What Octane are you running in your Platinums?

[doktoroktobor]

If you can afford it, get the highest octane. Power and efficiency go up and it keeps the engine healthy. Technically, you can run 87 and be just fine. But idk how much you paid for your 19, but I would go premium and never look back

You can mix but just know that lower octane fuel causes more knock which robs power and can cause spark plug detonation if knock gets too high

Thanks. I'll probably just run premium all the time, which I'm used to already from my RDX, but I was curious what would happen if I didn't.

 

[rjdelp7]

My 2011 Mustang GT owners manual says 'use 91 or higher', 'Reduced performance on lower octane'. My 2001 Lincoln with the DOHC 32v Intech, says the exact same thing. Ford re-worded the fuel section, in Expeditions and F150s, with the EcoBoost. It says "use 91 for towing and maximum performance". The 2019 EB WILL detune on 87 octane. The engine has knock sensors and its automatic. You have to burn through a 25 gallon tank of 87, to get a tank with 91 octane. Any remaining fuel with mix and lower the rating. Shame on Ford, for misleading consumers. The engine is more boost, than Eco. It needs expensive, premium fuel to make advertised power.

 

[cmiles97]

My 2011 Mustang GT owners manual says 'use 91 or higher', 'Reduced performance on lower octane'. My 2001 Lincoln with the DOHC 32v Intech, says the exact same thing. Ford re-worded the fuel section, in Expeditions and F150s, with the EcoBoost. It says "use 91 for towing and maximum performance". The 2019 EB WILL detune on 87 octane. The engine has knock sensors and its automatic. You have to burn through a 25 gallon tank of 87, to get a tank with 91 octane. Any remaining fuel with mix and lower the rating. Shame on Ford, for misleading consumers. The engine is more boost, than Eco. It needs expensive, premium fuel to make advertised power.

I feel the opposite. I think it's awesome to have a choice. You want full power put in 93 Octane. You want a little less power but save at fillups, you can use 87. That's quite an engineering feat.

I can assure you that company car/vans/trucks with ecoboost motors never get above 87 when buying gas with fleet cards and they motor on just fine. No one that I've worked with that had one ever complained about loss of power, quite the opposite, most say they get up and go.

 

[RhinoQuartz]

Escalade has 420 horsepower 6.2, and yes they are laughing at anyone in an SUV who wants to race. Anyone who pulls up to race in an Expedition or a Chevy should be laughed at. GMC Denali beats the Navigator here.

And yet the Expedition smoked that Denali.

At least the Nav was pretty close.

 

[JExpedition07]

You missed the 0-60 times (in the video above):

Navi 8.24

Yukon 8.87

Durango 5.91 (Dang that is very FAST for any kind of SUV).

0-60 doesn’t matter in a quarter mile. The Denali 6.2 was the clear winner over the Ecoboost in the Navi and pulled on it as it revved out.

 

[16plati]

0-60 doesn’t matter in a quarter mile. The Denali 6.2 was the clear winner over the Ecoboost in the Navi and pulled on it as it revved out.

Ahh haa, but Ford left ALOT of power on the table in these. Tuned, expedition wins hands down. I walked a Dodge Charger 392 the other day from a light. They had no clue what happened

 

[rjdelp7]

I feel the opposite. I think it's awesome to have a choice. You want full power put in 93 Octane. You want a little less power but save at fillups, you can use 87. That's quite an engineering feat.

I can assure you that company car/vans/trucks with ecoboost motors never get above 87 when buying gas with fleet cards and they motor on just fine. No one that I've worked with that had one ever complained about loss of power, quite the opposite, most say they get up and go.

A 'choice' is nice but....what if you have a half tank of 87 and need to tow a boat? I wouldn't be happy spending $60k and have it run with reduced performance. Paying for premium fuel in a SUV is not that appealing.

 

[edizzle]

Then don’t buy a $60k suv that requires premium!!!

 

[cmiles97]

A 'choice' is nice but....what if you have a half tank of 87 and need to tow a boat? I wouldn't be happy spending $60k and have it run with reduced performance. Paying for premium fuel in a SUV is not that appealing.

I've pulled a utility trailer that weighs 3Klbs empty with mine with 87 octane. I really didn't notice any difference. I switched to 93 when I loaded it up pushing 5 to 6K in weight only because I follow the owner's manual recommendation.

Like I have said previously this same motor & transmission is in Ford work vans and trucks that are loaded down with equipment and tools and some also tow. The service companies I have worked for will not pay for premium fuel. Those vehicles do just fine on 87 and they run them over 150,000 miles before vehicle replacement.

 

[Boose]

I run 92 in both my 19 F150 3.5 and 17 Expedition.

 

[rjdelp7]

Then don’t buy a $60k suv that requires premium!!!

Exactly! Ford is losing sales with this Ecoboost 'only' engine option. The Mustang and F150, have engine options for buyers. I will never spend $60K for a new or even $10K for a used V6 Exzpedition.

