93 Isn't 93...

[TorqueMan]

Except the assumption is correct and it is based on logic and data...

I get that this is a logical assumption, but logic does not make it "correct." Even the most well thought out, logical assumption (scientists call them hypotheses) remains an assumption unless you have data to prove it "correct." Where's your data?

...such as most people that post here have some type of mod/plan, although there is no exact percentage

Ahhh, you have no data.

...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.

You can't make a claim of fact without data. Where's your data?

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...

Another unsubstantiated claim of fact. Where's your data?

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.

This is called anectodal evidence; it proves nothing.

You like "logical" assumptions, but choose not to accept the logic of the assumption that retuning the engine to produce more power increases stress on its parts, thereby increasing the likelihood of failure and/or long-term durability issues. Why? Because we have incomplete data to support such an assumption, which is true. Similarly, we have no data to support your logical assumption about the proclivities of "enthusiasts" (definition?) and forum readers (is that someone who reads any Mustang forum, only this forum, or only this sub on this forum?) to modify their cars (is that engine mods only, or ANY mod?).

Here's a question for you: The only mod I've made to my car is an aftermarket shift knob, but I read and participate on this forum (and others) and in this sub (and others). Am I an enthusiast, or just a knob? (I'm leaning toward the latter, but I do like to let the pony run every once in a while. :lol: )

This is real simple: We have no data, and therefore no basis on which to draw conclusions about reliability/durability of Ford's Turbo 2.3L 4cyl--modded or unmodded, period.

Sponsored

 

[arghx7]

Somebody at Ford has an Excel spreadsheet somewhere on warranty claims for engine failures, we just don't have access to it.

I do agree that people who modify their engine in any way (a stage 1 tune counts) are going to have a higher likelihood of breaking something among a population of 0 to 3 year old cars.

 

[EcoBOSS]

Well, before this thread goes totally sideways or gets sucked into a black hole from all the "Quote" button abuse...

No, 93 isn't 93, and hasn't been for YEARS...

Since the "Tiers" of fuel went away and gas stations started getting gas from generic refineries, Ethanol - which was previously reserved for 85 and 87 octane only - has made its way into ALL pump gas. What was once reserved for the 14.63:1 Stoich purists, 93 is now relegated to the depths of the "lowly" 14.03:1 OR LESS crowd. To make matters worse, what is now 87 Octane Gasoline is actually 85 Gasoline with 10% Ethanol added. The octane value is obtained by adding Ethanol - There are subsidies for Ethanol, so there is a profit motive.

While AFR doesn't affect Octane ratings per se, it does change the engines needs. The difference between 14.63 and 14.03:1 AFR is almost -.5 on the "Apparent Octane Number", so 93 ACTUAL GASOLINE octane in a car with 10% Ethanol becomes 92.5 Octane based on the ARF change alone. Since we now know that this 93 octane fuel is actually 91 with 10% ethanol added, it gets worse and we haven't even figured in the quality/reporting issues...

In the US, Octane has changed to AKI (R+M)/2) instead of the higher MON rating of old. What used to be 87 Octane (MON) is now 93 Octane AKI (R+M)/2). The Original Sunoco 100 Octane Pump Gas would now be labeled as 110 AKI or 110 Octane (R+M)/2). In the 50's and up to the 1970's, there was "Ethyl", short for the "secret" ingredient "Tetra Ethyl Lead (TEL)" - but that's another story...

Fuel quality takes another hit as very few service stations run filters or fuel water separators since they require regular maintenance - something that disappeared when "Self-Service" became the rage.

So, Octane ratings are BS. What used to be a bragging point in the octane wars of old is merely a "guide" today. And we haven't even touched on MTBE or other "Oxygenators" that are added to "reduce pollution".

TheLion - The items you list are all great for reducing LSPI, to include low Calcium oils and Water/Meth injection with the exception of the 160°f thermostat. Unless the fan turn on/off points are altered in the tune, the thermostat change is a waste of time, money and effort - But I'm sure you worked with your tuner on that...

