93 Isn't 93...

TorqueMan · Sep 23, 2017

LuckyJerk said:
I have gotten it between the middle of the oil temp (12:00) to the yellow section one a spirited drive once. This was when I was completely stock. It was a hot day (it probably got into the 90's later in the day) but I drove in the morning at like 6:00 in the morning so it was probably in the 80's. Bear Mountain was road if there are any one from NY reading this lol.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused by your description. Was the gauge indicating in the yellow caution zone?

LuckyJerk · Sep 23, 2017

TorqueMan said:
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused by your description. Was the gauge indicating in the yellow caution zone?

Sorry about that it was the oil temp gauge. It wasn’t in yellow yet. It was like 3/4th there

WildHorse · Sep 23, 2017

Good thing I run Tier 1 94 octane e10 on a 93 tune ;)

DUNDEM · Sep 23, 2017

TheLion said:
For a while I've been preaching for street cars that you run an octane buffer because of varying fuel quality issues. Most of the after market tunes are fairly aggressive with timing. So 91 tunes assume it's absolutely bar none 91 octane minimum and 93 tunes assume absolutely bar none its 93.

The exception is maybe Ford Performance whose tune is a bit more on the conservative side (I might rank the Cobb Stage 1 in this category as well), but I think even Livernois, probably the next most conservative tune beyond those two, assumes the fuel is up to snuff.

I've been doing a little digging to get to the bottom of some of these early engine failures and I've suspected fuel quality to play a part as well as possibly oil contamination and manufacturing variations for some time now but in conjunction with the fact that people are running very hot tunes on pump gas and some engines just will not tolerate as much as others (metallurgical variances in the pistons, rods and even assembly process). I think honestly though these failures could have been avoided if we weren't trying to squeeze every last hp out of a street car. Diminishing returns and lack of safety margins to account of things outside of our control.

Throw into the mix environmental factors (hot ambients), for example yesterday it was 91F outside, even with the oil cooler, PP radiator and ATM inter cooler, no AGS on the FP tune I was seeing higher oil temps and cylinder head temps while cruising on the highway than on a 80F day. It just felt hot out that day even though the ambient wasn't super high and the car felt it too. Mind you nothing was out of control hot by any means, but it was definitely running hotter than typical.

Anyway, I found some testing done on the actual octane of gas coming out of the pump at various stations. I want to note something here, these variations can occur at any station of the same chain, so BP gas here in my state may not be the same as BP gas in your state. Also smaller stations tend to have poorer fuel quality (lots of dirt and water in their tanks) which can increase fouling / contamination.

My dad has been a service tech for over 25 years in the petroleum industry. He does installations of pump control electronics and repairs including inside the underground tanks. His advice to me was to try to get gas at larger higher volume stations that typically maintain their tanks better. The little ma and pa stations run them into the ground due to their low profit margins, so they tend to let maintenance go for much longer intervals and the fuel sits in the tanks longer as well before it's used up and refilled.

Anyway, one of the primary protection methods (along with a few other forum members) I've been preaching has been to run an octane buffer. IF your running a non adaptive tune like Livernois, T+, Unleashed etc. or any other tune that assumes a minimum of XX octane and your car is a daily driver that may fill up at many different stations around your area or when you travel, you would be very well served to run an octane buffer.

The more aggressive the tune, the more sensitive to fuel: http://www.wpxi.com/news/local/target-11-investigates-octane-levels-gasoline/197799439

Note that the margin of safety that is present on a factory tune is not likely present on most of the aftermarket tunes. You have to give up some safety margin at some point to get more power, there's no way around it. Factory 93 tunes are always more conservative than a performance 93 tune, that's PART of where the added power comes from. Some tunes are more aggressive than others, but there are cases where even adaptive factory 91 tunes sometimes will knock on poor fuel quality.

This also explains why the hot tunes running ethanol blends tend to have far fewer failures. Because ethanol is significantly better at preventing knock than gasoline in the LSPI research paper I posted a while back. It's the gold standard of knock prevention and even LSPI prevention interestingly enough. Fuel quality, fuel quality, fuel quality. Since we can't guarantee 93 is 93, the best we can do is assume it's not and run a 91 tune while only using 93.

