It says 87 but.....

[vforrest]

Just picked up my first Ford in years a 2014 SHO non-PP but has everything else on it so I'm learning something about the tech everyday.  My question is all of the performance numbers HP and MPG have an asterisk that says they were based upon premium fuel.  Yet the owners manual says 87 octane is fine but you'll get better performance with premium but no details.  The dealer gave me the car with a full tank of gas and it too was 87 octane.

So this is my company car and I'll put 40K a year on it for four years before the next one and I'm coming out of a very fun Infiniti EX35 AWD that was a blast but needed premium fuel.  I'm looking forward to regular 87 octane but I'm then curious how close to the 25 mpg. estimate will I get cruising @ 72 mph.

At 2000 miles I'll try five tanks of mid-grade and compare the numbers and then I'll try five tanks of premium.  Has anyone done this before and save me the research?

Thanks for your thoughts  and opinions.

 

[jayskycj]

I have personally seen a slight decrease in mpg using 87, however price still made 87 cheaper. I noticed a power difference too. Even on a stage 4 lms tune I get close to 25 highway.

 

[Josephm]

Why get a sports sedan if you plan on running 87?  I understand the fun part but you got to pay to play

 

[wasinger3000]

I'd rather just spend the $5-10 more per tank to have more power available. That and it's better for the engine.
Sent using smoke signals.

 

[SHOdded]

Welcome to the community, and congrats on your ride of choice!

As long as you trust the 87 octane fuel you are putting into the engine, you should be fine with it.  Since the SHO is turbocharged, detonation is more of an issue )even with modern engine management) than it would be in a naturally aspirated vehicle.  In our area, we have had bouts of poor gasoline quality (comparing same station, different times).  If ethanol is being added to your gas, you may actually be BELOW 87 in reality, which you absolutely don't want.  89 gives you that cushion of safety if you do not know the quality of gas being pumped in.  Thus, 93 is recommended for best performance, mpg, and reliability.  IF you drive gently, 87 should be fine.  If you are a leadfoot, 93 is your best choice.  91 if 93 not available in your area.

If/when you decide to tune your SHO, you will likely see noticeable improvements in mpg (no matter the grade of gasoline) and performance.  Livernois Motorsports and Unleashed Tuning are your top 2 options in this area, and based on reports so far, you will be very pleased with either choice.

 

[J-Will]

If fuel is a problem when modding (and it seems to be) then I would not feel comfortable putting anything less than mid grade.

 

[ZSHO]

For years and years I put 87 ontane in my old explorer until the car would not start,changed the gas pump and could not believe all the s,,,t in the filter

 

[Txstrmhntr]

Welcome to the community!

I'm sure you will enjoy the SHO no matter if you remain stock or tuned/modified. It is a truly fun and fantastic car.

With that being said IMHO 87 octane is a poor choice of fuel. I have owned a force inducted vehicle since about the time I started driving (17 years). And I have always used premium fuel in them. For states that it is acceptable but premium is recommended. Around here premium is 30¢ more per gallon than 87. That works out to around $5-6 dollars per fill up. In most places that's less than a pack of smokes. Well worth the cost to ensure your car is performing safely and reliably at the power levels it was designed for.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[QwikEVO]

a SHO as a complany car? 

must be nice.

 

[J-Will]

a SHO as a complany car? 

must be nice.

I assume he owns the company- like a Realtor or consultant. 

 

[4DRHTRD]

I might put 87 octane in it with a stock tune if I was going on a road trip on flat low altitude roads, anything other that and I wouldn't run anything other than premium.
You have a twin turbo DI high compression motor, too many things to go bad, I'd rather have the safety margin of the higher octane. These cars respond amazingly to octane differences and will pull massive amounts of timing on 87 octane to stop the knock. FYI in the F150 world it has been noted that quite a few trucks have blown their motor running 87 octane.
This octane issue is one of the reasons why I'm such a huge proponent of running e85 mixture. Run 14 gal e10 91/89/87 and 5 gal E85. I guess you could cheap on out on 87 and put in some e85 to make up for the difference.

http://www.intercepteft.com/calc.html

87 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
91.7 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

91 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
94.7 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

93 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
96.2 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

On a stock tune I would be you'd see quite a bit of HP increase between the mixes as the ECU will add timing naturally.

 

[ShoBoat]

I might put 87 octane in it with a stock tune if I was going on a road trip on flat low altitude roads, anything other that and I wouldn't run anything other than premium.
You have a twin turbo DI high compression motor, too many things to go bad, I'd rather have the safety margin of the higher octane. These cars respond amazingly to octane differences and will pull massive amounts of timing on 87 octane to stop the knock. FYI in the F150 world it has been noted that quite a few trucks have blown their motor running 87 octane.
This octane issue is one of the reasons why I'm such a huge proponent of running e85 mixture. Run 14 gal e10 91/89/87 and 5 gal E85. I guess you could cheap on out on 87 and put in some e85 to make up for the difference.

http://www.intercepteft.com/calc.html

87 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
91.7 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

91 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
94.7 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

93 Octane mix
19.00 gallons
96.2 octane
29.7% ethanol (or E30)

On a stock tune I would be you'd see quite a bit of HP increase between the mixes as the ECU will add timing naturally.

