… we thought,
…we where doing all right
… we where doing all right,
…until we where wrong
… we thought,
6 minute vdo? Maybe you can summarize the findings.
Replace ( where ) with ( were ) for clarity.
Summation: Shaved a few tenths of a second off 0-60 time using 93 vs 87 octane. Gas. ECM, while it does not measure the octane, will will adjust various parameters to maximum performance levels. I am not stating that as well as I would like!
In a pre-ECM vehicle, you could advance time more than specified to gain performance, but when you got to pinging, back it off.
Been a while since I looked at HP ratings, but last time I noticed Ford did have a comment ‘with 93 octane’ or words to that effect.
how do they measure a few tenths? reaction time to 1/4 mile? or use a gps type timer. i could see gaining/losing a 1/2 sec snoozing at the light. why not put the car on the dyno and measure the difference?
Dyno would be a precise measurement of horsepower. This was just gee-whiz testing.
The 0-60 times were measured with onboard data recorder.
The testor did introduce a human variable by using the paddle shifters.
Where were you?
He also added 50 lbs of 93 octane fuel and ran the 0-60 with the extra weight. Only about 1.3% extra weight but the car was heavier with the 93 octane run.
I suspect the turbo is allowed to overboost a bit longer plus the additional ignition advance adds power and decreases 0-60 times. 2 to 4 10ths is a pretty big improvement.
I want to say that I read somewhere a few years ago that the 2.3L Ecoboost loses about 30 HP when running on 87 octane vs. 93 octane.
The last time I looked at Ford website, most HP listings were “with 93 octane”.
I’m guessing the 93 octane allowed the computer to set a little more timing advance before pinging set it, which produced a little power and acceleration. A few tenths could make a difference in some cases, for example providing a little more lee-way when merging from the on-ramp onto the freeway.
It also was not quite 93 octane , there were still approx. 2 gal of 87 in the tank. Results were just about what you would expect.
Have attention spans really dropped that much?