The lowest scoring station's 93 was tested at 92.3. There's a +/- 0.4 octane margin of error on the tests. So it could be 92.7 but it could also be as low as 91.9! That's more than an entire point lower than the stated value. We can't assume the margin of error is this or that, in order prevent fuel related issues, you must assume the margin of error in the test result is biased high, meaning the worst case is 91.9 when you think your getting 93.

An octane buffer of 2 points would create enough margin of safety to prevent fuel quality variations from being a significant factor. Your only going to give up around 7-10 hp, so unless your competitively racing it's not work the risk and damage to your engine. I have a feeling that the Livernois tuned car that made it to 65k suffered from continual fuel quality issues. He ran a 93 tune on 93 octane, but was getting enough fill ups that were closer to 92 or even high 91 that periodic detonation or knock was occurring and eventually caused the piston failure. A tune that is set up for 93 can't scale back timing fast enough or in large enough increment to run 91 octane without damaging the engine, that's why it requires 93...the program is tuned very specifically to that fuel and assumes a minimum octane rating.

Adaptive tunes like the Ford Performance tune or the OE tune can adapt and scale back, but they don't make as much power. The Ford Performance tune is designed to run on 91 +/- the industry standard margin of error safely. So it assumes 91 might be slightly below 91 and the timing strategy is conservative enough to prevent issues (baring no mechanical defects lurk that might cause a catastrophic failure).

Quite a few failed engines seems to fail very shortly after fill up. I am theorizing that their fuel was on the low end of the allow able tolerance for 93 or 91 for those in cali, as per industry standards, but their tune was very aggressive in it's assumption of 93 being a minimum of 93 or better, not 92.3 or 91.9. It may have lead to frequent detonation or severe detonation or possibly a pre-ignition that triggered an LSPI event or multiple sequentaial LSPI events or even random LSPI events which your PCM is completely blind to. Like getting shot in the head by a .338 Lapua Magnum from 1000 yards, you'd never know what hit you...

Octane buffers should go a really long way in preventing detonation or even pre-ignition which could also lead to LSPI. Also the sum total of cooling system upgrades combined also has a significant impact (also the general consensus in the LSPI research paper).

- 1 Step Colder plugs (Do NOT use non-projected tip plugs unless your running exotic fueling etc., otherwise you'll see heavy fouling like I did, the NGK 6510's seem to be a good quality plug that is semi-projected tip like the OE so it's seating depth is appropriate for pump gas applications, but it's rated at 1 step colder than stock). I believe Denso has a similar plug but has recently been suffering from quality issues. Gap to 0.028 - 0.030 (this gapping range was also recommended by Mike Goodwin at Ford Performance and falls inline with most tuners recommendations as well).
- Inter cooler obviously, this has been preached to death, but it doesn't need to be the biggest one, just a nice stage 1 unit would do the trick, however the inter cooler doesn't help with cooling while cruising at lower RPM's and lighter loads, it requires pressurized air to be efficient so when your running NA or low boost it's not going provide much benefit, it's in the power band at WOT where you will see power benefits and cooling benefits.
- For base model cars, a PP radiator is a must for added heat
- Oil cooler can help a little with cylinder head temps, cooler oil means more thermal capacity is available to cool the cylinder heads, also limits coking, thinning and helps maintain pump pressure and flow during track like usage etc.
- CAI, might be over looked, but cooler air going into the turbo is going to mean cooler air coming out (or possibly the turbo running a bit cooler)
- For those who run Livernois, use their 160F thermostat, there's a REASON they recomend it, that's to control cylinder head temps with their tuning
- Probably one of the most important is the Octane buffer, use a 91 tune with 93 octane and you pretty much never have to worry about fuel quality being the issue as you will always be at a minimum of 91. Octane buffer gives you the ability to run a pure or aggressive 91 tune that does not tolerate significant quality variations as the buffer is large enough based on industry allow able tolerances to insure 91 is actually a minimum of "ideal 91".
- Run a GM Dexos 1 Gen 2 certified oil of your choice, these will not only protect against LSPI, but they reduce oil induced knock, yes some oil will always get into the combustion chamber, it can also induce knock / detonation by lowering the octane even if it doesn't cause LSPI / pre-ignition. This is coming again from the research done on LSPI in that 450 page research paper I posted.

