Octane Ratings, when did they drop
- ClutchFork
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 pm
- Cars: 2008 Fusion 2.3L manual
- Location: Detroit MI
Octane Ratings, when did they drop
In particular, when did regular pump gas drop to 87 octane?
My and ClutchDisc's '92 Mustang 5.0 LX is rated at 9:1 compression. My gearhead friend at work says 87 octane is fine. The guy who sold it to us said he always runs premium. He did not say there were any engine mods so I am thinking it is stock. I think premium is a waste but wondered if the octane of Regular was 89 in 1992, then it should be fed at least 89 octane, right?
My and ClutchDisc's '92 Mustang 5.0 LX is rated at 9:1 compression. My gearhead friend at work says 87 octane is fine. The guy who sold it to us said he always runs premium. He did not say there were any engine mods so I am thinking it is stock. I think premium is a waste but wondered if the octane of Regular was 89 in 1992, then it should be fed at least 89 octane, right?
Last edited by ClutchFork on Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stick shiftin since '77
theholycow wrote:Why in the world would you even want to be as smooth as an automatic? Might as well just drive an automatic...
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 11615
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
- Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
- Location: Greater Detroit Area
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
What did Ford say you should be running it on?ClutchFork wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:42 pm In particular, when did regular pump gas drop to 87 octane?
My and ClutchDisk's '92 Mustang 5.0 LX is rated at 9:1 compression. My gearhead friend at work says 87 octane is fine. The guy who sold it to us said he always runs premium. He did not say there were any engine mods so I am thinking it is stock. I think premium is a waste but wondered if the octane of Regular was 89 in 1992, then it should be fed at least 89 octane, right?
Yanno, as the weather gets colder, you can get by on fuel with less octane than what you might want in the summertime.
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 4029
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:04 pm
- Cars: 17 Mazda6 To, 18 Mazda3 i
- Location: Shakopee, MN
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Can't answer the question aboot if or when octane ratings dropper since I'm still a spritely fella, but 9:1 seems low enough where regular is fine. Also, I've read that elevation plays a role in octane requirements. I just can't recall the relationship; higher elevations can take lower octane (I think) and in certain parts of Colorado 85 can be had.
Me Mazda runs fine on 87 and it's running 13:1. I use premium because there's no corn in it, at least from the stations I frequent.
Me Mazda runs fine on 87 and it's running 13:1. I use premium because there's no corn in it, at least from the stations I frequent.
- ClutchFork
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 pm
- Cars: 2008 Fusion 2.3L manual
- Location: Detroit MI
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Thanks. Well my main concern is not to run too low an octane and make a hole in the nice forged aluminium pistons from spark knock. No idea what Ford calls for because we don't have an owner's manual with it, or if we do, I don't know where in the car it may be. You would think this is the basic Mustang, so regular fuel, whereas the sportier models might require premium.
First fuel mileage check. Came out to a respectable 9 mpg. Of course we have been hauling hard off most stop lights. ClutchDisc put it up on Fuelly.com:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/ ... isc/824172
First fuel mileage check. Came out to a respectable 9 mpg. Of course we have been hauling hard off most stop lights. ClutchDisc put it up on Fuelly.com:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/ ... isc/824172
Stick shiftin since '77
theholycow wrote:Why in the world would you even want to be as smooth as an automatic? Might as well just drive an automatic...
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 15881
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
- Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
I'm pretty sure 87 has been considered "regular" for about as long as gas hasn't had lead in it.
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 11615
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
- Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
- Location: Greater Detroit Area
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
I remember......what was it I remembered?....oh yeah.....I remember when they called it Ethyl and not lead. People knew lead could be poisonous, but Ethyl, why she was some girl your dad dated before he met Mom, right? You too could get lucky with Ethyl like dear old Dad prolly did.
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
- AHTOXA
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 14693
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
- Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
- Location: Irving, TX
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Yeah. I run 87 during the colder months here in TX but 93 during the blistering heat.Rope-Pusher wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:48 pmWhat did Ford say you should be running it on?ClutchFork wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:42 pm In particular, when did regular pump gas drop to 87 octane?
My and ClutchDisk's '92 Mustang 5.0 LX is rated at 9:1 compression. My gearhead friend at work says 87 octane is fine. The guy who sold it to us said he always runs premium. He did not say there were any engine mods so I am thinking it is stock. I think premium is a waste but wondered if the octane of Regular was 89 in 1992, then it should be fed at least 89 octane, right?
Yanno, as the weather gets colder, you can get by on fuel with less octane than what you might want in the summertime.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 15881
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
- Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
"Colder"
I wish I could do that. I'm a 93 year round kind of guy. I don't even think about it any more honestly. Its honestly better not to when Im getting 20mpg out of a four cylinder station wagon.
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 11615
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
- Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
- Location: Greater Detroit Area
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 15881
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
- Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Oh, I know. That's why I stopped caring so long ago.
- AHTOXA
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 14693
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
- Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
- Location: Irving, TX
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
You're getting 0.5MPG more than me in my half ton truck with 375 ft-lbs of torque.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 15881
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
- Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
I should have around 310hp and 380 lb-ft from my little 2.3 that first debuted back in 1998. That makes your truck sound wimpy
My commute is nearly all stop and go for 18 miles each way. Id love to see what a reasonable drive cycle would mean for my fuel economy. Ive never really gotten a good highway economy test because Im either driving 80mph+, have an overloaded car, have some form of absurd thing on my roof racks (which never come off), or some combination of the aforementioned.
My commute is nearly all stop and go for 18 miles each way. Id love to see what a reasonable drive cycle would mean for my fuel economy. Ive never really gotten a good highway economy test because Im either driving 80mph+, have an overloaded car, have some form of absurd thing on my roof racks (which never come off), or some combination of the aforementioned.
- AHTOXA
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 14693
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
- Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
- Location: Irving, TX
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Ya gotta admit that 325/375 from a 2.7 is far from wimpy. Then there are tunes, of course, and it's pretty much unnecessary at that point. I flip flop in regards to getting mine tuned now and again, but I'm probably not going to do it. Surprisingly, it hardly leaves me wanting more power.watkins wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:16 pm I should have around 310hp and 380 lb-ft from my little 2.3 that first debuted back in 1998. That makes your truck sound wimpy
My commute is nearly all stop and go for 18 miles each way. Id love to see what a reasonable drive cycle would mean for my fuel economy. Ive never really gotten a good highway economy test because Im either driving 80mph+, have an overloaded car, have some form of absurd thing on my roof racks (which never come off), or some combination of the aforementioned.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
-
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 15881
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
- Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
Absolutely. That's well within the safe power band for a long life span too.
I also fat fingered. Should be more like 350 lb-ft, not 380.
I also fat fingered. Should be more like 350 lb-ft, not 380.
- AHTOXA
- Master Standardshifter
- Posts: 14693
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
- Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
- Location: Irving, TX
Re: Octane Ratings, when did they drop
I was really expecting GM to do better with they new 4-cyl 2.7 in the trucks, but it makes less power, less torque and gets less MPG than the 2.7 ecoboost in the Ford. I'm not sure what to make of that.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650