TFL tests Hybrid vs. LOBO Maverick

[The Real Maverick]

I would suggest reading Methodology for Determining Octane Response at Different Altitudes for Vehicles Equipped with Knock Sensors, Andy D. B. Yates, Samson Mkwanazi, SAE Transactions, Vol. 111, Section 4: JOURNAL OF FUELS AND LUBRICANTS (2002), pp. 583-591 for a more thorough treatment, but I can summarize for you.

- 18% of the test vehicles were turbocharged in the study
- All vehicles exhibited reduced thrust at altitude
- "In terms of the difference in altitude between the two test sites (418 meters and 1485 meters respectively), the altitude correction factor was therefore -1.8 R0N/300m (octane), which was in good agreement with the previously published values."

This is known as the altitude-octane effect in most papers and books I've seen on the subject.

Here's a representative sample of one of the turbo cars thrust at two elevations plotted against RON (octane):

Sasolburg is the high altitude site, and Durban the sea level site. The flat plot of the square sample values shows the impact of increased octane at high elevations on vehicle thrust. There isn't any. There is a difference at sea level, higher octane is of more value there. This is not new or surprising information, published octane studies on cars both NA and FI reach back over a hundred years or more. Don't get confused by the "higher" octane numbers, RON is calculated differently than US pump numbers and are numerically larger.

The minimum suggested octane for an EcoBoost is indeed 87, at any altitude.

Very good post.
Adding a reference added much credibility also. Thanks for doing that.
Too many people swear by hunches, theories, and urban legends.

Science is not always intuitive.
Two thumbs up!

Sponsored

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

There are zero facts in what I'm about to say.

The Lobo is a head scratcher. Put all kinds of performance stuff in it but a totally stock engine. My theory is that the Lobo was gonna be a real performance package with a lot more power. Then at the last minute it didn't clear some hurdle. EPA? If I'm right, come the 2026 or 2027 model year, we'll see a Lobo with a lot more power.

There are zero facts in what I just said.

And the Lobo is only a 7 speed so not sure why they did that? I think the 8 speed like in the other 2025 AWD 2.0 EB Mavericks would be an improvement in acceleration times compared to the 7 speed

 

[AutobahnSHO]

And the Lobo is only a 7 speed so not sure why they did that? I think the 8 speed like in the other 2025 AWD 2.0 EB Mavericks would be an improvement in acceleration times compared to the 7 speed

Nah the more speeds are to improve fuel economy- run a lower gear more often.

The Lobo is literally the same transmission with one gear "deactivated" for better performance.

 

[colinl]

And the Lobo is only a 7 speed so not sure why they did that? I think the 8 speed like in the other 2025 AWD 2.0 EB Mavericks would be an improvement in acceleration times compared to the 7 speed

no, all ecoboost are in practice 7 speed as it's about impossible for 2nd gear to ever be selected. 2nd and 3rd gear ratios are close so the default TCM behavior since 2022 has been to shift 1-3. 2nd gear can only be selected if less than 7% throttle - almost idling out of 1st.

I think the only reason the Lobo is listed as a '7 speed' is because it has paddle shifters and if you manually rock through the gears it would either be annoying to have a nearly-useless 2-3 shift, and really easy to notice that it's only 7 gears being used instead.

what's funny is that the '25 Tremor has paddle shifters also. I haven't ever heard anyone comment either way, but I assume it skips 2nd also using the paddle shifters.

 

[AVC]

The Lobo was down on power ~15% simply because of the 87 fuel they were using. It's well known fact Ford gets it EB HP/TQ specs using 91 octane fuel. The only way the Lobo runs a mid-7 0-60 is from 87 octane fuel and/or a completely incompetent driver, even at 5K' elevation. Optimum fuel takes at least a full second off that time.

I was only referring to material variables beyond fuel--assuming they were using the same octane fuel in both vehicles, as the minimum recommended octane (at seal level, at least).

 

[The Real Maverick]

Anecdotally, I lived in Denver for 20 years, moving closer to sea level a few years ago.

Colorado sells 85 octane wall to wall.
North to south. East to west. Every station sells it. And almost everyone uses it. Engines are not blowing up. Engines are not failing prematurely. No warning stickers on the pumps saying "for use in carbureted engines only". No warning signs "for use in NA engines only". No warning stickers "Do not use in turbocharged engines."

Millions of successful users of 85 octane.

I find that intriguing.

 

[dalola]

Anecdotally, I lived in Denver for 20 years, moving closer to sea level a few years ago.

Colorado sells 85 octane wall to wall.
North to south. East to west. Every station sells it. And almost everyone uses it. Engines are not blowing up. Engines are not failing prematurely. No warning stickers on the pumps saying "for use in carbureted engines only". No warning signs "for use in NA engines only". No warning stickers "Do not use in turbocharged engines."

Millions of successful users of 85 octane.

I find that intriguing.

