C&D Test: Premium 93 worth it in F150/Raptor HO?

[lawdog]

Generally conforms what most us here knew: there is a noticeable difference in the way our trucks perform on 93 vs low grade gas, due to the engine management system/software. This is true of a lot of HO turbo setups. They tested a Limited, which now has the same engine as the Raptor.

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...onda-cr-v-vs-bmw-m5-ford-f-150-dodge-charger/

 

[nick71692]

Thanks for sharing that was a good read. Money well spent seeing the positive effects on our trucks.

 

[Kashoggio]

From day one I only put in 93, just seemed weird to do anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[baptizo]

I'm not surprised at the benefit but it's nice to have confirmation.

 

[Airkuhl]

Clipped the data out for quick reference. I also go out of my way to use non-ethanol fuel, hopefully someone will do a test on that someday.

 

[jzweedyk]

Thanks for posting that. I always use premium, but now I can feel better about it.

 

[_Satch_]

20 less wheel horsepower when down grading from 93 to 87... 1.9 peak boost pressure less as well. Fuel mileage ticked up .6 mpg when running the 93. I think I'll stick with the 93 grade, Thank You!
-Satch

 

[goblues38]

.6 mpg x 36 gallons = 21.6 miles or 1.22 gallons. So right of the bat, lower octane fuel is eating into your "savings" by $4.

36 gallons x .35 (premium price addition) = $12.60 - $4 - $8.60

Is it worth losing all that performance to save $8.60 a tank....for me...no freaking way.

 

[nikhsub1]

Anyone who didn't know this surprises me. Add an FMIC and watch the power go up even more.

 

[BIG TIME BALLER]

I just tried a tank of 87 for the first time. I averaged the same MPG according to the dash info (reset of course).

Definitely feels less powerful, but there is a smoother feel to it... less jerky or sudden and more “refined” is guess.

Was hoping for a MPG improvement to further substantiate the cost savings, but it’s holding at 18.1.