No sir. from what I've been reading, the V6 doesn't have the advanced timing like the GT's. It's recommended to run 87 and 87 only. No added benefits (performance wise) to running the better stuff. Not of course, unless you are running a tune.

 

Actually, for those in northern states and Canada, they may be feeling the difference between E10 and pure gas more than the octane difference. Almost all of Canada and most of the northern states sell "premium" (higher octane 91 or 93) fuel that is pure gasoline but "regular" (87 octane) that is up to 10% ethanol. The difference in octane is available with ignition timing advance as peak horsepower (i.e. higher rpm) but the difference in the amount of energy available between gasoline and ethanol makes a difference across the entire rpm range.

 

and whatever happened to the good old days when the price only went up 10 to 15 cents per grade? Maybe because more cars now really do need premium????

 

I was JUST reading from another forum a thread you had commented on just like this one. According to other people, the V6 may have some added benefit. I don't feel the difference. I've run 91 before and to me, its not worth the extra $10 per fill up.


I haven't read any hard evidence where this is true. From what I had been told and from trying to gather info on this, the V6 didn't have the advanced timing like the GT's with running the better fuel option.


I'm not saying that I'm right. Just saying I don't really know lol.

 

Ah, that's right. Variable cam timing. I forgot the V6 motors don't have that. That makes more sense, no timing adjustment based on octane.

Good point, that would make a difference across the curve.

I live in Michigan and most stations here have 10% ethanol in all the gasoline's, including 91. I don't remember seeing a pure gas anywhere in a long while.

 

Argue all you want, but I notice a difference.

 

One thing that I can tell you is that 87 fuel from Esso VS 87 fuel from Costco has a big difference.


I notice a much louder ping coming from the motor over with having filled up at Esso over the Costco grade fuel. 90% of the time, I fill up at Costco and I don't hear this ping.


If I'm sitting at a light idling and it catches my attention, its loud.


I still have my Esso gas card with about $350 left on it from when I bought this mustang. I'm still trying to use it slowly.


I typically save about $10 per fill up with this rewards card. I figure I have around 35 more uses left until I'm buying their gas

 

I read a car and driver report where they took a bone stock 2012 and ran 87 thru it and it only produced 390 hp on the dyno. then they ran 93 thru it and it pumped out the 414 as advertised.

If anything, I'd use 93 to protect my engine. we have 11:1 compression and if you get it good and hot and hammer the throttle enough, you are just asking for a melted piston. sure the knock sensor and VCT are supposed to account for the lower octane but why risk it.

I will get a tune very soon and even though I don't race, I want all the available power I can get so when I do get the urge, I know it's there.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but this would also hold true at lower RPM/high load situations such as acceleration as well. Higher octane would allow for more timing advance under greater load than lower octane allowing for greater power output under those conditions from 91/93 over 87/88. My guess is this would be where people feel the effects of 91/93 over 87/88 rather than high RPM only.

John

 

I can afford premium gas; so it's not an issue. I bought a performance car and will enjoy it to the fullest.

 

My Mustang only drinks 93 octane, just like the other two before it.

 

The facts on my 14 when data logging the stock tune was any 87 octane fuel resulted in knock sensors pulling timing as low as 1500 rpm at WOT conditions. 93 octane not only eliminated the knock activity but showed two to three points of added timing around 3500 rpm through redline under WOT conditions. Adding 110 octane blend on top of 93 showed no additional advance vs just 93 alone.

I didn't try 91.

 

 

Tom

All engines have some type of Ignition timing. Not all of them have Variable Valve timing. Totally two different things. So Octane plays a part in the ignition timing on all of these engines. it all depends on the Computer Code ( Tune ) on how much timing there is. Since some of the V6 do not have a ton of compression then it will not matter much. But the Gt's have a lot of compression so you will notice it more. This is a very simple way of explaining this.

 

When I got my 2013 5.0 last year I tried 87 for kicks and although I did not notice any ping I got more felt power running 93. I have a 91 performance tune now and run only 93.

 

Yikes... I spend that in less than a month as my Mustang is my DD... 60 miles/day in traffic...

 

I honestly cannot tell a difference but am running 93 from now on. I ran 87 for the first year and a half. It costs me an extra 58 cents per day to go to and from work (33 miles round trip) as long as it stays at 40 cents more per gallon than 87.

 

Totally agree... I only use premium in my V6 when the 87 is tainted with ethanol.
That is why many will have better gas mileage with pure premium fuel.

 

I run 94 when i'm daily driving around home. 91 or 93 on road trips only cuz 94 can be hard to find. The 94 is coming from a complately separate pump at the gas station too

I'm averging 13.3 L/100km at the moment running a 93 performance tune. I definitely noticed a difference from 91 to 94.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but my V6 most certainly has variable valve timing. Hell, it's even on the engine cover...

There will certainly be a few extra horses with premium fuel, but don't expect anything like what the coyote gains from it. I would wager it's 5 or less hp on premium with the cyclone.

I believe the compression ratio of the 3.7 is 10.5:1, so it ain't exactly low, either.