Are you using an aftermarket oil temp gauge? Oil Temp is inferred on our vehicles since there is no sensor, it apparently uses the oil pressure and RPMs - much like there is no CHT sensor, so it is based on Water Temp and other stuff.

I'm headed down the same path as you - Increase performance through reliability mods and do everything possible to reduce LSPI.
Keep fighting the good fight Brother!

 

[Turbong]

I get that this is a logical assumption, but logic does not make it "correct." Even the most well thought out, logical assumption (scientists call them hypotheses) remains an assumption unless you have data to prove it "correct." Where's your data?



Your name would be better suited as Strawman instead, this isn't a court room and were not trying to convict anyone to the absolute most certain degree, relax. How would you ever be able to have any meaningful conversations in real life like that? "Most sport fanatics watch sports", "Where is your data no proof of such things", it inst true with no data lol? You proved my point you can't make a conclusion from this forum since most people here are modded and enthusiasts here, thanks.

 

[apx632]

Very nice informative post. However I don't think bad gas is a cause for most of the EB engine failures that we've seen. It's just poor engineering on Ford's part. There are several things within the short block that are weak links and have been shown across several motors to being causes. If you are a tuned car and you don't monitor your OAR I think that can be part of the problem. I'm tuned for 93 and run nothing but 93 and have over 30k miles tuned. I also use the same 3 or 4 gas stations for every fill up as well so I can keep with consistency. I can tell ya my car is tuned conservatively because that's how my tuner is when it comes to pump gas. Low timing, soft timing curve. I regularly take data logs and view them as well to help. And if I have a concern I send the log to him and he reviews it as well and gives his take. Maybe I'm a lucky one I don't know. But that's my whole take on everything.

 

[Juben]

70k+ miles here. Supporting mods, heat management, good tuning, and proper maintenance go a long way in the longevity of a car. I've said this all along and it's worked well for me.

 

[Maggneto]

Very nice informative post. However I don't think bad gas is a cause for most of the EB engine failures that we've seen. It's just poor engineering on Ford's part. There are several things within the short block that are weak links and have been shown across several motors to being causes. If you are a tuned car and you don't monitor your OAR I think that can be part of the problem. I'm tuned for 93 and run nothing but 93 and have over 30k miles tuned. I also use the same 3 or 4 gas stations for every fill up as well so I can keep with consistency. I can tell ya my car is tuned conservatively because that's how my tuner is when it comes to pump gas. Low timing, soft timing curve. I regularly take data logs and view them as well to help. And if I have a concern I send the log to him and he reviews it as well and gives his take. Maybe I'm a lucky one I don't know. But that's my whole take on everything.

98% of all blown engines that WE CAN CONFIRM have been tuned and you want to blame Ford for poor engineering? I think that is poor judgement on your part since bone stock 2.3 engines appear to be running just fine in the MKC, Explorer, and Mustang.

I have listed nearly 40 blown 2.3 engines and all but 1 was tuned. That is not poor engineering on Ford, but poor judgement from a bunch of so called enthusiasts.

 

[apx632]

98% of all blown engines that WE CAN CONFIRM have been tuned and you want to blame Ford for poor engineering? I think that is poor judgement on your part since bone stock 2.3 engines appear to be running just fine in the MKC, Explorer, and Mustang.

I have listed nearly 40 blown 2.3 engines and all but 1 was tuned. That is not poor engineering on Ford, but poor judgement from a bunch of so called enthusiasts.

I have poor judgement? Considering most of the blown engines are likely not tuned because most people that buy a 2.3L mustang don't care about mods vs the small percentage that DO. Are there some instances where a tuned one blows because of the tuner, yes there are. But often times I don't think it's the tuners fault as much as it is an owner who has no clue. They just want to go faster so they mod the car.

 

[Brian V]

Some people are just gooferballs. .......

