What grade fuel for PowerBoost?

[scrming]

"If the Powerboost runs 87 without significant knock retard occurring, then running 90 or 93 octane without a re-tune is going to be a waste of money."

"If you engine wasn’t tuned for 93 or built for 93 with high compression pistons or higher than factory boost levels, then you don’t need premium and you are throwing money away. Literally, just tossing 20 bucks away each fill up."

"Pure 100% gasoline 87 octane should get you the best economy."

"Pure Gasoline 93 octane should be reserved for engines that require it due to mechanical or calibration reasons."

"Running high octane fuel is a waste in a non-tuned F-150. I wouldn’t run higher than mid grade when towing, and would never run 93 unless I was going to the race track."

All of the above are incorrect for Ecoboost and Powerboost engines. Modern Ford technology reads the available octane and uses ALL of what's available. When you pay for more expensive, higher octane fuel, you get all of its cleaner-burning benefits, added power, and higher fuel economy. Ford recommends higher octane for a reason, but the advanced engine tuning will accommodate any lower octane that it "sees" and avoid knocking, seem to run okay, while providing lesser efficiency and power. This is the wonder of modern electronics and fuel management systems, and the advice provided above is old-school knowledge, was correct until roughly 2010 in the Ford world. The second comment is SORT of correct because every gasoline Ford engine IS tuned to benefit from 93 octane fuel. All of the other comments are 180-degrees wrong.

i can’t like this post enough!!!

I would also add that the switch to wide band O2 sensors means these vehicles are basically self tuning. ?

Sponsored

 

[Snakebitten]

I've been wrong so many times that I don't doubt that I could be this time too.

But Fords amazing software on the 3.5 Ecoboost will absolutely make more power on 93 than it will on 87.

 

[AutonomousHybridF150]

The car and driver article does not mention the F150 being a Raptor. Appears to be a regular F150 3.5 EB. And 20 RWHP is pretty noticeable.

since you mention Mustangs… when the S197 came out for 2005 Ford introduced the Spanish OaK ECU and it would take advantage of premium gas. The ECU would advance timing until the knock sensors kicked in and then back off the timing. Now the difference wasn’t big… believe it was 5 RWHP. There was a magazine article way back when. So while small it was obvious the ECU was taking advantage of the extra timing.

The article was written in 2019, so the truck being reviewed is a 2019 Limited. The only engine option available for that year model limited was the 450 HO motor (Raptor motor).

This is yet another example of a poorly written article, that just makes it look like every EB owner is missing out on 20 HP. They should have tested a normal EB truck, not the flagship HO motor, which we all know is tuned up a bit. They did mention that is was 450 HP, and that was what tipped me off

But this article in no way represents how a normal EB or PB motor would react to premium. Like snake bitten said, you have to run a tank or so before the computer truly re-learns, so their testing is invalid regardless.

 

[scrming]

The article was written in 2019, so the truck being reviewed is a 2019 Limited. The only engine option available for that year model limited was the 450 HO motor (Raptor motor).

This is yet another example of a poorly written article, that just makes it look like every EB owner is missing out on 20 HP. They should have tested a normal EB truck, not the flagship HO motor, which we all know is tuned up a bit. They did mention that is was 450 HP, and that was what tipped me off

But this article in no way represents how a normal EB or PB motor would react to premium. Like snake bitten said, you have to run a tank or so before the computer truly re-learns, so their testing is invalid regardless.

Regardless of which version of the 3.5 EB we talk about I bet the octane learning logic is still in the calibration. You made some very broad statements about no benefit of using premium fuel which is incorrect

 

[Lippy]

The engine constantly and in real-time advances to the threshold of detonation, which is the most efficient way to run the engine. So why would it take a tank or two to realize the benefits? It should happen immediately when higher octane fuel is pumped into the engine.

 

[AutonomousHybridF150]

"If the Powerboost runs 87 without significant knock retard occurring, then running 90 or 93 octane without a re-tune is going to be a waste of money."

"If you engine wasn’t tuned for 93 or built for 93 with high compression pistons or higher than factory boost levels, then you don’t need premium and you are throwing money away. Literally, just tossing 20 bucks away each fill up."

"Pure 100% gasoline 87 octane should get you the best economy."

"Pure Gasoline 93 octane should be reserved for engines that require it due to mechanical or calibration reasons."

"Running high octane fuel is a waste in a non-tuned F-150. I wouldn’t run higher than mid grade when towing, and would never run 93 unless I was going to the race track."

