Anybody run the maverick on strictly premium fuel?

[James K]

why spend the extra money on fuel that the vehicle was not engineered to use? Placebo effect of making you think you're getting better mpg or the engine has "more power" or will "last longer"?

Actually it was engineered to run 91 and makes do with 87. I do get better MPG and because I use top tier, less carbon build up.

Sponsored

 

[James K]

The Ford spec's for peak HP/TQ on the EB are based on 91 octane fuel. If you don't need/want maximum performance (towing, hauling heavy, peak acceleration, etc..), then you don't need to buy 91/93 fuel. There is no danger to your engine, you will just be down on peak power 10-15%. If, on the other hand, you need/want maximum performance from your engine, then 91/93 fuel is required. .

I don't know why this concept is so difficult for so many....

You're correct but perhaps it's better to say if you want the most efficient engine operation of the EB motor you run 91. I've noticed that there are still lingering pearls of wisdom from the days of points and condensers. Back then if a car was set up for regular, premium added little. Today with knock sensors and ECUs you can set up a car for premium and your ECU can retard the timing if it senses knock caused by lower octane. Basically, the harder the motor works, the more efficient it will be with 91. By using the word "PEAK" some may conclude it's only on the very top end that efficiency is gained.

 

[todd92]

Non-ethanol gas in a fuel injected engine is an absolute waste of money. E10 in carbureted engines it's fine too, just have to use Sta-Bil and drain the float bowl for extended storage.

There are no documented cases of Ford denying warranty coverage for an Ecoboost exploding using 87.

Top-tier doesn't get better MPG and doesn't prevent carbon buildup in a direct injected engine.

Just so much wrong in this thread.

 

[CajunMick]

High temperature, towing, hauling heavy loads is the key, will cause driver to apply the petal, induce turbo boost. Turbo cause these little engines to think on steroids. Detonation is the big fear.

Those Honda racing engines whipping around race tracks with lots of boost, heat are fueled with 130 octane fuel. That to slow the burn rate of combustion, to prevent detonation.

I had a F250 diesel which has a turbo boost gauge on the instrument panel. Interesting to watch how turbo boost changes when mashing the petal, towing a fifth wheel RV or going uphill or hauling heavy loads. Mindful of that experience, I drive my Maverick with an egg between foot and petal, that so as not to spool up the turbo, cylinder pressure. And aware these engines have detonation detection to retard the spark - should any occur.

Higher octane may not mean better performance, just a slower burn rate. If worried over 87 stuff, add some toluene to the fuel, which boosts octane.

With those thoughts, I use the 87 fuels. Ford not knowing how drivers might use their Maverick, just doing a CYA suggesting use 91+ octane fuels. Fuel choice resides with the individuals.

 

[Tbone289]

Just so much wrong in this thread.

You can say that again. The facts were laid down accurately in the first couple of pages, and the bad information continues, just like all the other octane threads.

 

[heady]

From the 1/4 mile 93 vs. 87 Lobo thread we already know the truck has run a faster 1/4 on 87 in the same conditions:

2025 Lobo, costco gas

Dragy verified, same road, same temp, weeks apart

87 - 14.62 @ 92.21 0-60 6.25
93 - 14.71 @ 93.02 0-60 6.47
90 eFree - 14.72 @ 91.70 0-60 6.39

Mpg is pretty much the same as well, premium vs regular.

ran it again with 90 ethanol free. same place, same temp, same launch rpm. slower

14.72 @ 91.70
0-60 6.39s
0-60ft 2.15s

Unless octane is preventing ignition timing or boost being pulled back, it does nothing. The EB 2.0 in the Maverick is already detuned vs. other 2.0 installs, probably to help the 8F35 survive and why octane increase did bupkis on those 1/4 runs. If you tune your engine, results will vary once you increase your cylinder temps and pressures.

 

[Signel]

Sure are a lot of people that don't know how the ecoboost motors work on here. It is the primary reason they are so easy to tune with the cam phasers, VVT and ECU. With Forscan you can actually read how much ethanol is in the fuel LIVE. I worked with ZFG racing to get my old ST to around 550hp using e85 mixed with 93 mix (e30-e50.)

Yes, the engines can adjust for the octane and ethanol. That doesn't mean that the engine is programmed to do anything you want, but there are folks that know how to maximize those options.

With the base tune from ford I am sure the higher octanes are fine. At the very least, you will get better gas milage. Doesn't mean you will save money though...... I'll toss higher octane in if it is cheap enough at various stations.

 

[AircraftEngineer]

I run my 22 non hybrid on 87 reg fuel. Hearing people get more horsepower and better for engine to run on high test. Any opinions?

Non-ethanol, 91. Wonderful. Better MPG definitely, and perceive better performance but that I honestly haven't measured.

 

[heady]

I can completely believe better MPG on ethanol free no matter the octane, I've had the same result on every gasoline engine vehicle I've ever driven; E10 has about 2.6% less energy content per gallon vs. straight gasoline and down south where I've visited you can often get the ethanol free without much price markup. What I've yet to see is any actual evidence for significantly increased power over 87 on a stock tune, I may have missed it. Obviously no one is, or should, discount running higher octane is needed when you start building above stock power, and the octane quality advantages of ethanol far outweigh the lower energy content per gallon, you just burn more, but who cares about that when you want more power, but that isn't unique to the ecoboost.

 

[thev8man]

RIGHT! I forgot we went down this road before.
But I guess the real question is: is it worth the extra cost to get a few more HP? Is it a racecar, or towing an excessive amount uphill?

Booyah
Memories

 

[MaverickX2]

No need to spend the extra money.
The book says 87 so that's what I use.
Never had problems with any vehicle using the recommended octane.

Owners Manual recommends premium if living in hot climes like me - to minimize the risk of pre ignition which could damage/destroy the EcoBoost.

Engine damage would still be covered within warranty if using 87 of course. But I care for my little EcoBoost

And I also ran the math. Low probability of major engine repair is more costly than high probability of spending extra on my low mileage premium usage.

I have only run 87 in my hybrid and put on 5,500 miles on it thus far and still get over 40 mpg on a consistent basis. Low and slow like my BBQ. I bought it to save money on gas as we drive a lot being retired.

 

[Busyobeforever]

I live in Albuquerque which is high altitude so I only use 91, otherwise warranty is voided

 

[Maverick123]

Non-ethanol gas in a fuel injected engine is an absolute waste of money.

Gasoline has about 50% more energy per volume than ethanol, so E10 has about 96% the energy capacity of straight gas and you have to burn 4% more to go the same distance.

Just so much wrong in this thread.

Yup ...

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

Just so much wrong in this thread.

Might even trump our constantly re-occuring Towing threads for the title of 'disseminating the most inaccurate information'.

 

[todd92]

Gasoline has about 50% more energy per volume than ethanol, so E10 has about 96% the energy capacity of straight gas and you have to burn 4% more to go the same distance.
Yup ...

Yes, and it usual costs 20-30% more.

Sponsored