• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Does a V8 mean you have to run 93 Octane

  • Thread starter Thread starter WICKED50LTR
  • Start date Start date May 23, 2004
W

WICKED50LTR

Founding Member
Aug 28, 2002
257
0
17
Central NJ
May 23, 2004
#1
  • May 23, 2004
  • #1
Ive always wondered. Does having a V8 doesnt matter what size displacement, always have to run on 93 octane?? Ive heard recently must stang V8 guys running on 87 octane and actually getting better gas mileage, and having no problems? is it true? Ive always run 93 in all my stangs and V8 cars, what do you guys run on your cars????????
 
M

mustangrfast88

Founding Member
Sep 22, 2002
330
0
0
middletown ohio
May 23, 2004
#2
  • May 23, 2004
  • #2
well no you dont have to run 93 in a v8 i got a 78 f150 and i run 87 inless i am going to go play in the mud or pulling something, my dad has a 2003 f150 and he runs 87 in it all the time with no problems, the only reason you need to run a 93 or higher is if racing or if running a high compression engine or if you like to pay 2.10 plus for the good stuff
 

88stangmangt

Active Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,332
1
48
Stafford,VA
May 23, 2004
#3
  • May 23, 2004
  • #3
if your engine isnt set up for it it wont do you anygood. might actually hurt you more in the end.
 
M

MumftsGT

New Member
Apr 6, 2004
26
0
0
Wichita, KS
May 23, 2004
#4
  • May 23, 2004
  • #4
No, it doesn't have anything to do with number of cylinders or engine size. It has more to do with compression ratio and/or tuning/timing.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,260
17,944
224
Massachusetts
May 23, 2004
#5
  • May 23, 2004
  • #5
You make more power with lower octane. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just imagining it.

Higher octane is used to control detonation when used in boosted and high compression applications.

Unless you set your 5.0 up for it, you will make more power with 87 octane
 

ECU5.0

Banned
Jan 10, 2004
1,803
1
0
raleigh, nc
May 23, 2004
#6
  • May 23, 2004
  • #6
what about if your running advanced timing. ive always heard you have to run 93 if you have your timing turned up. when i had it at base timing i ran 87 in it...but since i turned it up to 12* or 13* (buddy did it for me, dont know what its at really) ive been running 93. any insight to this?
 

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
31,179
34
129
May 23, 2004
#7
  • May 23, 2004
  • #7
ECU5.0 said:
what about if your running advanced timing. ive always heard you have to run 93 if you have your timing turned up. when i had it at base timing i ran 87 in it...but since i turned it up to 12* or 13* (buddy did it for me, dont know what its at really) ive been running 93. any insight to this?
Click to expand...
that is what others have said (more octane for more timing). you dont necessarily need higher octane (which equals slower burn). i run as much timing as i can on 87 octane (15* in winter, 12 in summer at over 100* ambient temps). if i ran more octane, i could likely bump a degree or two more. you gotta play with it. you can always back your timing down too (instead of buying higher octane gas).
 

ECU5.0

Banned
Jan 10, 2004
1,803
1
0
raleigh, nc
May 23, 2004
#8
  • May 23, 2004
  • #8
HISSIN50 said:
that is what others have said (more octane for more timing). you dont necessarily need higher octane (which equals slower burn). i run as much timing as i can on 87 octane (15* in winter, 12 in summer at over 100* ambient temps). if i ran more octane, i could likely bump a degree or two more. you gotta play with it. you can always back your timing down too (instead of buying higher octane gas).
Click to expand...

yeah, im kinda thinkin im gonna do that the way gas is lookin right now. but im gonna try running like 89 or maybe 87 and see how that does
 
M

mackey

Active Member
Jan 25, 2003
1,284
1
38
Beverly, Massachusetts
May 23, 2004
#9
  • May 23, 2004
  • #9
There was a whole debate on this before. I do not remember the exact details but all i remember is that running higher octane causes your fuel to last longer in the combustion chamber. AKA burn slower. This way your engine will not experience a lean condition. I have been running 8* timing with 87 octane until today. Car ran great. 200+ miles to the tank and was incredibly reliable. *car is almost stock*
 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master
Apr 10, 2002
9,039
6
79
Charlotte, NC
May 23, 2004
#10
  • May 23, 2004
  • #10
There's not a one size fits all when it comes to knowing what combination of timing, compression can be run with what octane fuel. MANY, MANY variables are involved - combustion chamber design, use of the vehicle, ambient weather conditions, age/condition of the engine, head material, cooling system condition -- the list goes on and on.

There's no benefit to running any higher octane than you have to in order to support your set of variables. Most stock-headed 5.0's can get by with 12-14 degree timing and still run 87 without detonation. But if yours won't either up the octane, or cut back on the timing. What someone else's does may or may not be duplicated by yours. I have aluminum heads on mine - stock bottom end and mild cam; it runs with 16 initial timing, 32 degrees total in by 2800 rpm, and it runs on 87 octane without a hint of detonation. And, it seems to get about 1 mpg better mileage (city and highway) on 87 than on 93. Probably because the 87 octane fuel is ignited more easily and burns a bit more quickly than the 93. For cars with lots of timing and/or compression, the benefits of running the higher octane to avoid detonation outweigh the slower burning characteristics of the fuel.
 
I

iwashmycar

20+ Year Stangneter
Apr 7, 2004
1,236
1
39
Columbus, Ohio
May 23, 2004
#11
  • May 23, 2004
  • #11
Yep...87 works fine and is cheaper. I get 300 miles/tank on my stock setup here.
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
May 23, 2004
#12
  • May 23, 2004
  • #12
Man this sucks, my car with stock timing has slight detonation with mid-grade. I HAVE to put 93 in it to avoid detonation. I tried bumping the timing one day, holy crap, just about didn't get around the block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Electrical Foxbody wiring harness 2.3 to v8 swap
  • Foxbodyjake
  • Mar 23, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
24
Views
719
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 13, 2026
Foxbodyjake
F
Resolved 93 Mustang 5.0 - Cranks but does not start
  • dan50
  • Jul 18, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
130
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 18, 2026
dan50
Hard to start when engine is cold
  • 86_Capri
  • Mar 11, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
990
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 21, 2026
CAMTWO1070
S
Fox '87 GT can't get to stay running
  • spilly
  • Mar 29, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
27
Views
823
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
spilly
S
F
Getting my old autocrosser running again
  • flightops
  • Aug 28, 2025
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
6
Views
279
The Welcome Wagon Aug 28, 2025
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?