All of the above are incorrect for Ecoboost and Powerboost engines. Modern Ford technology reads the available octane and uses ALL of what's available. When you pay for more expensive, higher octane fuel, you get all of its cleaner-burning benefits, added power, and higher fuel economy. Ford recommends higher octane for a reason, but the advanced engine tuning will accommodate any lower octane that it "sees" and avoid knocking, seem to run okay, while providing lesser efficiency and power. This is the wonder of modern electronics and fuel management systems, and the advice provided above is old-school knowledge, was correct until roughly 2010 in the Ford world. The second comment is SORT of correct because every gasoline Ford engine IS tuned to benefit from 93 octane fuel. All of the other comments are 180-degrees wrong.

What’s a wide band O2 sensor?

Oh you are challenging me on my knowledge of Pre 2011 mustang computer vs post 2011 Mustangs computers, and pre-2012 F150s vs low-2012 F150s.

Or how pre-2011 Mustangs and pre-2012 F-150’s used narrow band sensors and how those only showed a rich or lean signal, really just so the CAT fire up occurs and is maintained. But not near the detail required to know if the engine was running 11.1 to 1 or 13.2.

Well I was fully aware my 2012 GT500 had wide band 02 sensors. I was fully aware the engine computers changed for that year, because when I data logged the car, I noticed the O2 sensor had high resolution and realized it was wide band.

I was also fully aware that my 2013 SHO with Performance Package (EcoBoost) had wide band O2 sensors. And used the same fuel/engine management system as all the other new age vehicles. It also, was able to run on regular 87 octane, but Ford recommended 93 octane.

I just gave those two examples of vehicles in order to debunk what you stated. Both vehicles require Premium for maximum performance, it is stated in the literature. You claim Ford “gets 100% out of the premium fuel” when any vehicle is filled with premium fuel.

Ford vehicles are pig rich and all OEM tunes are detuned for the guy that doesn’t maintain his vehicle so well, like 20k oil intervals, and such.

Ford would never tune their Turbo motors with 12.7 AFR and with timing advanced further than a “safe OEM tune”. This is and always has been true for all OEM tunes, and regardless of the fancy electronics, Ford isn’t going to risk their warranty.

For those reasons, the max that the OEM tunes is about 30-50 HP less than what would otherwise be possible with the same motor and 93 octane.

2011 GT500 - 550 HP “premium fuel only motor”. According to you “Ford uses 100% of the 93 octane” but yet with a Tune only gained 40-50 HP on the same premium fuel. Boost is mechanical and no waste gate, so boost didn’t change.

2013 Taurus SHO - 365 HP “on premium fuel” but yet with a tune only you can get 40-50 more HP on the same Premium Fuel 93 octane.

I never said you wouldn’t get any increase at all. What I said was the small gains between regular and 93 are so minimal it’s a complete waste of money.

Ive been Boosted Ford since 2003, and I’ve cracked a couple hypereurtectic pistons in my day because I didn’t want the word safe anywhere near my tunes, so that is what happened.

Ford’s tunes for 93 are so conservative it’s silly. Getting a decent 40-50 HP extra on 2 vehicles (within your new vehicle date range) which need 93 already, just proves that Ford is in fact very conservative in their 93 octane tunes.

If you can get 50 more horsepower out of a 2011 GT 500 and a 2013 Taurus SHO EB, then that should prove to you and everyone else here the Ford tunes their 93 octane tunes with very fuel rich and timing conservative which doesn’t give you 100% for the 93 octane fuel in your tank.

i’ve been involved with tuning forts since 2002. My good friend has a 2019 F150 the runs in the 11s. He makes between four and $500 a pop to tune each vehicle that rolls to his shop.

Are you telling me that everyone should just put premium in and NOT get a tune?

Are you saying that the dyno tune industry is a fraud?

It can’t be both. it has to be one or the other.

Either Ford tunes these engines at 100% for 93, and they leave absolutely no room for improvement (which is what you said).

Or they leave about 80% room for improvement In the tune, so you’re really only getting 20% of what you could be getting with 93 + a tune also. (Which is what i said).

I’ll wager the cost of the dyno pulls that my PB truck only gains less than 10 HP with premium. I would also wager that the difference is so minimal a normal person couldn’t tell the difference in a blind test.

 

[AutonomousHybridF150]

Regardless of which version of the 3.5 EB we talk about I bet the octane learning logic is still in the calibration. You made some very broad statements about no benefit of using premium fuel which is incorrect

No not regardless.

If it is the HO motor it’s a completely different animal when it comes to the additional horsepower gain with premium.

