# 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost 93 Octane Vs. 87 Octane 0-60 Testing **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [March 6, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894 "2019-03-06T02:35:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![john1969\_149072](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@john1969\_149072](https://community.cartalk.com/u/john1969_149072)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/1 "2019-03-06T02:35:27Z")
… we thought, …we where doing all right … we where doing all right, …until we where wrong ---
**Author:** ![George\_San\_Jose1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e5b9ba/32.png) [@George\_San\_Jose1](https://community.cartalk.com/u/George_San_Jose1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/2 "2019-03-06T02:37:58Z")
6 minute vdo? Maybe you can summarize the findings. ---
**Author:** ![VOLVO-V70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/8e8cbc/32.png) [@VOLVO-V70](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VOLVO-V70)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/3 "2019-03-06T02:40:11Z")
> [@john1969\_149072](#): > > … we thought, > …we where doing all right > … we where doing all right, > …until we where wrong Replace ( where ) with ( were ) for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 12:18pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/4 "2019-03-06T12:18:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cavell](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/cavell/32/43396_2.png) [@Cavell](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Cavell)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 1:13pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/5 "2019-03-06T13:13:09Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 1:19pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/6 "2019-03-06T13:19:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 2:12pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/7 "2019-03-06T14:12:48Z")
> [@john1969\_149072](#): > > we where doing all right > … we where doing all right, > …until we where wrong Where **were** you? 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/8 "2019-03-06T14:57:35Z")
> [@Purebred](#): > > The testor did introduce a human variable by using the paddle shifters. 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. ---
**Author:** ![FoDaddy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/fodaddy/32/717_2.png) [@FoDaddy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/FoDaddy)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/9 "2019-03-06T18:11:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/10 "2019-03-06T18:45:06Z")
The last time I looked at Ford website, most HP listings were “with 93 octane”. ---
**Author:** ![George\_San\_Jose1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e5b9ba/32.png) [@George\_San\_Jose1](https://community.cartalk.com/u/George_San_Jose1)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/11 "2019-03-07T02:28:27Z")
> [@Purebred](#): > > Shaved a few tenths of a second off 0-60 time using 93 vs 87 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. ---
**Author:** ![oldtimer-11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e79b87/32.png) [@oldtimer-11](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oldtimer-11)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/12 "2019-03-07T16:25:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![oldtimer-11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e79b87/32.png) [@oldtimer-11](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oldtimer-11)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-93-octane-vs-87-octane-0-60-testing/135894/13 "2019-03-07T16:29:27Z")
Have attention spans really dropped that much?