• Welcome to Mustang7G!

    If you're joining us from Mustang6G, then you may already have an account here!

    As long as you were registered on Mustang6G as of March 10, 2021 or earlier, then you can simply login here with the same username and password!

Premium fuel for Mustang DH to be more expensive.

Garfy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
46
Reaction score
10
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT, 2012 & 2010 Honda Fit Sport
No. Premium is recommended for maximum performance but not required. Many folks on here use regular on a daily basis with no problems.
True, the GT does not REQUIRE 91 octane as the owner's manual clearly states that the requirement is a minimum of 87 octane. I can tell you for a fact that if you want the best performance, you should run 91 or higher if your area has 93, etc. I can tell you that when I was "breaking in" the engine, I did a 0-60 mph test (using TrackApps) with a bit over 1000 miles on the car and it took 6.0 seconds! I then ran a tankful of premium and refilled it again and did the 0-60 mph test again. This time it clocked 4.9 seconds. Clearly 1.1 seconds is a lot considering only 5 octane points difference (we have 92 here). I wonder what the engine is actually tuned for and if 93 would result in even better performance?
Sponsored

 

93-Oct Mayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
617
Reaction score
1,056
Location
DC
Vehicle(s)
2024 Mustang GT
True, the GT does not REQUIRE 91 octane as the owner's manual clearly states that the requirement is a minimum of 87 octane. I can tell you for a fact that if you want the best performance, you should run 91 or higher if your area has 93, etc. I can tell you that when I was "breaking in" the engine, I did a 0-60 mph test (using TrackApps) with a bit over 1000 miles on the car and it took 6.0 seconds! I then ran a tankful of premium and refilled it again and did the 0-60 mph test again. This time it clocked 4.9 seconds. Clearly 1.1 seconds is a lot considering only 5 octane points difference (we have 92 here). I wonder what the engine is actually tuned for and if 93 would result in even better performance?
There is nowhere near that amount of difference in performance between 87 and any level of premium fuel on the stock GT tuning, we're talking about a 2-3% difference in peak hp
 

Garfy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
46
Reaction score
10
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT, 2012 & 2010 Honda Fit Sport
If you need to run the cheapest gas in your DH then I would suggest buying a cheaper car. If you are going to only keep a few years... run whatever gas you want... if you plan on keeping your car long term... no Costco gas ... run the good stuff...20+ years in the automotive aftermarket and have spent enough time with L1 ASE mechanics and trainers to have insight into what cheap gas does long term. If you don't know what an L1 certified ASE mechanic is..it's the highest level of certification possible in light duty.. only a small percentage of ASE certified mechanic achieve
Actually, a pretty good percentage of Master Techs are L1 certified. The blanket statement regarding "ASE certified mechanics" is misleading in the sense that many technicians who aren't Masters (A1-A8 certified) have perhaps 3 or 4 certifications and if they don't have the A8, they can't take the L1. So if you add in all the non-Master Techs, then yes, a small percentage are L1-certified. I don't know any techs who have only the A8 and L1.
 

Garfy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
46
Reaction score
10
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT, 2012 & 2010 Honda Fit Sport
Even my 2020 F150 5.0 pings like crazy on 87. I couldn’t imagine it running better in a higher tuned engine like a GT or greater.
If your 2020 F-150 has detonation (spark knock, aka "ping") you should take it back to the dealer. Something is definitely wrong with it. I ran my GT on 87 at first during "break-in" thinking I wasn't going to drive it hard A LOT so could save some coin. It did not have any detonation even when I did punch it once in a while because with 4 knock sensors, the PCM would detect any precursor of detonation and retard the timing and other things in order to prevent that from happening. I can't imagine the DH not having the ability to retard timing far enough to prevent detonation running 87 octane. If you're truly experiencing detonation, I'd take it to the dealer pronto as either some component or software is messed up.
 

Garfy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
46
Reaction score
10
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT, 2012 & 2010 Honda Fit Sport
Meanwhile, at Sheetz in the 'Burgh.

IMG_2800.PNG
Wow, that's cool! I wonder how many people with regular cars that are actually tuned for 87 are dumb enough to put 93 into it thinking they'll get more power? If they knew that higher octane fuel burns slower than lower octane fuel (that's partly how it eliminates detonation) thus you end up with less power, they would just put 87 in the tank. I wonder if anyone has tried to test the theory out by taking a Honda or Toyota that's factory tuned to 87 octane with it's spark/fuel mapping and put it on a dyno to compare the power output using 87 vs. 93 octane fuel? I imagine it wouldn't be a big difference but any loss makes it reasonable to say that you should just stick with what the manufacturer tuned it for. Of course if the automaker set it up so the regular car like a Civic base model would push spark timing, etc. until it begins to detect the beginning of detonation, then running more than what the manual says would be a benefit to running 93 octane.
 


