2.0 MPG gas mileage tests (so far) and differences using 87 vs 92 octane

[tomahawk72]

I've been running 87 since I got my Maverick a few weeks ago. I am a little over 2k miles now and averaging 25.5mpg. Would jumping to 89 cause any noticeable engine improvements?

Sponsored

 

[tempforce]

if you keep your hybrid, for the long term. a hybrid will bite you in the end. the cost of repair or replacement of items blocked by the hybrid components, will increase the cost of repairs. by several hundred dollars, due to the repair shop is required to move the hybrid components to get to items. such as a new master cylinder. normal would be a hour or two of labor, hybrid it will take all day. this is from a current owner of a hybrid fusion.

 

[jc888888888]

I heard a small handful of stories like this, but never have seen it. My Lincoln Pickup with bigger rear end for towing, I got 12 MPG on average over the 100k miles I had it. I would get about 10-11 MPG in the City, 13-14 on the Highway. And if I really babied the throttle at sea level at 55-60 MPH with no grade and no weight except me, I could get 15-16 MPG.

I am loving averaging 24-25 MPG out of a tank. And if I baby it at sea level at 55-60 MPH with no grade and no weight except me, I can get 30. I have doubled my miles per gallon on the highway and in the City.

I don't doubt your accuracy. I just never known anyone personally getting 25 - 26 MPG out of a full size truck with a full ICE, unless they fueled up at the top of Donner Summit and cruised all the way to sea level at San Francisco Bay, down hill virtually the whole way.

Diesel is the operative word!

 

[Thunderdog]

I've been running 87 since I got my Maverick a few weeks ago. I am a little over 2k miles now and averaging 25.5mpg. Would jumping to 89 cause any noticeable engine improvements?

Try it and find out. This is my 4th ecoboost engine and high octane made basically no difference in any of them. The most change I got was on my 3.5 which got about a half of mile to gallon better mpg. Your not doing alot of cleaning with a direct injection engine with fuel, which is why they added port to many ecoboosts. Your massively better off with changing the oil around 3500-4000 miles with one of the new gf6 oils that help keep direct injection engines clean. I can promise you there is no chance your getting 4-5mpg better mileage. Spend what you want on an economy truck but in my ecoboost experiences premium was no magic pill.

 

[jc888888888]

THIS ! OIL CHANGES ARE THE WAY!

 

[MightyMaverick]

Down here in Florida, the octane ratings are a little different. We have 87, 89, and 93 at most gas stations. In all of my vehicles, I typically run 89 octane and it does the job just fine. Of course, my last few cars were all naturally aspirated. Now the Maverick will be turboed so running higher octane will be most encouraged. But my question is can I still run 89 octane in it? It's probably best to run 93 octane but can I still get away with 89 without any engine interference? I'm sure I could but I'm hoping that the mpgs will be good enough to last me every three weeks so I can splurge on 93 octane for just once a month.

 

[Shakesbear]

Down here in Florida, the octane ratings are a little different. We have 87, 89, and 93 at most gas stations. In all of my vehicles, I typically run 89 octane and it does the job just fine. Of course, my last few cars were all naturally aspirated. Now the Maverick will be turboed so running higher octane will be most encouraged. But my question is can I still run 89 octane in it? It's probably best to run 93 octane but can I still get away with 89 without any engine interference? I'm sure I could but I'm hoping that the mpgs will be good enough to last me every three weeks so I can splurge on 93 octane for just once a month.

You can run 87 and it will perform just fine; as Ford designed it to do

 

[Naranjita]

XLT 4K AWD Fx4 Tow - I have only been filling with 92 no-ethanol fuel and the turbo likes it a lot. This morning it was pretty cold and the engine had warmed for 9 miles so when I kicked it to keep from being overwhelmed in traffic, when I looked in the rear view, there was quite a bit of exhaust. Whether it was water vapor or unburned fuel I don't know but so far my average mileage, 60% highway 40% urban, is 28.9 mpg. This is the first 2.0 L Ecoboost I have had, I did have a 2014 Focus with the 2.0 L, and that was a rocket without the turbo. So far this Maverick is as fun as I thought it would be.
I just bought an Airstream Basecamp and plan to take it in some of the back country this spring. I will keep you posted as to the mpg pulling that trailer. Finally will be graduating to retired in the next couple of years and am planning on taking full advantage of the truck and camp trailer.

Ethanol free is only sold on the reservation here locally. It only comes in 89 octane and is 50 cents more a gallon than 93 octane with 10% ethanol. Ouch!

Congrats on the Airstream Basecamp and upcoming retirement! You should write a Maverick-centric review of your new trailer. I'm considering one myself.

EDIT: Fixed spelling error.

 

[bdaniel230]

Will these AVGs hold at my current temps of (-1)? I would love for someone to give this a try during colder temps.

So far the mileage is at temps below 40° F and above -2° F so it is close but no cigar.

It's hard to argue about frequent oil changes on a direct injection (no port) with a turbo. But I can say without those 2 things, for regular engine, 5k is overkill with a good filter and synthetic oil. The car I am retiring now is a 2007 Saturn Vue with about 180k miles on it. Engine is fine, burns very little oil. Oil changes were done when the GM light comes on, which for me around 10k miles. Rust is going to take it, not mechanical wear and tear. Your mileage(and road salt) may vary...

