When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Crap, I forgot to reply. I'm not showing it under the standard naming pattern SCT uses for Roush versions of codes (for instance, to load Roush's intercooled version of PCE1 into SCT's software I tell it to load PCE1RSCIC). I've put in a request at SCT for the base name for this file so I can load it.
Ken, yes I agree, the blend is different in some way. I was told by two station operators that they are not actually receiving shipments of 89. It is 87 and 93 blended at the pump. So if the 87 has up to 10% ethanol and the 93 doesn't, and the supposed in pump mix is 70-30, then that probably explains it as you understand it to be. I really only care about how much mileage and performance I get from whatever gas I am forced to use. So as I already said the 89 gives me the best all around performance. In my son's Mustang that has the computer in it, 87 gives him 18mpg max, 89 bumps it to 19.5-20.5, the 93 will actually run up to almost 22 at times, so whatever the gas is here it has it's own characteristics, and if the 93 is not E10, maybe that's why the mileage and performance is so much better. The 87 is pure garbage in the Mustang, however the dealer said Mustangs are tuned different from the trucks, I don't know and can't say, that's what the service manager said at the dealer.
i think most of the gas in upstate NY is the same....and I have a full tank of 93 octane and it'll be sitting for the next 3-4 months.
1) hope it's OK with the Sta-bil in it
2) wonder if my power programmer is still making more power or more efficient....?
The 87 is pure garbage in the Mustang, however the dealer said Mustangs are tuned different from the trucks, I don't know and can't say, that's what the service manager said at the dealer.
my 03 GT ran like crap on 87 octane...she wasn't happy unless 91 or better was in the tank
I checked the MPG on my second tank of gas today without ethanol and i gained another .5 MPG this tank, basically the same driving habits as the tank before. And actually a little more sitting and idleing on this tank. So i went from about 11.8 MPG on 87 with ethanol in it to 14 on 87 without ethanol. Remember i have the 4.6 F150. This tank i just put in i put in the 89 without ethanol in it so i will have to see how it goes. My driving habits are basically short trips 10 miles or so each way, and occassionally a highway situation but the same 10 miles or so. And the way i see it if i would gain on MPG in the 89 i would have to calculate it out to what it cost per mile to run against the 87. And see if the $2-$2.50 extra per tank for the 89 is worth it.
Also i feel like the truck runs much better. Some of what i thought were characteristics of the 4.6 power lacking seem to have cleared up with the gas without ethanol in it. Im glad of that.
I dont want to run this into the ground, but i just cant get over how well my truck has been running since i started running the fuel without ethanol in it, its like a whole different truck and it makes me love my truck even more!
Well I've been running an experiment, mostly because of the Octane issue discussed in another thread. Just filled up today from running my experimental 87 tank. Sunoco 87 in my 4.2 V6. 220miles on 14.6 gallons, whopping 15mpg. Today I filled with 87 BP Invigorate, 10% Ethanol also, we'll see how that fares.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.