Driving the V10

[Mel556180]

Are hp and torque specs @ the engine or rear wheels? Makes quite a difference...

[hilgert]

Originally Posted by Mel556180

Are hp and torque specs @ the engine or rear wheels? Makes quite a difference...

At the engine, at specific RPMs.

Not directly related, there's a good summary of the Ford V10 history on Wikipedia.

[hilgert]

Just completed 3-1/2 tanks of fuel between Christmas and New Years...quick trip from DFW to Carlsbad with a few side jaunts.

The first 1/2 tank was 93 octane mixed with the exiting 87 octane (so an "average" of 90 octane), the next two were 93 and 91 octane (47 and 49 gallons respectively, so close to empty), and the last tank (of which we drove about 1/2 of the tank) was filled with 49 gallons of 87 octane. I intentionally ran the tank down past E for each tank of this experiment since we carry extra tanks of emergency fuel in the bed of the F-150. I noticed no appreciable difference in fuel efficiency, and little if any increase in power (but we were not in high-hill country). This agrees with prior experience when I did put in higher octane for various reasons (such as when 87 was not available).

I will be sticking with 87 octane since the cost of higher octane certainly does not justify any increase in fuel efficiency, nor (that we could notice) any increase in power. If 87 is not available then I'll continue to buy the next octane up. I do consider it money well spent...if we had seen an increase in power then I would happily pay for higher octane.

So as the Car Talk guys said, paying more for higher octane gas in engines designed for 87 octane is really only putting more money into the pockets of impoverished oil company executives with no benefit to the end user.

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by hilgert

Just completed 3-1/2 tanks of fuel between Christmas and New Years...quick trip from DFW to Carlsbad with a few side jaunts.

The first 1/2 tank was 93 octane mixed with the exiting 87 octane (so an "average" of 90 octane), the next two were 93 and 91 octane (47 and 49 gallons respectively, so close to empty), and the last tank (of which we drove about 1/2 of the tank) was filled with 49 gallons of 87 octane. I intentionally ran the tank down past E for each tank of this experiment since we carry extra tanks of emergency fuel in the bed of the F-150. I noticed no appreciable difference in fuel efficiency (but this was a small sample size), and little if any increase in power (but we were not in high-hill country).

I believe from this experiment (albeit small) that I'll just stick with a minimum of 87 octane fuel since the cost of higher octane certainly does not (in my experience) justify any increase in fuel efficiency (which for this test appeared to be no gain, which was pretty much expected). If 87 is not available then I'll buy the next octane up. If there had been more power noticed (and neither the wife nor myself felt more power when driving) I would happily pay the difference.

So as the Car Talk guys said originally, paying more for higher octane gas in engines designed for 87 octane is really only putting more money into the pockets of impoverished oil company executives with no benefit to the end user.

IMO using high octane would not lead to increased mileage. Gasoline is replaced with octane which inhibits burning. A low compression engine likely will not burn most of the octane instead sending it through the tail pipe.

[hilgert]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

IMO using high octane would not lead to increased mileage. Gasoline is replaced with octane which inhibits burning. A low compression engine likely will not burn most of the octane instead sending it through the tail pipe.

I agree...higher octane does not mean better fuel efficiency. My experiment was more about power...I've heard that under certain high engine load circumstances higher octane *may* help (heavy load, towing uphill, etc.), so I decided to try it. No difference that wife/myself could notice. I got more "zing" out of my 5 Star Tune (with THAT I definitely notice the power increase...tried reverting to the factory tune a few months ago and the MH felt like a sloth).

For a bit of extra money it was worth the experiment to prove for myself that higher octane is not worth the extra cost in fuel efficiency (as expected), and did not give me extra power (which I would pay more more if it did).

[Gordon Dewald]

The only thing that may help is if regular contains ethanol and premium does not.

One of the lamest things was using food to make fuel.

[marjoa]

Originally Posted by hilgert

Just completed 3-1/2 tanks of fuel between Christmas and New Years...quick trip from DFW to Carlsbad with a few side jaunts.

The first 1/2 tank was 93 octane mixed with the exiting 87 octane (so an "average" of 90 octane), the next two were 93 and 91 octane (47 and 49 gallons respectively, so close to empty), and the last tank (of which we drove about 1/2 of the tank) was filled with 49 gallons of 87 octane. I intentionally ran the tank down past E for each tank of this experiment since we carry extra tanks of emergency fuel in the bed of the F-150. I noticed no appreciable difference in fuel efficiency, and little if any increase in power (but we were not in high-hill country). This agrees with prior experience when I did put in higher octane for various reasons (such as when 87 was not available).

