Observations from running 91 Octane Fuel in my 2012 Frontier

[FrenchPople]

Thought I would share my observations for others to see for my time running 91 Octane Fuel in my 2012 Frontier with the VQ40DE.

For context my truck is not stock at all on both Performance and OffRoad Capability wise. For performance parts I have JBA Headers, a Magnaflow CatBack, Z1 Intake Manifold Spacer, Z1 High Energy Ignition Coils and a Z1 Tune through UpRev. It also has an ARB Deluxe Bull Bar with Winch, 265/70-18 Firestone Destination XT's, ARE Overland Topper with Frontrunner Roof Rack equipped with 2 Wavian 20L Fuel cans, a Frontrunner 42L water tank, 4 MaxTrax Recovery Boards, Frontrunner Wolf Pack Box, Hi-Lift Jack and ARB 6x8 awning. I also have a Decked Drawer System with Battery Box and Fridge in there. Can't forget about my Dobinsons MRR Lift and ARB Skid Plates. Last but not least a Snorkel by Z1. She is heavy to say the least and not exactly aerodynamic anymore.

Well with my current setup I have been running 87 Octane since that is technically what the truck calls for. It also felt like I could get just a bit more out of the truck with a little some that is easy to acquire. So yesterday I decided to go ahead and try 9@ Octane to see how the truck would act. After getting most of the 87 out I was able to notice 2 things. First off the Idle was much smoother! Next was the power output. At least at HWY speeds it seemed like the truck really wanted to move! Before it would go, but very slowly(keep in mind the weight and lack of aerodynamics). With the 91 it's like there was less Pinging allowing the Engine to take advantage of more Ignition Timing under load. To say the least it was nice.

Now some are probably wondering about the MOG difference. At the moment it is hard to say as I need to do some more driving while trying to stay a bit easy on the throttle. That said with the improved power and idle, I suspect there may be some small improvement of 1-2 MPG at best. We shall certainly see.

Stay tuned as I will hopefully have an update by the end of the month.

[Niti QX4]

To have a "blind" test, have someone else fill up the tank for you with either 87 or 91 and then record what you think after you drive a while. That will remove any bias from being aware of what octane is in the tank.

Not saying you have "expectation bias", but a blind test removes any such opportunity for it to happen.

[FrenchPople]

I'm going to take a guess and say that you believe this is the placebo effect? I can promise you it's not. How do I know? For starters I have been driving multiple different vehicles for years(including basic early SUV's and Sports Cars to modern vehicles) and on my current vehicle I have a Scan Gauge as well. I know what it feels like when a vehicle isn't exactly running at optimum performance and I know it's possible to not have great performance with 91 for different vehicles. This 2012 is not one of those vehicles.

Also I want you to keep in mind how I stated from the beginning that the vehicle is modified in a performance aspect and on the exterior affecting both weight and aerodynamics quite a bit. Why the performance upgrades when it's going to be heavy and slow? Because the extra performance bits will help(to an extent depending on the part) making the driving experience a bit nicer. It can also make a difference on MPG in a good way if one actually tries to drive for MPG and not like a Jack Wagon.

Will I do a blind test? Absolutely not. I refuse because of where I live and because I am picky. Where I live we have 85 available. There is no vehicle on the road that calls for lower than 87 and I know someone else would put it in thinking it's a joke. In reality it would cause engine damage especially with the extra load my truck has. Also I can't do a real test if I don't know what it is I'm testing.

[PalmerWMD]

I am grateful for your observations