My 93 Octane Experiment! 2.0L EcoBoost Maverick

[yamahaSHO]

On both my Ranger and Maverick, I tuned the transmission to get rid of this. Changing the shifting schedules makes a huge difference.

Sponsored

 

[MMaverick]

26k miles driven over 30 months with only 87 Octane and I have never had a issue with reduced engine power at any RPM. I even towed a light utility trailer ( 500 lbs ) to Florida and back ( 3k miles ) with no issues.
I only use Top-Tier gas, specifically Exxon or Sunoco. If I tow anything heavier I would use 93.

How would you know if there was "reduced engine power" if you've NEVER tried 91/93?

 

[Sorren66]

On both my Ranger and Maverick, I tuned the transmission to get rid of this. Changing the shifting schedules makes a huge difference.

How much was the tune and will you pass emissions in your state?

 

[yamahaSHO]

How much was the tune and will you pass emissions in your state?

In both cases, the tune was free for me (see signature). I no longer live in a state with emissions, but this shouldn't really negativity impact emissions.

 

[Maverickman74]

I use 91 just because it's only like $5 difference on an already ridiculously cheap fill-up compared to my other vehicles. Plus it's a turbo, why not.

That said. I have never once felt this engine lug or have any vibration what so ever. It's the smoothest little sewing machine I have ever owned. I have only had one other 4 cylinder but that was a AMC 150 aside from the hole in the piston it was pretty smooth. My wife did have a 4 banger s10 when we met. 2.2 I think, it was a little on the rough end but only when pushed for power. Otherwise compared to the Ford cologne v6s, the small block Ford's, the, the 2.8 Chevy, the myriad of AMC 258s and 4.0s, the AMC 360, the Ford 460, Fords 300, and the 5.2 magnum. Compared to all them this is a smooth quiet motor that out punches all but few of those motors.

 

[Matverick]

For those looking for a reasonable video comparing different octanes, Todd at Project Farm has a pretty good video on it.

A TL DR is that unless you can take advantage of the performance with a timer change, or have a turbo, 91 octane is the way to go, and 93 has no change on performance.

 

[Robert C]

Well, the oil and gas companies do recommend that you use 93 octane.

 

[dalola]

It's well documented that all the EB engines love octane, generally true of any forced induction engine. To utilize all the performance available, 91 is the minimum requirement. Yes it runs fine on 87, but power & torque will be down ~15%.

Higher octane gas will help with the lugging, as will sport or tow/haul drive mode. You can also apply a bit of throttle in normal mode to induce a down shift. The key is simply keeping the rpm's slightly higher to avoid lugging. If the genius product planners at Ford had included select-shift on the Maverick, that would have been a great way to control gears/rpm as well.

 

[es7129]

26k miles driven over 30 months with only 87 Octane and I have never had a issue with reduced engine power at any RPM. I even towed a light utility trailer ( 500 lbs ) to Florida and back ( 3k miles ) with no issues.
I only use Top-Tier gas, specifically Exxon or Sunoco. If I tow anything heavier I would use 93.

You may not have had an issue, but your truck is still producing significantly less power.
You’ll run at least .5 second faster 0-60 running premium fuel vs 87.
My Ecoboost dropped .7 seconds changing from 87 to 93.
All verified with a Dragy in similar conditions.

 

[801Maverick801]

Can people please state what altitude they live/or mostly driving at?

Altitude has a huge effect on this. And these "expirements" mean mostly nothing without this factor included.

I live at 6000 feet and 87 octane is more than adequate for the ecoboost at this elevation.

 

[ModGoblin]

I hate spending money. I am cheapish as hell. OK, got that out of the way right off.

Prolly the one thing and really only thing that has bugged me about my Maverick has been the low RPM vibration we have noticed with the truck. Cruising around 30 or so there are times the RPM will drop to around 1200 or so and a slight vibration and or engine lugging will be evident. Even Consumer Reports mentioned it in one of their reviews of the 2.0 EcoBoost so not just me.

"The nonhybrid Maverick pickup trucks use an optional 250-hp turbo four-cylinder mated to an eight-speed automatic, with front- or all-wheel drive. This powertrain gives robust acceleration, can tow up to 4,000 pounds, and gets 23 mpg overall, but its tendency to lug along at low revs sends annoying vibrations into the cabin.

Someone here mentioned using a higher octane gas to help alleviate the situation, so I waited until the low fuel light came on an filled the truck with 93 octane gas. Ouch!! $1.40 more a gallon for that over 87. Expensive fill up, but will it be worth it or did I just blow 20 bucks extra for gas I do not need?

After burning through 3/4 of a tank I am very pleased with the results. The so called vibration is, I would say, 90% gone if not more. Power has increased noticeably. Still monitoring gas mileage but I would guess that will increase a bit too.

Next tankful, 91 Octane to see if I get similar results and save 40 cents a gallon as well. Given how little I drive, even the 93 octane will be worth the extra money given the results I have seen so far.

I drove my mav through the winter here in IL and will say that there are a few key factors in the lugging issue I experienced as well.

1. Cold climate effects how the engine operates. When the temperature warmed up a bit, the lugging was less apparent on my daily drives. The common area for lugging is the 45-55mph area when it would decide to kick down just under 1500rpm

2. Warmer temp + Fuel Temps. The warm climate likely increased the octane rating as temps rose up a bit. This was definetely noticeable when temps changed from sub 30s to highs of 50s and so on. The lugging seemed to be dampened a bit but still happened.

3. Wheel and tire package. I just switched to 20x9 w/ 255/45/20 tires last week and wow, the rpms are much higher at cruising speeds but right where you want the torque curve to come in and give you some power. Now im well above 1500rpm in the same speeds, now near the 2000rpm range!

4. HP Tuners can be an option as well. My friends applied an HP tuners to their Ranger and applied a trans tune they developed to suit their needs with benficial effects. If I can tune the trans on my 24 Mav using their software, I may look into that here in the near future. The Rev hang in sport is awful and the target shift points are completely off for my daily driving needs in town. Ideally wanting some shift points on the sport mode around 2500-2800rpm or less.

 

[ModGoblin]

On both my Ranger and Maverick, I tuned the transmission to get rid of this. Changing the shifting schedules makes a huge difference.

Did you use HP Tuners as well?

 

[es7129]

Can people please state what altitude they live/or mostly driving at?

Altitude has a huge effect on this. And these "expirements" mean mostly nothing without this factor included.

I live at 6000 feet and 87 octane is more than adequate for the ecoboost at this elevation.

Your truck is pulling less timing running 87 at altitude than us flat landers. I’m at sea level.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Did you use HP Tuners as well?

HP Tuners with the Ranger, Cobb with the Maverick.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Can people please state what altitude they live/or mostly driving at?

Altitude has a huge effect on this. And these "expirements" mean mostly nothing without this factor included.

I live at 6000 feet and 87 octane is more than adequate for the ecoboost at this elevation.

I used to live at 8k feet until about a year and a half ago. With a small turbo, such as what is found here, you're actually creating more heat at high elevation as the turbo efficiency goes down. Couple that with less atmosphere to extract heat from the intercooler, you actually would do well with higher octane. If you're not monitoring your timing multiplier, you wont' know what your octane is doing for the most part.

I do monitor my timing multiplier and I can see a difference between the gas station my wife last used (better), than the 91 we've been using here locally.

Sponsored