My 93 Octane Experiment! 2.0L EcoBoost Maverick

[Chicolini]

I am convinced that the EcoBlast is much happier with hi octane fuel. It is a fabulous machine and it is a small price to pay.

I thought I was the only one who noticed the difference, glad to see that others do too.

Sponsored

 

[Hoagus]

I hate spending money. I am cheapish as hell. OK, got that out of the way right off.

Prolly the one thing and really only thing that has bugged me about my Maverick has been the low RPM vibration we have noticed with the truck. Cruising around 30 or so there are times the RPM will drop to around 1200 or so and a slight vibration and or engine lugging will be evident. Even Consumer Reports mentioned it in one of their reviews of the 2.0 EcoBoost so not just me.

"The nonhybrid Maverick pickup trucks use an optional 250-hp turbo four-cylinder mated to an eight-speed automatic, with front- or all-wheel drive. This powertrain gives robust acceleration, can tow up to 4,000 pounds, and gets 23 mpg overall, but its tendency to lug along at low revs sends annoying vibrations into the cabin.

Someone here mentioned using a higher octane gas to help alleviate the situation, so I waited until the low fuel light came on an filled the truck with 93 octane gas. Ouch!! $1.40 more a gallon for that over 87. Expensive fill up, but will it be worth it or did I just blow 20 bucks extra for gas I do not need?

After burning through 3/4 of a tank I am very pleased with the results. The so called vibration is, I would say, 90% gone if not more. Power has increased noticeably. Still monitoring gas mileage but I would guess that will increase a bit too.

Next tankful, 91 Octane to see if I get similar results and save 40 cents a gallon as well. Given how little I drive, even the 93 octane will be worth the extra money given the results I have seen so far.

The last two Fords we had (Ranger & Escape) were rated for 87 octane, but after a couple of years,they needed 91 octane to stop the pinging.

 

[710-oil-614]

Interesting observation. Yes, I have noticed the "lugging" effect too. Again, interesting to see that octane has had an effect on that, but also somewhat sensible too.
As the PCM via sensors is adjusting timing along parameters programmed into the software, it is also using information from the sensors as to whether or not it can advance or retard timing -- this perhaps made the difference. As this made a difference, I'd be interested to see if 91 octane makes a difference too, and how much of one.
Of course, mileage will come into play as nobody likes to not have more "bang for the buck."

The EB is mapped for 91 octane so you would get the full 250hp/277 ft lbs of torque running 91. I would run 91 if it was readily available around me.

I don't think the higher octane is directly impacting the lugging rather it is providing the drivetrain more power and the lugging is less likely to occur.

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

I've done sooo much driving in Mexico since purchasing the Maverick... All of my fillups, except for 3 of them, have occured in Mexico. I've always been suspicious of the quality of gasoline here for the last 18 years, so I purchase the highest octane that is available to me... 91.. i have never seen that lugging / shuddering / vibration... EB AWD 4K Tow.

 

[WildGrok]

26k miles driven over 30 months with only 87 Octane and I have never had a issue with reduced engine power at any RPM. I even towed a light utility trailer ( 500 lbs ) to Florida and back ( 3k miles ) with no issues.
I only use Top-Tier gas, specifically Exxon or Sunoco. If I tow anything heavier I would use 93.

Same here: no issues, using 87 octane, but only have driven less than 3000 miles ... hope it stays issue free forever

 

[imboden013]

22 AWD, I’ve always used 87 octane and I’ve notice the lugging at low speed sometimes. It usually happens when I’m slowing down, so I assume the transmission just hasn’t shifted down to right gear for engine speed. Doesn’t really bother me as I started driving a 3 on the tree and would go from 1st to 3rd and 3-1 a lot. When I graduated to a 4 speed I’d skip 2nd or 3rd quite often.

 

[22Lariat]

4 bangers have a tendency to run a little rough, but my eb has always been pretty smooth. Perhaps because I always run 93. It's supposed to be best for boosted engines. It is more expensive, but it's 3.26 a gallon here at Sam's club. Not too bad.

