My 93 Octane Experiment! 2.0L EcoBoost Maverick

[bgn]

Well, someone on here mentioned they didn't notice 4 bangers tending to run a little rough. Maybe I'm dating myself... The old American V-8's out of the factory used to run smooth as butter. Circa 1970's and later, It was common knowledge 4 cylinder engines ran a little rough by comparison. More cylinders per revolution, well... Hopefully you can follow me and figure it out.

I recently had the... Uh, privilege of driving a 2022 three cylinder and... Let's just say, it leaves no doubt about fewer cylinders running more rough.

The again, physics may be different in Norway.

Yeah, had the same experience with a Peugeot 208 GT in Europe. Liked everything about it but the random vibrations from the 3 cylinder. I'm just glad the Maverick didn't get the 1.5l in the Bronco Sport.

Sponsored

 

[Hammer]

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

I don’t know about the VW 1.8T but I have a GTI with the 2.0T that I run only 93 OCT and the Maverick power/acceleration holds up pretty well in comparison.

 

[rlhdweman]

That’s simply not true. If you are looking at a dyno yes your highest hp will be higher In the rpm. But under the curve will be the greater increase in felt power. We have very tiny turbos that spool quick.
What our engines do is read knock and pull timing and boost. So on 87 and low rpm it will be getting boost delivered but not enough octane to support it. Many times causing lspi. Hence why ford recommends min 91 for hauling. It not for added power but the engine won’t have to be constantly pulling timing.
For those of you that are budget minded. If very very common In the ST, rs world to splash blend. Splash in a gallon or two of e85 in your tank. To raise the Oct number a point or two. Our ecu can easily handle the adjustment with no issues. Basically the same as one poster that uses 88. E15 it’s 87 with the max 15 percent ethanol that all ecu’s will support.

I have done this & the Maverick EB REALLY likes it! It's a cheap way to add some octane. Only I was using 91 without ethanol + a 'splash' of e85

 

[GarCalu]

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 experienced the same phenomena with my 2022 2.0 EB XL. My 2.0 EB was scary fast when I first purchased the vehicle. I used lower octane fuel to balance out the acceleration (I know, that wasn't real bright). The acceleration wasn't effected as much as in-town driving. The transmission didn't seem to know how to handle the engine's decreased response. I went back to high octane fuel. The truck hasn't run better. I've learned how to handle the truck on quick acceleration, and in-town driving doesn't result in any vibration. (this might be a learning curve also). Anyway, now the quick acceleration is just plain fun.

 

[dalola]

All the Ford EB's use a "torque demand" boost signal, meaning, when engine load increases, so does boost pressure, to compensate. The reason higher octane gas will help remedy the "lugging" sensation has to do with the application of boost & timing.....or, lack there of, in the case of 87 fuel. The PCM cannot simply add boost/timing to pull out of the load (lugging) condition due to knock sensor feedback on 87 fuel. With 91/93, the PCM is able to apply a greater amount of boost/timing as there is no positive signal coming from the knock sensors. Keep in mind these are in response to small/no throttle inputs, prior to a downshift signal. Regardless of fuel, a stronger throttle input will trigger the downshift, which will then also alleviate the lugging condition as well. The lugging sensation is simply excessive load with minimum rpm, and the remedy is to increase rpm via boost/timing and/or downshift. It certainly doesn't help that the OEM tune is geared toward max FE, which typically means get to the highest gear as quickly as possible. That's where the drive mode can help, either sport, or tow/haul, to hold a gear longer. Select-shift *could have* been another effective control method had the Ford product planners had the foresight to include it on the Mav, but that's another discussion for another time....

 

[colinl]

It certainly doesn't help that the OEM tune is geared toward max FE, which typically means get to the highest gear as quickly as possible.

the bias for fuel economy is such that the torque converter and clutches remain locked up in situations that many other automatic transmissions would allow some slippage for smoother operation. and the very high gear selection compounds it.

 

[RobbieAG]

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.

I wish I could find 91 octane near me. All is see is 87 and 93. I have a motorcycle that requires 91 minimum and I use 93, but would prefer not to have to pay more for 93 if I don't need it. Where do you guys buy 91?

 

[colinl]

I wish I could find 91 octane near me. All is see is 87 and 93. I have a motorcycle that requires 91 minimum and I use 93, but would prefer not to have to pay more for 93 if I don't need it. Where do you guys buy 91?

no worries, it costs the same for 91 or 93 before taxes, it's mainly dependent on what refineries serving your region can produce. I was an IT guy for a refining company a while back and found it kind of interesting.

there are literally hundreds of blends of unleaded gas in the united states, some of it for good reason- and a lot of it is honestly rather minor differences that can sometimes make supply constrained when it shouldn't be, and causes regionalized price spikes.

 

[Dignam]

This thread is way too civilized. We need a troll to come in and knock us down a few pegs. (joking aside, my personal butt dyno also confirms improvements running higher octane)

 

[James K]

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've had folks argue the point that premium doesn't do anything but coming from the oil and gas business and discussing it with engineers from around the world my conclusion is that octane is important for wear, MPG and HP if the motor can utilize it. The Maverick can. In fact 87 will fully retard the timing as far as possible while the high test will maximize timing and run at peak performance. Higher octane burns slower and is less impactful to internal components. I get a little less than 3 MPG better MPG with Hi test. At $1.30 more a gallon only you know if it's worth it. For those that disagree, you have that right to but unless you have data to send with your disagreement I respectfully request you don't send it. As for CR, read what they say about the vehicles.

 

[ED302V8]

2023 Lariat FX4. I drive the same route most days of the week. Sometimes it lugs, other times not. I've tried all octane ratings over time and can tell no difference in lugging or with normal driving.

 

[Sphinn]

Physics are physics, and I do follow you, but design, build quality, and perception is also a thing. Being used to 4 bangers I guess I just don't pick up on the roughness like someone familiar with V8s would.

One of the roughest sounding engines I've ever owned was my '87 Ford 250 V8 but it had light-years worth of miles on it so that makes sense. One of the smoothest I've ever had was a 93 Lancia Thema 2.0 Turbo with a weird factory valve setup. Perfect sleeper. Fun fact: the Pope had one.

Now, a 3 cyl or even Volvo's nice 5 cylinder engines do sound a bit off to me too. Something's just not right.

I still think my Mav runs rough as shit on 93 compared to a lot of other 4 bangers I've had though.

 

[commadorebob]

Given I am going almost a month between tanks, I might put 93 in the next one and see if there is any difference.

Alright. I bit the bullet. I purchased 12.488 gallons of Premium at $4.099 per gallon (a dollar more than regular). In the roughly 50 miles of driving since that fill-up this morning, I've notice .... not a damn thing.

Vehicle sounded and felt exactly the same. I'll give it some time but I think this $13 experiment will likely confirm my theory: gas is gas.

 

[dalola]

the bias for fuel economy is such that the torque converter and clutches remain locked up in situations that many other automatic transmissions would allow some slippage for smoother operation. and the very high gear selection compounds it.

For sure, many of the newer high multi-gear AT's lock the TC very quickly, one of the potential "benefits" of so many gears. FE improvement was the main reason behind Fords rework of the GM 9T into the 8F35. They dropped a gear, along with a host of other design changes for better efficiency, and cost down.

 

[Snox801]

I have done this & the Maverick EB REALLY likes it! It's a cheap way to add some octane. Only I was using 91 without ethanol + a 'splash' of e85

Yep almost every performance ecoboost guy that only gets 91 does it. Very very common. I am lucky and have it pre mixed at the pump closest to my house. So I do that. It’s 93 mixed with 15 percent e85.

Sponsored