I know 93 octane post. But, hear me out.

If you get 20mpg with 87 and 93 is say 20% more than 87 then you'd need to get 24mpg to break even. I only run 93 in my car but that's because it is supercharged and I literally can't run 87, even if I wanted to.

I even had a Taurus SHO with the TT V6 and ran 87. I started with 93 but when I switched to 87 it made no difference that I could tell.

 

Oddly enough part of the reason I got the taco was to save money on gas. I get about the same MPG as I did with my WRX, but that required 93 AKI gas and my 2.7L is happy as a pig in shit with 87.

 

These kinds of threads make me smile. Keep it up TW>

 

Gas companies love the "93 runs cleaner" "93 gets better mpg" "93 prevents knocking" threads. They appreciate your support.

 

Just think how much more valuable the US Dollar would be if everyone pumped high octane.

 

Better performance with 93 vs 87 octane is between their ears of the drivers with most vehicles. Show me numbers. I want to see 0-60 times and actual fuel mileage tests done under controlled conditions. All the hard numbers I've seen don't support the claims.

With some very rare engines you will see differences, some engines simply need the higher octane fuel, but most do not.

 

I'm sure you know this but 93 is required in some applications. Like I said earlier I can't run 87 in one of my cars even if I wanted to, simply can't be tuned for it.

 

I was using 89 in Georgia, switched to 86 in El paso. I get better if not the same milege with 86.

 

I'm just wondering how slow you guys drive that you get 20mpg. I'm lucky to break 16mpg lol

 

I have a six speed, I drive in higher gears.

 

I typically average 20.5 and go 65-75 on the highway depending on traffic. I mostly drive highway but don't baby the accelerator either.

 

93 does prevent knocking, relative to lower octane ratings.
I think people believe octane rates the amount of power/energy in the fuel- octane is the resistance to detonation, thus less likely to knock.
That being said, ethanol does have less energy than gasoline, so E-xx fuel < straight gas

 

Exactly.
In an application where no owners manual states 91+, no service manual states 91+, no aftermarket forced induction or high compression pistons, etc etc, the fuel octane to prevent knock what is recommended in the manual by the manufacturer.

My motorcycle says right by the filler that 91+ is required. On every factory vehicle where higher octane is required it is listed in the manual.

The argument ethanol free fuel is better is not mutually exclusive to octane rating. No-ethanol 87 would still run better than 87 ethanol. Just that ethanol free tends to come with the higher octanes. A thread saying "I ran ethanol free fuel and got better mpg or power" would make complete sense.


Buying 89,91,93,+++ octane when it is not required (I.e. in a stock Tacoma) is just lining the already full pockets of gas companies.

 

I agree 100%. Also the claim that 93 makes a difference because they put this engine in a Lexus that requires 91+ holds no water. Ford used the 5.4 in everything from the F150 to the GT500 and 05 GT but that does not mean it is identical. Same goes for the 3.5 ecoboost.

 

This is true too, which would somewhat be the equivalent to a different tune and a different reading at the "seat of your pants" dyno

 

Miles per gallon and price aside, is it ok to run higher octane? Even more so, is it ok to flip flop between the two types without worry? If the engine is tuned for 87 octane, does anything higher hurt the engine whether now or long run? I’ve always been told pick one and stick with it for the life of your vehicle. For a high performance engine, it makes sense, but these engines are not high performance so what is everyone expecting with higher octane because it seems the consensus here is not much gain on mileage or HP...is it just cleaner and healthier then for the engine?

 

It wont hurt anything, the Manual states 87 or Higher.

 

Have no fear... Believers of ANYTHING will get you scientific facts to support it.

 

My Acura CL manufactors requirement was 91, I rarely ever used anything but 87 because I couldn't see any difference in performance or mpgs. Over 200,000 and still running strong. I don't have access to a dyno so I can't verify that my Tacoma is running better on 93. To be honest I wasn't really expecting anything based on my experience with the Acura. It may just be in an old man's mind but I can definately feel a difference. Go figure...