Mustang 2.3L Loses Big Power on 87 Octane

[jpd80]

Which makes me wonder about the new Navigator's 380 hp and 460 lb ft rating,

Is it a different tune or exactly the same engine rated differently on 93 octane?

 

such a kerfuffle over what power an Ecoboost make on 87, the fact that the Ecoboost engines

can run on 87 all day without damaging the engine completely escapes the critics, Sure the power

and torque are lower but the bottom end torque is still better than a V6 would ever be on its best day.

 

Try doing that in a Cadillac SRX V6 turbo from a few years back or even the current GM 2.0T or 3.6T.

Edited January 7, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

It's the same engine and software - it just retards the timing when 87 is used.

[RangerM]

Everything I've read is the 365 hp rating for the F150 EB is based on 87 Octane.

 

I'll go with what Akirby said on what happens using higher grades, as I've never heard anything else.

[silvrsvt]

Everything I've read is the 365 hp rating for the F150 EB is based on 87 Octane.

 

I'll go with what Akirby said on what happens using higher grades, as I've never heard anything else.Y

 

Which MY?

 

I know there is a difference between the MKS EB and SHO also running 87 vs 93

 

Here's an entry from the 2010 SHO

 

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/taurus/2010/road-test3.html

But this time around the concept benefits greatly from two decades of engine control advancement and turbocharger development.

Each bank of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 gets its own Honeywell GT15 water-cooled turbocharger and electronically controlled wastegate. They're set to pressurize the intake charge up to 12 psi above atmospheric before handing it off to an air-to-air intercooler for additional densification. Meanwhile, a direct fuel-injection system squirts a fine mist of unleaded into the combustion chambers at the most opportune moment, further cooling the intake charge and allowing a healthy 10:1 compression ratio.

The result is 365 hp — just over 104 hp per liter — on 93 octane. Ford claims the system isn't running on the ragged edge, so even those of us in deprived 91-octane states should hit this number. The EcoBoost mill will run on 87 octane regular, too, but the output will fall off a bit.

 

They never state what the exact # is on 87 though.

[blwnsmoke]

If what you say is true. Then I can expect 400 HP if I use premium in my F150?

 

If a vehicle is tuned for 93, you can run 87, 89 and 91 on it, just with less performance as the ecu retards timing as stated. It does not work the other way around. If a vehicle is tuned for 87, running 89, 91 or 93 is a complete waste.

 

I know that you know that was a ridiculous statement. Really don't know why you would even reply with such a thing.

 

And as stated, yes, you can get 400hp out of your F150 on 93 IF TUNED for it.

 

PS - my wife's Audi A4 recommends Premium.. that is what it is tuned for but guess what, I can run 87 in it if I wanted to and I did at times. What happened?? A decrease in performance.

 

Damn, why isn't Audi on the front pages being ragged on for a higher tuned vehicle losing performance on a lower octane fuel?

Edited January 7, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

Which MY?

 

I know there is a difference between the MKS EB and SHO also running 87 vs 93

 

Here's an entry from the 2010 SHO

 

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/taurus/2010/road-test3.html

But this time around the concept benefits greatly from two decades of engine control advancement and turbocharger development.

Each bank of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 gets its own Honeywell GT15 water-cooled turbocharger and electronically controlled wastegate. They're set to pressurize the intake charge up to 12 psi above atmospheric before handing it off to an air-to-air intercooler for additional densification. Meanwhile, a direct fuel-injection system squirts a fine mist of unleaded into the combustion chambers at the most opportune moment, further cooling the intake charge and allowing a healthy 10:1 compression ratio.

The result is 365 hp — just over 104 hp per liter — on 93 octane. Ford claims the system isn't running on the ragged edge, so even those of us in deprived 91-octane states should hit this number. The EcoBoost mill will run on 87 octane regular, too, but the output will fall off a bit.

 

They never state what the exact # is on 87 though.

 

Interestingly, the SHO's numbers were rated on premium, whereas the MKS EB was rated at 355 hp... on regular. I connected the dots quite easily when those numbers came out.

[phil1336]

It appears that there is no loss of either HP or Torque with the 3.7 N.A. V6 regardless if you use the recommended 87 Octane Regular Fuel. Still the same 300 HP & 280 lb-ft of Torque at 4000 rpm? Gonna be (some) EB owners with buyers-regret?

[papilgee4evaeva]

It appears that there is no loss of either HP or Torque with the 3.7 N.A. V6 regardless if you use the recommended 87 Octane Regular Fuel. Still the same 300 HP & 280 lb-ft of Torque at 4000 rpm? Gonna be (some) EB owners with buyers-regret?

 

Considering the comparatively few options on the 3.7, particularly the performance options, I don't think so.

[jpd80]

It appears that there is no loss of either HP or Torque with the 3.7 N.A. V6 regardless if you use the recommended 87 Octane Regular Fuel. Still the same 300 HP & 280 lb-ft of Torque at 4000 rpm? Gonna be (some) EB owners with buyers-regret?

You can bet the torque at 1700-2000 rpm is way different, the V6 would be down nearly 100 lb ft

compared to the 2.3 EB - that's the difference with looking at peak power and what a turbo does elsewhere..

Edited January 7, 2015 by jpd80

[Edstock]

Gonna be (some) EB owners with buyers-regret?

 

Doubtful, most of 'em will pony up for premium if needed, but that's just my opinion.

 

I wonder if the new hand-held re-programmer from Ford Racing could be used to re-program the 2.3 to optimize power for 87-octane?

