Pretty sure that is incorrect. You have to use 93 IF you want the full stated power. It'll run just fine, with substantially less power on 87.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Sport mode only feels faster by remapping the pedal and shifts, it does not make the engine actually make any more power.
Ford's doc for the ProCal tuner states "Premium fuel required." While I understand that modern engines can retard timing for lower octane fuels, there are still stated required minimum octane ratings. The base tune requires 87. It is my understanding that Ford's statement is saying that the minimum octane rating when using the performance tune increases to premium fuel. Otherwise, Ford could have easily said, "Premium fuel required for performance improvement," or something similar.
I understand that. But what do you think the more likely scenario is?
- 87 will damage your engine when the FP tune is installed.
- The lawyers at FP want to cover their asses on all claims of performance results/gains hence the "requirement".
why do people argue with this. it is recommended 91. you can have drivability issues if you use less than 91.
Sponsored
Because its nonsense.
I would run 93 always if it were available here in CA but we only get sub par 91, so I run that. I run the higher octanes for their performance benefit. If I wanted to run 87 always or sporadically, FP tune or not, I would and there would be ZERO resulting "driveability" issues.
What would those be exactly? Knocking/pinging? Yeah right. Not happening with a modern engine with 87.
To prove what I already knew, today I decided to put many gallons of 87 octane in my Raptor which also has the FP tune.
Guess what...drum roll...
It ran wonderfully. Zero knocking nor any other signs of problems. A bit slower at WOT, exactly as expected. Given that the 3.0 is a bit higher strung and higher tuned, if it works on the 3.0 there is no reason the 2.7 would be any different.
Oh wait, I know, there was "micro pinging" and my oil film on my crank and rod journals/bearings was compromised causing damage and accelerated wear. I'm sure there was a buildup of some exotic deposit all over the combustion chambers as well. Or, if not those then some other super secret form of invisible damage that is taking massive lifespan off my engine.
Lawyers...
sweet, so you ran how many gallons? did you have any way to verify your octane? did you monitor knock events? timing? fuel tables?To prove what I already knew, today I decided to put many gallons of 87 octane in my Raptor which also has the FP tune.
Guess what...drum roll...
It ran wonderfully. Zero knocking nor any other signs of problems. A bit slower at WOT, exactly as expected. Given that the 3.0 is a bit higher strung and higher tuned, if it works on the 3.0 there is no reason the 2.7 would be any different.
Oh wait, I know, there was "micro pinging" and my oil film on my crank and rod journals/bearings was compromised causing damage and accelerated wear. I'm sure there was a buildup of some exotic deposit all over the combustion chambers as well. Or, if not those then some other super secret form of invisible damage that is taking massive lifespan off my engine.
Lawyers...
congrats on being a keyboard warrior though!
Yeah, but he mentioned he's on a tight budget. A tune and premium gas will cost more than free sport mode
. Anyway, there is no way a 2.3 Bronco will match a Mustang.
Yup, 5 gallons on an empty tank, so doing the math, with the small reserve, it is about 87.5 octane. Yeah, not 87, hugely different.
Are you claiming the qualitative experience of driving the vehicle and paying close attention to its sound, smoothness and power output is not evidence of it running well?
As much as I am a quantitatively oriented person by both natural disposition and education, I don't believe I need to log data to tell the engine isn't being affected negatively.
There is simply so much common knowledge and common sense here that you choose to ignore. Yeah, blindly trust the "authorities" they always know, never lie and never have alterior motives.
All this said, it's probably worth it to put this to rest. I can log:
| Knock sensor 1 counts |
| Knock sensor 2 counts |
| Linear knock module value |
| Knock sensor adder |
| Octane adjustment |
I would just do the first 2 counts (and maybe the last item). No reason to log the other items you mentioned.
Are you willing to have a wager here? I would put real money on it. There would be no statistically significant difference in these sensors between 87 and 91.
Sponsored
- First Name
- Chris
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Threads
- 24
- Messages
- 1,382
- Reaction score
- 2,234
- Location
- Southern New Mexico
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016 Sequoia, 2012 Tundra, 2024 Sasquatched 2.3L 7M 4Door Bronco
- Your Bronco Model
- Big Bend
I would not take your bet, but I suspect the knock sensor's would log the expected knocking with the lower octane, but then the computer would adjust the timing advance to compensate. There would be no drivability issues or long-term damage to your engine, only the expected loss of 30 or 40 horses on the top end just as you experienced and as expected.
can you fly out to ohio and calibrate our dyno since your ass-o-meter is obviously verifiable truth
FP is still safe in all things considered. you probably won’t see much knock events happen because it’ll just detune you back to whatever ignition table and fuel tables it wants for 87 octane. but i would love to you do 2 or 3, 3/4/5 gear pulls if you can. would love to see those values.
i don’t tune my own shit anymore since i have a factory warranty again.
how much driving did you do? ford ECU will adjust within 50+- miles and then you’ll see the drivability fall. or unhook your battery and have it relearn. bet it’ll feel different.
Yes, indeed, that is a more accurate desciption of what might happen. Since we know we get less power with lower octance, we also know timing is being adjusted and it is being adjusted due to knock.
My crude estimate of my power defecit in running 91 vs. 93 without the FP Tune was about 20-25 hp. This was based on 0-60 times, which depends too much on launch and conditions as opposed to something like 40-100.
I do have a decently tuned butt-0-meter from doing years of all sort of motorsports. That said, I definitely can not measure performance times. Again, the point being simply that the truck runs strong (albeit with less power) with 87.can you fly out to ohio and calibrate our dyno since your ass-o-meter is obviously verifiable truth
This is the precise opposite of what you claimed earlier and is my contention all along....
It is my general understanding of any modern ECU that it adjust to octane pretty well instantly and is always doing so in real time. It must do so to prevent engine damage.
Physics AND lawyers.
Physics dictate that LSPI, detonation, and pinging will kill an engine. Especially with an aggressive non oe timing table.
If Ford is selling an emissions compliant tune, they're on the hook for any damages to mechanical components or emissions components.
They don't put octane requirements on there just to waste ink, or take up word count...
Sponsored
