Forum Discussion
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Ridiculous way to SUPPOSEDLY fill all their tanks the same. So take those numbers with a grain!
Three different drivers and fuel tank fillers, HMMMMM.
So people say Diesels are expensive to operate, REALLY??? 91 octane is well north of Diesel pricing.
Little trailer like that and they can't get over 9.8? Flat land towing like that I would get 10.5 at 33k combined.
But these trucks as a daily driver have a lot of advantages over your truck. Just a different tool designed for different job.Lynnmor wrote:
Groover wrote:
All the same I don't know any Ecoboost owners that use Premium and some people have reported here that they have compared performance on the two fuels and actually did better with regular.
Which tells me you cannot trust the reports from many consumers. If one does not understand how higher octane fuel might help in that engine and will not go by the owners manual, then I don't care to hear what those folks have to say.
Ford does NOT require or even recommend Premium fuel. My own experience using nothing but the recommended 87 octane for over 100,000 miles, much of it trailer pulling, is that there has not been any engine or drivetrain issues.Groover wrote:
All the same I don't know any Ecoboost owners that use Premium and some people have reported here that they have compared performance on the two fuels and actually did better with regular.
Which tells me you cannot trust the reports from many consumers. If one does not understand how higher octane fuel might help in that engine and will not go by the owners manual, then I don't care to hear what those folks have to say.TurnThePage wrote:
As they always do, TFL adheres to the most dumbed down standardized requirements for their tests, and used what Ford recommends for best performance. I know the EB performs very well regardless. It's an awesome engine.
All the same I don't know any Ecoboost owners that use Premium and some people have reported here that they have compared performance on the two fuels and actually did better with regular. Maybe TFL should do their own comparison or just note that they are using regular. I wonder if they even run enough gas through the trucks to make a difference with what they add or if they know what was in the tank when they got the truck.- the filling seems fair to me. I guess gas running out would be not so good.
chevman - As they always do, TFL adheres to the most dumbed down standardized requirements for their tests, and used what Ford recommends for best performance. I know the EB performs very well regardless. It's an awesome engine.
TurnThePage wrote:
The F150 used 91 octane fuel, making it more expensive yet. My Ram manual recommends 89 octane, so I'm assuming the new one does too, but I'm not certain. I think the GM 6.2 also recommends 91 octane. Is that correct?
If you look up specs on the Ford site they call for 87 octane in the standard Ecoboost, 91 in the Raptor. I think that there is a blurb in manual about better performance with Premium fuel but there is no need for it. I have two 3.5L Ecoboost engines used for heavier pulling than what TFL was doing and neither engine has ever had a drop of Premium. The only issue that I have had is keeping the tires connected while trying to keep up with traffic.- Ridiculous way to SUPPOSEDLY fill all their tanks the same. So take those numbers with a grain!
Three different drivers and fuel tank fillers, HMMMMM.
So people say Diesels are expensive to operate, REALLY??? 91 octane is well north of Diesel pricing.
Little trailer like that and they can't get over 9.8? Flat land towing like that I would get 10.5 at 33k combined. - I wonder if the Ford would've done better with a 3.55 rear axle vs the 3.31?
- The F150 used 91 octane fuel, making it more expensive yet. My Ram manual recommends 89 octane, so I'm assuming the new one does too, but I'm not certain. I think the GM 6.2 also recommends 91 octane. Is that correct?
