Running regular gas
- Thread starter A 01 Badger
- Start date
Could be. But Costco is top tier gas, and boasts of high detergent levels, if not additive packs. And frankly, none of the gas I have used in other high-volume, top tier stations (save that 1 oddball Exxon) made one whit of difference in anything - fuel economy or performance - where my Edge is concerned.
I'm skeptical as well. But we have to consider what we cant see. Like clean valves. V-power is too new to tell but their refusal to address di specifically leaves me suspicious. That being said, I quit having fuel system issues when I started using shell years ago so I will stick with it, especially the success I've had with it mixing the corn.SHOdded said:
It makes a huge difference with KR and knock. My corn tune is much hotter and you saw that one log.....even near stoich at wot, no knock.SHOdded said:Definitely, if it works for you, stick with itHave you tried running just the 93 (after the 93 + corn) to see how much difference it makes? The fuel system in the Edge is "primitive" enough that I can't really experiment with upping ethanol %ages.
A 01 Badger
New member
I can agree with you there, even at the beginning of this year I was totally stoked when it got below 3. I was in Chicago for most of the Millennium including the summer I was paying $5 a gallon while running my Pontiac GTP.FoMoCoSHO said:
Amazing how quickly we can adjust to the new "norm".
FoMoCoSHO said:It makes a huge difference with KR and knock. My corn tune is much hotter and you saw that one log.....even near stoich at wot, no knock.SHOdded said:Definitely, if it works for you, stick with it
You were running near stoic at wot?....what you talking bout willis?
You have mailajpturbo said:FoMoCoSHO said:It makes a huge difference with KR and knock. My corn tune is much hotter and you saw that one log.....even near stoich at wot, no knock.SHOdded said:Definitely, if it works for you, stick with it
You were running near stoic at wot?....what you talking bout willis?
A 01 Badger
New member
Maybe this should be it's own post but it started here so I will put it here but it's basically a LMS 87 tune review.
For those who remember or care, I went back to stock tune at the end of last year due to the drastic price drop in 87 octane and the fact that 93 didn't follow as closely. (now that 87 is under $1.40 and 93 close to $2 is another story)
Most if not all of us drove the car stock at some point. Obviously, I lost a lot of the fun factor from driving on my 93 tune, but since it was winter, I didn't mind so much as conditions don't really allow for a lot of fun anyway. Anyway, I never ran the car on 87 even pre tune, so I have no comparison, but I was pleasantly surprised that most of the power stayed, and my mileage was still in the 24 mpg area. (I do a lot of Hwy miles) Tony at LMS saw my post and offered to send me an 87 tune which would allow me to put my 3bar back on the car and adjust some of the shifting characteristics on the car. I gladly accepted and reinstalled the 3 bar and updated the tune about 2 weeks ago.
Note: I realize there are a lot of variables here, including outdoor temps, winter gas chemistry, winter tires vs. eagles, butt dyno only, etc. but I wasn't able to locate anyone else on here running an 87 octane tune so I thought I would put my thoughts out there.
On the LMS 87 tune I have noticed 3 major things:
1. The car seems to run alot quieter, over 93 tune or stock. I can not figure out why that is, but it's almost silent when not under load, like Prius silent.
2. It seems to run and shift smoother than both stock or 93 tune. I can't say why, obvious the lower noise is part of this feeling, but it almost feels like I am coasting all the time (best way I can describe it). I assume the shift points are similar to the 93 tune, but due to less power, it just shifts easier???
3. Mileage is WAY worse.- than stock or 93 tune.
3a. With the 93 tune and 93 gas, I was getting 23 to 24 mpg, when driving nice.
3b. With the stock tune and 87 gas, I was still getting around 24.
3c. With the stock tune and 93 gas, I was getting 24+ (I ran this way when I first got the car Dec 2014-June 2015)
3d. With the current set up, 87 tune with 87 gas, I can not seem to get it above 20mpg, avg for the last 3 tanks was 18.7 mpg.
*All MPG measurements are based on the Ford computer calculations, I've done none on my own (Pump / ODO between fillups) But I assume it's pretty accurate.
My guess is that it's the more aggressive shift points that accounts for the majority of the loss of mileage but I can't think of what else would contribute to it. I haven't done the math yet, but I have a feeling that the increased mileage will justify me going back to the 93 tune. I may switch back when this current tank empty's to see if my mileage holds up like I remember it.
Overall: I appreciate LMS taking the time to make the 87 tune for me. It's nice to have in the programmer for situations where low quality gas might be the only thing available. The biggest benefit I believe is the ability to drop down to 87 without having to pop the hood and swap our the 3 bar and 2 bar. However, my purpose was to try to take advantage of the large spread between 87 and 93 octane, and I believe the decrease in mileage might make the 87 gas (1.34 today) less of a value than the 93 (1.95 today). Especially when you factor in the loss of power and more frequent stops at the pump. (again, I haven't actually done the math).
