87 octane. (~1,500 miles / Feb 19th 2014)
148whp / 150ft-lbs (134whp/136ft-lbs UNCORRECTED)
91 octane. (~800 miles / Jan 10th 2014)
146whp / 139ft-lbs (135whp/129ft-lbs UNCORRECTED)
100 octane Race Fuel. (~1,900 miles / Mar 8th 2014)
162whp / 150ft-lbs (142whp/135ft-lbs UNCORRECTED)
In my opinion, the power difference between 87 & 91 is within margin of error. We are contributing the 'power gains' in torque due to a motor that is more broken in at the 1500 mile mark versus 800 miles. Could also be environmental factors as well. If anything I personally would have expected 87 octane to yield lower results, so this was a little bit of a surprise.
100 Octane Race Fuel should not be used as a comparison to standard pump fuels. Race Fuels may contain formulas that sometimes yield higher power outputs over traditional unleaded. Take the corrected numbers from the 100 octane run with a grain of salt, the correction factor was fairly high during dyno day. Video & Sheets are below. Since I was allowed a single printout on dyno day, I opted for uncorrected printouts. I'm willing to bet the 180ft/lbs corrected number in the video is suppose to be 150ft/lbs, that may have been a miscommunication to the person writing the results on the board.
Datalogged output using Torque Pro on my phone, just a tick under 20psi at the peak using 91 octane, and 19psi using 87, I haven't analyzed the logs from 100 octane yet.
Comparison between 87 & 91 octane:
87 Octane Datalog:
Original 91 octane runs:
91 Octane Datalog:
It's amazing how flat the AFR's remain. Direct injection allows for some impressive mixtures under boost.
For those who would like to see raw numbers:
87 Octane Feb 19th 2014 Run:
Correction Factor: 1.109
Pressure: 26.858 InHg
91 Octane Jan 10th 2014 Run:
Correction Factor: 1.078
Pressure: 27.136 InHg
The dyno operator never veers from the analog inputs. I have pictures of these environmentals from both runs. If anyone is interested I can post them as well.
UNCORRECTED dyno sheets:
YouTube video from Dyno Day 3-8-2014 (Fiesta @ 1:24 mark):