Anybody run the maverick on strictly premium fuel?

[Chops]

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?

My Maverick Turbo is my race car grrr. Will have to spend about $200 per year in extra gas for my low mileage 250hp beast grrr again.

Sponsored

 

[ScottyC]

20 year old John Deere push mower. I have used 87 ethanol mix for 20 years. Had to replace the plug last year as it was beyond regapping. Replaced air filter once. If it dies tomorrow I feel I got good service from it. Changed oil 4 times in 20 years.

Those older beasts would run on just about anything, but more modern equipment is a tad more sensitive to the ravages of ethanol in the gas lines and fuel bowls.

 

[ScottyC]

It actually could damage a lawnmower engine.
" Most lawn tractors should use regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum octane rating of 87, according to Briggs & Stratton. It's also recommended to use fuel with up to 10% ethanol, says Briggs & Stratton. Higher octane fuel than recommended offers no benefit and is not necessary for most lawn tractors "

I'll have to pull out the manual for my Cub Cadet SRC621 walk behind mower....it has a Kawasaki motor on it.....

 

[24hrsun]

Those older beasts would run on just about anything, but more modern equipment is a tad more sensitive to the ravages of ethanol in the gas lines and fuel bowls.

Yep, the condensation turns into rust, and it doesn't like to sit for very long before it goes bad. One of the reasons I prefer diesel over gas, but still needs to be run through some filtering. Ethanol did not turn out to be a good solution for our energy needs.

 

[Triangle6887]

I've been using 87 octane since I bought the truck. I've done a few single fill ups of mid-grade (89 octane) and premium (91 octane) but haven't noticed any differences. Planning on running my next 2-3 tanks as mid to see if I get any sort of performance boost, then my next 2-3 as premium. Will report back if I have any changes.

 

[Blue_Max]

No mention of the Maverick specifically here, but it talks about EcoBoost and premium fuel:
https://www.jalopnik.com/1899452/ford-ecoboosts-dont-need-premium-fuel-reason-explained/

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

I live where it's very hot at mild elevation (3200'), but travel to 4200' - 5600' very regularly (several times a week) too, and even 8000'+ several times a year. So, I use higher octane (91) for that. Secondly, up until 7 weeks ago, I was more than half of my time in Mexico. Quality of fuel is a concern, so I always ponied up for 91 octane there as well. So, I have used 91 exclusively from the beginning. I have never used anything else. I have no baseline to say how good or how much better my truck operates with 91.... It could be nothing... I just don't know, never having used 87.

 

[Tbone91]

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?

I've been running premium 93 from Sunoco through my last several cars. And I continue to do so in my Maverick 2.0 EB. Maybe it's in my head, maybe it's not but I believe it runs slightly smoother, less chugging in lower RPMs and I haven't done too much highway driving as of yet. My best so far has been about 28.0 MPGs according to the dash readout. I reset at every fill up. I also run some Lucas fuel injector cleaner most of the time as well. Everyone has their oddities, mine is going over the top with vehicles. Premium fuels, full synthetic oils, fuel additives, K&N air filters...although I haven't gotten one for the Maverick yet.

 

[The Real Maverick]

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?

No.
Never.
None.

 

[DryFlyGuy]

I live at 6200 ft. and mostly go higher in any direction. 91 since the day I got it. Each and every fill. The Porsche always gets 91 as well.

 

[bdaniel230]

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?

If you read the Owners Manual, under Fuel, it states that the EcoBoost REQUIRES at least 91 octane fuel to prevent engine damage, and that 91 octane non-ethanol fuel is recommended.

 

[Cherokee]

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.

Bingo !
The ethanol flame front is hotter but the burn rate is too slow. At least I think that’s right.
No way around it. Ethanol sucks donkey ducks :XD

 

[Cherokee]

Closest place to me with non-ethanol is 10 miles and last time I went past it was 4.99/gallon. It is also near a marina which might be why.

I remember when ethanol first came out. Boats would motor out in the gulf and at about ten miles out the ethanol had destroyed the plastic tanks and the Coast guard got overwhelmed in short order. Fuel systems were clogging right up with tank trash, the actual tanks were flaking up or something.

 

[Cyclone25]

Had a '19 2.7, and a '22 3.5 ecoboost in F-150s and 93 octane made a big difference in performance with both. On 87 they both were noticably more sluggish. Guessing the same applies to the baby boost 2.0.

 

[dochawk]

Does this thread auto-generate every few weeks? Do we need to reply, or do our prior replies auto-post?




Anyway, the short and simple version of octane:

When a cylinder full of misted gas is compressed, eventually the fuel will detonate. Diesels do this general, but on a gasoline ("petrol", for you folks that talk a funny dialect) engine, this is a Bad Thing(TM). It harms the engine.

While very early gas engines did this, adding spark was invented to stop the damage/wear this caused. Daimler was so excited that they let the engineer who invented it name their next model. He chose to name it for his niece, Mercedes . . .

Anyway, increasing compression is one of the easiest ways to increase power--more air means that you can ignite more gasoline. The catch is that it causes detonation.

Advancing the timing of the spark means that you can use more compression. If you start a car of 100 years or so or earlier, there is a lever, usually on the left side of the steering wheel hub, to adjust timing. You fully "retard" the spark to start, and then adjust it (and the fuel flow on the right) to get a nice idle. By the 40s, automatic timing became common.

This brings us to octane. It is a substance that resists detonation. It does nothing more--or less. More octane doesn't have anything to do, you either have enough to not have detonation at your current engine situation, or you don't.

It may have been used by others earlier, but the Cadillac Northstar in 1993 had sensors to detect "pre-detonation", or the conditions where detonation was about to occur. While it stated that it needed premium, it ran just fine on regular--it retarded the spark--at a cost of horsepower. In fact, it's not a lot. Unless I'm hitting the mountains, I run my northstars on regular, which it takes just fine (OK, driving over 100 might matter, too)

Getting to the maverick, there are more sophisticated discussions on the f-150 forum who understand this with far more technical detail than I. From following their discussions, it seems that the Ecoboost programming actually starts from 97 octane, and both retards spark and reduces turbo boost from there based on its sensors (which make the Northstar look primitive. Supposedly newer versions have enough sensors adjust cylinder by cylinder!).

So you either have enough octane to generate X horsepower at your current RPM, or you do not. More octane doesn't do anything. You ecoboost protects you from pushing past what is safe by retarding spark and dropping boost.

[getting back to Cadillacs, later versions of the Northstar, from 2000 or 2001 got retuned to only assume 97, anyway, and lost something like 55 in HP. Also, there are aficionado discussions elsewhere that suggest that if you run premium, you can advanced the spark enough to make up for the cost of premium--but this is on a 472 engine, or the 500 that doesn't really get double digit MPG in the first place!]

why spend the extra money on fuel that the vehicle was not engineered to use?

True. But the ecoboost does use it; it allows the boost and spark advance to take advantage of it!

I know my issue is I am HP limited driving around town and on the highway, .

Is "HP "Horsepower" or "Highway Patrol"?

My 66 Mustang with a 289 would not run on 91 or 92 because it was a low compression engine. Had I put 91 in it I would have damaged the pistons.

No. Just, no.

If you modified it to boost compression, etc., to match the K-code engine, than, sure, it would have torn itself apart. The octane itself, however, does not increase power, at all. Just the ability to be compressed.

Sponsored