 

[Gareth676]

Would love to see how this, slightly inane, thread runs in 2020 when Premium is is $5.50 a gallon maybe.

 

[aggiegrad05]

At the risk of being insensitive....

If you can't afford to run premium, you probably couldn't afford to spend $60k-$85k on the vehicle. But luckily, if you bought it anyway, Ford let's you run the cheap stuff.

And really, assuming you drive 12,000 miles per year, and assuming 17mpg over those 12,000 miles, using the AAA average national gas prices for today ($2.882 for regular and $3.443 for premium), running the higher octane is only an extra $400 for the year.

 

[rjdelp7]

At the risk of being insensitive....

If you can't afford to run premium, you probably couldn't afford to spend $60k-$85k on the vehicle. But luckily, if you bought it anyway, Ford let's you run the cheap stuff.

And really, assuming you drive 12,000 miles per year, and assuming 17mpg over those 12,000 miles, using the AAA average national gas prices for today ($2.882 for regular and $3.443 for premium), running the higher octane is only an extra $400 for the year.

Stupid, pretzel logic. Why run Premium in a non-premium,non-performance vehicle at all? Its a waste of money. Why not put the V8 back in the Expedition? $400x 5 yrs = $2,000. That is not so 'eco'. Its more wasteBoost.

 

[16plati]

Stupid, pretzel logic. Why run Premium in a non-premium,non-performance vehicle at all? Its a waste of money. Why not put the V8 back in the Expedition? $400x 5 yrs = $2,000. That is not so 'eco'. Its more wasteBoost.

I get better fuel economy on 93 and more power, plus with a 93 perf/tow tune I’m getting 20+mpg with a 3” lift on 35s in a 6200lb SUV? Doesn’t seem like a waste to me??

 

[rjdelp7]

I get better fuel economy on 93 and more power, plus with a 93 perf/tow tune I’m getting 20+mpg with a 3” lift on 35s in a 6200lb SUV? Doesn’t seem like a waste to me??

2016 posted fuel mileage is 16/22. Premium not needed to make 20mpg. That sounds high for towing. Post a picture. I like to see one lifted.

 

[16plati]

2016 posted fuel mileage is 16/22. Premium not needed to make 20mpg. That sounds high for towing. Post a picture. I like to see one lifted.

Well I get 20 in the city so +4 from 93 and a tune is awesome! And Thts just the calibration of the tune. I don’t tow, it’s just not as aggressive as the 93 performance only tune I have.

 

[edizzle]

FACTS: the automotive world is going to smaller displacement boosted engines. get used to it!! in the next 5 years

Stupid, pretzel logic. Why run Premium in a non-premium,non-performance vehicle at all? Its a waste of money. Why not put the V8 back in the Expedition? $400x 5 yrs = $2,000. That is not so 'eco'. Its more wasteBoost.

LOL, why are you here? you dont like the 4th gen, you will never own one?!?!?! just to stir up ****?

 

[rjdelp7]

FACTS: the automotive world is going to smaller displacement boosted engines. get used to it!! in the next 5 years

LOL, why are you here? you dont like the 4th gen, you will never own one?!?!?! just to stir up ****?

I responded to a post about octane. I own two vehicles that use '91 or higher'. I would consider buying a 4th Gen, when they offer the V8 again. There has been some talk of it for about a year. GM is still making the V8 Tahoe, Denali and Escalade(full displacement, no turbo). There is negative(1980s) stigma, about turbo engines. When is the last time, you saw a turbo Tbird or SVO mustang on the road? How about a Dodge Daytona? The Buick GN is a rare sight. They will never 'all' be turbo. Gas prices are down and the oil market has changed. There is a push, to get rid of the electric vehicle, tax credit. Hybrid sales are down and have peaked. The public wants affordable SUVs and not fuel sipper cars.

 

[edizzle]

I responded to a post about octane. I own two vehicles that use '91 or higher'. I would consider buying a 4th Gen, when they offer the V8 again. There has been some talk of it for about a year. GM is still making the V8 Tahoe, Denali and Escalade(full displacement, no turbo). There is negative(1980s) stigma, about turbo engines. When is the last time, you saw a turbo Tbird or SVO mustang on the road? How about a Dodge Daytona? The Buick GN is a rare sight. They will never 'all' be turbo. Gas prices are down and the oil market has changed. There is a push, to get rid of the electric vehicle, tax credit. Hybrid sales are down and have peaked. The public wants affordable SUVs and not fuel sipper cars.

LOL, when is the last time you shopped for vehicles!!! 1984? look at the motor offerings in the X7, the GLS, basically all new bmw, mercedes, audi, volkswagen, etc either offer turbo as the primary or upgraded engine offerings. of course the domestics are the last to adapt because, well they're domestic and are known for making sluggish and often ignorant decisions. Ford has been ahead of the curve and developed a few good small displacement turbo charged motors. the rest will follow......trust me.