Question, will the stock fuel system handle the 30% mix? The max on the fill tube says 10% max?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4DRHTRD]

Yes it's been verified a ton

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[goblues38]

18 gallons of fuel @ .40¢ extra a gallon for premium = $7.20

To me its crazy to let $7.20 stand in the way of extra performance and better gas millage

 

[J-Will]

18 gallons of fuel @ .40¢ extra a gallon for premium = $7.20

To me its crazy to let $7.20 stand in the way of extra performance and better gas millage

That's a bit narrow sighted math over the course of 40k miles. So I see the reason behind the question, however I use the highest grade I can too.

 

[wasinger3000]

18 gallons of fuel @ .40¢ extra a gallon for premium = $7.20

To me its crazy to let $7.20 stand in the way of extra performance and better gas millage

That's a bit narrow sighted math over the course of 40k miles. So I see the reason behind the question, however I use the highest grade I can too.

With an average of 375 miles per tank over the life of 40,000 miles at a cost of 7.20 extra per tank it would cost you 768.00.

I think that's a price worth paying for increased performace, engine health, and a more enjoyable experience.

Sent using smoke signals.

 

[Lanson]

18 gallons of fuel @ .40¢ extra a gallon for premium = $7.20

To me its crazy to let $7.20 stand in the way of extra performance and better gas millage

That's a bit narrow sighted math over the course of 40k miles. So I see the reason behind the question, however I use the highest grade I can too.

With an average of 375 miles per tank over the life of 40,000 miles at a cost of 7.20 extra per tank it would cost you 768.00.

I think that's a price worth paying for increased performace, engine health, and a more enjoyable experience.

Sent using smoke signals.

Here's another thought to add about the life of it over 40k.  For me, I averaged 16.9 (lets round to 17) with 87.  with 91 (best we got), It is about 17.5.  So, here's the math, in basic form.  Over the course of 40k, my Flex consumes ~2352.94 gal with 87, and 2285.71 with 91.  That's 67.23 gal less with 91.  A gallon costs about 20 cents more being premium where I'm at.  At 3.65 per gallon average with 2352.94 gallons consumed, that's $8588.23 total.  For 3.85 premium, it runs $8799.98 so running premium means I spent $211 more to run.

With a tune, this would negate as I could get 1mpg better, not 1/2 mpg better.

 

[wasinger3000]

18 gallons of fuel @ .40¢ extra a gallon for premium = $7.20

To me its crazy to let $7.20 stand in the way of extra performance and better gas millage

That's a bit narrow sighted math over the course of 40k miles. So I see the reason behind the question, however I use the highest grade I can too.

With an average of 375 miles per tank over the life of 40,000 miles at a cost of 7.20 extra per tank it would cost you 768.00.

I think that's a price worth paying for increased performace, engine health, and a more enjoyable experience.

Sent using smoke signals.

Here's another thought to add about the life of it over 40k.  For me, I averaged 16.9 (lets round to 17) with 87.  with 91 (best we got), It is about 17.5.  So, here's the math, in basic form.  Over the course of 40k, my Flex consumes ~2352.94 gal with 87, and 2285.71 with 91.  That's 67.23 gal less with 91.  A gallon costs about 20 cents more being premium where I'm at.  At 3.65 per gallon average with 2352.94 gallons consumed, that's $8588.23 total.  For 3.85 premium, it runs $8799.98 so running premium means I spent $211 more to run.

With a tune, this would negate as I could get 1mpg better, not 1/2 mpg better.

Excellent point. We could also add another variable. Adding lucas UCL for me nets a bonus 2 mpg. But I'll spare the long winded math that would require.

Sent using smoke signals.

 

[Lanson]

2MPG?!!?

Dude, Ford would KILL to have that much improvement.  They fight tooth and nail for a .2 increase.

I would make very, very sure that all variables have been accounted for when factoring that the Lucas thing worked like that. 

 

[wasinger3000]

2MPG?!!?

Dude, Ford would KILL to have that much improvement.  They fight tooth and nail for a .2 increase.

I would make very, very sure that all variables have been accounted for when factoring that the Lucas thing worked like that.

Oh belive me. I have. Over 6 different vehicles I've tested on 50-100 mile trips.
Some vehicles get worse milage on lucas. Like the 5.4L/4.6Lfamily.

granted it's hard to get two trips the same since weather is always changing it's hard to get serious 100% accurate data. But from my tests, my own non believing eyes see a 2 mpg gain in my 13 sho. (On average) 2 weeks ago I did a 110 mile trip one way and managed 27.6mpg. On the way back I did 26.4mpg. 8 days ago I did the exact same trip without any fuel additive,  in similar weather conditions.
My fuel milage going to was 25.4mpg. On the way back I managed 24.1mpg.

On my f150 eco it is unresponsive to lucas and sees miniscule gains.

Just what I have experienced.


Sent using smoke signals.