My 93 Octane Experiment! 2.0L EcoBoost Maverick

[Snox801]

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.

Or simply if you’ve ever data logged you car, seen a dyno in real life, or simply look at how the ecu targets boost and timing. Any of those will tell you that you have a massive difference in 87 to 93.

Sponsored

 

[Snox801]

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.

I think you will be fine with 87. They are build to pull timing and boost.
But I would recommend 93 for any towing. You don’t want your engine to be constantly reading knock and then adjusting. You will already be losing some timing on hot days as you heat soak the intercooler.

 

[Maverickman74]

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?

Pretty sure that is about the max we get here. 91 is premium at Costco on island. I think some places have 92. But Costco is the only place for a fill-up. Every other station in Maui is at least 75 cents more expensive if not twice that.

 

[colinl]

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.

You're wrong. It takes more than one tank to learn the maximum knock octane modifier and if your tank wasn't near empty it'll take up to two. If you're at half tank of 87 and fill the rest with 91, it shouldn't be surprising that the engine will know it's not 91. Because it's 89.

 

[Montana]

It's nice to see a lot of good stuff on the EB's on this forum. We might have turbos, need to use 91, and not get 40 MPG, but we love our trucks. We love your Hybrids too.... just in a special, "That's my cousins kid" kind of way.

 

[ndmiller]

From the 800 miles I've had my EB, I've noticed at 51-52mph steady RPM's drop to 1300-1400 in what appears to be the highest gear. With first tank of 87 I get grumbling and vibration. With second tank of 93 (we only have 87/89/93), I get grumbling with no vibration.

It's definitely something noticeable, along with difference in response from steady state to acceleration but still sticking with 87 as it's almost $.75 cheaper per gallon. As someone mentioned with a full maverick and/or towing I'd probably use 87 with a bottle of STP octane boost.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Awesome, thanks for the details. I'm with you on the quiet....too many pos Hondas 4s with straight pipes around here. Even with the smog Nazis here in CA almost everyone with a non-CARB (California Air Resources Board) approved modified vehicle "knows a guy" to pass smog. I never understood if you can pass the the tailpipe sniffer why they would fail you on the visual. Now the rolling coal diesel trucks are whole other animal.

I agree. I always said my cat-less turbo S2000 on E85 can pass the sniffer, but I never wanted to go through the hassle of trying to get it registered in CO. I am not against making things run cleaner, but if you set a standard and I pass it, I should be good.

 

[imboden013]

I’ve a 22 eco AWD with nearly 31k miles on it and I run 87 octane. Only time I notice anything is when I’m slowing down and it hasn’t dropped a gear then I’ll get the lugging. I used to drive a standard so I’m used to it.

 

[The-X]

I did something like this to my bike once. Ran 93 in it for a couple of tanks (6 gallons about 500 miles) and when i went back to 91 the mpg was significantly improved for a while, in the range of about 10% but i think the ECU woke up again and figured out my trick.

 

[Gonzo chris]

It's nice to see a lot of good stuff on the EB's on this forum. We might have turbos, need to use 91, and not get 40 MPG, but we love our trucks. We love your Hybrids too.... just in a special, "That's my cousins kid" kind of way.

If I get one I'm leaning towards the an AWD EB but the eventually issues with DI and a turbo are negatives along with the mileage. Wish they would make the hybrid available with AWD and the independent suspension.

 

[Montana]

If I get one I'm leaning towards the an AWD EB but the eventually issues with DI and a turbo are negatives along with the mileage. Wish they would make the hybrid available with AWD and the independent suspension.

A lot of us feel the same way. I'll be walnut blasting valves every 30k and exercising a religious maintenance schedule with oil changes in the hopes of avoiding an issue.

 

[Snox801]

If I get one I'm leaning towards the an AWD EB but the eventually issues with DI and a turbo are negatives along with the mileage. Wish they would make the hybrid available with AWD and the independent suspension.