One thing I noticed is it seemed to really purr running Pennzoil ultra Platinum. It quieted down the engine "sewing machine" sound. The injector sound is still the same, but the engine is quiet.

 

[imboden013]

I use 91 just because it's only like $5 difference on an already ridiculously cheap fill-up compared to my other vehicles. Plus it's a turbo, why not.

That said. I have never once felt this engine lug or have any vibration what so ever. It's the smoothest little sewing machine I have ever owned. I have only had one other 4 cylinder but that was a AMC 150 aside from the hole in the piston it was pretty smooth. My wife did have a 4 banger s10 when we met. 2.2 I think, it was a little on the rough end but only when pushed for power. Otherwise compared to the Ford cologne v6s, the small block Ford's, the, the 2.8 Chevy, the myriad of AMC 258s and 4.0s, the AMC 360, the Ford 460, Fords 300, and the 5.2 magnum. Compared to all them this is a smooth quiet motor that out punches all but few of those motors.

Definitely a quiet smooth running engine. Did something just a few days ago that I’d never done before. My wife and I both got out of car and went into a quick shop to get a drink and used restrooms was inside for 10-15 minutes as there was a line at the register. Came back out and we’d left the mav running. yes it did double honk at me, just didn’t dawn on me it honked to tell me it was running.

 

[surfstar]

Remember, you only get your full power on 91 AND WOT.

I've never been one to drive around flooring it all the time, so even when I had a 1.8T VW, I didn't see any need for more expensive octane. I don't live my life a 1/4 mile at a time.

 

[Snox801]

Millions of people will tell you the higher octane had no greater energy.

But it may change the tune of the truck.

Don't overlook the power of the placebo effect.

Best to have wife or son fill up for you, and not tell you what octane is in there. Best to do a "blind" test.

So it doesn’t need greater energy, what it allows you to do is create better efficiency. With more timing and boost.
Especially lower In the rpm. In fact I’ve picked up better mpg with every ecoboost I’ve had tuned with the highest performance tune they offer. So same fuel ie 93 but better mpg.

 

[Snox801]

Remember, you only get your full power on 91 AND WOT.

I've never been one to drive around flooring it all the time, so even when I had a 1.8T VW, I didn't see any need for more expensive octane. I don't live my life a 1/4 mile at a time.

That’s simply not true. If you are looking at a dyno yes your highest hp will be higher In the rpm. But under the curve will be the greater increase in felt power. We have very tiny turbos that spool quick.
What our engines do is read knock and pull timing and boost. So on 87 and low rpm it will be getting boost delivered but not enough octane to support it. Many times causing lspi. Hence why ford recommends min 91 for hauling. It not for added power but the engine won’t have to be constantly pulling timing.
For those of you that are budget minded. If very very common In the ST, rs world to splash blend. Splash in a gallon or two of e85 in your tank. To raise the Oct number a point or two. Our ecu can easily handle the adjustment with no issues. Basically the same as one poster that uses 88. E15 it’s 87 with the max 15 percent ethanol that all ecu’s will support.

 

[surfstar]

That’s simply not true. If you are looking at a dyno yes your highest hp will be higher In the rpm. But under the curve will be the greater increase in felt power. We have very tiny turbos that spool quick.
What our engines do is read knock and pull timing and boost. So on 87 and low rpm it will be getting boost delivered but not enough octane to support it. Many times causing lspi. Hence why ford recommends min 91 for hauling. It not for added power but the engine won’t have to be constantly pulling timing.
For those of you that are budget minded. If very very common In the ST, rs world to splash blend. Splash in a gallon or two of e85 in your tank. To raise the Oct number a point or two. Our ecu can easily handle the adjustment with no issues. Basically the same as one poster that uses 88. E15 it’s 87 with the max 15 percent ethanol that all ecu’s will support.

Thanks for the info. Thinking of the area under the curve helps vs just the peak numbers! Makes more sense that way.

 

[Sphinn]

We've put 22k miles on my '23 Maverick over the last year. Got a 50 mile daily commute and have made many trips down to AR from IL to visit family, and well, to get away.