I found that changing the oil at 5K was fine but I also used the Ford synthetic blend. And the 2.0L focus only had 60K on it when I traded it in for the Escape. Either way, I agree that 5K is a bit long for standard oil which is why I believe Ford uses the blend. On the Escape, the weak 1.5L 4i, I started using full synthetic oil at 20K because I needed the extra heat disipation on the turbo. I think it will be the same idea on this 2.0L Ecoboost. There is a bit better heat disipation and less carbon and tar build up with synthetics in my experience. I wiill be doing some research into which synthetic should work best in my motor and post it when I get some results.

 

[Paulyz]

Everyone is all over the map with their gas milage so everyone can take this data with a grain of salt. It's simply my data.

XLT 4K AWD FX4 Ecoboost - 80% highway 20% city

Autostop Eliminator installed so my vehicle never turns off at lights.

Hand calculated numbers below. Car was very close on calculations.

Only did two tanks of gas of each so this is very preliminary data.

92 Octane - 28.0 MPG avg (car showed 28.3)
87 Octane - 27.0 MPG avg car showed 27.2)

$3.85 for 92 octane x 16 gallons = $61.60
$3.45 for 87 octane x 16 gallons = $55.20

If I use 87 octane for a fillup I save $6.40.

16 gallon tank - so with 92 I might get 16 miles more distance per tank

$3.45/27mpg = $0.127 x 16 = $2.032 to get the extra 16 miles with 87 octane

$6.40-$2.03= $4.37

So by my calculations if I use 87 octane I save $4.37 every fill up. Fill up every 10 days avg = $159.51 per year saving for using 87 octane.

Things I noted -

• Manual recommends 92 octane for best MPG performance and overall engine performance/HP but 87 is acceptable per the manual
• The engine definitely seemed slighly noisier and more "ticky" when running 87 vs 92 but this could also be a placebo effect
• I didn't notice any difference in performance but I drive like a grandma most of the time. It will be interesting to try towing with both octanes at some point.

I plan to own this truck for 10+ years and plan to run 92 as turbos are desgined to run better with higher octane. My view is that although the car has knock sensors it was designed to work best with 92+ and running it that way for 10 years may result in less wear in the long term. The 10 year cost for gas difference would be $1500 at current prices. Everyone can make their own assumptions about whether or not that is worth it vs possible repairs or wear.

If I only planned to have the truck for 5 years or didn't have the extra dough to spend on gas I would definitely roll with 87 octane. If gas prices continue to go up I might go that route as well. Lots of variables.

Have you tried using 89 octane for a comparison, would be interesting to see. Where I live we have all 3 octanes at pumps, 87, 89 & 91, but quite a big difference per octane increase, especially 91.

 

[bdaniel230]

Ethanol free is only sold on the reservation here locally. It only comes in 89 octane and is 50 cents more a gallon than 93 octane with 10% ethanol. Ouch!

Congrats on the Airsteam Basecamp and upcoming retirement! You should write a Maverick-cenric review of your new trailer. I'm considering one myself.

I am thinking about doing a blog about the entire experience and my adventures. The more I have been thinking about it the more excited I am becoming on the idea of retirement. Since I have found a way to keep busy and entertained I am no longer concerned with sitting and staring any longer.

 

[sparky52]

700 miles on my 2.0 FWD and so far, I'm showing 25.6 MPG with no highway driving. Entirely in town driving except for about 3 miles on the interstate. I've used 87 octane exclusively.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Just update on mileage on my last two tanks now that I'm sticking to the 92 octane

Both of these were 60/40 Highway/city with some easing driving (not flooring it except for getting on the freeway).

430.5 miles / 15.354 gallons = 28.038 MPG (truck computer showed 28.3) = $59.25 ($3.85 gallon)

446.7 miles / 15.703 gallons = 28.446 MPG (truck showed 28.7) = $64.22 ($4.09 gallon)

On some freeway driving yesterday right after filling up I was seeing 31 MPG pretty consistently and even as high as 33 MPG before I got off the freeway and it dropped back to high 28's.

I'm noticing that the truck computer is consistently off by 0.3 in it's estimation but still very close to actual numbers - you can trust the computer is giving you real data.

I also found that there seems to be a sweet spot on my AWD 4K right around 40-45 MPH for gearing and MPG where the truck cruises very nicely but easy on the RPMs.

At freeway speeds 70-75 MPH RPM is sitting right below 2000 (1800-1900) which is a little higher than I'd like for an 8 speed but it's probably the 4K gearing. Might be interesting to see what my RPMs look like with bigger tires once I get them put on.

Again - from the 87 to the 92 the biggest difference seems to be in the morning at start up the engine is just a bit quieter to my ear and a slight amount more HP but these are subjective observations so could just be my mind playing tricks on me.

 

[DeanR]

2.0 4k awd fx4 lariat 87 octane only I figure roughly the computer is 5% high. elevation 3500 to 6300

 

[Big Kahuna]

I thought it was cool to see 33 mpg after a refuel and some Hwy driving.

Sponsored