Octane vs MPG, 87 vs 93, anyone compared?

[Mightybeast]

O boy, you probably not going to notice any changes. You need unplug your battery for 15 to reset cpu. And when you plug back need to drive immediately. So your computer learn new ratio. Other than that it's all variation of the wind. Despite your driving habits are the same.

Sponsored

 

[LM42]

Ford had to come out and admit there is a significant loss of HP in the Mustang 2.3 Ecoboost using lower octane fuel once someone obtained a copy of their Mustang training manual. It was a loss of 35HP from 310 to 275.

Many blogs and articles about it.

Seeing as this is a same type EB engine, would expect the same type of drop in power on the maverick also.

Links to forum discussions about it

https://www.mustang6g.com/the-2-3l-...tes-275hp-and-300-ft-lbs-torque-on-87-octane/

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/th...ne-updated-with-ford-training-materials.9805/

You may be right, and you may not. There is no room for assumptions in this kind of conversation. The Mustang makes a lot more power and is designed to make that power specifically with the higher octane fuel. The conversation is different when you discuss an engine required to run on higher octane and then dropping the octane vs an engine designed to run on lower octane and then increasing. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[olderbudwiser]

I have no idea and I could care less.

Thank you for adding something noteworthy to this thread.

 

[Deerslayer1980]

Thank you for adding something noteworthy to this thread.

I already did. My response was to the guy I quoted. Look above. Some of you will never learn social media. Lol

 

[GTBuzz]

You may be right, and you may not. There is no room for assumptions in this kind of conversation. The Mustang makes a lot more power and is designed to make that power specifically with the higher octane fuel. The conversation is different when you discuss an engine required to run on higher octane and then dropping the octane vs an engine designed to run on lower octane and then increasing. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Is there really much difference between 2.0EB to 2.3EB architecture?

Mustang EB is not significantly more powerful than the Maverick, especially when you take into account the 2.0 to 2.3 L increase. 2.0L makes 250 HP 2.3L makes 310HP.

2.0EB to 2.5 Hybrid would be a bad comparison for octane needs.

 

[Ranch]

Is there really much difference in 2.0EB to 2.3EB architecture?

Mustang EB is not significantly more powerful than the Maverick, especially when you take into account the 2.0 to 2.3 L increase. 2.0L makes 250 HP 2.3L makes 310HP.

2.0EB to 2.5 Hybrid would be a bad comparison for octane needs.

Are you saying that the difference between 250HP and 310HP is not significant?

 

[SLINGSHOT]

We all know that the oil companies are all on the brink of bankruptcy. Let's do the decent thing and buy the most expensive gas that a station has.
Why should a corporate executive have to sell one of his boats just because you are cheap?

 

[GTBuzz]

Are you saying that the difference between 250HP and 310HP is not significant?

I said in my post when you take into account for the displacement change and the corresposnding HP increase from 2.0 to 2.3L. The underlying engine type is still the same.

 

[Ranch]

I said in my post when you take into account for the displacement change and the corresposnding HP increase from 2.0 to 2.3L. The underlying engine type is still the same.

So the displacement is similar but the Mustang engine puts out much more power than the Maverick. That means there's a significant difference between the two engines design.

 

[LM42]

Is there really much difference between 2.0EB to 2.3EB architecture?

Mustang EB is not significantly more powerful than the Maverick, especially when you take into account the 2.0 to 2.3 L increase. 2.0L makes 250 HP 2.3L makes 310HP.

2.0EB to 2.5 Hybrid would be a bad comparison for octane needs.

I see the point you are trying to make. But the change in displacement isn't part of the conversation. We are talking about power. And 60hp difference between cars is A LOT. If the Maverick made that power (come on Ford-Mav ST please) it would be a VERY different vehicle in terms of drive characteristics. It would then also come with a premium fuel requirement just like my Focus ST did.

 

[LM42]

I said in my post when you take into account for the displacement change and the corresposnding HP increase from 2.0 to 2.3L. The underlying engine type is still the same.

Mercedes uses the "same" 4.0 V8 across several models. It can make from under 400hp to more than 700 in factory trims. When you start looking at the things needed to make those power numbers the similarities start to fade.

 

[mikegs1952]

I have no idea and I could care less.

"couldn't" care less

 

[GTBuzz]

So the displacement is similar but the Mustang engine puts out much more power than the Maverick. That means there's a significant difference between the two engines design.

What is the significant difference between these engines? The 2.3 is built from the 2.0 engine

Even the owners manual states better engine performance with higher octane fuel.

 

[22MavXLT]

I haven't ran 87 in mine since taking delivery. I always use at minimum 91 with anything that is turbo. I know it might not matter, but I have always done that. I use 90 non ethanol when I can find it.

 

[jsus]

"couldn't" care less

Obligatory Weird Al:

Sponsored