Ecoboost huge hp loss while not using 93 fuel? - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014 Thread Starter
Apprentice
 
akwal07's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: milpitas
Posts: 104
 
Ecoboost huge hp loss while not using 93 fuel?

from this review= We Drove The 2015 Ford Mustang: It's Still Best With A V8 And A Stick

"Ford is quick to point out that those power figures are gleaned from running 93 octane, which I don't get out in California (stuck with 91-octane piss fuel), but according to an engineer I was grilling, the Ecoboost can run on 87 octane "all day long", while losing 13 percent of its power, but retaining its peak torque."

thats going from 310hp to 270hp at the crank, with using 87 insted of 93...In cali we only get up to 91 so i wonder what that difference would be. Is this common for ecoboosts? why even give the 87 option?

akwal07 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014
PONY Member
 
Bobby B's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 679
 
Torque for acceleration and horsepower to sustain speed. Torque rules for a street car.


Bobby B, a patriotic Long Island Senior Citizen who drives a 2011 5.0 Premium GT Coupe, all black, 6-speed MT82, 3.55:1 differential, Bama 87S Tune, 18" diameter wheels, Pirelli P-Zeros, Comfort & Security Packages, spoiler delete.
God, please bless the USA
Bobby B is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014
PONY Member
 
FirstFord94's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 946
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by akwal07 View Post
Is this common for ecoboosts? why even give the 87 option?
This is absolutely nothing new. Factory cars need to be able to run on all available fuel grades. All the way back in 2006, I had a GTI with the 2.0t direct injection engine and it would run on both 87 and 93---though higher octane fuels were recommended.

What you see with the lower octane fuels is the timing being pulled and oftentimes (at least I saw it with the GTI) a concurrent reduction in fuel economy. The car ran best with at least 91 octane. The 2.3t is likely very similar in that respect.

The other issue is that many people aren't very good at math and think that spending more on premium fuel is too much to ask. A lot of people will not buy a car that only takes premium. I would guess that the acceptance of paying for premium fuel is inversely proportional to the cost of the car. With the mustang being affordable, acceptance of premium is probably on the lower end of the scale.

Personally, I don't think you'll feel much, if any, drop in power between 91 and 93 octane.
FirstFord94 is offline  
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014
BOSS Member
 
Blazin72's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Union
Posts: 3,543
           
Garage
My guess is somewhere around 5-10 hp? Maybe? That's just completely shot in the dark speculation though.

As far as the huge drop when running regular fuel, I don't really see any big deal with it. Generally speaking, turbo cars have frequently required premium fuel anyway. My (speculation, again) is that it was detuned to run on regular fuel to appeal to more mass market buyers that may not care as much about peak power.

Welcome to mass production of vehicles designed to appeal to the lowest possible common denominator of buyers.
Blazin72 is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014
Banned
 
2012 IngotSilver 5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 735
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby B View Post
Torque for acceleration and horsepower to sustain speed. Torque rules for a street car.
Nope. Preferably, you need both.

Lose HP on any given engine, car will be slower. Lose TRQ on any given engine, car be slower.
2012 IngotSilver 5.0 is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014
PONY Member
V6 Member
S197 Member
 
MustangInTexas's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Location: Round Rock
Posts: 563
 
The coyote motor is rated at 420 HP on 93 octane as well. If this is true for the EB, only the cyclone is fully rated with 87 which gives it more HP than the EB, on regular gas. Interesting.
MustangInTexas is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-21-2014
Apprentice
 
Bob_Young's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Lyons
Posts: 105
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustangInTexas View Post
The coyote motor is rated at 420 HP on 93 octane as well. If this is true for the EB, only the cyclone is fully rated with 87 which gives it more HP than the EB, on regular gas. Interesting.
Sacrilege! Keep talking like that and the thought police will get you!

Remember; EcoBOOST! EcoBOOST! 8 cylinders good, 4 cylinders BETTER! 6 cylinders POOEY! EcoBOOST! EcoBOOST!

'13 V6 Premium Coupe, Deep Impact Blue w/pony pkg & MT82 - bone stock

I drive it like I own it.
Bob_Young is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-22-2014
PONY Member
V6 Member
S197 Member
 
MustangInTexas's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Location: Round Rock
Posts: 563
 
Gotcha.
MustangInTexas is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 09-22-2014
PONY Member
S197 Member
 
gunz4me's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Lafayette
Posts: 414
 
Send a message via AIM to gunz4me
What about using methanol injection to boost the effective octane of the 88 or 91 gas to 93? Granted, that would probably be a "later down the road" thing because I doubt there are any kits for a vehicle that is not even on dealer lots yet.

I thought about doing it with my 2013 GTI, but the one thing that worries me is something going wrong with the methanol pump and detonation causing my engine to go boom.

EDIT: I still may do it for the cooling effect as well as to prevent carbon build-up. I'll just run 93 octane with the injection kit!

Maybe I will buy a 2016 Mustang GT, maybe not...

Last edited by gunz4me; 09-23-2014 at 10:48 AM. Reason: add one more comment
gunz4me is offline  
Rookie
 
thzpcs's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2014
Location: Denver
Posts: 44
 
High compression turbo motors aren't very happy on low octane fuel, but they'll run just fine, albeit at reduced power. I also had a 2.0T GTI, and in CO we only get 91 and it ran just fine. The Ecoboost will do just fine on 91, but the engineers would prefer the highest octane you can get. 100 race gas anyone?
thzpcs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1