There is fuel that works just fine, and there is fuel that works just fine, AND gives you max rated performance. I would probably use it too when just commuting & average driving. I use 87 most of the time here in Ohio. But when I am hauling heavy, towing, or feel the need to get maximum performance, you can bet 91/93 will be in my EB tank.

 

[Darryl]

There is fuel that works just fine, and there is fuel that works just fine, AND gives you max rated performance. I would probably use it too when just commuting & average driving. I use 87 most of the time here in Ohio. But when I am hauling heavy, towing, or feel the need to get maximum performance, you can bet 91/93 will be in my EB tank.

Premium fuel may help performance a bit. And it assuredly does no harm. I say go for it if it gives you more confidence. At the end of the day it's your truck and your wallet and your peace of mind. And if you used regular fuel against your own judgement and something bad happened, you'd always wonder if listening to others contributed to the problem. Murphys Law would give you the one vehicle with the knock sensors that don't work properly. That's how life works.

 

[Darryl]

Anecdotally, I lived in Denver for 20 years, moving closer to sea level a few years ago.

Colorado sells 85 octane wall to wall.
North to south. East to west. Every station sells it. And almost everyone uses it. Engines are not blowing up. Engines are not failing prematurely. No warning stickers on the pumps saying "for use in carbureted engines only". No warning signs "for use in NA engines only". No warning stickers "Do not use in turbocharged engines."

Millions of successful users of 85 octane.

I find that intriguing.

My gut level (non scientific) suspicion: will using higher octane cause a bit of improved performance under some conditions? Probably. But will it provide 60 cents/gallon worth of improvement? I seriously doubt it. If I lived at a high altitude, I'd do what everyone else does at that altitude. If they used 85 octane, so would I. My sister has a vehicle that recommends premium fuel but actually allows 87 octane. I mentioned that she could save money by using mid grade with no noticeable effects. She says her husband told her premium only. So when we are on an out of town trip , and I'm buying the gas for her, premium it is. Her vehicle. Her husband, her happy home

 

[dalola]

Premium fuel may help performance a bit. And it assuredly does no harm. I say go for it if it gives you more confidence. At the end of the day it's your truck and your wallet and your peace of mind. And if you used regular fuel against your own judgement and something bad happened, you'd always wonder if listening to others contributed to the problem. Murphys Law would give you the one vehicle with the knock sensors that don't work properly. That's how life works.

lol... my post was not a question. But thanks.

 

[The Real Maverick]

My gut level (non scientific) suspicion: will using higher octane cause a bit of improved performance under some conditions? Probably. But will it provide 60 cents/gallon worth of improvement? I seriously doubt it. If I lived at a high altitude, I'd do what everyone else does at that altitude. If they used 85 octane, so would I. My sister has a vehicle that recommends premium fuel but actually allows 87 octane. I mentioned that she could save money by using mid grade with no noticeable effects. She says her husband told her premium only. So when we are on an out of town trip , and I'm buying the gas for her, premium it is. Her vehicle. Her husband, her happy home

I thought you were going to say she gets 87 when no one is looking because it makes no difference and there's no way to tell after leaving the pump.

 

[Darryl]

I thought you were going to say she gets 87 when no one is looking because it makes no difference and there's no way to tell after leaving the pump.

If it was just her, I would put 87 in it just to pick a fight. Because little brothers love to pick fights with the older siblings no matter how old we get . But my sister would be looking to see what I was putting in it . And she's one of those people who would tell her husband. And I get along with my brother-in-law, and he's bigger than I am , sooo...

 

[Darryl]

I thought you were going to say she gets 87 when no one is looking because it makes no difference and there's no way to tell after leaving the pump.

I know. But since we just go back and forth in these forums and share opinions and habits, I figured it wouldn't doing any harm to put my two cents in

 

[colinl]

Anecdotally, I lived in Denver for 20 years, moving closer to sea level a few years ago.

Colorado sells 85 octane wall to wall.
North to south. East to west. Every station sells it. And almost everyone uses it. Engines are not blowing up. Engines are not failing prematurely. No warning stickers on the pumps saying "for use in carbureted engines only". No warning signs "for use in NA engines only". No warning stickers "Do not use in turbocharged engines."

Millions of successful users of 85 octane.

I find that intriguing.

I was on vacation in 2021 and had to use one tankful of 85 in my '16 Mazda CX-9 at Copper Mountain. This vehicle was the first year of their 2.3 turbo, which like the Maverick 2.0 ecoboost, officially runs on 87 and runs better on 91+, and also states in the manual that it should not run high altitude gas lower than 87 octane.

about 30 days later I found a coolant leak on the garage floor and it was traced to the cylinder head and Mazda replaced the whole engine under warranty. I ordered a Maverick and I had to drive the Mazda about 9 months on the warranty engine while waiting for my '22, and I run only premium fuel.

 

[Ren E Gade]

older test fwd vs fwd

Sponsored