So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed.

 

One of the problems is... Every vehicle on the road is tested with premium fuel. I believe 93 octane.

 

"The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)."

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates

Look out! Here come the hi-octane mileage "defeat devices!"

...which upon further review may not turn out to be all that funny

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by El Kabong

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

He can, like anyone else who doesn't believe, look it up too.

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

He can, like anyone else who doesn't believe, look it up too.

Doesn't mean jack squat about any of my claims though. As per this article, small diesels are the way to go for eco and thrift:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-outdoorsman-crew-cab-4x4-verdict-review/

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by El Kabong

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

He can, like anyone else who doesn't believe, look it up too.

Doesn't mean jack squat about any of my claims though. As per this article, small diesels are the way to go for eco and thrift:http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-outdoorsman-crew-cab-4x4-verdict-review/

It does mean jack squat when you say this;

" If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. "

 

 

 

 

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed.

 

One of the problems is... Every vehicle on the road is tested with premium fuel. I believe 93 octane.

 

"The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)."

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates

 

 

It's a problem for believing the EPA certifications certainly.... but most vehicles should lose power/mpg at about the same percentage.  When there is a much larger than average drop in power like the Mustang EB is showing, there is cause for concern. 

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

 

Lower octane will have the computer retard the timing a lot. 

I know that but why do some not have the performance drops like others? Like the aformentioned 2.0 EcoBoost and 2.3 Ecoboost. Why does one only loose about 3% and the other 10+% power and economy?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

Buuuuuut the 2.3 is supposedly like that, at least with power and assuming fuel economy suffers as well if hp does.

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

 

Yeah, but I was talking about Mustang, not truck.

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

 

It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens.  A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

 

It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens.  A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed.

 

 

I don't remember, is the Mustang 2.3 EB a flex fuel vehicle? If so, it should do really well on E85... enough to make a difference. 

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

 

Yeah, but I was talking about Mustang, not truck.

But the Mustang seems to have similar issues.

 

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

I thought we were talking about 3.5EB reactions to different gas.

 

As far as the Mustang 2.3EB, that's the most aggressive power tune for that engine's applications, isn't it? Other vehicles with the 2.3T make less power. Stands to reason that a more aggressive tune would lose the most power on cheap gas.

 

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

 

It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens.  A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed.

 

 

I don't remember, is the Mustang 2.3 EB a flex fuel vehicle? If so, it should do really well on E85... enough to make a difference. 

 

 

Negative.

No FF.

Although there exists conversion kits for other engines, I imagine somebody thought to include the I4, amongst the many other upgrades. Or is FF considered a downgrade.

It is only suggested to be a downgrade if a Ford is NOT EQUIPPED with it.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

I thought we were talking about 3.5EB reactions to different gas.

 

As far as the Mustang 2.3EB, that's the most aggressive power tune for that engine's applications, isn't it? Other vehicles with the 2.3T make less power. Stands to reason that a more aggressive tune would lose the most power on cheap gas.

That makes more sense. The more aggressive the tune the greater difference from 87 to 93.

Also, Wings, I didn't realize the 2.3 had such high compression. That's high for a boosted engine. What kind of boost does it utilize in its applications?

 

 

 

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

I thought we were talking about 3.5EB reactions to different gas.

 

As far as the Mustang 2.3EB, that's the most aggressive power tune for that engine's applications, isn't it? Other vehicles with the 2.3T make less power. Stands to reason that a more aggressive tune would lose the most power on cheap gas.

That makes more sense. The more aggressive the tune the greater difference from 87 to 93.

Also, Wings, I didn't realize the 2.3 had such high compression. That's high for a boosted engine. What kind of boost does it utilize in its applications?

 

 

  

Oops, my bad, just checked. It's only 9.5 CR.

 

I thought they upped it from the 2.0L but not the case.

 

 

CR will increase significantly in next gen engines. It's how they will make more power and efficiency. DI allows more static CR, and through cam tricks that involve late intake valve closing (LIVC) they can dial back the dynamic CR, which is the critical one.  Static means very little.

 

 

If I had to venture a guess, I would say a big factor is that the 3.5EB is the oldest turbo DI engine in Ford's portfolio. There's an enormous difference in the technology now and what was being used to design the aging V6 engine.

 

The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5

 

^ Would the variance have to do with the tunes? Like a very conservative vs agressive tunes for different octanes? Or just just as much effort to tune everthing overall?

 

Or I guess, what would cause such a veraiance from 93 to 87 in these average cars. I know perormance tuning is a different story so we can ignore that part.

 

It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens.  A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed.

 

 

I don't remember, is the Mustang 2.3 EB a flex fuel vehicle? If so, it should do really well on E85... enough to make a difference. 

 

 

Negative.

No FF.

Although there exists conversion kits for other engines, I imagine somebody thought to include the I4, amongst the many other upgrades. Or is FF considered a downgrade.

 

 

That's a shame... had they built it to handle E85, they probably could have put an E85 tune into it and gotten over 350 hp.  SAAB was working on engines like that before they died the first time.  Engines that produced a lot more horsepower and better fuel economy running on E85 and then would dial it back to more conventional levels of HP when running on 87. I think it was a 310hp 2.0T on E85 back in 2006 or something. 

Drew,

It is a shame. Who knows why they decide on what they decide.  I often inquire if I am involved and curious, but I am quite busy lately and I barely have time to get caught up on email, let alone question authority.

 

I will say this though, both the 2.0L and 2.3L heads are mostly remnants from the Mazda Co-developed engine era, specifically valve train and overall physical attributes that are needed for their manufacturing site requirements (machining line dowel or datum holes, manufacturing process step cast features, etc.).  Sure, they made some changes, specifically adding the IEM, but these engines are long in the tooth. Direct acting mechanical bucket (DAMB) is a compromise.  Roller finger follower (RFF) valvetrain is far superior and will be replacing many current Ford engines.