Tested 87, 91 & 93 Octane.

[Glen Baker LLC]

I hadn't seen this video before.
This is a 10-minute video on the difference octane makes when pulling a load with an ecoboost engine particularly in F-150.
I'm thinking this could be scaled down to 2.0 ecoboost with the same results.
I found this interesting in the 2022 owners manual.

** yes there is a graphic of a Ford Lightning.

Sponsored

 

[El Kabong]

Interesting that the Maverick owners manual mentions the octane requirement as a general item without differentiating between EB and hybrid drivetrains, mentioning 87 as the minimum and 91 as "For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended."

I'd like to know if anyone with a hybrid has tested with higher octane fuel and seen any benefit. I know from my 2013 Escape with the 2.0 EB that using 91 octane did make a difference in driveability, the throttle response was always smoother using it.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Interesting that the Maverick owners manual mentions the octane requirement as a general item without differentiating between EB and hybrid drivetrains, mentioning 87 as the minimum and 91 as "For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended."

I'd like to know if anyone with a hybrid has tested with higher octane fuel and seen any benefit. I know from my 2013 Escape with the 2.0 EB that using 91 octane did make a difference in driveability, the throttle response was always smoother using it.

I have not tried a higher octane

 

[HeyBales]

Since Atkinson compression is so low by design, not sure how any problem with pre-ign could happen that higher octane would solve.

ETA: Yes there have been plenty of posts of ones testing 91, especially towing with hybrid.
I recall (that's always dangerous) no comments of improvements, or issues at 87 anyway.

 

[Chops]

Any Top Tier octane level will contain the same cleaning additives fyi. However, they squirt more additive into the tank truck depending on octane level being transported.

This will not improve performance - at least in the short term. In the long term, however, a slightly cleaner engine raised on higher octane will perform better.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Since Atkinson compression is so low by design, not sure how any problem with pre-ign could happen that higher octane would solve.

ETA: Yes there have been plenty of posts of ones testing 91, especially towing with hybrid.
I recall (that's always dangerous) no comments of improvements, or issues at 87 anyway.

What is the compression ratio of the engines in our hybrids?
I had to run premium in my first generation bolt then chevy changed engines for the gen 2
and it could run regular. I think they were both Atkinson cycle.

 

[HeyBales]

I could only find the published spec's when I looked couple years ago - which is based on calculation of bore and stroke.
Not the fact a valve is open partway on compression meaning no compression.
Which I found very strange.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

I could only find the published spec's when I looked couple years ago - which is based on calculation of bore and stroke.
Not the fact a valve is open partway on compression meaning no compression.
Which I found very strange.

I read about that. Pushing the fuel air mixture back into the manifold?
That's definitely a weird setup.
I would make doing a compression check a little different.

 

[EffNo50]

I read about that. Pushing the fuel air mixture back into the manifold?
That's definitely a weird setup.
I would make doing a compression check a little different.

Leaving the intake valve open part way into the compression stroke creates a longer power stroke than compression. This allows more time to burn the mixture.

 

[MaverickDragon]

I read about that. Pushing the fuel air mixture back into the manifold?
That's definitely a weird setup.
I would make doing a compression check a little different.

That's the Atkinson in the Hybrid.
The air/fuel pushed back gets used for the next cycle so it isn't wasted.

Since the intake valve stays open for part of the compression stroke, the effective compression measured will be less that the typical expectation on an engine with a ~ 13.5 to 1 ratio, but the compression check itself would be the same, albeit with the expected pressure reading lower than it would be for a typical 13 to 1 Otto engine.

That's also why it can use 87 without pre-ignition detonation as a "normal" (Otto cycle) with a 13 to 1 would show a strong dislike for that fuel.

As was just noted, while the "effective" compression stroke on the Atkinson is shorter because the intake is open, that means the combustion/power stroke is effectively longer.

The original Atkinson's used a more complicated mechanism to enable the shorter compression/longer power stroke, but the more recent versions get the same benefit with valve control, and by leaving the intake valves, open the same benefit is had with less complexity.

 

[mwelby]

Interesting that the Maverick owners manual mentions the octane requirement as a general item without differentiating between EB and hybrid drivetrains, mentioning 87 as the minimum and 91 as "For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended."

I'd like to know if anyone with a hybrid has tested with higher octane fuel and seen any benefit. I know from my 2013 Escape with the 2.0 EB that using 91 octane did make a difference in driveability, the throttle response was always smoother using it.

If you don’t have a turbo, you shouldn’t need premium

 

[notaz3]

129,000+ miles on my 14 F150 Ecoboost that has run Costco 87 Octane for well over 90% of the time. Many 1,100 mile trips pulling 8,000 pounds from central California to Norther Idaho, summer and winter. Never once had an issue.

189,000+ miles on my 16 C-Max (hybrid) also running Costco 87 Octane without a single issue. Except the headliner falling apart and my son taking it. Forcing me to get a Maverick.

 

[aknolobo]

I have never run anything lower than 93 premium on my 2017 f150 3.5 Ecoboost since new.

Everyone of my friends drove it was impressed how responsive the truck is.

Truck is 100% stock no tune, no upgrades.

Gotta pay to play. No free lunch

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

What is the compression ratio of the engines in our hybrids?
I had to run premium in my first generation bolt then chevy changed engines for the gen 2
and it could run regular. I think they were both Atkinson cycle.

The Motor Trend when the Maverick won 2026 Truck of the Year they have the 2025 Hybrid Maverick Engine Compression Ratio at 13.0:1

 

[Chops]

129,000+ miles on my 14 F150 Ecoboost that has run Costco 87 Octane for well over 90% of the time. Many 1,100 mile trips pulling 8,000 pounds from central California to Norther Idaho, summer and winter. Never once had an issue.

189,000+ miles on my 16 C-Max (hybrid) also running Costco 87 Octane without a single issue. Except the headliner falling apart and my son taking it. Forcing me to get a Maverick.

If you used 91 instead of 87 over all those miles on your F150 - you would have spent an additional $3,500 or so. What would that have gotten you?

1) Your engine today would get about 10% more horsepower.

2) Would be getting slightly better mpg’s.

3) Your engine would be cleaner & healthier.

Is it worth it? If money is no object - 91 is a no brainer for 1) & 3). But money is an object and can be spent in many ways. I’m old & frugal with a son like you. Running 91 in my EB is one of my few guilty pleasures

Sponsored