Anybody run the maverick on strictly premium fuel?

[FordDiehard]

I topped off yesterday with non-ethanol 93 octane. The price has dropped to $4.09/gallon.

Sponsored

 

[Busyobeforever]

91 top tier, in my 24 ecoboost, gets 28 mpg. If I use other 91 (that's the premium grade in albuquerque, rare to see anything higher) that isn't top tier, I get 26 mpg

 

[dochawk]

In my own 2024 2.0l Ecoboost, 91 is max here.
I'm in the heat during the all around year

but when your maverick is in heat, be sure to keep the gates locked, or you could find yourself with Datsun halfbreeds to deal with!

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

2.0 engine?

It says 2.0 Eco Boost at the bottom of His Avatar.

 

[Cherokee]

I topped off yesterday with non-ethanol 93 octane. The price has dropped to $4.09/gallon.

Still $3.65 for real gas here.
My Ecoboost runs noticeably better overall on real gas.
Over several tanks of gas, summer and winter I consistently get one, that’s 1 mpg more on Non ethanol.

It would take 3-4 mpg more to offset the additional cost of Non ethanol.

But my Engine feels so much more, precise, tuned, smoother, stronger, It’s just a feeling. No real data to back these feelings up.

Ethanol fuel From premium to regular all feels the same and does not give me any noticeable mpg gains.

I read somewhere in some technical bulletin that the, ‘Flame propagation’ of ethanol is a bit slower and Turbo’s do not perform at their best with even 10% corn gas.

I also believe it took my computer three or four tanks to adjust to real gas.
It’s like ethanol lowered my systems I.Q. By fifty points.
The best way to describe the feeling is real gas makes my 4 banger act more like a small V-8.
It feels just like the super smooth stock Chevy 350 V-8 in my 1978 Monte Carlo,

FWIW
I have never since loved a vehicle like I did this one.
I swear this car got me laid more than any other vehicle I’ve ever owned.
:’P

I’ll continue to feed Pepper real gas. :’P

 

[James K]

I was running on 89, but at last fill-up, I saw there was only a 10-cent difference between 89 and 93 (huge difference 87 and 89). So, I filled up with 93, and what a difference it made. I thought I was going to have to load the bed with rocks just to keep the thing on the ground!

Many years ago, when most cars had carburetors and ignition timing was static Consumer Reports did a test on octane and basically stated high test gas was a waste of money. That information for some reason has been passed down to present day. Today many engines are turbo charged and have an anti-knock system that will just detune the motor when it knocks (pre ignition) so your vehicle is running at less than 100%.

 

[Meeka]

Many years ago, when most cars had carburetors and ignition timing was static Consumer Reports did a test on octane and basically stated high test gas was a waste of money. That information for some reason has been passed down to present day. Today many engines are turbo charged and have an anti-knock system that will just detune the motor when it knocks (pre ignition) so your vehicle is running at less than 100%.

I just watched an episode of Engine Masters and they found out the same thing, no difference, but they did say it could be a different story for Turbocharged engines.

 

[Pointyears]

I just watched an episode of Engine Masters and they found out the same thing, no difference, but they did say it could be a different story for Turbocharged engines.

I can't see how unless you're in Sport mode running wide open throttle you'd even notice. I certainly didn't on my 2022 Escape with the same engine and tranny.

 

[710-oil-614]

In my 2025 hybrid AWD over 12k miles in paying an average of $2.78 a gallon for 87 top tier (90% at Costco) for around $0.085 per mile which is pretty great!

You can also see how my MPGs began tanking with the ATs even more than normal cold weather

 

[710-oil-614]

I can't see how unless you're in Sport mode running wide open throttle you'd even notice. I certainly didn't on my 2022 Escape with the same engine and tranny.

Because the power is realized all over the power band and not just at WOT. One example is the lugging in 8F35 that many have reported and is remedied by using 91/93.

 

[r0tax]

Octane Adjust Ratio:
https://cobbtuning.atlassian.net/wi...+Ratio+OAR+and+How+it+works+for+Ford+Vehicles

"The EcoBoost vehicles are equipped with several load, airflow, and torque limiting and targeting strategies. These allow the vehicle to have consistent performance in varying environmental conditions and with different fuel quality. However unlike many conventional tuning options there are no "boost targets" as boost can vary depending on driving conditions. They are able to achieve this consistency and offer the ability to work on 87+ octane (though they recommend using 91+) through use of a dynamic multiplier called "OAR" which adjusts all of these strategies."

Timing (and boost) tables are adjusted according to OAR.

If you operate a tuned Ecoboost, watching this OAR value is important for monitoring fuel quality.
You can also watch the knock sensors and it becomes very obvious when you have low quality fuel.

 

[Darryl]

Many years ago, when most cars had carburetors and ignition timing was static Consumer Reports did a test on octane and basically stated high test gas was a waste of money. That information for some reason has been passed down to present day. Today many engines are turbo charged and have an anti-knock system that will just detune the motor when it knocks (pre ignition) so your vehicle is running at less than 100%.

That's true. But in most cases it's only noticeable when seeking maximum acceleration. Most of the time it's not noticeable to most people.

 

[dochawk]

Many years ago, when most cars had carburetors and ignition timing was static Consumer Reports did a test on octane and basically stated high test gas was a waste of money.

*IF* you comitted to only using higher octane, you could advance the timing to take advantage of it, improving mileage.

Some claim that the improved mileage covered the cost of the more expensive fuel.

And those of us with old big block Cadillacs with single digit MPG are the most avid followers of the possibility!

 

[Darryl]

*IF* you comitted to only using higher octane, you could advance the timing to take advantage of it, improving mileage.

Some claim that the improved mileage covered the cost of the more expensive fuel.

And those of us with old big block Cadillacs with single digit MPG are the most avid followers of the possibility!

Back during the carburetor and adjustable timing days, I don’t think the price difference was as great as it is now. It used to be about a 10% difference. Today it’s about a 25-35% difference. You would have to get a LOT better fuel economy and performance to make up that big of a difference, especially since back then the timing was often retarded below optimum because of emissions

 

[dochawk]

. It used to be about a 10% difference. Today it’s about a 25-35% difference.

that difference is everything.

I just tried to look up local prices, but almost no place (at least with a good regular price) shows mid or premium prices.

The closest is a Sams, with $2.92 for regular and $3.32 for premium, so about 12%

Sponsored