Gas Grade...

[GitErDunn]

I've ran Premium since day one, where I fill is usually 91/92 but if I travel I usually run into 94 octane.

 

[Conejoracer]

Where's the closest gas station to California that sells 93 ethanol free?

I can't say for sure, but I'll guess it's Texas. This site lists pure gas stations and octane ratings for most;

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=TN

 

[BANE]

91 oct all the time.

if possible i run petro canada ultra 94 high performance

 

[Conejoracer]

Will one gallon of 87 run any better or provide more performance in the stock setup .. NO!.. In order to get more from 91 or 93 you have to adjust timing in the computer. Can it be done yes, but Ford in stock computer system will not adjust timing to take advantage of 91 or 93 over 87 octane fuel...

If that is the case, why does Ford state that the 6.2 makes 10HP more on 91 than it does on 87 octane?

I could care less about the negligible cost increase running 91 octane and the +10 HP, all I know is that my Raptor would occasionally ping on 87 during the first 6 months I owned it. I've run 91 in it for just over a year now and no pinging. Personally, I have found it to be a bit quicker and return slightly better milage on 91 octane.
Ford states we should not be concerned about some knocking. This is on page 24 of the 2010 Raptor owners guide supplement. I'm not really comfortable with that, so 91 for my truck.

 

[Icecobra]

They all run better with no ethanol.... 87 to 95 octane... no ethanol... I have tracked my trips diligently , driving and economizing.. My foot makes a bigger difference in performance than anything else... Now ask the guys with the tuners from 5 star and they can tell you what there experience is. I can tell you my on board computer does not know shit compared to anything else... I did a lot of testing with flex fuel and regular fuel engines.. notice a trend towards doing away with flex fuel. Ask Mike from 5 star about how to get your computer on board to do better...

So since it was mentioned lets discuss the negligible cost difference:
On any given day at my local stations 87 to 91 runs a cost difference of .30 per gallon. So how does that equate out, for the sake of argument nothing is gained using the octane rating difference... At 13 mpg for the past 10,000 miles this past year...

13 MPG 10,000 miles one year....

13 divides to 10,000 = 769.25 gallons so we round up 770 gallons the past year.. (your driving maybe different)...

770X.30 = 231.00 in added fuel cost over 87

Now its not a lot and it sure don't seem like much but in 10 years of ownership that means I get 2310.00 free money... Not sold no problem.. Now I am not the norm and know that most people drive closer to 20,000 miles a year.

We double everything

almost 500.00 in added fuel cost per year and 5000.00 dollars in my pocket over 10 years...

Still not sold, no problem... Some of you drive a lot more than me... 30,000 miles a year..

3 times the savings I get almost 700.00 in savings, and 7000.00 in ten years you give to the fuel companies.....

But hey the long and short of it is if it makes you feel good then spend the money,its your money...

It makes no difference to the engine 87 or 95 octane... If your pinging take it to Ford something is not right.....

Me and mine have been dropping 100.00 per year in stock and it just keeps adding up... It aint much and you don't miss it, but after 50 years it slowly becomes a lot...

 

[Nick@Apollo-Optics]

If that is the case, why does Ford state that the 6.2 makes 10HP more on 91 than it does on 87 octane?

I could care less about the negligible cost increase running 91 octane and the +10 HP, all I know is that my Raptor would occasionally ping on 87 during the first 6 months I owned it. I've run 91 in it for just over a year now and no pinging. Personally, I have found it to be a bit quicker and return slightly better milage on 91 octane.
Ford states we should not be concerned about some knocking. This is on page 24 of the 2010 Raptor owners guide supplement. I'm not really comfortable with that, so 91 for my truck.

Thank you. Apparently no one saw my post on Page 4 stating the same thing.

They all run better with no ethanol.... 87 to 95 octane... no ethanol... I have tracked my trips diligently , driving and economizing.. My foot makes a bigger difference in performance than anything else... Now ask the guys with the tuners from 5 star and they can tell you what there experience is. I can tell you my on board computer does not know shit compared to anything else... I did a lot of testing with flex fuel and regular fuel engines.. notice a trend towards doing away with flex fuel. Ask Mike from 5 star about how to get your computer on board to do better...

So since it was mentioned lets discuss the negligible cost difference:
On any given day at my local stations 87 to 91 runs a cost difference of .30 per gallon. So how does that equate out, for the sake of argument nothing is gained using the octane rating difference... At 13 mpg for the past 10,000 miles this past year...

13 MPG 10,000 miles one year....

13 divides to 10,000 = 769.25 gallons so we round up 770 gallons the past year.. (your driving maybe different)...

770X.30 = 231.00 in added fuel cost over 87

Now its not a lot and it sure don't seem like much but in 10 years of ownership that means I get 2310.00 free money... Not sold no problem.. Now I am not the norm and know that most people drive closer to 20,000 miles a year.

We double everything

almost 500.00 in added fuel cost per year and 5000.00 dollars in my pocket over 10 years...

Still not sold, no problem... Some of you drive a lot more than me... 30,000 miles a year..

3 times the savings I get almost 700.00 in savings, and 7000.00 in ten years you give to the fuel companies.....

But hey the long and short of it is if it makes you feel good then spend the money,its your money...

It makes no difference to the engine 87 or 95 octane... If your pinging take it to Ford something is not right.....

Me and mine have been dropping 100.00 per year in stock and it just keeps adding up... It aint much and you don't miss it, but after 50 years it slowly becomes a lot...

Agreed. They all run better with no ethanol. But there is an advantage that you failed to mention. Numerous members have claimed that they have experienced an increase from 0.5 to 1.5 mpg. Let's call that a 1 mpg increase and for the sake of simplicity, we'll say the Raptor tank is 40 gallons. So, if you increase 1 mpg per 40 gallons, that's an extra 40 miles per tank which would equate to 4 gallons of fuel at 10mpg. So you're saving 4 gallons of fuel at $3.50/gallon comes out to $14. Now, to run premium, add a surcharge of $0.30 to each of the 40 gallons and it costs you $12. So you're actually coming out ahead at $2 profit.

 

[RAPTORSV]

California Sucks!

 

[Icecobra]

Absolutely true with no ethanol it is a plus to run 87 ethanol free... Octane does not gain any MPG if it does it is so small it is not really measurable. How you accelerate can save you two to 4 miles per tank and that starts creeping up the old saving scale...

 

[Nick@Apollo-Optics]

Absolutely true with no ethanol it is a plus to run 87 ethanol free... Octane does not gain any MPG if it does it is so small it is not really measurable. How you accelerate can save you two to 4 miles per tank and that starts creeping up the old saving scale...

Perhaps. But can you find ethanol-free 87 octane anywhere but the boat ramp? I know I can't find it anywhere near Houston. You used to be able to find it out in the country but now they're even 10% ethanol out there. At least in my neck of the woods.

 

[Cleave]

Ice, I get more mpg running 91 10% ethanol than I do running 87 10% ethanol, usually 1-2 mpg, I also get 14 mpg flooring it everywhere, other people running 87 usually get 13 driving normally, I can also get well over 20 on the freeway keeping a constant 65 mph, obviously octane has effected my gas mileage, and your truck WILL make more power with a higher octane fuel, that alone is worth the extra cost in my opinion