Hope this helps my fellow street car guys, yes, I've done every one of these steps myself except for the oil as the Gen 2 oils are just now making their way to the stores so next change I should be able to switch over. I'm now at 29980 miles and going strong. Run only 93 on the Ford Performance tune. I go WOT all the time, partial throttle etc with full passenger loads and AC on in 80F weather uphill. Not sure you can push the car any more than that! I hit up to 15 psi boost in 6th gear on the highway at times etc. No issues so far. Time will tell how well it holds up, but even if it doesn't, I have a warranty to back me up. There's not much else I can do beyond this to ensure reliability. Once I get the Gen 2 oil in and I hit 36k I am planning on switching back to Livernois 91 but will always run 93.

My next mod will likely be a tune and it’s either the ford tune or a 3rd party 91 to use with 93.

For the record has anyone blew a motor with the ford tune or a 91 tune pumping 93 gas into their car?

Spykexx · Sep 24, 2017

DUNDEM said:
My next mod will likely be a tune and it’s either the ford tune or a 3rd party 91 to use with 93.

For the record has anyone blew a motor with the ford tune or a 91 tune pumping 93 gas into their car?

FRPP tune I don't recall, but there are plenty that have blown on the Stock tune.

Maggneto · Sep 24, 2017

Spykexx said:
FRPP tune I don't recall, but there are plenty that have blown on the Stock tune.

There has been 1 2.3 stock tune failure out of the 40 we have listed on page 1 of the blown eb thread. All others are TUNED......

There hasn't been any stock tune failures that we can verify outside the ONE, Single, UNO I have listed in the blown eb poll/thread. If you can't provide details on stock tune failures that can be verified then stop posting there have been plenty of stock tune failures. Where are you getting these 2.3 stock tune failures from?

98% of all 2.3 faliures that we can trace back to the first person are TUNED. Stop posting bullshit about stock tune failures if you can't provide the sources that we can verify. Have a little integrity instead of parroting shit you hear on the internet and spreading false rumors.

There have been 3 FP tunes that I know of.

Please provide links, details, sources, data to all these 2.3 stock tune failures. Since there are plenty you should have no problem providing links and details. Every so often someone comes on here boasting about all these 2.3 stock(non tuned) failures, and every time we ask for details about stock failures (non tuned, non modified) we here crickets.

Where is all this evidence of stock tune failures?

wsfrazier · Sep 24, 2017

.... or just use ethanol

93 in 2017...

Brian V · Sep 24, 2017

Maggneto said:
There has been 1 2.3 stock tune failure out of the 40 we have listed on page 1 of the blown eb thread. All others are TUNED......

There hasn't been any stock tune failures that we can verify outside the ONE, Single, UNO I have listed in the blown eb poll/thread. If you can't provide details on stock tune failures that can be verified then stop posting there have been plenty of stock tune failures. Where are you getting these 2.3 stock tune failures from?

98% of all 2.3 faliures that we can trace back to the first person are TUNED. Stop posting bullshit about stock tune failures if you can't provide the sources that we can verify. Have a little integrity instead of parroting shit you hear on the internet and spreading false rumors.

There have been 3 FP tunes that I know of.

Please provide links, details, sources, data to all these 2.3 stock tune failures. Since there are plenty you should have no problem providing links and details. Every so often someone comes on here boasting about all these 2.3 stock(non tuned) failures, and every time we ask for details about stock failures (non tuned, non modified) we here crickets.

Where is all this evidence of stock tune failures?

Just to bust yer balls 1 should be plenty enough for us to consinder the possibility of a failure to a stock engine if the perpetrator is out doing excessive stunts with his or her 2,3 mustang .

