Anybody run the maverick on strictly premium fuel?

[dalola]

It is not about extra HP - it is about avoiding engine damaging pre-ignition.

“Extra Horsepower” is marketing hype. Avoiding pre-ignition is based on engineering knowledge.

The engine management programming is very efficient at managing timing, based on various sensors that monitor engine performance. It will cut timing before any serious pre-ignition can occur. And it's not "extra horsepower", it's "rated horsepower", which will in fact be lower with fuels of less than 91 octane.

Sponsored

 

[Chops]

The engine management programming is very efficient at managing timing, based on various sensors that monitor engine performance. It will cut timing before any serious pre-ignition can occur. And it's not "extra horsepower", it's "rated horsepower", which will in fact be lower with fuels of less than 91 octane.

Marketing Hype rarely (never?) tout “rated horsepower”. The hype is usually “extra” or “more power baby!”

 

[MetalThunder]

Pure-gas.org - ethanol-free gasoline in the U.S. and Canada

Cheers

 

[Cancunbadlands]

I've been using only 91 because it's available here, there's not higher options. Never use 87 'cause the turbo

 

[Chops]

The engine management programming is very efficient at managing timing, based on various sensors that monitor engine performance. It will cut timing before any serious pre-ignition can occur. And it's not "extra horsepower", it's "rated horsepower", which will in fact be lower with fuels of less than 91 octane.

I don’t need no stinking sensors - I’m using premium Is that a Mexican sensor or a Sears sensor?

 

[UniversityOfPi]

My strategy is mostly 93 in the summer (the gas stations I like near me don't have 91), in the winter I do every other half tank 93/87 or 89 if it's got less than half a tank of 93.

It's probably not needed, don't know if I'll keep it up forever. Price difference isn't that big with the amount of fuel we're talking, it does seem like a slight MPG increase on 91/93 vs 87 but I haven't done any actual testing, the way you drive has a much bigger impact.

I don't drive it that rough or do much towing, so it's probably not needed. Especially in cold weather and under lower stress, turbo should be fine with 87e10. I'd class it alongside early oil changes (5k on a full synthetic is a bit overkill but if the peace of mind is worth it to you, do whatever you want, it's your truck.)

 

[tellyouwhat]

My Costco has been giving out 91 for the price of 87 since their 87 tank is broke. I been running 91 for a couple months now and I can report that I have noticed absolutely no difference at all. I saw them installing the new tank yesterday, I guess my days of 91 for the price of 87 are over

 

[Cherokee]

Seat of the pants observation.
In the winter with the heavy air I run the cheap shit.
In the hot summer I feed Pepper 93 octane REAL gas, NON Ethanol.
I drive it like I stole it but smoothly.
In the flat lands, at 70 mph or less with some city and interstate. My 2024 Eco gets 31.4 mph.
In my Appalachian Mountains I average 27 mpg.

The Real gas gives me a smoother more responsive engine in the thin hot summer air.

Over all a 1.5 to 2.0 mpg gain on real gas. It would take a gain of 7.0 mpg to offset the $3.65 per gallon cost of non ethanol comped from regular 86 Ethanol that’s about $2.79 here.

My ass tells me My Ecoboost likes real gas.
Took two tanks for the fuel system to settle in.
I wouldn’t waste the money on a non turbo engine.

 

[ScottyC]

Unless your station specifies that 91 is ethanol free it is not.
" No, 91 octane gas is not necessarily ethanol-free. While some gas stations may offer 91 octane fuel with no ethanol, it's not a standard. Many 91 octane fuels contain up to 10% ethanol, especially in the US. "
Ethanol actually increases the octane rating of the fuel.

The station I use specifically states that it's 91 octane is ethanol-free. Ethanol may increase the octane rating, but the lower thermal efficiency of ethanol lowers the energy output of the fuel.

 

[710-oil-614]

I ran my Tremor on 93 only because as others have mentioned the published HP and torque ratings are based on 91 octane fuel.

Filling with 87 results in around a 10% loss in power. There is no efficiency gains to using premium.

 

[Clarkdonbran]

I just use whatever comes out of the nozzle with the green handle. That is the correct one, right?

 

[Tbone289]

RIGHT! I forgot we went down this road before.
But I guess the real question is: is it worth the extra cost to get a few more HP? Is it a racecar, or towing an excessive amount uphill?

IMO, for cruising on the highway unladen, 87 octane serves the purpose just fine. There are drive-ability and power benefits for loads/towing offered by higher octanes. This applies to any Ford with these octane strategies, including the Focus I've been driving for 13 years. Increased fuel efficiency, at least to any meaningful degree, shouldn't be a consideration.

 

[24hrsun]

When I used to be a high mileage commuter I kept pretty good logs of my fueling, mileage, tire pressures, weather, temperature, speeds in a spreadsheet. Depending on the vehicle some did get better MPG with premium fuel, BUT when I did the math it didn't offset the cost premium for 91+ octane. Economically for me it didn't make sense from a pure MPG/cost benefit. However there may be other benefits besides the pure mpg advantages that sort of data can't capture.

Since the Maverick manual states the Ecoboost likes 91 octane I certainly would try feeding it that. It is hard to quantify other benefits. You might be able to bore scope intakes and cylinders with some before and after to get an idea what is going on. I know Project Farm has done some interesting tests with fuel that are fun to watch.

 

[todd92]

I run my 22 non hybrid on 87 reg fuel. Hearing people get more horsepower and better for engine to run on high test. Any opinions?

'hearing'?

The manual says it makes more power on premium, you may or may not notice it.

It's not better for the engine.

 

[BlueMav43]

I just use whatever comes out of the nozzle with the green handle. That is the correct one, right?

If the "green" handle nozzle fits in your tank receiver -- Go for it

Sponsored