My 93 Octane Experiment! 2.0L EcoBoost Maverick

[NiCkyGee]

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.

I think I'll give that a try.

Sponsored

 

[Bob The Builder]

I appreciate all those that have contributed to this thread in a meaningful way. Lots of great info from those who are obviously more informed than I.

Kudos to this community.

 

[Sorren66]

I can fully understand. I was living in Colorado for a long time until about a year and a half ago. My Jeep diesel was a pain because I removed the DPF. I actually passed the opacity test without it, but failed the visual. I then had to put it back in every test, just to pull it back out so I can see improved mileage, power, and oil life. My STi, I didn't bother registering after moving back to CO from NE... I eventually sold it to a collector. My S2000 was the same, I didn't bother registering as it's 'mostly' a track car and on an aftermarket ECU.

As for your question, since I am not a vendor here (though I have though about becoming one as I got rid of my vendor status on the RZR boards), I will have to direct you to my signature. As for the platforms, you'd either need an HP Tuners RTD+, MPVI3, or a Cobb AccessPort. Your cheapest solution is the RTD+, which will allow you to log, flash, clear codes, etc via your phone.

I used HP Tuners on our Ranger as Cobb doesn't offer anything for it. It works great and Ford is one of the things HP Tuners does pretty well. I used Cobb on the Maverick as I've been a Cobb ProTuner for quite awhile and like the AccessPort. And back to the Ranger, I never even bothered adding power. All I did was tune the transmission. I will go back and add power because I like playing with things, but the transmission was a must. Although, I did upgrade the intercooler and made a few minor changes for it. The Maverick is staying stock for parts because I'm 'older' and I like quiet... And it's my wife's vehicle.

Awesome, thanks for the details. I'm with you on the quiet....too many pos Hondas 4s with straight pipes around here. Even with the smog Nazis here in CA almost everyone with a non-CARB (California Air Resources Board) approved modified vehicle "knows a guy" to pass smog. I never understood if you can pass the the tailpipe sniffer why they would fail you on the visual. Now the rolling coal diesel trucks are whole other animal.

 

[Crazyal]

I’ve run 91 from day one and have not experienced this lugging yet.

Agree

 

[Tgsctt]

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.

it is the same motor as in my wife’s land Rover LR2 which calls for 93 octane. and goes like the devil. I suspect that her new Mav will be the same, though it only has a single exhaust.

 

[Tim d]

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.

Thx for your research. I also admit to being frugal at times. Haven't noticed this vibration,but if I do,I will put up with it at the expense of paying over a dollar more per gallon of gas.

 

[Jetdoc]

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.

I have been using the non-ethanol gas 92 octane from day one. Very happy with the performance.

 

[Johnny maverick]

I run 93 only since new. I decided a couple months back to try running 87. My mileage and power dropped. I'm a nut and have a fuel log so I'm not using the on board mpg average. I started running 93 after 3 tanks of 87. As said before the EB is mapped for 91 and is recommended in the owners manual. My mileage is slowly creeping back up. I run 93 in everything I gas powered thing own. To me gas is the cheapest thing I put in my cars.

 

[hurrah]

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.

I'm pretty sure you will find the 91 Octane will perform just as well as the 93. Been using 91 in mine since I got it a year ago because its the only choice I have locally without ethanol. I have experienced no lugging or vibrations at any RPM and am averaging around 28 MPG with mostly local rural road driving. For those folks who rack up a lot of miles regular old 87 is probably the most economical without a lot of degredation in performance but mine sits a lot and I'm not a fan of ethanol so am willing to pay the extra for non-ethanol at whatever octane it happens to be!

 

[Deleted member 29611]

I’ve owned 2 ecoboost Fords and they ran remarkably better on 90+ octane fuel. It will run on 87 but it will run better on 91.

 

[Oscarcat]

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.

Doesn't FoMoCo recommend using premium fuel in the 2.0 EB? It is not strongly worded in the owner's manual but it is there.

I had no vibrations in my 2022 Lariat 2.0 EB even using 87. Never felt like it was lugging using 87. Always shifted smoothly. I started alternating 87 and 91 with each fill [93 not readily available in SoCal]. I fill when my tank is 1/2 full.

Now I have a 2024 Lariat hybrid and I find that using 91 results in less "growl" and seemingly smoother seat of the pants feel. Too soon [1800 miles on it] to come to any conclusion as to mileage, 87 v. 91 or the 50ish percent mix.

 

[Snox801]

I was criticized for stating this in another thread but I'll say it again.

I don't care if you put rabbit piss, orange juice, or straight-up sugar in your truck's gas tank. I choose to use 93. You do what you guys want to do.

When I picked it up from the dealer, they graciously included a full tank of (87) gas. On the way home, it buzzed and lugged real bad around 1100-1400 RPMs and once I filled it up with 93, that all went away. It seemed to run smoother and I like the extra power that I get. You may think I'm totally crazy and insane but it's my choice. Also, even in Ford's specs sheet, it says the power claims are based on using 93. So I do.

It depends on what your goals are. Will
It hurt with 87 no but is 93 better yep. I ran mine on only 93 ever.
But I drive 80k miles a year. So on my maverick it supposed to save me money.
So for this one I’m taking the approach my dad uses. 87 for everyday driving 93 for towing. He gotten over 400k out of both his ecoboosts doing this. So chance of damage is very slime.
Well or I will convert to e85 and just run that.

 

[22Lariat]

Well, someone on here mentioned they didn't notice 4 bangers tending to run a little rough. Maybe I'm dating myself... The old American V-8's out of the factory used to run smooth as butter. Circa 1970's and later, It was common knowledge 4 cylinder engines ran a little rough by comparison. More cylinders per revolution, well... Hopefully you can follow me and figure it out.

I recently had the... Uh, privilege of driving a 2022 three cylinder and... Let's just say, it leaves no doubt about fewer cylinders running more rough.

Then again, physics may be different in Norway.

 

[stv1cal]

Started out with 87 first month switched to 93 next couple of months, then to 91, now back to 87. I never noticed any difference in power, mpg, or never had the shudder vibration issue, maybe summer time will be different since the book says 93 is better for towing,( I don't tow) and in summer time when it's hot, I'll see this summer if the 87 starts to react differently.

 

[Hammer]

How would you know if there was "reduced engine power" if you've NEVER tried 91/93?

my wording was improper, I was referring to the lugging/vibration at lower rpm that was reported by others.

Sponsored