Bama 87 Performance Tune Loaded
04-07-2011, 07:24 PM
#41
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 32
I'd like to switch my fuel from 87 to 91 and see how mpg works out, but I am a little apprehensive about just suddenly switching fuels. It seems like mixing the different fuels in the tank would be bad for the car, right? So should I try to get as much 87 out before putting 91 in?
And doesn't 93 do more damage to the enginge over time than 87?
And one more thing, isn't it kind of odd that, in the heat of these new pony/muscle car wars, Ford would leave extra hp and mpg on the table? If you can get better hp and mpg by just purchasing aftermarket intakes, driveshafts, lighter wheels, etc., why wouldn't Ford just include these things stock or an add-on option? Take the intakes for example, why not offer the most efficient intake system for the car as an add-on from the factory? I understand that not everybody wants a hot rod, but when the company offers a perfomance package and those customers want the car to perform at its fullest, wouldn't it just make sense to allow the car to breathe properly?
I guess what I am getting at it is that I find it odd that aftermarket companies know how to make the car more efficient than the engineers whose sole purpose in re-designing the car was to out perform Camaro and Challenger. Why not just blow them out of the water?
And doesn't 93 do more damage to the enginge over time than 87?
And one more thing, isn't it kind of odd that, in the heat of these new pony/muscle car wars, Ford would leave extra hp and mpg on the table? If you can get better hp and mpg by just purchasing aftermarket intakes, driveshafts, lighter wheels, etc., why wouldn't Ford just include these things stock or an add-on option? Take the intakes for example, why not offer the most efficient intake system for the car as an add-on from the factory? I understand that not everybody wants a hot rod, but when the company offers a perfomance package and those customers want the car to perform at its fullest, wouldn't it just make sense to allow the car to breathe properly?
I guess what I am getting at it is that I find it odd that aftermarket companies know how to make the car more efficient than the engineers whose sole purpose in re-designing the car was to out perform Camaro and Challenger. Why not just blow them out of the water?
04-07-2011, 07:43 PM
#42
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pa
Posts: 178
Who ever told you that ??????
The 'octane number' is merely rating as to the gasoline resistance to pre-detonation.
Wow....you really are new to the world of automobilies ! I don't even know where to begin with you on this one other than to say.....you really have no clue.
The 'octane number' is merely rating as to the gasoline resistance to pre-detonation.
I guess what I am getting at it is that I find it odd that aftermarket companies know how to make the car more efficient than the engineers whose sole purpose in re-designing the car was to out perform Camaro and Challenger. Why not just blow them out of the water?
04-07-2011, 08:22 PM
#43
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 720
Okay, please bear in mind that I like to average at least five tanks of gas to kind of get a good baseline and have not gotten that many with the 93P tune. All these numbers are based on the same kind of driving, same road loop etc, so your numbers will vary. Also since I have noticed a big spike in mpgs just from going from 87 to 93 octane, I haven't tried a 87 tune yet. If you guys want me to, I will after I complete my sample for the 93P tune. I run a 360 mile commute twice a week which is how I am able to compile such large numbers lol. Based on a 75/25 highway/city mix of driving:
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
87 stock 26.1mpg
87 intake only 27.8mpg
93 stock 27.4mpg
93 intake only 29.1mpg
93P tune and intake 29.6mpg
So you can see a couple things here. Switching up octane from 87 to 93 alone gives you about 1.5mpg increase. Just adding an intake (I have a JLT) using either 87 or 93 octane gives you at least 1.5mpg increase and looks fairly consistent regardless of octane. The performance tune gives me another 0.5mpg, but like I said I consider that preliminary data. Give me a couple weeks and I'll be able to give you all a better number.
I'm sure others may get different numbers because they drive differently, but these are my numbers based on almost 13,000 miles of data. I trust the numbers because I can count on the route I take to have consistent traffic and I set my cruise control at the same speeds for each particular stretch of road. The only real difference would be weather (temps, wind, humidity). Also, please bear in mind I have a six speed manual with 3.31 gears, so I imagine those with the 2.73 automatic will have more impressive numbers than me. However, I'm very happy with the numbers I'm getting.
I will begrudgingly try the 87 tune as requested lol.
04-07-2011, 10:35 PM
#44
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 32
Sorry that you had to waste your time on that last post Dave. However, I am appreciative of your explanation of the octane number.
Clearly I don't know what I am talking about, and I should have made that apparent on my first post. I am merely just asking questions to learn.
Clearly I don't know what I am talking about, and I should have made that apparent on my first post. I am merely just asking questions to learn.
04-07-2011, 10:38 PM
#45
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,846
Who ever told you that ??????
The 'octane number' is merely rating as to the gasoline resistance to pre-detonation.
