BOSSMAN2888

Not gonna spoon feed you all google it below is from a Ford training manual in Jan of '15

11screw50

Obviously if such a page existed that was relevant to the EB in the F150 you would have posted that except you didn't find one so you posted something completely irrelevant.

Heck, that the 5.0 makes more power on premium than on regular in the Mustang is more relevant to the F150 that what you posted...

BOSSMAN2888

The training document is in fact from a stock Eco Mustang. The attached video with 87 vs 93 back up the the stock gains reported, given the video is with tunes but definite gains with a change to premium. By no means am I saying folks are stupid for running 87, as to each their own and 87 may fit their driving style better. But to say their are no gains, when gains are referenced as hp/tq, are to be had from premium is wrong with a Turbo F150 that has adaptive fuel technology stock and super sensitive knock sensors

130428

mother of god, who gives a rat's *** about the 2.3 in the MUSTANG when talking about the 2.7 / 3.5 in the F150.
From the manwell (2013): "Regular is recommended. Premium will provide improve performance (note that it doesn't say 28.9 extra hp) and is recommended for severe duty". that's it, basta, not a word about "xxx hp on regular / xxx+15hp on premium". Unlike that 2.3 Mustang you have posted
again, if Ford could brag about an extra 20hp in their flagship truck, you bet they would.

Fx2.7

SOXFAN143 how much more power if any can we get out of the 2.7 and 3.5 EB engines by using 93 octane fuel? Thanks

BOSSMAN2888

Must have struck a nerve, the video is of the F150 Ecoboost the article of a similar ecoboost is reference that their are gains to be made with premium, which is what the OP asked about. But I agree with you the manual even states it will improve performance. Period

130428

ah... you started your post talking about the 2.3 again so I may have jumped the gun a little. cant watch the vid now, but are they testing 93 vs 87 on stock tune, or 93 on a 93 tune vs 87 on a 87 tune? obviously a 93 tune will "gain" more than a 87 tune, but that still doesnt answer the question for a stock truck (ie. factory tune)

GearheadGeek

It's not all due to atomization, it's also due to the ability to delay the injection pulse to delay combustion when necessary, rather than having to introduce the fuel at the port and depend only on controlling spark timing.

BOSSMAN2888

Which question? Are there gains from running premium stock? Yes it's been answered by Ford in the manual, but folks still want to debate it.


The dyno runs are 87 vs 93 tuned but back up the stock publication gains albeit with a .4 less liter Eco. When shops are doing dyno tests they are doing them with what makes them money selling their parts/tunes not fuel. Anyway not exact apple to apple but it's one of those debates that if some witnessed a back to back run they would discredit it in someway, as they want to believe that adaptive fuel technology, will not make timing and fuel changes and increased performance do to it. Choices - It's what makes America great - different strokes for different folks.

Bill_The_PA

^^^^and do the dynamics with "tuned" vs "untuned" 87 and 91 and what the hay 93 as well. Then we, I'm sure will see tune is the difference not the fuel by itself. Just my scientific mind at work lol. Enjoying this read.