Since the HO motor requires premium, the article is technically putting the wrong fuel in it and then telling you you’re getting 20 hp less. That article does not hold water with your argument. You’re comparing apples and oranges which is not the same. The HO motor is going to have to define a lot to remain on one piece.

I just gave two examples in my previous post. If anyone would like to explain how I’m wrong about that please jump in the ring. I’m not wrong, those are two vehicles that I own, and both of them gain 50 hp from a tune using the same fuel.

 

[imnuts]

The engine constantly and in real-time advances to the threshold of detonation, which is the most efficient way to run the engine. So why would it take a tank or two to realize the benefits? It should happen immediately when higher octane fuel is pumped into the engine.

It won't happen immediately after putting better fuel in, but it shouldn't take too long to start setting the difference in timing. Depending on how low you let the tank get and what was in it beforehand, it may take a few folks to get to whatever octane level you're using and not a blend.

Also, I don't recall the post, but the engine doesn't run lean. That is bad for emissions, the engine itself, and may lead to catastrophic failure if it continues for too long. It likely will run rich under high load, but that is it. I haven't used Torque on my phone yet to monitor the truck while driving just to see how it acts.

 

[F-150 Prius]

I'm pretty torn between regular and premium gas, esp in CA where the Premium is pushing $5/gal. I'm running a few tanks of each to see if there is a difference.

But I do find it a bit funny that people will put cold air intakes, filters, and throttle bodies on their cars, and these mods, while fun, produce questionable benefits that are almost certainly *far* less than 20 RWHP. Compared to those, using Premium to gain HP is an easy choice.

Keeping in mind we're talking about maybe $200-400 per year … "dollar a day" sort of money just doesn't move the decision for me much at all.

"Fuel economy" is "where" not just "what" when you swipe the credit card (or preferably pay cash, though not during covid.)

When the difference between 87 and 91 in some "hot spots" on the gasbuddy heat map is 40 cents and 91 can vary by $1/gallon in 10 miles, "economy" for me is picking the price to fill up, not just the grade*.
I try to fill up as infrequently as possible and pick the lowest price in the next 10-50 miles to drop as close to 30 gallons in (30 times ten cents isn't worth crossing the street, but 30 times $1 is worth timing the next stop.)
Big picture, round figures, 20,000 miles per year at 20mpg is 1000 multiplied by whatever price per gallon. If I can "save" $1000 in a year without any more time than it takes to choose the lowest price station, I'm prepared to "invest" some of that in paying 20 to 40 cents more ($200-400 a year) for the better juice.

* Also, not to ignore the hassle factor of filling up needing two swipes ($100 credit card transaction limit) while standing in a puddle of toxic chemicals and breathing toxic fumes … how are we still this primitive after 100 years?
(yes some pumps take phone payment, but still, gas stations are usually pretty disgusting)

 

[Lippy]

...but the engine doesn't run lean. That is bad for emissions, the engine itself, and may lead to catastrophic failure if it continues for too long. It likely will run rich under high load...

"Stoichiometric" is 14.7:1 (air:fuel), neither lean nor rich. Rich would be a number lower than 14.7, and lean would be higher. As a coarse rule of thumb, you want to be richer under load (say 13.8) for hard acceleration or towing. You want to be lean (say 15.3 or even higher) for low-load cruising. Too rich will wash the oil film on the cylinder walls and lead to accelerated wear, and too lean will cause higher heat and stress. Modern engines with O2 sensors will monitor mixture, load, throttle position, etc. and provide the right mixture for every condition according to the ECU map.

I'm sure to get sh*t for this, but here goes anyway... I would *never* chip any of my cars and trust the mapping to some guys at a small shop, who usually just crank the daylights out of the boost. The engine components are designed for longevity at the factory tune, and you are eliminating the engineered margin of safety when you do that, as well as throwing the tune the manufacturer spent hundreds of millions of development dollars on. Ford engineers are good, and they have tools at their disposal no small shop could ever afford. I used to have a Macan, and guys would do a Cobb tune and be surprised when they: (1) threw codes, (2) sometimes blew up their engines, transfer cases, or trannies, and (3) were denied warranty repairs. Just my opinion.

 

[scrming]

What’s a wide band O2 sensor?

Oh you are challenging me on my knowledge of Pre 2011 mustang computer vs post 2011 Mustangs computers, and pre-2012 F150s vs low-2012 F150s.

Or how pre-2011 Mustangs and pre-2012 F-150’s used narrow band sensors and how those only showed a rich or lean signal, really just so the CAT fire up occurs and is maintained. But not near the detail required to know if the engine was running 11.1 to 1 or 13.2.

