Will 94 octane provide more HP than 91 octane?

extra toasty

One more time.
I guess if a person reads this they will understand some of the benefits of running fuel higher than 91 octane in a EcoBoost engine. I understand some folks could care less about maximum performance, but many do.
https://www.motorsport-developments.co.uk/Understanding-Ford-Ecoboost-OAR-Systems.html

This link and the post you directly pasted above are causing confusion. The link above is to a UK site. Octane ratings in the UK are calculated differently than in the US, so when that article references 93, 95, and 97 octane in the UK, that is equivalent to the US's 87, 89, and 91. The text you pasted in post 34 appears to be cribbing from the UK site and tried to convert the octane numbers for US but did so improperly. This is a problem when information comes second-, third-, or fourth-hand or worse.

The "best case" program for the Ford OAR system is a 91-octane tune. Why? Because that is safe, and Ford is more concerned about engine longevity than squeezing 5 extra horsepower from a 93-octane tune than a 91-octane tune. The mistake some people make is assuming that Ford's OAR system is unlimited in it's ability to adjust to any octane.

Buking Bronco

I had my Ford dealer install the "Ford Performance ProCal High Performance Program" in my 2.3 Bronco. Per the written copy that came with the programmer, and in my speaking with a Ford Performance Tech, 93 octane gas is required to reach the promised 330 hp and, since I also installed a larger air box & filter in addition to a 3" cat back, using 93 octane is a no brainer for me. I always run ethanol free when I can find it. I am happy.

This would make sense, since the ProCal tune is changing the parameters. It is programmed to take advantage of the 93-octane fuel to deliver more power than it could with 91-octane fuel. If the base factory tune was programmed that way, there would be no need for the ProCal tune.

Thank you Tim and ExtraToasty for your replies.
ExtraToasty, your link provided a much better insight into how the OAR system works, and I must admit that when I read the Octane references of 93, 95 and 97, I thought to myself, where the hell can you get 97 octane in North America? Very few places provide 94, B.C., being one of the few locations you can get it, but I have never seen 97 offered!
Tim, your explanation of why I was reading these higher octane ratings in ExtraToasty's link, makes perfect sense that the UK ratings would be different than North America.
This explanation also perfectly clarifies what I always suspected, that running 94 octane in a 2.3 ecoboost will provide no added performance as Ford uses a "best case" built around 91 octane, hence the whole reason for posting this question in the first place. I knew that someone on this forum would definitely be able to clarify this for me, and it is good to know that someone did.
Now, when I get the Ford Performance tune, I will then definitely run 94 octane as the upgraded tune will definitely take advantage of the higher octane.
I can now finally fall asleep knowing that 91 octane is all I need to run to ensure that I am getting the maximum performance out of my 2.3 ecoboost.
Yahoo!

the poacher

Thank you Tim and ExtraToasty for your replies.
ExtraToasty, your link provided a much better insight into how the OAR system works, and I must admit that when I read the Octane references of 93, 95 and 97, I thought to myself, where the hell can you get 97 octane in North America? Very few places provide 94, B.C., being one of the few locations you can get it, but I have never seen 97 offered!
Tim, your explanation of why I was reading these higher octane ratings in ExtraToasty's link, makes perfect sense that the UK ratings would be different than North America.
This explanation also perfectly clarifies what I always suspected, that running 94 octane in a 2.3 ecoboost will provide no added performance as Ford uses a "best case" built around 91 octane, hence the whole reason for posting this question in the first place. I knew that someone on this forum would definitely be able to clarify this for me, and it is good to know that someone did.
Now, when I get the Ford Performance tune, I will then definitely run 94 octane as the upgraded tune will definitely take advantage of the higher octane.
I can now finally fall asleep knowing that 91 octane is all I need to run to ensure that I am getting the maximum performance out of my 2.3 ecoboost.
Yahoo!

Silly people. The 93, 95, 97 are RON numbers the world wide standard for octane measurement.

“RON is the octane measure used globally and it's more efficient to produce and certify. 95 RON is roughly equivalent to 91-octane on the anti-knock index currently used in the United States. But unlike 91 premium fuel, 95 RON wouldn't be a niche product reserved just for luxury cars.”

And yes your Bronco will produce more power with 94 octane than 91. I do agree that 94 may have very little improvement over 93 octane (not RON).

I really don’t care what kind of fuel people choose. I was just trying to help educate using numerous articles. If others choose to disregard that’s fine.

Remember “you” asked…😃

extra toasty

Silly people. The 93, 95, 97 are RON numbers the world wide standard for octane measurement.

“RON is the octane measure used globally and it's more efficient to produce and certify. 95 RON is roughly equivalent to 91-octane on the anti-knock index currently used in the United States. But unlike 91 premium fuel, 95 RON wouldn't be a niche product reserved just for luxury cars.”

And yes your Bronco will produce more power with 94 octane than 91. I do agree that 94 may have very little improvement over 93 octane (not RON).

I really don’t care what kind of fuel people choose. I was just trying to help educate using numerous articles. If others choose to disregard that’s fine.

Remember “you” asked…😃

Any insight is always appreciated, so don't get me wrong. My original question was to attempt to quantify what gains would be seen by running a 94 octane instead of 91. Lots of good answers and insights were provided to my original question, and I learned a lot from them.
As no one was able to quantify my original question, and at best, the consensus that a slight improvement might be seen running 94, I have decided the added cost of running 94 is not worth it.