I will be sticking with 87 octane since the cost of higher octane certainly does not justify any increase in fuel efficiency, nor (that we could notice) any increase in power. If 87 is not available then I'll continue to buy the next octane up. I do consider it money well spent...if we had seen an increase in power then I would happily pay for higher octane.

So as the Car Talk guys said, paying more for higher octane gas in engines designed for 87 octane is really only putting more money into the pockets of impoverished oil company executives with no benefit to the end user.

Yeah, there have been many, many controlled studies over the years testing a plethora of different types of vehicles of the possible increase MPG/performance question in the 3 octane levels and time and time again there has been no real difference to make a difference. The only vehicles that should be using high octane are the high performance vehicles that require it.

However, paying a few cents more/gal for top tier gas will make a big difference on the over all health of your engine. Engines are kinda like people, "you are what you eat". A steady diet of junk food is not good for you, if you get my drift.

[VSPA]

I spent too many years driving from can to can't. I'm now retired and subscribe to the Retiree's Workweek, 6 Saturdays followed by a Sunday. Since purchasing our current RV, a 2014 Itasca 35F with the V10, I now use the KISS method of driving. I place it in the T/H mode, set the cruise control at 62, sit back and make the journey be part of the joy of getting to the destination. That formula for driving also takes into consideration that we have reduced the amount of time on the road from roughly five, to no more than 51/2 hours so that we have time to fix dinner, have a couple of beers and watch the evening news. On the last two trips we made, on the route home we decided to stay an extra night at a park in route just because we were tired of driving. We run the range of normally 7 mpg, but have made it just over 9 mpg and we use the 87 octane regular. Generally, when doing the prep to get the rig on the road, I'll add 2-3 bottles of the Lucas fuel injection cleaner, and Stabil in the tank when arriving back at the sticks and bricks.

[TeJay]

When it comes to choosing fuel I also use the KISS approach as well.

Higher octane is only needed to, "Reduce pre-ignition due to heat of compression." Common sense tells me I only need it if I have an engine of a higher compression ratio.

The Ford F-10 is not a HC engine so under normal and even some slightly abnormal situations (higher altitude & heavier loads) my benefits would be very minimal and I just don't need it!!!!!

[twinboat]

Originally Posted by marjoa

However, paying a few cents more/gal for top tier gas will make a big difference on the over all health of your engine. Engines are kinda like people, "you are what you eat". A steady diet of junk food is not good for you, if you get my drift.

I have used the cheap gas in my toad for 100,000 hard miles. I've replaced the brake pads once, tires twice and timming belt according to schedule. I change the cheap Wal-Mart engine oil every 5 to 6000 miles.

Right now it runs like new. When does the health of my engine start to decline, not using top tier gas ?

[BFlinn181]

Originally Posted by twinboat

I have used the cheap gas in my toad for 100,000 hard miles. I've replaced the brake pads once, tires twice and timming belt according to schedule. I change the cheap Wal-Mart engine oil every 5 to 6000 miles.

Right now it runs like new. When does the health of my engine start to decline, not using top tier gas ?

It'll be hard to determine if your problem is poor engine health or just loss of performance because you're carrying around a heavier wallet from the savings.

[twinboat]

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

It'll be hard to determine if your problem is poor engine health or just loss of performance because you're carrying around a heavier wallet from the savings. [emoji23]

I may have regained lost performance after a hail storm dimpled the hood and roof, like a golf ball.[emoji4]

[TripleEEE]

Originally Posted by TeJay

When it comes to choosing fuel I also use the KISS approach as well.

Higher octane is only needed to, "Reduce pre-ignition due to heat of compression." Common sense tells me I only need it if I have an engine of a higher compression ratio.

The Ford F-10 is not a HC engine so under normal and even some slightly abnormal situations (higher altitude & heavier loads) my benefits would be very minimal and I just don't need it!!!!!

THIS ^^^^ is the answer to the octane requirements.

Unless you are getting pre-ignition you don't need it. With today's computer controlled engines if pinging is detected, I understand it will retard the timing slightly.

The final say will be what your owners manual says.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by hilgert

So as the Car Talk guys said, paying more for higher octane gas in engines designed for 87 octane is really only putting more money into the pockets of impoverished oil company executives with no benefit to the end user.

Your '17 might be designed for 87, but the '18 F53 states to use 91 octane. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude it was designed for higher than 87 octane.