Anyone else's thoughts are appreciated.
For those who remember or care, I went back to stock tune at the end of last year due to the drastic price drop in 87 octane and the fact that 93 didn't follow as closely. (now that 87 is under $1.40 and 93 close to $2 is another story)
Most if not all of us drove the car stock at some point. Obviously, I lost a lot of the fun factor from driving on my 93 tune, but since it was winter, I didn't mind so much as conditions don't really allow for a lot of fun anyway. Anyway, I never ran the car on 87 even pre tune, so I have no comparison, but I was pleasantly surprised that most of the power stayed, and my mileage was still in the 24 mpg area. (I do a lot of Hwy miles) Tony at LMS saw my post and offered to send me an 87 tune which would allow me to put my 3bar back on the car and adjust some of the shifting characteristics on the car. I gladly accepted and reinstalled the 3 bar and updated the tune about 2 weeks ago.
Note: I realize there are a lot of variables here, including outdoor temps, winter gas chemistry, winter tires vs. eagles, butt dyno only, etc. but I wasn't able to locate anyone else on here running an 87 octane tune so I thought I would put my thoughts out there.
On the LMS 87 tune I have noticed 3 major things:
1. The car seems to run alot quieter, over 93 tune or stock. I can not figure out why that is, but it's almost silent when not under load, like Prius silent.
2. It seems to run and shift smoother than both stock or 93 tune. I can't say why, obvious the lower noise is part of this feeling, but it almost feels like I am coasting all the time (best way I can describe it). I assume the shift points are similar to the 93 tune, but due to less power, it just shifts easier???
3. Mileage is WAY worse.- than stock or 93 tune.
3a. With the 93 tune and 93 gas, I was getting 23 to 24 mpg, when driving nice.
3b. With the stock tune and 87 gas, I was still getting around 24.
3c. With the stock tune and 93 gas, I was getting 24+ (I ran this way when I first got the car Dec 2014-June 2015)
3d. With the current set up, 87 tune with 87 gas, I can not seem to get it above 20mpg, avg for the last 3 tanks was 18.7 mpg.
*All MPG measurements are based on the Ford computer calculations, I've done none on my own (Pump / ODO between fillups) But I assume it's pretty accurate.
My guess is that it's the more aggressive shift points that accounts for the majority of the loss of mileage but I can't think of what else would contribute to it. I haven't done the math yet, but I have a feeling that the increased mileage will justify me going back to the 93 tune. I may switch back when this current tank empty's to see if my mileage holds up like I remember it.
Overall: I appreciate LMS taking the time to make the 87 tune for me. It's nice to have in the programmer for situations where low quality gas might be the only thing available. The biggest benefit I believe is the ability to drop down to 87 without having to pop the hood and swap our the 3 bar and 2 bar. However, my purpose was to try to take advantage of the large spread between 87 and 93 octane, and I believe the decrease in mileage might make the 87 gas (1.34 today) less of a value than the 93 (1.95 today). Especially when you factor in the loss of power and more frequent stops at the pump. (again, I haven't actually done the math).
Anyone else's thoughts are appreciated.
A 01 Badger said:
Before you switch back, I suggest you try running the ACES IV fuel catalyst. Here in California 93 octane is not available. But the ACES allows me to run the 93 tune with no problem. Yes you will be some what of a guinea pig but given you had your tune modified this is golden opportunity to really see what the ACES can do. From economy standpoint my '04 Yukon normally gets 10 mpg. But running the ACES with the almost cheapest gas I can find I get 12-13 mpg. The SHO, my mileage never been great but I am generally just under 20 mpg. My numbers are all real world numbers. Not computer calculations so I tend to believe that as being more accurate.
The discussion for the ACES IV is here.
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,5087.0.html
87 has more energy than 93 because it has more fuel and less additives that rob energy in exchange for higher octane.
That being said, 93 allows for more advanced timing advance across the board which translates to more efficiency and power. What that means is for a given Torque request, you will need more throttle (fuel) with 87 than 93. You can see the difference on the stock tune if you monitor KR (read timing retard) activity as 87 will be wildly higher. Look at the HP ratings as well between the two. 87 has more theoretical energy but in our platform you can see it makes more power with 93. (355 vs 365)
That being said, 93 allows for more advanced timing advance across the board which translates to more efficiency and power. What that means is for a given Torque request, you will need more throttle (fuel) with 87 than 93. You can see the difference on the stock tune if you monitor KR (read timing retard) activity as 87 will be wildly higher. Look at the HP ratings as well between the two. 87 has more theoretical energy but in our platform you can see it makes more power with 93. (355 vs 365)
