Ecoboost loses 13% power on 87 octane [Updated with Ford training materials]

jeebuspwnz · Sep 18, 2014

[1/5/15 UPDATED WITH FORD TRAINING DOCUMENTATION]:

It notes that the 2.3L EcoBoost in the new Mustang generates 275HP and 300 LB-FT torque on 87 octane fuel, a loss of 11.3% and 6.25% respectively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the reviewer on jalopnik, who spoke to a Ford engineer...

It's the first FR application of this engine (it's used in the Lincoln MKC, but tweaked for the 'Stang), with an air-to-air intercooler and 18 psi of boost. 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.

EXP Jawa · Sep 18, 2014

Torque and HP are mathematically joined at the hip. If HP drops 13%, than the torque curve must also suffer similarly, even if the peak number happens to remain. I would think that must mean that the nice, flat torque curve no longer applies. Still, 13% seems like a lot, especially since the 5.0L only looses 1%. Seems logical, I suppose that they're taking advantage of more boost with higher octane, and the gains are more noteworthy than on the NA engine.

SVTFreak · Sep 18, 2014

EXP Jawa said:
Torque and HP are mathematically joined at the hip. If HP drops 13%, than the torque curve must also suffer similarly, even if the peak number happens to remain. I would think that must mean that the nice, flat torque curve no longer applies. Still, 13% seems like a lot, especially since the 5.0L only looses 1%. Seems logical, I suppose that they're taking advantage of more boost with higher octane, and the gains are more noteworthy than on the NA engine.

Yes but torque and hp are joined but in relation to rpm. Remember, the formula is hp=(tqxrpm)/5252. So, realistically, the power could stay the same down low where the torque peaks and then (through whatever means used in the tune) detune it at higher rpms. That would keep torque the same and drop hp within his comments.

Probably, the knock sensors start picking up knock and retarding timing higher up the tach which would drop the power.

EXP Jawa · Sep 18, 2014

That's my point, the peak value could be kept, but the shape of the torque curve as a whole has to change. What's more, is we don't know what the 13% drop is in relation to - the peak value only, or is the entire power curve shifted down some? Either way, the flat torque curve as shown on a previous dyno plot will no longer have the same profile if HP drops significantly. That's all I'm saying.

Ryudo83 · Sep 18, 2014

I wonder what octane fuel the EB cars in the reviews have been running. No one mentions it and if its that big a difference then there could be some issues with the numbers being reported.

jeebuspwnz · Sep 18, 2014

Ryudo83 said:
I wonder what octane fuel the EB cars in the reviews have been running. No one mentions it and if its that big a difference then there could be some issues with the numbers being reported.

I can almost guarantee it's 91 octane in the cars driven here in California and 93 octane in the cars driven in some of those lucky states that get it.

Unless FORD brought 93 octane and filled the cars up with it in California, which seems unlikely.

jeebuspwnz · Sep 18, 2014

SVTFreak said:
Yes but torque and hp are joined but in relation to rpm. Remember, the formula is hp=(tqxrpm)/5252. So, realistically, the power could stay the same down low where the torque peaks and then (through whatever means used in the tune) detune it at higher rpms. That would keep torque the same and drop hp within his comments.

Probably, the knock sensors start picking up knock and retarding timing higher up the tach which would drop the power.

If you look at the dyno that MotorTrend did, you see a rapid drop at 5700rpm which is indicative of a knock-related event pulling timing. I'm willing to bet that running 87 would result in an extremely conservative timing advance from 5300rpm and above, but might not impact much down low. Hence, peak torque would be the same but peak HP would be decreased.

Tcnarber · Sep 18, 2014

I don't know about HP and Torque, my F150 got 1 mile better mileage using 92 on vacation recently. That was with 4 adults, and a full bed of camping, hunting, and fishing gear for the Canadian wilderness.....read that as a pretty good load.

