Asked this a long time ago but wanted to know who uses 93 octane
03-12-2010, 08:59 AM
#11
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 659
03-12-2010, 09:10 AM
#12
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 227
Wasn't there some talk about how using 91 or 93 in a stock 2010 spreads the torque band better?
Personally, I use 93, because the price difference really isnt that big (its about $2-3 difference at the most) and I like the V-Power stuff at Shell =D
Personally, I use 93, because the price difference really isnt that big (its about $2-3 difference at the most) and I like the V-Power stuff at Shell =D
03-12-2010, 09:16 AM
#13
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 659
i refuse to believe that a mustang gt running 87 octane will perform the same as one running 91 or 93 octane.
the same vehicle with tunes in the ecu to run both is going to take advantage of the 91/93 octane and is going to perform better. the manual itself says it... and everything about gasoline motors and octane ratings say it.
the same vehicle with tunes in the ecu to run both is going to take advantage of the 91/93 octane and is going to perform better. the manual itself says it... and everything about gasoline motors and octane ratings say it.
Last edited by dominant1; 03-12-2010 at 09:18 AM.
03-12-2010, 09:44 AM
#14
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 159
octane booster is crap to begin with.
brenspeed knows more about the ecu than i do though. i still refuse to believe that 87 does the same as 91 or 93 even with the stock tune. i doubt there is much of a difference... but its got to be there. whether its in the curve on the dyno or a slightly higher hp or whatever.
its really a moot point though as most of us are interested in increasing the performance of our cars, and that requires a higher octane
brenspeed knows more about the ecu than i do though. i still refuse to believe that 87 does the same as 91 or 93 even with the stock tune. i doubt there is much of a difference... but its got to be there. whether its in the curve on the dyno or a slightly higher hp or whatever.
its really a moot point though as most of us are interested in increasing the performance of our cars, and that requires a higher octane
03-12-2010, 10:09 AM
#15
octane booster doesnt not work like that, they are talking .1 increase and NOT full points.
THe new cars do have tuning for the higher octane. You wont get much power increase but the car is suppose to see the higher octane and adjust the fuel tables in the computer and you would see a couple HP more. not like like the results the OP is talking about, with a CAI/TUNE you can see those gains perhaps though
THe new cars do have tuning for the higher octane. You wont get much power increase but the car is suppose to see the higher octane and adjust the fuel tables in the computer and you would see a couple HP more. not like like the results the OP is talking about, with a CAI/TUNE you can see those gains perhaps though
03-15-2010, 07:51 PM
#20
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Decatur AL USA
Posts: 2,176
87 Octane
315 bhp
325 lb-ft
91 Octane
320 bhp
330 lb-ft
The 2010 GT has a PCM program like the Bullitt with dual maps one for 87 and the other for 91.
Just for the sake of argument 2005-2009 cars often make around 3 rwhp more on the dyno with 93 than 87 despite being tuned for 87 so I would not be suprised if the 2010 made a slight increase on 93 over 91.
A 2005-2009 with CAI/Tune usually picked up about 20 lb-ft of RWT over stock on 93. I would not expect a 2010 to gain but about 10 lb-ft with a Tune and 15 lb/ft with a CAI/Tune on 93 over stock.
Last edited by Gene K; 03-15-2010 at 07:58 PM.