For the first 18k I ran almost exclusively 87, filled at whatever station was close, and while it wasn't terrible I did feel some lagging, unresponsiveness, and vibration. I also got what seemed like shoddy gas mileage for a 2.0 turbo, averaging at around 27mpg driving mostly on 65MPH limited highways.

In the beginning of this year I changed to top tier 93 from Shell (or 91 when 93 was unavailable) and felt a serious difference. I can't say there's still not a bit of lag, vibration etc but it's much better. Though the gearbox still feels out of whack to me, especially in the 40-50MPH range. Very slow to downshift in normal mode. Anyway, the real big difference has been in the MPG. Last time I drove down to AR, on 87 whatever gas, I got an average of 26.5 MPG. This time, running top tier 93 or 91 gas I got 30.8 MPG. Almost exactly the same route and definitely the same driving style. Slight difference in weather with it being a bit colder last time.

So yeah, I'll keep running top tier 93/91 gas through this thing.

Also considering doing a tune just to see if it'll smooth out some more. Someone in here mentioned that 4 cylinders tend to run rough, but having had a ton of them from different manufacturers (Volvo, VW, Renault, Lancia, Toyota, Honda, Opel, Ford...) I can't say I've ever noticed it much before. I am Norwegian though and ran most of those cars on 98, 97 or 95 octane gas (using the Euro way to calculate octane). For comparison, the last 4 cylinder we had in the US was a 2020 Volvo S60 T5 (turbo, no supercharger) and that baby was smooth and spirited regardless of what gas you put in it so it's clearly not all about the gas.

I still like my baby truck.

 

[Ozarkbeard]

...I no longer live in a state with emissions...

Not only that, we don't even have motor vehicle inspection any more. It was eliminated years ago, after it was proven it was full of corruption. If you knew the right person at the right inspection station, you could get a sticker for any vehicle (or a handful of 'em, if you had a fleet of vehicles).

 

[Snox801]

We've put 22k miles on my '23 Maverick over the last year. Got a 50 mile daily commute and have made many trips down to AR from IL to visit family, and well, to get away.

For the first 18k I ran almost exclusively 87, filled at whatever station was close, and while it wasn't terrible I did feel some lagging, unresponsiveness, and vibration. I also got what seemed like shoddy gas mileage for a 2.0 turbo, averaging at around 27mpg driving mostly on 65MPH limited highways.

In the beginning of this year I changed to top tier 93 from Shell (or 91 when 93 was unavailable) and felt a serious difference. I can't say there's still not a bit of lag, vibration etc but it's much better. Though the gearbox still feels out of whack to me, especially in the 40-50MPH range. Very slow to downshift in normal mode. Anyway, the real big difference has been in the MPG. Last time I drove down to AR, on 87 whatever gas, I got an average of 26.5 MPG. This time, running top tier 93 or 91 gas I got 30.8 MPG. Almost exactly the same route and definitely the same driving style. Slight difference in weather with it being a bit colder last time.

So yeah, I'll keep running top tier 93/91 gas through this thing.

Also considering doing a tune just to see if it'll smooth out some more. Someone in here mentioned that 4 cylinders tend to run rough, but having had a ton of them from different manufacturers (Volvo, VW, Renault, Lancia, Toyota, Honda, Opel, Ford...) I can't say I've ever noticed it much before. I am Norwegian though and ran most of those cars on 98, 97 or 95 octane gas (using the Euro way to calculate octane). For comparison, the last 4 cylinder we had in the US was a 2020 Volvo S60 T5 (turbo, no supercharger) and that baby was smooth and spirited regardless of what gas you put in it so it's clearly not all about the gas.

I still like my baby truck.

So a tune normally will do better. My wife refuses to even drive her 2.0 edge without the tune in it. On average I’ve gained 2-3 mpg on my 93 Oct Performance tune over factory. Plus they drive so much better. My wife rarely ever goes wide open but still makes me get her vehicle tuned because the simple daily driving and the comfort of it get so much better tuned.

Sponsored