As I am aware with my own experience over the past 2 years runnning mostly 93 octane religiously that my MPG was consistantly 22 ..I have recently as of 2 months have been running a 92 octane and have been running 24 to 26 MPG ..these are mostly commuting miles with a top speeed of 50 MPH in those zones . I have also done a bit of Hypermiling along this commute ..my conclusion as of recently I am not running Shell 93 anymore .

I am stock . No tune . No intake mods . So called Dexos gen 2 oil which is just a license .
Rear sway bar , 20 x 10 rear . May lower an inch .strut brace . My own jacking rails and hood struts ..it is still a great ride and gained a few lbs .
With this written there are no guarranties the engine won't pop during a hard acceleration .

Regs · Sep 25, 2017

I know bear mountain road. It's usually what we take to get to breakneck in NY.

TorqueMan · Sep 25, 2017

Brian V said:
Just to bust yer balls 1 should be plenty enough for us to consinder the possibility of a failure to a stock engine if the perpetrator is out doing excessive stunts with his or her 2,3 mustang.

There really shouldn't be anything a driver can do (short of total idiocy, like red line clutch dumping) that will result in a blown engine. If any critial engine parameter approaches or exceeds a limit the computer should automatically clamp down to prevent damage, much like a rev limiter cuts ignition when the engine reaches red line. A single, known stock engine failure fits easily within the realm of a rare manufacturing defect.

Brian V said:
As I am aware with my own experience over the past 2 years runnning mostly 93 octane religiously that my MPG was consistantly 22 ..I have recently as of 2 months have been running a 92 octane and have been running 24 to 26 MPG ..these are mostly commuting miles with a top speeed of 50 MPH in those zones . I have also done a bit of Hypermiling along this commute ..my conclusion as of recently I am not running Shell 93 anymore.

Are you measuring with the car's computer, or manually? Some things to consider: 1)The computer isn't that accurate. To get an accurate figure you have to manually track mileage over three fillups--there is a description of the method in the Owner's Manual. 2) Ethanol has lower energy content than gasoline, so that could explain the difference in economy if the 93 octane you were using is 10% blended and the 91 octane is not. 3) There really isn't any difference in energy content between pure (no ethanol) 91 & 93 gasoline, so if that's what you were using the difference in economy would have to be explained by something else. For example: more weight in the car, more city driving time, lower temperatures (longer warmup time), sport mode vs normal mode, etc.

I'm not aware of any feature in the stock tune that would result in improved mileage by using a lower octane. If anything, a higher octane should allow for higher boost, which would improve engine efficiency, and therefore economy. I've yet to see that prove out in the real world, however. My EcoBoost Premium with standard rear-axle ratio (3.31) consistently gets 30 mpg (measured using method described in manual) with a mix of city (20%) and highway (80%) driving, and that's whether I use 87 or 91 octane. This is consistant with Ford's claimed economy figure for the car (31 mpg highway).

Regs · Sep 25, 2017

No engine is bullet proof. Even with meth if there is enough latency between the spool and injection you are going to pop a rod with that much timing advance. As with an oil cooler, a good one would come with a thermostat that wont excessively cool off the oil. It really depends on how good the tuner is and how lucky you are. With advanced ignition timing, the tolerance and margin of error is smaller. So if there is a slight delay in the meth injection, or a bad mix, you can call it dead.

And Ive seen pop's on engines with a multitude of tuners. Data logging and continued surveillance is important.

Glenn G · Sep 26, 2017

Maggneto said:
There has been 1 2.3 stock tune failure out of the 40 we have listed on page 1 of the blown eb thread. All others are TUNED......

There hasn't been any stock tune failures that we can verify outside the ONE, Single, UNO I have listed in the blown eb poll/thread. If you can't provide details on stock tune failures that can be verified then stop posting there have been plenty of stock tune failures. Where are you getting these 2.3 stock tune failures from?

98% of all 2.3 faliures that we can trace back to the first person are TUNED. Stop posting bullshit about stock tune failures if you can't provide the sources that we can verify. Have a little integrity instead of parroting shit you hear on the internet and spreading false rumors.

There have been 3 FP tunes that I know of.