Well I was fully aware my 2012 GT500 had wide band 02 sensors. I was fully aware the engine computers changed for that year, because when I data logged the car, I noticed the O2 sensor had high resolution and realized it was wide band.

I was also fully aware that my 2013 SHO with Performance Package (EcoBoost) had wide band O2 sensors. And used the same fuel/engine management system as all the other new age vehicles. It also, was able to run on regular 87 octane, but Ford recommended 93 octane.

I just gave those two examples of vehicles in order to debunk what you stated. Both vehicles require Premium for maximum performance, it is stated in the literature. You claim Ford “gets 100% out of the premium fuel” when any vehicle is filled with premium fuel.

Ford vehicles are pig rich and all OEM tunes are detuned for the guy that doesn’t maintain his vehicle so well, like 20k oil intervals, and such.

Ford would never tune their Turbo motors with 12.7 AFR and with timing advanced further than a “safe OEM tune”. This is and always has been true for all OEM tunes, and regardless of the fancy electronics, Ford isn’t going to risk their warranty.

For those reasons, the max that the OEM tunes is about 30-50 HP less than what would otherwise be possible with the same motor and 93 octane.

2011 GT500 - 550 HP “premium fuel only motor”. According to you “Ford uses 100% of the 93 octane” but yet with a Tune only gained 40-50 HP on the same premium fuel. Boost is mechanical and no waste gate, so boost didn’t change.

2013 Taurus SHO - 365 HP “on premium fuel” but yet with a tune only you can get 40-50 more HP on the same Premium Fuel 93 octane.

I never said you wouldn’t get any increase at all. What I said was the small gains between regular and 93 are so minimal it’s a complete waste of money.

Ive been Boosted Ford since 2003, and I’ve cracked a couple hypereurtectic pistons in my day because I didn’t want the word safe anywhere near my tunes, so that is what happened.

Ford’s tunes for 93 are so conservative it’s silly. Getting a decent 40-50 HP extra on 2 vehicles (within your new vehicle date range) which need 93 already, just proves that Ford is in fact very conservative in their 93 octane tunes.

If you can get 50 more horsepower out of a 2011 GT 500 and a 2013 Taurus SHO EB, then that should prove to you and everyone else here the Ford tunes their 93 octane tunes with very fuel rich and timing conservative which doesn’t give you 100% for the 93 octane fuel in your tank.

i’ve been involved with tuning forts since 2002. My good friend has a 2019 F150 the runs in the 11s. He makes between four and $500 a pop to tune each vehicle that rolls to his shop.

Are you telling me that everyone should just put premium in and NOT get a tune?

Are you saying that the dyno tune industry is a fraud?

It can’t be both. it has to be one or the other.

Either Ford tunes these engines at 100% for 93, and they leave absolutely no room for improvement (which is what you said).

Or they leave about 80% room for improvement In the tune, so you’re really only getting 20% of what you could be getting with 93 + a tune also. (Which is what i said).

I’ll wager the cost of the dyno pulls that my PB truck only gains less than 10 HP with premium. I would also wager that the difference is so minimal a normal person couldn’t tell the difference in a blind test.

Not going to reply to all of this. You made the blanket statement that unless you have an aftermarket tune that is specifically set for premium fuel there is no benefit to running premium. That is simply incorrect.

 

[imnuts]

"Stoichiometric" is 14.7:1 (air:fuel), neither lean nor rich. Rich would be a number lower than 14.7, and lean would be higher. As a coarse rule of thumb, you want to be richer under load (say 13.8) for hard acceleration or towing. You want to be lean (say 15.3 or even higher) for low-load cruising. Too rich will wash the oil film on the cylinder walls and lead to accelerated wear, and too lean will cause higher heat and stress.

Are you sure the truck is running lean under light load? As mentioned, I haven't watched it yet, but in the 3-4 vehicles I've watched live AFR/lambda data, the only time it ever goes lean is off throttle coasting, and that is only because there's no fuel going in. I highly doubt the engine is trying to maintain a lean condition under any load, but I could be wrong.

 

[AutonomousHybridF150]

Not going to reply to all of this. You made the blanket statement that unless you have an aftermarket tune that is specifically set for premium fuel there is no benefit to running premium. That is simply incorrect.

Fine. Then please quote where is said that. I will go and correct it, because it should have said a waste of money.

 

[scrming]

"Stoichiometric" is 14.7:1 (air:fuel), neither lean nor rich. Rich would be a number lower than 14.7, and lean would be higher. As a coarse rule of thumb, you want to be richer under load (say 13.8) for hard acceleration or towing. You want to be lean (say 15.3 or even higher) for low-load cruising. Too rich will wash the oil film on the cylinder walls and lead to accelerated wear, and too lean will cause higher heat and stress. Modern engines with O2 sensors will monitor mixture, load, throttle position, etc. and provide the right mixture for every condition according to the ECU map.

