Octane rating vs fuel consumption

[Icecobra]

LOL,,, nice to see some things never change... Don't confuse them with facts, baffl'em with bull sh it.. 87 or 91 or 93 or 98 in reality it got you there didn't it.. **** and move on now... lol..

 

[Wilson]

I know everyone is going to argue with this, but from what I have researched and tested, any standard "street legal" motor will not get any considerable better or worse economy on any of the common grades of fuel.

Some may sware that the economy changes with higher octane but unless we do a test in a lab environment there really is no accurate way to prove this. The slightest wind or smallest driver differences among other factors would never be consistant across tests.

I'll stick with 87, as I have with every vehicle (even my ecoboost F150) and put the extra $ in the bank....unmm spend it on mods


--john.

YA but e-30 is cheap octain why not use it?

 

[johndjmix]

E80? Don't have that where I'm from.

--john

 

[Wilson]

E-30

 

[Kenneth]

I hate ethanol. It destroys gaskets, rusts everything and leaves carbon everywhere. Ethanol can eat a fat one.

It's pure gas for me. The following guide is hella recommended:

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

 

[Harblar]

Ruger, you are a condescending ass and that is how your posts come across. I thoroughly explained how I did my testing and why doing so under real world (normal use conditions) will give a much more accurate picture of how the truck will perform in actual real world everyday situations.

Harblar wrote, "Ruger, seriously... Explain how I got such vastly different fuel economies on the two different fuel types, then?"
No. The responsibility for reconciling one's personal perceptions with reality lies with the individual. Solve your own anomalies, my friend. I have my own to wrestle with.

You're the one that seems to have all the expert data and first hand knowledge. I just assumed someone of your obviously vast intellect would be able to easily explain it to a poor simple minded yokel like me¡

Hablar wrote, "No, I didn't read those articles, because none of them were about the Raptor."
And you determined the relevance of four articles without reading them exactly how, sir? The 6.2L isn't a terribly advanced design, and the engine management system is certainly modern but nothing very unique. Any current article about modern vehicles would be mostly if not completely applicable to the Raptor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the one getting your ******* in a *** over how an end user conducts their own fuel economy test (as far as accurate measurements and consistently repeatable conditions), yet you are willing to accept data obtained via completely different vehicles in highly controlled environmental situations and locations that will almost never be the same as what the typical daily driver is likely to encounter in their Raptor. Just a tad hypocritical along with the condescension I see... Good to know.

So what we have here borders on religion. I can't convince you of one single iota because you won't open your eyes. You can't convince me of anything either, because my honest impression is that you're not sufficiently intellectually disciplined to even do the homework. No hard feelings at all, Hablar, but we're an a final impasse here.

Call me a close minded dummy for simply stating my first hand observed data and opinion, in so many words, and then completely fail to proof read your last sentence, there. Nice...

Evidently you missed it, but my "snark" comment was aimed at myself. Not, it should have been obvious, at you.

Peace.

What I think is pretty obvious was your whole post leading up to your "self directed snark" comment. As I said at the beginning, you're a condescending ass. You were aiming for nothing short of trying to put me down in your oh so cleverly worded quips simply because I disagreed with your assessment based on my own personal observations. Then you basically call me dumb again by saying I didn't get your "witty" self deprecating joke, while knowing full well what it was that pissed me off. Classy. Maybe we can just cut the bs and go straight to the 'yo mama' jokes? No need to be formal anymore.



In all seriousness, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Some people agree with you, some agree with me. The op wanted opinions on which variety to run. That's what I gave along with how I arrived at that opinion. I never claimed it was any more "scientific" than your links, just that it was a more realistic method for the average daily driver.

Change fuel type when you change oil. Log the odometer and save your fuel receipts. That will give you the most reliable data on how your vehicle performs on each fuel variety based on how and where you drive. Maybe they're the same, maybe one is better than the other. That's up to you to figure out and, really, that's all that matters.

 

[Deleted member 12951]

FRF soap opera drama....

Nobody here has to explain themselves to anyone else. We are all individuals that most likely will never meet each other unless at a run and remember this is an INTERNET forum, don't take anything seriously and for god forbid, emotionally.

 

[Ruger]

Hablar wrote: "I never got nasty or attacked anyone in any of my posts."

 

[Bulletnjm]

Im happy with my 93

 

[JackDiesel]

I hate ethanol. It destroys gaskets, rusts everything and leaves carbon everywhere. Ethanol can eat a fat one.

It's pure gas for me. The following guide is hella recommended:

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

That's what I was thinking. Ethanol burns much dirtier than gas and engine modifications are needed when running E85. I think it's 33% less efficient than gas so you're getting less power and more engine deposits.

Pass