87 or 91+ octane?

[Speed331]

I'll throw some 91 in once in a while, but mostly just use 87. Really have noticed no difference - not even when its 115 here in Vegas. Gas mileage has been solid no matter the conditions

Sponsored

 

[jrap]

owners manual says performance is optimal with 91. Thinking performance is more about acceleration than MPG's

 

[Zandcwhite]

The Wrangler manual said you can use 87, but 91+ is preferred for performance and even better mpg. The 4xe manual only recommends 87.

It's the same 2.0t, the computer will do the same thing with the timing. Obviously 30-40 ftlbs is less important when you've got the added grunt of the electric motor.

 

[JROOO]

With 37s I feel /seatofthepants, like 91 is best.

 

[Initial-Jeep]

Highest available, always. PCM should be able to handle up to 94, maybe more.

 

[Trini]

It's weird how the 2.0 in the 4xe has no mention of 91+ added performance, but the manual for the jl wrangler 2.0 (non 4xe) mentions it adds extra performance. The 4xe 2.0 would have the latest information as it is the newest model, so I think it doesn't matter in the end.

 

[Zandcwhite]

It's weird how the 2.0 in the 4xe has no mention of 91+ added performance, but the manual for the jl wrangler 2.0 (non 4xe) mentions it adds extra performance. The 4xe 2.0 would have the latest information as it is the newest model, so I think it doesn't matter in the end.

It's a high compression, direct injected, turbo charged engine. It will run more timing and make more power with higher octane. Is it enough to matter? I'd argue that without the electric motor when it's 10% more power, absolutely it does. When you add 150ftlbs from 0 rpms through redline from an electric motor, it's an insignificant enough gain that it won't make an appreciable difference. If I had a 4xe, I'd probably run 87 (until a 4xe tune is available).

 

[JeepFiend]

Heh, the guy at my dealership tried to tell me that Jeeps have been using Dana 35 front axles for years....needless to say, that dealership won't be servicing my jeep :D

 

[Trini]

It's a high compression, direct injected, turbo charged engine. It will run more timing and make more power with higher octane. Is it enough to matter? I'd argue that without the electric motor when it's 10% more power, absolutely it does. When you add 150ftlbs from 0 rpms through redline from an electric motor, it's an insignificant enough gain that it won't make an appreciable difference. If I had a 4xe, I'd probably run 87 (until a 4xe tune is available).

Well since the 4xe manual says 87, Im going to stick with that. Plus no reason for me to spend any extra money with these gas prices.

 

[JROOO]

Well since the 4xe manual says 87, Im going to stick with that. Plus no reason for me to spend any extra money with these gas prices.

I wonder.

 

[jmr]

With 91+ (locally it's 93) you will get more timing and boost. Check for yourself I did using OBDII app on my phone.

 

[Pinion]

I'm pretty sure no one renting these are putting more than 87 in it.

 

[Initial-Jeep]

Well since the 4xe manual says 87, Im going to stick with that. Plus no reason for me to spend any extra money with these gas prices.

The manual says a minimum of 87; it mentions all octane ratings, preferring higher.

As far as "extra money" goes: you'll have to compare efficiency vs. cost.

If you're always light on the pedal, 91 may not give you a benefit.

 

[calemasters]

My last car was a WRX, and I’m used to always getting 93 octane when I gassed up. What are you all using in your 2.0L Turbos?
I’m leaning towards 91 or higher, but curious to hear others thoughts…

In my 3.0 liter turbo, I use fuel with a cetane rating of 49. ?

 

[Pinky Tuscadero]

I don't have an answer but a small history lesson:
Originally the 2.0 demanded premium per the manual which was a huge turn off at 80 cents extra per gallon for an engine that was supposed to be more efficient, they also came mostly with the now defunct 2.0 E-Torque system which was a really fancy start/stop ploy which actually did start the Jeep instantly with the engine off and may have actually (at a price you could never get back through fuel savings) saved a very tiny bit more gas than the regular start/stop ploy.
Obvious complaints about somehow costing more to drive a more fuel efficient Jeep had Jeep change the print to tell us we could use 87 octane, I can't find anything showing they actually changed the engine itself though. The numbers for fuel cost dropped and folks like me questioned this but were less skeptical of buying the 2.0 which suddenly actually showed for the first time that you would indeed spend less for fuel than the less efficient 3.6.
Who's statements are correct in this thread ? - probably all of them as hard to believe as that is.
Economy does not seem to change with octane on this engine but actual performance may.
We need some hero to do quarter miles on each octane to show us but as far as I'm concerned my 2021 2.0 is slower than my 2015 3.6 and I run 87 octane but that may be why
If I were hauling a heavy trailer I would definitely use 93 octane as my Ram Hemi clearly showed me while trailering my '10 JK for sale that 87 was anemically weak and thirsty and then 93 suddenly fixed all and the legendary Hemi was back trailering my Jeep and passing slow-pokes at the same time, and yet, without that trailer there is no difference on that truck.

Sponsored