math, based on power to weight, and ECM calculated HP, it is about 60-75 HP at the crank in difference. That is on a 3.0EB in an Explorer ST.
At some point this Summer I will try a tank or 2 of Ethanol in my Expedition, but still working on 93 tune tweaking. E30 at first then maybe work up to E50 if the pump has plenty of head room. I am on my 3rd tuning device on our Expedition(just because I already had them). Just testing things out and getting numbers. More to come on that...in a few weeks.
Dyno’s mean very little in the real world. Useable power and drivability is what matters. It is a good place to start and to show progress.
I merely questioned your statements a bit and even agreed with you on several things. I was trying to be cordial. Again, I don’t know the 5.4. Your statements were in direct opposition to what @JExpedition07 said and, I have learned his knowledge of the 3rd Gen 5.4 Expedition is pretty impressive. Cause, well he has owned 2 of them, and done the work. Waiting for him to reply...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
Looks like he responded while I was typing...oh and look at that. In the fine print it says those impressive numbers, different than the lower previous year are gotten on E85!!! Less MPG, but more power. Timing can be advanced, but higher fuel flow is needed, hence less MPG.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Those specs also claim 20mpg for the 5.4l. Yeah, I don't think so. Page 2, just says 320hp, not 320 using E85. Wikipedia Ford Modular says 310hp in the Expedition. Don't know why the F-150 would be more. Many Expedition owners think they are the same vehicles, but are not.
Last edited:
JExpedition07
That One Member
I get 20 MPG all the time with my 5.4 on the highway cruising. It’s got 2 overdrive gears in a 6 speed dude.
Similar threads