[akirby]

Only some Ford engines are actually tuned to hunt for 93 and take advantage of it - mostly ecoboosts at this point. Some of the older engines are not tuned that way which probably includes the 3.7L. Unless the owner's manual explicitly says that 93 will give better performance you don't really know unless you look at the PCM code.

[akirby]

 

I wonder if the new hand-held re-programmer from Ford Racing could be used to re-program the 2.3 to optimize power for 87-octane?

 

That simply means retarding the timing which it's already doing. That's all you can do with software.

[351cid]

I can only attest to the 2.0L, but I've played around with running 87, 89, & 93 octane fuel. There is no real difference that I can "feel" in performance (butt-o-meter). As far as fuel mileage is concerned, I've done several "tests" and determined that any increase in mpg is offset by the additional cost of 93. I see no reason to buy 93 for my wife's daily driver.

[Hugh]

I can only attest to the 2.0L, but I've played around with running 87, 89, & 93 octane fuel. There is no real difference that I can "feel" in performance (butt-o-meter). As far as fuel mileage is concerned, I've done several "tests" and determined that any increase in mpg is offset by the additional cost of 93. I see no reason to buy 93 for my wife's daily driver.

I see and feel a difference running on 87. The thing is 87 has delivered the as advertised FE. 91 is better and 93 is hard to get where I am. The cost difference and benefit doesn't make that much of a difference.

[akirby]

I can only attest to the 2.0L, but I've played around with running 87, 89, & 93 octane fuel. There is no real difference that I can "feel" in performance (butt-o-meter). As far as fuel mileage is concerned, I've done several "tests" and determined that any increase in mpg is offset by the additional cost of 93. I see no reason to buy 93 for my wife's daily driver.

 

Are you talking about the 2005 Five Hundred in your signature or did you replace that with a Fusion or Edge?

[351cid]

 

Are you talking about the 2005 Five Hundred in your signature or did you replace that with a Fusion or Edge?

Last May we sold the Five Hundred to my son (new daddy) and bought a 2013 Fusion SE with a 2.0L.

[351cid]

Fixed my signature to more current. Thanks for pointing out.

[akirby]

Just wanted to be sure you were talking about the 2.0L EB.

[RangerM]

 

Which MY?

 

I know there is a difference between the MKS EB and SHO also running 87 vs 93

 

Here's an entry from the 2010 SHO

I don't know the MY matters. It's been the same on the F150 for as long as I can remember, and still is on Ford's website.

 

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/

 

I don't believe they can specify the HP/TQ ratings on anything other than the "recommended fuel" without saying so.

[Hydro]

I don't know the MY matters. It's been the same on the F150 for as long as I can remember, and still is on Ford's website.

 

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/

 

I don't believe they can specify the HP/TQ ratings on anything other than the "recommended fuel" without saying so.

On your link at the very bottom it says "additional disclosures". Click on that and scroll to number 68. It says achieved with Premium fuel, which means 93 octane.

[RangerM]

On your link at the very bottom it says "additional disclosures". Click on that and scroll to number 68. It says achieved with Premium fuel, which means 93 octane.

Thanks, but 68 isn't noted next to the hp/tq ratings. Again, I don't believe a manufacturer is allowed (either by law or trade agreement, I don't know) to advertise hp/tq ratings for anything other than with the recommended fuel.

 

I also believe for Ford to say "SAE net@rpm" it must be using the recommended fuel. Someone else more familiar with that procedure may know for sure.

 

Here's what I found from 2013 pertaining to the EB.....

 

"We should note Ford tells us that its power outputs improve slightly, measuring 385 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque when using premium fuel, instead of the regular fuel the owner's manual recommends."

 

Source

Edited January 8, 2015 by RangerM

[akirby]

Most of the owner's manuals say 87 is ok but you'll get slightly better performance with premium. I think that satisfies the legal requirement.

[RangerM]

Most of the owner's manuals say 87 is ok but you'll get slightly better performance with premium. I think that satisfies the legal requirement.

After the part about recommending 87 octane, my owners manual says you'll get improved performance using premium. The only warning is against using fuels below 87.

[Hydro]

Thanks, but 68 isn't noted next to the hp/tq ratings. Again, I don't believe a manufacturer is allowed (either by law or trade agreement, I don't know) to advertise hp/tq ratings for anything other than with the recommended fuel.

 

I also believe for Ford to say "SAE net@rpm" it must be using the recommended fuel. Someone else more familiar with that procedure may know for sure.

 

Here's what I found from 2013 pertaining to the EB.....

 

"We should note Ford tells us that its power outputs improve slightly, measuring 385 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque when using premium fuel, instead of the regular fuel the owner's manual recommends."

 

Source

 

OK, well in your link it says the 2.7L makes 325 HP/ 370 lb-ft, notice there is no ( * ) or "see #68". If you build a truck they will contain the ( * ) at that point you refer back to #68. Ford used to have the " * achieved on 93 octane" right next to the 2.7L engine, but removed it right before launch. It has been well documented the 2.7L makes claimed power on 93 octane, but it will run fine on "regular" which they advertise because nobody wants to run premium in a truck. It's games all manufactures are playing. Yeah the recomended fuel is 87, but you won't make the "PEAK" horsepower on it. Nobody from ford will answer the question if the new 5.0 L makes advertised power on premium, but we all know it does. The only engine I've heard makes advertised power on 87 is the 3.5L EB. I can neither confirm nor deny because Ford won't answer my question.

The Fusion has it written plain as day (240 on premium, 231 on 87) while saying "recomended fuel = unleaded regular" http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/

Ford doesn't do that to the F150 because it's their bread and butter and know truck buyers are always into pissing matches with power. Fusion buyers aren't so concerned. I wish they'd be honest and post real numbers like the Fusion page.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Hydro