 

[MakStang]

Maybe it's a naive question, but isn't OAR on the Accessport meant to provide information on fuel quality (octane rating)? I mean I am Adam tuned on 93+ oct (100 RON - I am in Europe) and I always fill my car with 93+ (100 RON) gas. If the OAR is always at -1, isn't it safe to assume that the octane rating is correct? :shrug:

 

[Glenn G]

Maybe it's a naive question, but isn't OAR on the Accessport meant to provide information on fuel quality (octane rating)? I mean I am Adam tuned on 93+ oct (100 RON - I am in Europe) and I always fill my car with 93+ (100 RON) gas. If the OAR is always at -1, isn't it safe to assume that the octane rating is correct? :shrug:

Germany (and alot of the EU but not all) Have very tough standards for Octane, Alot tougher than the US, I too have only seen my OAR go above -1 only one time (I had to fill up at some podunk little station out in the middle of nowhere).

I don't know the standards in Greece but i'd hazard to say it looks like you are alright.

 

[MakStang]

Thanks Glenn. The fact is that I always fill my car with 100 RON (93+ oct) at large, very central stations, so I assume fuel quality is good. To be honest, I never saw my OAR go above -1. This gives me the feeling that I am safe.

My plan in the next couple of weeks is to buy the Unlimited Tune from Adam and ask him to prepare a tune for 95 RON (91 oct). This way I will be able to run an "octane buffer" as described by [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] (by using a 91 octane tune with 93 octane fuel) during my daily driving or when I plan to travel to places where gas quality is questionable. In other words I can run this "octane buffer" when I am not actually concerned about reaching top performance.

 

[Glenn G]

Thanks Glenn. The fact is that I always fill my car with 100 RON (93+ oct) at large, very central stations, so I assume fuel quality is good. To be honest, I never saw my OAR go above -1. This gives me the feeling that I am safe.

My plan in the next couple of weeks is to buy the Unlimited Tune from Adam and ask him to prepare a tune for 95 RON (91 oct). This way I will be able to run an "octane buffer" as described by @TheLion (by using a 91 octane tune with 93 octane fuel) during my daily driving or when I plan to travel to places where gas quality is questionable. In other words I can run this "octane buffer" when I am not actually concerned about reaching top performance.

I had him add a "Fuel economy map" to my tune for those situations, It disables the electronic boost control and just runs off of the spring, it is also tuned for 95 (91), on the stock turbo it would only hit about .4 bar and while the acceleration sucked I could get 7.5 liters for 100kms. Around town I use it most of the time as it helps driveability in stop and go situations.

 

[MakStang]

That's not a bad idea at all. Thanks for sharing

[MENTION=16952]Glenn G[/MENTION] the problem with your post is that I will be convinced to update to the unlimited tune sooner rather than later! LOL

 

[Jagger]

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

If you're talking about the Canadian Sunoco/Petro Canada 94 then I would still be careful. I remember I ran into seasonal knock inconsistencies (winter gas) on my previously COBB tuned 335i.

Here is an excerpt from a post by Cobb Tuning on NASIOC:

We do not have very many Canadian customers nor do our shops tune very many cars running on Canada's gas. But, we have generally noticed that the 94 octane available there tends to react closer to our 91 or 91ACN gas. As such, generally you can see a lot of knock correction trying to use our 93 maps on the Canadian 94. That seems counter-intuitive, but it is what it is and we've seen it on multiple platforms we support (including Nissan GT-R). We do not have enough data to determine if that is certain regions of Canada where the fuel quality is poor or if there is some other pattern here.

Because of this, we generally recommend that you start with the 91ACN map on any Canadian fuel (of course the fuel has to be rated at 91 octane or higher). If everything looks good (via data logging) and you wish to see if the more aggressive maps will work with your particular gas, then try the 91 map next and then if that looks good, the 93 (assuming you are using 93 or 94 octane gas or higher). Keep in mind that even the 91ACN map has a nice increase in power and driveability over stock. Maximum performance will be had with 93 maps, but if your gas quality is not up to snuff (regardless of the rated octane of your gas), the 93 map will cause you to experience less performance and potential engine damage if you are knocking excessively.

Source: https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2535655

Sponsored