SVTFreak · Sep 18, 2014

Tcnarber said:
I don't know about HP and Torque, my F150 got 1 mile better mileage using 92 on vacation recently. That was with 4 adults, and a full bed of camping, hunting, and fishing gear for the Canadian wilderness.....read that as a pretty good load.

More timing means better economy and more power. Long been known. The new systems increase timing and actively search for knock so as to run on the edge. Higher octane=more timing=more economical and more powerful.

stilesg57 · Sep 19, 2014

EXP Jawa said:
That's my point, the peak value could be kept, but the shape of the torque curve as a whole has to change. What's more, is we don't know what the 13% drop is in relation to - the peak value only, or is the entire power curve shifted down some? Either way, the flat torque curve as shown on a previous dyno plot will no longer have the same profile if HP drops significantly. That's all I'm saying.

True, but 40hp is still too much. Doesn't pass the smell test; honestly I can't believe that a 310hp motor is suddenly a 270hp motor from 6pts of octane. I think tuners like Cobb will have this number MUCH MORE precisely figured out in the next couple weeks, and it WON'T be 40hp. Maybe 20. But I really, REALLY doubt 40.

On the plus side of things, if this motor is THAT sensitive to octane, it'll be a freakin' monster on an E85 tune :headbang:

SVTFreak · Sep 19, 2014

stilesg57 said:
True, but 40hp is still too much. Doesn't pass the smell test; honestly I can't believe that a 310hp motor is suddenly a 270hp motor from 6pts of octane. I think tuners like Cobb will have this number MUCH MORE precisely figured out in the next couple weeks, and it WON'T be 40hp. Maybe 20. But I really, REALLY doubt 40.

On the plus side of things, if this motor is THAT sensitive to octane, it'll be a freakin' monster on an E85 tune

Well, believe it. Octane/timing is a huge thing.

Chances are aftermarket tunes will require 91+. They always have on the 5.0 using same strategy.

MUSThavaSTANG · Sep 19, 2014

Think you might have left out a decimal. I read somewhere yesterday (can't find it now) that it loses about 5hp on 87, which would be close to 1.3%

No way it loses 13%

jeebuspwnz · Sep 19, 2014

MUSThavaSTANG said:
Think you might have left out a decimal. I read somewhere yesterday (can't find it now) that it loses about 5hp on 87, which would be close to 1.3%

No way it loses 13%

I just posted in another thread about this, but it's entirely possible to lose that much power on 87 with a turbocharged motor. In fact, I'd be shocked if it didn't.

neodark · Sep 19, 2014

Cross post from general forums, and source: edmunds review

Generating 310 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque on 93 octane premium fuel, the EcoBoost four outshines the V6 slightly (it will run just fine on 87 octane, though peak output drops to 270 hp due to the knock propensity of the crummier fuel). Note that the EcoBoost four generates its maximum torque over a wider portion of the rev range than does the relatively peakier V6.

I think this seals it for me... I'm dropping down to the V6 A051, and having deal with doing the performance pack myself with money saved.

A V8 is not the right car for me as much as I'd like it. And, I feel like any fuel savings the turbo may provide will disappear when you have to run 93 to get over 300hp. (You'd also have to stay off boost). + Better sound from the V6

Good review.

xUAx · Sep 19, 2014

So does using 87 octane also decrease the mpg? What octane of gas is used for the mpg numbers?

Ecoboost loses 13% power on 87 octane [Updated with Ford training materials]

jeebuspwnz

Well-Known Member

EXP Jawa

Well-Known Member

SVTFreak

#275

EXP Jawa

Well-Known Member

Ryudo83

Well-Known Member

jeebuspwnz

Well-Known Member

jeebuspwnz

Well-Known Member

Tcnarber

Well-Known Member

SVTFreak

#275

stilesg57

Well-Known Member

SVTFreak

#275

MUSThavaSTANG

Well-Known Member

jeebuspwnz

Well-Known Member

neodark

Left 4cyl @home

xUAx

Member