Like 87 octane better (2.7)

[Nc211]

It's weird to say, and first time in probably 25 years that I used it, but I put in 87 octane instead of the premium 93 octane recently (Costco / Top Tier), and I have to say....I like it better! I know.....it's weird to say, and I'm sure many will disagree (with good reason), but I have found that the car is a little less "bucky" on the accelerator with the 87. Mine is the 4.27 rear end, and the tires are 65 series (275) SL rated, so pretty light. I've normally driven in Eco Mode just to calm it down a little bit. Decided to give 87 a try since the engine is able to handle it. I definitely notice the difference, which is not bad when the intent was to make the throttle response a little less twitchy. I'm back to "normal" mode and it drives perfect for me. The 2.7 has more than plenty of torque in general. The car definitely does not feel "sluggish" by any means. So if you're like me, give 87 a try. You may like it a little better. With the dual port injection system, carbon is not a concern, and a can of fuel treatment will actually do some good to keep the valves clean.

Sponsored

 

[2023bronco]

I haven't noticed a significant change in mileage but 87 is for sure a lot cheaper than 91 or 93. I'm getting 21 mpg on a non-SAS Badlands in normal mode, usually on 87.

 

[Willub]

 

[Sgt Badlands]

I’m opposite. Just switched to using Costco 93 and my 2.3 runs so much stronger.

 

[Nc211]

I’m opposite. Just switched to using Costco 93 and my 2.3 runs so much stronger.

For GDI, I am a fan of premium only as well. I've not used anything else since Bill Clinton. But decided I would give it a try, if for anything, just to see if there is any difference, and to me, there is. Not major, no "night and day", kind've hard to describe. I guess it feels a bit more relaxed. Reminds of that guy who drinks 5 cups of coffee and then dials it back to 2 cups, which still gets you there, just a little less edgy. When matched to a 10-speed automatic, the throttle feedback is less than ideal in mine. I wish it were a 6 or 7 speed with taller gearing, less shift happy.

 

[Combustion_King]

I only run 93 and from good stations like Mobil or Sunoco. I run the Ford tune also, 2.7 SAS. Drives great,

 

[BigShan808]

Run 87 mostly 'cause gas in the HI is at premium prices up there. I do prefer to run 89 (Texaco or no go) on both the Bronco and F150. Our 2.7s run a lot better, even better than with 91 (highest octane we can get here).

 

[Bayman]

For my engine (2.7) I never considered putting anything other than 87. Not saying any of you are at all wrong, just interesting. Then again, I did my first oil change at 3500 miles (15%) and many still change it at 1000, which I used to do with all new vehicles.

 

[Squandeezie]

Just ran a tank of 93 and am getting a hair over 1 mpg better vs 87. Cruising on the interstate just seems a bit more effortless for the motor with better fuel. Economy wise though 87 seems just fine for me most of the time.
I got a jb4 tuner and you can run blends with a few gallons of ethanol mixed in to gain some extra boost.
Black diamond SAS with stock Goodyear's:
ROUGH MPG (I drive like a grandma most of the time)
93- 21.5
87- 20.5
E30 19 ( roughly 2 parts 93 : 1 part e85)

 

[Bayman]

I am running 20.8 with 87.

 

[BroncoChallenger]

Just ran a tank of 93 and am getting a hair over 1 mpg better vs 87. Cruising on the interstate just seems a bit more effortless for the motor with better fuel. Economy wise though 87 seems just fine for me most of the time.
I got a jb4 tuner and you can run blends with a few gallons of ethanol mixed in to gain some extra boost.
Black diamond SAS with stock Goodyear's:
ROUGH MPG (I drive like a grandma most of the time)
93- 21.5
87- 20.5
E30 19 ( roughly 2 parts 93 : 1 part e85)

Interesting, that's the same ballpark for 87 that we get in ours, no tune. I haven't actually put 91/93 in it because for (as my wife lovingly calls it) an Amazon box on wheels that's pretty decent mileage. The Bronco isn't built for aerodynamics, so high speed mileage absolutely sucks.

 

[UncleBrad]

I am running 20.8 with 87.

I am running 93 top tier on my 2.3L manual, and am sitting firm at 22.8mpg.

 

[Bayman]

Good to know. Might try that.

 

[ATLien]

It's weird to say, and first time in probably 25 years that I used it, but I put in 87 octane instead of the premium 93 octane recently (Costco / Top Tier), and I have to say....I like it better! I know.....it's weird to say, and I'm sure many will disagree (with good reason), but I have found that the car is a little less "bucky" on the accelerator with the 87. Mine is the 4.27 rear end, and the tires are 65 series (275) SL rated, so pretty light. I've normally driven in Eco Mode just to calm it down a little bit. Decided to give 87 a try since the engine is able to handle it. I definitely notice the difference, which is not bad when the intent was to make the throttle response a little less twitchy. I'm back to "normal" mode and it drives perfect for me. The 2.7 has more than plenty of torque in general. The car definitely does not feel "sluggish" by any means. So if you're like me, give 87 a try. You may like it a little better. With the dual port injection system, carbon is not a concern, and a can of fuel treatment will actually do some good to keep the valves clean.

I have a Wildtrak with the 2.7. I'm thinking that what you call "twitchy", others might call "responsive" . I will sometimes run 87 myself, and see nothing wrong with it. But, there's definitely a little more power to be had on 93.

 

[JT58Bronc]

I have run 87 in my 2.7 2 door Sas for over 3 years now. No issues, runs great and I average 22.9 MPG. I drive with a light foot and the 2.7 has plenty of torque running 87.

Sponsored