I'm sure to get sh*t for this, but here goes anyway... I would *never* chip any of my cars and trust the mapping to some guys at a small shop, who usually just crank the daylights out of the boost. The engine components are designed for longevity at the factory tune, and you are eliminating the engineered margin of safety when you do that, as well as throwing the tune the manufacturer spent hundreds of millions of development dollars on. Ford engineers are good, and they have tools at their disposal no small shop could ever afford. I used to have a Macan, and guys would do a Cobb tune and be surprised when they: (1) threw codes, (2) sometimes blew up their engines, transfer cases, or trannies, and (3) were denied warranty repairs. Just my opinion.

und

"Stoichiometric" is 14.7:1 (air:fuel), neither lean nor rich. Rich would be a number lower than 14.7, and lean would be higher. As a coarse rule of thumb, you want to be richer under load (say 13.8) for hard acceleration or towing. You want to be lean (say 15.3 or even higher) for low-load cruising. Too rich will wash the oil film on the cylinder walls and lead to accelerated wear, and too lean will cause higher heat and stress. Modern engines with O2 sensors will monitor mixture, load, throttle position, etc. and provide the right mixture for every condition according to the ECU map.

I'm sure to get sh*t for this, but here goes anyway... I would *never* chip any of my cars and trust the mapping to some guys at a small shop, who usually just crank the daylights out of the boost. The engine components are designed for longevity at the factory tune, and you are eliminating the engineered margin of safety when you do that, as well as throwing the tune the manufacturer spent hundreds of millions of development dollars on. Ford engineers are good, and they have tools at their disposal no small shop could ever afford. I used to have a Macan, and guys would do a Cobb tune and be surprised when they: (1) threw codes, (2) sometimes blew up their engines, transfer cases, or trannies, and (3) were denied warranty repairs. Just my opinion.

factory calibrations are designed usually designed around fuel economy and emissions. In the case of the EcoBoost drivability plays a factor as well. I haven’t data logged my PB but in my previous EB vehicles the boost would come on slowly and linear like a centrifugal super charger not like a typical turbo. That was one of the most noticeable things with an aftermarket tune was how much quicker boost came on. I’ve got graphs some where but that was probably over 10 years ago.

I had a Flex EB that we had cranked up with a Livernois tune and an Alky Control methanol kit. Literally made hundreds of passes at the track and I raced it from here in Michigan to New Jersey and Maryland and out to Oklahoma. Thing was still running strong when I decided to move on to something else.

 

[AutonomousHybridF150]

"Stoichiometric" is 14.7:1 (air:fuel), neither lean nor rich. Rich would be a number lower than 14.7, and lean would be higher. As a coarse rule of thumb, you want to be richer under load (say 13.8) for hard acceleration or towing. You want to be lean (say 15.3 or even higher) for low-load cruising. Too rich will wash the oil film on the cylinder walls and lead to accelerated wear, and too lean will cause higher heat and stress. Modern engines with O2 sensors will monitor mixture, load, throttle position, etc. and provide the right mixture for every condition according to the ECU map.

I'm sure to get sh*t for this, but here goes anyway... I would *never* chip any of my cars and trust the mapping to some guys at a small shop, who usually just crank the daylights out of the boost. The engine components are designed for longevity at the factory tune, and you are eliminating the engineered margin of safety when you do that, as well as throwing the tune the manufacturer spent hundreds of millions of development dollars on. Ford engineers are good, and they have tools at their disposal no small shop could ever afford. I used to have a Macan, and guys would do a Cobb tune and be surprised when they: (1) threw codes, (2) sometimes blew up their engines, transfer cases, or trannies, and (3) were denied warranty repairs. Just my opinion.

Google adiabatic efficiency numbers for Boosted Applications and you will see that they run 60% vs 50% on NA motors.

This is the rules of boost, and NO boosted engine runs anywhere near 13.8 under heavy load. Last time I checked they were still tuning at 11.5 which is pig rich. When a boosted engine reaches 13.8, that’s where holy pistons are made my friend.

im telling you I’ve been doing this for a long time, and while my username may be new, I’ve been in this scene since my 99 GT was the fastest thing on the road. And I’ve done all the work from day 1 on all my vehicles.

Trust me. If you told me tuned friends you ran premium in a non tuned vehicle, they would say what for?

Sponsored