Pleas elaborate on the said issues. I know what you are talking about it’s was rhetorical. Listen those issues are almost non issues.
first the carbon build up. Can it happen yep. Is it nearly as bad as the internet says nope. I’ve had many of these and they all have gone many many miles. My least mileage 2.0 currently is at 200k miles and has been tuned for e30 since the first week I owned it. The tune should cause the carbon issues to be worse with more blow by through the pcv. Removed the intake to check and nothing worth even trying to clean. Same with all the others.
Second the turbo issue is almost none existent. I have never had to change out a turbo ever I don’t sell or get rid of anything till I have over 350k on them. I do a lot of towing. In fact I don’t know a single person who has eaten a turbo. Can they sure. But it’s rare. Just think everyone who thinks buying a diesel is great because the engines last forever never once think about the turbo. They last forever and diesel is much rougher on turbo than gas.
Both your worries are just that. The internet tends to blow a lot of issues out of proportion because it good for views.
A few hundred have an issue out of hundreds of thousands and the internet gets ahold of it and runs.

 

[Snox801]

A lot of us feel the same way. I'll be walnut blasting valves every 30k and exercising a religious maintenance schedule with oil changes in the hopes of avoiding an issue.

I would start with looking at then at 60k first. I think you will be surprised you may not need it. Oil change

 

[Gonzo chris]

Pleas elaborate on the said issues. I know what you are talking about it’s was rhetorical. Listen those issues are almost non issues.
first the carbon build up. Can it happen yep. Is it nearly as bad as the internet says nope. I’ve had many of these and they all have gone many many miles. My least mileage 2.0 currently is at 200k miles and has been tuned for e30 since the first week I owned it. The tune should cause the carbon issues to be worse with more blow by through the pcv. Removed the intake to check and nothing worth even trying to clean. Same with all the others.
Second the turbo issue is almost none existent. I have never had to change out a turbo ever I don’t sell or get rid of anything till I have over 350k on them. I do a lot of towing. In fact I don’t know a single person who has eaten a turbo. Can they sure. But it’s rare. Just think everyone who thinks buying a diesel is great because the engines last forever never once think about the turbo. They last forever and diesel is much rougher on turbo than gas.
Both your worries are just that. The internet tends to blow a lot of issues out of proportion because it good for views.
A few hundred have an issue out of hundreds of thousands and the internet gets ahold of it and runs.

Yeah it's more rhetorical. I have a VW with DI and I haven't had an issue but I only have 37,000 mi on it. Christ you must drive a lot! Not saying that worrying about either of those issues would be enough to make me not buy it. I just know with 100% certainty neither of those things are issues with the hybrid.
You actually looked inside the combustion chamber or just the intake? I always assumed that carbon build up is specifically in the combustion chamber or the intake valve side because there's no gas washing over it? I would say my main reason I wish they made the hybrid in that drivetrain is just because most of my driving at this point is suburban with a decent bit of stop and go and that's the exact kind of driving where the hybrids mileage would be higher in the EB would be lower. I imagine if I did a lot more highway wheeling than I wouldn't think about it as much.
I guess it's just comes down to more power, better ride and now if I get a new one a lower price with the EB but worse mileage. The only real thing going for the hybrid in my mind is the mileage. I guess I'll drive them both and see what strikes me fancy

 

[commadorebob]

You're wrong. It takes more than one tank to learn the maximum knock octane modifier and if your tank wasn't near empty it'll take up to two. If you're at half tank of 87 and fill the rest with 91, it shouldn't be surprising that the engine will know it's not 91. Because it's 89.

Well, mathematically, it is 92 as I put in a full tank of 93 on two gallons of 89. Still, didn't see any difference.

I know octane can make a difference. My now decommissioned Saturn Vue would absolutely struggle unless I put at least 91 in it. And I suspect the Maverick will do the same after it crosses the 150,000 mile mark. But with only 4,400 miles on it, this tank of 93 does not appear to be making much of a difference that I can tell. And at $13 more per tank, not sure it is worth it.

But I'm also camping at the tallest point in Alabama next weekend. I'll be able to tell if the truck is a little more responsive than the last time.

Sponsored