Sold on 89 Octane

[YBABRAT]

I did two tanks of Sonoco 89 and by 1/2 of second tank things stabilized to show better all around.

Top Avg MPG before move to 89... 22.4 MPG on 30 mile mountain hwy.
Now with 89, I get 25.6 MPG. I noticed better performance too. I could have had 26 MPG if my exit was not on a steep grade hill.

This recent measurement was in 90°F sunny day drive.

I think 89 is the minimum we should run on today's Mopar engines, even though manual states regular gas.

Sponsored

 

[Odyssey USA]

I did two tanks of Sonoco 89 and by 1/2 of second tank things stabilized to show better all around.

Top Avg MPG before move to 89... 22.4 MPG on 30 mile mountain hwy.
Now with 89, I get 25.6 MPG. I noticed better performance too. I could have had 26 MPG if my exit was not on a steep grade hill.

This recent measurement was in 90°F sunny day drive.

I think 89 is the minimum we should run on today's Mopar engines, even though manual states regular gas.

Some may disagree but where I live (about 500 ft elevation) using 89 over 87 in the 3.6 gives it a bit of mpg & better torque. I only use top tier fuel regardless of octane.

 

[NWJeepr]

Using 89 octane helped quiet the pinging down in my 3.6 (first generation, 2012) in hot weather and high loads.

Unless there's a difference in ethanol blend percentage between 87 and 89, you really shouldn't see any difference in MPG between the two octane levels.

 

[yokramer]

Using 89 octane helped quiet the pinging down in my 3.6 (first generation, 2012) in hot weather and high loads.

Unless there's a difference in ethanol blend percentage between 87 and 89, you really shouldn't see any difference in MPG between the two octane levels.

Thats the whole idea behind higher octanes. They resist pre-detonantion/ignition (ping/knock etc). Hence the reason its run in high compression/turbo applications. You can get away without it by retarding ignition a boat load which is what the CPU is doing in modern vehicles that run 87 in turbo cars and the reason I run 93 in my 2.0 cause Id rather the fuel do the work and the CPU only need to compensate in actual outlier situations.

 

[roaniecowpony]

After my engine failure, the new engine gets 91. I don't know if it blew a head gasket or cracked the block or head. Doesn't matter. It's just insurance against pinging and causing a problem.

 

[YBABRAT]

After my engine failure, the new engine gets 91. I don't know if it blew a head gasket or cracked the block or head. Doesn't matter. It's just insurance against pinging and causing a problem.

Yep! Most people have no clue to 11.5:1 compression. Geeze, less than 15 years ago some regular gas engines had 10:1 if so lucky. Wizardry has really changed what was believed impossible when big blocks ruled the streets.

Detonation or knock/ping can do some bad things besides blow holes in pistons.

Heat does play a big factor, but as far as I can tell Mopar has a rich mixture. Don't know if it is through out the torque band width but it does exist. I noticed almost right away cold start idle seems smoother and all in all quieter. Not valve train noise but through muffler.

I have already done the oil replacement with Valvoline Restore & Protect so things are cleaning up both oil and burning of fuel.

I did get my best previous average MPG through Pedal Monster, and kept it at City with low response and high speed trim since getting good results.

If I were to rely more on higher rpm power, 91 octane would be my choice.

I am surprised how fast the ECU adjusted to the octane change. I don't need to look at the average MPG reading. The fuel gauge has slowed to where 1/8 tank would normally be consumed to almost 1/10 of a tank for the same route and speeds.

Going up steep grades are impossible to fudge MPG. 5MPG to 9MPG for 1/2 mile and more.

One thing about automatic gear selection. It will shift into 5th and 6th just to get into the 3000RPM band. Even though a higher gear would drop down to save fuel. In the long run bumping up to 70MPH and keeping steady does save fuel more than babying through 6th and 7th gear at 60 or 65MPH.

 

[Mike_Hawk]

I did two tanks of Sonoco 89 and by 1/2 of second tank things stabilized to show better all around.

Top Avg MPG before move to 89... 22.4 MPG on 30 mile mountain hwy.
Now with 89, I get 25.6 MPG. I noticed better performance too. I could have had 26 MPG if my exit was not on a steep grade hill.

This recent measurement was in 90°F sunny day drive.

I think 89 is the minimum we should run on today's Mopar engines, even though manual states regular gas.

Do you have the 2.0 or 3.6?

 

[YBABRAT]

Do you have the 2.0 or 3.6?

3.6L

 

[jellis4148]

I've ran 91 no ethanol top tier fuel since new.

 

[Old Dogger]

I have been running Jeeps since the 70's. Still do, but mine only see 87 octane, or regular gas as some have called it. Never a issue. But every 5000 miles, mine gets a Bottle of Chevron Techron injector cleaner.
When I can find non-ethanol, then I will use it. In Arizona, that is controlled by the County.

 

[YBABRAT]

I've ran 91 no ethanol top tier fuel since new.

So I guess you would not know any better between regular and super. I did take note of Texas regular gas being better than VA. But I thought it was just new car experience. Now that I bothered to try 89, I feel that new car experience when I first drove it in Texas.

 

[jellis4148]

No, I wouldn't know any difference. I do know I haven't had any issues. I did have the intake off for the oil cooler and the top side of the valves looked brand new. I will say I got some 93 no ethanol in Nebraska when I was driving to California. That was my best tank of fuel. 16.3 mpg vs and average of 15 with all the other tanks.

 

[Trails]

In this area, most gas stations have 87, 89, and 93 octanes. However, 89 is the least cost-effective grade to get. It seems to almost always be priced closer to 93 than it is to 87. So, if you need 89, the most cost-effective way to do it would be to fill half the tank with 87 and half with 93. You would end up with about 90 octane, and the price would be the net average price between the 87 and the 93, which around here is less than filling it with 89. .... But, I probably wouldn't do it that way if there was a line of people behind me waiting fo the pump. It does take a little more time, as you need to run the pump transaction twice.

 

[dchemphill1]

The 2.0T will get better fuel economy at elevations, at least that is what I've seen on trips to Colorado and Moab from Nebraska.

 

[NWJeepr]

Thats the whole idea behind higher octanes. They resist pre-detonantion/ignition (ping/knock etc). Hence the reason its run in high compression/turbo applications. You can get away without it by retarding ignition a boat load which is what the CPU is doing in modern vehicles that run 87 in turbo cars and the reason I run 93 in my 2.0 cause Id rather the fuel do the work and the CPU only need to compensate in actual outlier situations.

Yep. Our 2.0's can accept 87 octane, but they pull timing to save themselves. Like you, I'd rather provide the extra octane in the fuel and allow the engine to make maximum power. I've only run premium 91 or 92 (highest we can get here) since I bought it new.

Far as I know, the 3.6's are designed to run on 87 (full power). They might quiet down a little bit with some higher octane but it doesn't seem to provide much more power like engines designed to run it.

Sponsored