Wow....you really are new to the world of automobilies ! I don't even know where to begin with you on this one other than to say.....you really have no clue.
The 'octane number' is merely rating as to the gasoline resistance to pre-detonation.
Wow....you really are new to the world of automobilies ! I don't even know where to begin with you on this one other than to say.....you really have no clue.
04-10-2011, 11:04 AM
#46
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington
Posts: 192
Well it's one tank early, but after my 4th tank of 93 using the performance tune, I got 31.02mpg. Crazy but true. My average so far is right about 29.7mpg. So we'll see what that next tanks reveals, but it's becoming clear that the performance tune is at least 0.5mpg better than 93 with a JLT intake.
I will begrudgingly try the 87 tune as requested lol.
I will begrudgingly try the 87 tune as requested lol.
Actually, I'd enjoy your MPG comparison on a 93P versus 93S tunes. I'm suspecting the Street tune might just get a tad less mpgs, but you seem to have a pretty consistent way to test, and it just might be my newfound lead foot.
Having gone through a few tanks the last few weeks, one on the 91S, and the other on 91P, I might have to go against the grain of the conventional thought out here on the boards. The 91S for me is the more noticable tune. It is WAY more fun tune to drive, and when you go from the 91S to the 91P, you really feel what IS NOT there. The 91S really addresses the low end, and sounds much more aggressive as well (coming out of Borla Touring axlebacks)
04-10-2011, 12:42 PM
#47
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 263
I think you'll find that if you add a CAI you'll get all the bottom end performance & more of a street tune with the performance & race tunes, along with better mid-high rpm (power band) performance.
I've now loaded the 91R tune & believe I prefer it, the WOT growl & pull in 3rd gear on the hwy has sold me. I do believe the MPG is about the same as the performance tune, but I'll be interested in hogasswild's numbers comparing both.
PS - I see you've already added an Airraid CAI.
I've now loaded the 91R tune & believe I prefer it, the WOT growl & pull in 3rd gear on the hwy has sold me. I do believe the MPG is about the same as the performance tune, but I'll be interested in hogasswild's numbers comparing both.
PS - I see you've already added an Airraid CAI.
Last edited by Joenpb; 04-10-2011 at 12:45 PM.
04-10-2011, 02:07 PM
#48
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington
Posts: 192
I think you'll find that if you add a CAI you'll get all the bottom end performance & more of a street tune with the performance & race tunes, along with better mid-high rpm (power band) performance.
I've now loaded the 91R tune & believe I prefer it, the WOT growl & pull in 3rd gear on the hwy has sold me. I do believe the MPG is about the same as the performance tune, but I'll be interested in hogasswild's numbers comparing both.
PS - I see you've already added an Airraid CAI.
I've now loaded the 91R tune & believe I prefer it, the WOT growl & pull in 3rd gear on the hwy has sold me. I do believe the MPG is about the same as the performance tune, but I'll be interested in hogasswild's numbers comparing both.
PS - I see you've already added an Airraid CAI.
Yeah, fully understanding intake benefits can be tricky, because the draw will be a function of load and rpms (just listening to a CAI can tell you a lot about how its working). I'm limited to just the annecdotal observation of sitting behind the steering wheel and throttle, and the feel, and the sound. Anything beyond that, I don't have the means to interpret it correctly.
Yep, have and appreciate the Airaid CAI. Although, I will say that the shielding on the front doesn't not block out all water if it is raining heavily. Best to invest in their pre-filter sock.
04-14-2011, 08:33 AM
#50
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 40
Hogass ... are you running E10 gas (10% ethanol) or are these numbers with G100 (ethanol free) gas ??
If on E10, this is VERY IMPRESSIVE !!
I've got a similar commute (400/wk @ 80/20 H/C) and in 20,365.8 miles I've driven since May of last year I've burned 680.177 gallons of 91 octane G100 which calculates out to be 29.94 MPG o/a. Best on one tank was 33.97 MPG, and typically get between 30-32 on my weekly commute.
My car is completely stock ... M/T & 2.73's.
With the results you all are getting, I really should scrape the money together and get a tuner. Did not think a CAI could really improve MPG's either until I read this thread.
Doug
If on E10, this is VERY IMPRESSIVE !!
I've got a similar commute (400/wk @ 80/20 H/C) and in 20,365.8 miles I've driven since May of last year I've burned 680.177 gallons of 91 octane G100 which calculates out to be 29.94 MPG o/a. Best on one tank was 33.97 MPG, and typically get between 30-32 on my weekly commute.
My car is completely stock ... M/T & 2.73's.
With the results you all are getting, I really should scrape the money together and get a tuner. Did not think a CAI could really improve MPG's either until I read this thread.
Doug