Garfy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
46
Reaction score
10
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT, 2012 & 2010 Honda Fit Sport
There is nowhere near that amount of difference in performance between 87 and any level of premium fuel on the stock GT tuning, we're talking about a 2-3% difference in peak hp
Well, all I can say is that's the figures I got from TrackApps. I let it do the timing, I didn't do it manually or anything. I also felt a difference on take-off when I floored it despite traction control intervening to prevent wheel spin. Unless you're suggesting that the 87 octane was actually less than 87 which would mean a greater difference in octane as I can't imagine that the premium was greater than 92; BTW the fuel was from the same gas station so it wasn't due to different brands or additive packages in the gasoline.
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
I don't know if it's just NoVA or not, but Sheetz for the last few days has had the same price for 87, 89, and 93. Paying 87 prices for 93 (lowest price in a LONG time) is pretty sweet.
 

spectremotorsports

Consultant
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
424
Reaction score
164
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Vehicle(s)
"Emma" 17 GT/PP Grabber Blue/Black roof
Who cares about gas. If you can afford a 60-70k (maybe more with ADM) you can afford an extra $20 to drop in the tank. This is much ado about nothing.
This reminds me a lot of the recent screaming about eggs. Which amounted to about $20 more a month (assuming you bought a dozen eggs every single week).
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
This reminds me a lot of the recent screaming about eggs. Which amounted to about $20 more a month (assuming you bought a dozen eggs every single week).
what you didn't see was the hike in prices in cake (mix), egg whites in cartons, and so forth. I say, "have you SEEN the price of pork belly?!?!"
 

spectremotorsports

Consultant
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
424
Reaction score
164
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Vehicle(s)
"Emma" 17 GT/PP Grabber Blue/Black roof
what you didn't see was the hike in prices in cake (mix), egg whites in cartons, and so forth. I say, "have you SEEN the price of pork belly?!?!"
I have, and it's unfortunate.

I also sat in on countless shareholder calls at the beginning of the year where most of these companies straight admitted they were increasing prices purely to increase profits while hiding behind the guise of "supply chain issues and inflation". Oil and Gas companies admitted the same at the end of Q4 as well. It's an unfortunate reality but greed has hit an all time high.
 

roket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Threads
41
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Cave Creek, Arizona
Website
roket333.github.io
Vehicle(s)
2024 Ford Mustang Dark Horse
bit of an old thread, but Ford Ecat confirms that all 2024 mustangs can run on 87 octane, it's the only PON octane sticker listed as used
S650 Mustang Premium fuel for Mustang DH to be more expensive. 1684351641035

S650 Mustang Premium fuel for Mustang DH to be more expensive. 1684351666763

the more interesting thing is that the label section has 2 "PR3Z" parts for A/C refrigerants for both LHD and RHD, one is R1234YF and the other is "R134a", with the latter needing 0.02kg more charge
 

wilkinda65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Threads
11
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
688
Location
Sun City Center, FL
Vehicle(s)
2024 Mustang GT Premium
Who cares about gas. If you can afford a 60-70k (maybe more with ADM) you can afford an extra $20 to drop in the tank. This is much ado about nothing.
My ScatPack requires premium fuel. Its a big deal when you are filling up 3 times a week
 
OP
OP
lcbrownz

lcbrownz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Threads
20
Messages
582
Reaction score
158
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2007 Mustang Vert w/pony package
bit of an old thread, but Ford Ecat confirms that all 2024 mustangs can run on 87 octane, it's the only PON octane sticker listed as used
1684351641035.png

1684351666763.png

the more interesting thing is that the label section has 2 "PR3Z" parts for A/C refrigerants for both LHD and RHD, one is R1234YF and the other is "R134a", with the latter needing 0.02kg more charge
According to the official Ford website1, the 2024 Mustang Dark Horse requires premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. Regular gas may cause engine knocking and damage over time.
 

roket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Threads
41
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Cave Creek, Arizona
Website
roket333.github.io
Vehicle(s)
2024 Ford Mustang Dark Horse
According to the official Ford website1, the 2024 Mustang Dark Horse requires premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. Regular gas may cause engine knocking and damage over time.
please link the page where it says that
Sponsored

 
 




Top