Maverick hybrid gas vs millage

[Mightybeast]

My question is to all owners of the 2022 hybrid model. While manual does recommend to use higher octane fuel sush as 91 have you tried to measure actual effectiveness of low grade fuel like 87. Manual for the EB says same thing, but problem that I see is a EB 2.0l is a different type of engine that would probably run more effectively on higher grade, compare to hybrid 2.5l.

Sponsored

 

[BILLNOROVILLE]

first off, manual page 172 states "your vehicle operates on regular unleaded"
(R+M)/2 = 87 octane

again quoting "for best overall engine and vehicle performance" 91 octane and they go on to say like in hot weather or towing again talking about performance. They seem to think "performance" is key. I bought a Hybrid; performance was not what I was looking for.

My truck works fine on 87 and it's performance is fine so for it's lifetime I plan to only use regular. I have never tried 91. After a year it has seen plenty of HOT weather and never experienced a lack of performance.

I think the manual "recommends" is not the same as saying "your vehicle operates" I think Owners have to decide how to interpret these statements and make their own individual choice.

 

[Gunnar88]

Yea, running my hybrid on low test as well. Every modern car has knock sensors that will dial back timing, you don't have to run premium in anything, sure you might lose a few horsepower but it's a Maverick. I had a 2021 Frontier with the latest 3.8 and 9 speed transmission 310 horsepower weighed 2000 pounds more than the maverick and if you nailed it getting on the freeway it was redline shifts and 100 mph by the time I merged, the thing felt like a race car on 87 octane as well.

 

[mamboman777]

I'd be interested to hear from a Ford rep or engineer as to whether the hybrid has the ability to advance timing and utilize the higher octane. My guess would be no because the hybrid is built for efficiency. I think the hybrid makes 191hp on 87 and 91.

That said, I think it'll make more power in the EcoBoost, for sure.

 

[Deleted member 5597]

I use 87 octane and my truck runs perfectly fine. No problems at all! As stated above, the hybrid has knock sensors. I've never had any knock in mine. I'm averaging 42.3 mpg, and that's good enough for me.

My advice is to not over-think things.

 

[JimParker256]

I bought the hybrid for the fuel mileage, not for "performance." The day I take the hybrid to the track, I'll run 91 octane in it. Until then, I'll continue to save $0.50-0.60 per gallon (~20% cheaper than 91 octane).

No one has documented anything close to 20% improvement in fuel mileage by running 91 octane instead of 87 octane... Most people who claim to see any difference at all (most don't see any measurable change) report 1-2 mpg improvement.

Paying 20% more to gain 5% improvement in mpg does not make economic sense to me. And that's at $2.39 per gallon local gas prices. If you live in California where gas costs around twice as much, it's even more of a no-brainer.

 

[daddio211]

I think you're incorrectly translating "performance" to mean "fast." The manufacturers refer to performance as "peak efficiency" not the butt dyno.

Even Sport Mode isn't referred to as "fast" in the manual.

 

[Gunnar88]

All higher octane fuel does is burn a little slower so its not as susceptible to pre ignition or "dieseling" that's the knocking sound, but again before you ever hear it the electronics have adjusted for it. Where I am we are running 10% ethanol and the ethanol is antiknock as well, it runs much cooler, in fact the tuner boys with their giant turbos all run E85 because that makes more power, they have to tune for it specifically, and the mileage is trash with that stuff, I have a flex fuel van and its something. like 30% less mileage.

 

[Hoagus]

It runs well on 87. Why spend more?

 

[Mightybeast]

All higher octane fuel does is burn a little slower so its not as susceptible to pre ignition or "dieseling" that's the knocking sound, but again before you ever hear it the electronics have adjusted for it. Where I am we are running 10% ethanol and the ethanol is antiknock as well, it runs much cooler, in fact the tuner boys with their giant turbos all run E85 because that makes more power, they have to tune for it specifically, and the mileage is trash with that stuff, I have a flex fuel van and its something. like 30% less mileage.

Yes. I agree. My point is that manual for Hybrid and EB is the same. Despite 2 different engines and EB is a turbocharged. So kinda right of way it requires to run different/higher fuel grade to get airborne.

 

[Mightybeast]

I think you're incorrectly translating "performance" to mean "fast." The manufacturers refer to performance as "peak efficiency" not the butt dyno.

Even Sport Mode isn't referred to as "fast" in the manual.

The way I understand performance is higher milage. Not necessarily savings.

 

[TheGriffin1313]

87 for daily driving 91 if you want to post some speed times. The extra octane does not deliver the additional MPG to make any monetary or mileage difference.

If it does it is negligible to be quantifiable.

 

[JimParker256]

I think you're incorrectly translating "performance" to mean "fast." The manufacturers refer to performance as "peak efficiency" not the butt dyno.

Even Sport Mode isn't referred to as "fast" in the manual.

Did you even bother to read my post, or just stop after the first sentence? It was all about why I don't believe the minimal gain in efficiency (mpg) is worth the significant increase in cost (91 vs 87 octane).

 

[daddio211]

Did you even bother to read my post, or just stop after the first sentence? It was all about why I don't believe the minimal gain in efficiency (mpg) is worth the significant increase in cost (91 vs 87 octane).

Did you bother reading the comments before mine, or just read mine and post?

 

[JimParker256]

Did you bother reading the comments before mine, or just read mine and post?

Yes, I did. But since your post was made well over an hour after I posted, and was the next post immediately following mine, and since you neither referenced the person to whom you were responding, nor quoted that post in your response, I perhaps wrongly assumed you were responding to my post. If that's not the case, I apologize. (And I apologize again for that horrifically convoluted sentence...! LOL)

Sponsored