87 verses 91/93 octain gas

[Ron Neal]

I have a 2.0 and normally use 87 so I never checked mileage nor noticed any performance difference but I do use 93 when towing.

Sponsored

 

[Ozarkbeard]

87 TOP TIER fuel only.

Exactly, per Ford. For the Hybrid, they recommend 87 octane with TopTier additives. In the user manual.

 

[710-oil-614]

My fuel door and my manual says use 87 top tier gasoline. It says 91 if towing or in hilly terrain. Since I likely never use 250 hp I'm good saving money.

And it’d a wonderful thing that modern turbos can run on 87 without harm.

The power drop is real just replying to OPs inquiry.

 

[Jah.]

87 here . no towing yet if ever . won't waste my money . lucky if you get the higher octane out of the pump anyhow imo .

 

[dalola]

If you don't push your EB, or tow, or haul heavy loads, it's unlikely you will notice anything more than a slight FE improvement, and perhaps slightly better driveability, in "normal" driving, comparing 87 to 91/93. But if you enjoy the performance, tow heavy, haul heavy, especially in hot weather, the difference is VERY apparent. As mentioned previously, HP/TQ ratings for the EB are based on 91 octane gas, so using 87 will reduce power accordingly.

There is -ZERO- benefit to 91/93 for a hybrid Mav. Any noticeable difference anyone thinks they observed is for reasons other than octane.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

If you don't push your EB, or tow, or haul heavy loads, it's unlikely you will notice anything more than a slight FE improvement, and perhaps slightly better driveability, in "normal" driving, comparing 87 to 91/93. But if you enjoy the performance, tow heavy, haul heavy, especially in hot weather, the difference is VERY apparent. As mentioned previously, HP/TQ ratings for the EB are based on 91 octane gas, so using 87 will reduce power accordingly.

There is -ZERO- benefit to 91/93 for a hybrid Mav. Any noticeable difference anyone thinks they observed is for reasons other than octane.

Very true and like the other Guy said the 250 Horsepower and 277 lb.ft of Torque Ratings on the 2.0 EB Engine is with 91 octane the 2022 Maverick Brochure has Notes on the Power and Torque Ratings with 91 Octane Fuel.

 

[Rob911]

I had the 2.0 ecoboost in my Escape and from my experience I noticed a slight power improvement only when it was really hot and the engine was heat soaked. It was slightly peppier at higher rpms with the higher octain gas. No perceivable difference in mileage. Higher octain gas has less energy.... the power improvement comes from the fact the engine management system does not need to retard timing as much to avoid knock. More advanced timing permit more power production. My two cents.

 

[Surly Old Bill]

Buzz-kill facts from engineers:
There are zero performance or mpg gains by using a higher octane than your engine is engineered to use. Even towing and especially at altitude ("high altitude" starts at 6500' btw), where lower octane acts as higher octane due to the laws of physics.

Using higher octane than your engine system is designed to use won't hurt it, but it's a waste of money. However, some may appreciate the placebo effect of feeling like they are getting better mpg or extending engine life (aka peace of mind). These are not 1960's engines where tweaks to octane or carburetor jets WILL improve performance; all systems are loaded with sensors, monitors, and computer adjusted with millisecond changes in fuel pressure, detonation, and other aspects of function to have the engine perform optimally. Throwing higher octane at it just makes it adjust to keep the values within spec, negating the extra octane. A "tune" to change how the computer runs things is an actually effective way to change mpg and performance than just throwing in higher octane gas; but may have negative results on engine system wear, as well as void warranty.

 

[710-oil-614]

I completely understand the HP and torque loss using 87. What I don't understand is how anyone knows that while driving the truck I have found no way to determine my hp on the road. The max hp is at 5500 rpm and I don;t think driving at that rpm long term would be good for engine life. It seems like in a real world application the difference is so small as to not matter. For towing, heavy loads I agree use the 91 but for daily driving seems like an added expense.

Most people likely don’t but the argument of “max power is 5500rpm and I never ring it out so I’ll never feel it” is totally misguided.

The engine is detuned, and not just at WOT. It is felt across the entire power band. It’s just not likely significant for the majority of drivers styles.

 

[commadorebob]

I've run 87 ever since I got it. I tried one tank of 93 just to see if there was any difference and it was not enough to be noticeable. As I've said countless times before, I've never had an engine be the point of failure on any vehicle I have owned and I my ongoing strategy is to get the 87 that is cheapest or most convenient.

 

[Ron Neal]

Using 87, 91 or 93 is a personal preference. Sorta like what oil do I use, as long as you follow the mfg. recommendations it doesn't matter to me. If there is a small difference in mileage or performance I don't care.

My Maverick honeymoon has been over for 4 years and 4 trucks so I just drive it, fill the tank when the gauge gets low and let the dealer service them. I am too old and cranky to change my own oil anymore.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I've run 87 ever since I got it. I tried one tank of 93 just to see if there was any difference and it was not enough to be noticeable. As I've said countless times before, I've never had an engine be the point of failure on any vehicle I have owned and I my ongoing strategy is to get the 87 that is cheapest or most convenient.

Did you run your tank almost to Empty before you filled up with 93? If not it was a mix of 87 and 93 not true 93.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Buzz-kill facts from engineers:
There are zero performance or mpg gains by using a higher octane than your engine is engineered to use. Even towing and especially at altitude ("high altitude" starts at 6500' btw), where lower octane acts as higher octane due to the laws of physics.

Using higher octane than your engine system is designed to use won't hurt it, but it's a waste of money. However, some may appreciate the placebo effect of feeling like they are getting better mpg or extending engine life (aka peace of mind). These are not 1960's engines where tweaks to octane or carburetor jets WILL improve performance; all systems are loaded with sensors, monitors, and computer adjusted with millisecond changes in fuel pressure, detonation, and other aspects of function to have the engine perform optimally. Throwing higher octane at it just makes it adjust to keep the values within spec, negating the extra octane. A "tune" to change how the computer runs things is an actually effective way to change mpg and performance than just throwing in higher octane gas; but may have negative results on engine system wear, as well as void warranty.

But Ford says the 2.0 EB makes more Power and Torque on 91 so it kind of was designed for higher octane. IIRC the 2025 2.0 EB is like 10:1 compression Ratio or more plus it's Boosted so IMO 91 or 93 is a good idea.

 

[Surly Old Bill]

But Ford says the 2.0 EB makes more Power and Torque on 91 so it kind of was designed for higher octane. IIRC the 2025 2.0 EB is like 10:1 compression Ratio or more plus it's Boosted so IMO 91 or 93 is a good idea.

Yes, I believe I've read that some engine systems, particularly turbo, have adaptive software to change ignition when higher octanes are used. THAT is how all gas engines should operate!

 

[710-oil-614]

Yes, I believe I've read that some engine systems, particularly turbo, have adaptive software to change ignition when higher octanes are used. THAT is how all gas engines should operate!

It’s actually the other way around where as when less than 91 octane is used it retards timing.

Sponsored