Please provide links, details, sources, data to all these 2.3 stock tune failures. Since there are plenty you should have no problem providing links and details. Every so often someone comes on here boasting about all these 2.3 stock(non tuned) failures, and every time we ask for details about stock failures (non tuned, non modified) we here crickets.

Where is all this evidence of stock tune failures?

Your sample data is still fundamentally flawed. I would wager that the majority of EBM owners on this forum are tuned. Probably 80 %.

To give you an example of a statistical fallacy is to go to a car show and ask people how many car shows they have been to and how many accidents they had. You will find that people who go to more car shows have more accidents so Ban car Shows! The problem is that most people who go to a car show will have been to many more. And while the result might have some correlation (Guys who attend car shows tend to drive alot more miles per yer and more aggressively)but the root cause is not the car show.

Another one was all the trouble in Jackson Mississippi. A Black community leader said twice as many black people get arrested as white people. What they didn't say was that Jackson is 67% black 33% everyone else. If you throw a rock at a crowd you are twice as likely to hit a black person as any other race. So while the person was not wrong about the statistic, hell I'm certain that race plays a big part in police profiling, they actually hurt their cause.

Most people who leave their car stock are not on forums, period. If you want to run a poll and figure that out go ahead ( I don't want to deal with that drama) I saw two mustangs at the ford service center with engines out, An EB and a GT, I asked about them and the dealership would not give me a drop of info so I cant tell you a thing or provide any hard data and that is why you have a lack of data on blown stock motors. I can tell you the EB had a BONE Stock Exhaust, Stock Wheels and still on the stock Pirrelis. All I know from chatting with the Mechanic is that they both were waiting on new engines.

You may not be wrong about tunes, they are far less tolerant of bad gas than stock for sure but again if most of your sample size are tuned, most of your failures will be too.

TorqueMan · Sep 26, 2017

Glenn G said:
Your sample data is still fundamentally flawed. I would wager that the majority of EBM owners on this forum are tuned. Probably 80 %.

Most people who leave their car stock are not on forums, period. If you want to run a poll and figure that out go ahead

The words "most" and "period" don't really go together there; you say "most" to support an assumption not based on data, but you are sure about it, period. Well alrighty then!

That said, your basic point is correct: We don't have enough—any, really—data from which to draw conclusions about engine reliability—modded or stock. We have guesses, assumptions and a lot of anecdotal evidence, which means exactly squat for the purposes of statistical analysis.

Brian V · Sep 26, 2017

1 should not throw caution to the wind with all of the relavent intel gathered here and from the other relavent threads pertaining to the 2.3 mustang .

Turbong · Sep 26, 2017

TorqueMan said:
The words "most" and "period" don't really go together there; you say "most" to support an assumption not based on data, but you are sure about it, period. Well alrighty then!

That said, your basic point is correct: We don't have enough—any, really—data from which to draw conclusions about engine reliability—modded or stock. We have guesses, assumptions and a lot of anecdotal evidence, which means exactly squat for the purposes of statistical analysis.

Except the assumption is correct and it is based on logic and data such as most people that post here have some type of mod/plan, although there is no exact percentage, fact is most people here are enthusiasts and most enthusiast are more likely to mod hence why we only hear the stories of blown motors of enthusiasts who modded here. It is a fact that people who are not enthusiasts are most likely to leave it stock therefore likely not even know about mustang6g or care to post, they would just go straight to the dealer and get it replaced. A perfect example who I personally know someone who owns one, he has no clue about mods or tuning or care about forums, he just likes it and it looks nice", If it blows he doesn't care, he will take it straight to the dealer you would never know. So to assume only modded ones are blowing up is idiotic at best.

93 Isn't 93...

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member

LuckyJerk

Well-Known Member

WildHorse

N/A or GO HOME

DUNDEM

Well-Known Member

Spykexx

Well-Known Member

Maggneto

Well-Known Member

wsfrazier

Well-Known Member

Brian V

USA Retired

Regs

Well-Known Member

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member

Regs

Well-Known Member

Glenn G

Well-Known Member

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member

Brian V

USA Retired

Turbong

Well-Known Member