I have used 87 octane since day 1, currently 12000 miles and see no need to go any higher! The only thing I have noticed is a slight hesitation when you punch it but this truck is amazingly quick!!Same here: no issues, using 87 octane, but only have driven less than 3000 miles ... hope it stays issue free forever
Sounds to me like it's something in the ECU tuning. I would think most modern cars would be able to detect the octane and maybe adjust the timing to adjust, but I'm pretty new to the whole Maverick scene.... My VW has a turbo and I could put anything from 87 on up in it but, not that I noticed, it apparently will make less power with lower octane as it dials back on the ignition timing.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 currently have a 2016 VW golf with the 1.8T and I've been thinking about getting a Maverick ( deciding between hybrid and EB). . I was wondering how much different the Ford 4 cylinder feels. Thanks
no, it was previously commented by @yamahaSHO - who is a tuner and would certainly know - that it's the transmission.
I quit reading at "prolly."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.
This is correct but the Octane jump and or tuning can help eliminate it. It lugs cause the trans is in low rpm add power and or trq. It can pull in that tough spot without having the feeling. Its just to low in the rpm for any power to be made with the current ecu tuning. Especially pulling timing and boost on 87.
I agree, it's all related. the knock octane monitor affects load, torque target, boost, and ignition timing.
It’s doesn’t do anything with the trans. But picture a manual and putting it in 5th gear where it’s lugging the motor. Then apply throttle. Now you can overcome that with boost and timing to some extent but that requires Oct to maximize it
That's what I was thinking. I was replying to the other guy but I think when I hit the quote button that came out a little fuzzy. He was responding to me when I said it must affect the engine, timing and power and colini said:
Yep, that is something it seems some of us are experiencing and some not so much. I agree, run with what you brung. As for me, next tankful will be 91 as it seems these 2.0's are mapped for that and compare with the previous tankful of 93 and go from there.
