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

[DanFish]

I posed that question on Cobb's website and Kyle responded that none of their tunes worked with 87 octane fuel. I plan on using mine for a daily driver and to take it on vacations which makes finding 93 difficult or impossible to find. In other words, I want an option to use 87 when needed. When you're cruising down the interstate at 80 mph, the extra power doesn't mean anything.

Ideally, the stock tune would be an available option to switch to on the fly if needed. My plan to purchase a Cobb tune or anyone else's is fading rapidly unless this becomes an option.

Jim

You could use COBBs 91 Octane maps. 91 can be found everywhere in the US. In Azirona we don't have 93 so I have to use 91 myself.

Sponsored

 

[wireless]

I could notice a huge difference between 87 and 93 oct on my Ecostang.

93 felt much better. 87 the car was a dog... lol.

 

[jholtz]

You could use COBBs 91 Octane maps. 91 can be found everywhere in the US. In Azirona we don't have 93 so I have to use 91 myself.

Western Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and California are very limited in high octane fuel. I need to be able to pull off I-80, fill and hop back on when traveling. I can get 91/93 locally in central Iowa without too much inconvenience but not traveling west which is where we frequently go to visit relatives and wine country. I want to split the love between the new Mustang and my Outback so I can keep the miles in check. :lol:

Jim

 

[69mach1-395]

90 is a common max here at 5000 feet of elevation.

 

[Lord Thunder]

Again a hint that the EB engine was really built with Europe in mind? Our 'regular' fuel is all 91 octane (RON95) and premium fuels are 93-ish. (RON97+)

 

[Mikeiscoo2]

Cross post from general forums, and source: edmunds review



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.

you cant get a performance pack on the V6's

 

[zackmd1]

you cant get a performance pack on the V6's

You can put the pack together yourself using OEM Ford parts/aftermarket.

 

[usa1]

Still, 13% seems like a lot, especially since the 5.0L only looses 1%.

Are there similar premium/regular dyno results of the 5.0 that show a 1% difference?

 

[Anvil3]

There seems to be a noticeable difference between 93 and 87. I'm pretty sure that my car was delivered with 87 and felt a little sluggish compared to another EB that I tested. I run my car on 93 and it feels right now.

Also agree with above. For fun driving, use the S+ mode. It wakes up the car nicely. The Track mode is even more aggressive, but no traction control. For highway droning, leave it in normal.

If you're test driving the EB, make sure to ask if it's running on 93 (then try to determine if the person answers truthfully). And don't forget to drive it in the S+ mode at least.

 

[Mishimoto]

Hey guys,

We completed dyno pulls with both 87 and 93 octane on our completely stock EB Mustang. Check out the plots below.

Thanks

 

[Merle]

Hey guys,

We completed dyno pulls with both 87 and 93 octane on our completely stock EB Mustang. Check out the plots below.

Thanks

Does this mean V6 is as FAST or FASTER?

 

[69mach1-395]

I think it was said before, but the difference doesn't really show up until about 5k rpm. For DD, not much time spent there to notice the diff. i guess if/when you track/race it, it is worth it.

 

[Runner12]

Got now official numbers:
2.3 EcoBoost engine with:
87 octane :275Hp 300 torque
93 octane :310Hp 320 torque.

That's a loss of 35 hp!

I am on Ford training and did see the numbers today. Torque is 87/300 to 93/320!

I just saw this news made it's way to autoblog... they have a Ford rep said the torque listed in the training document was before the engine was certified.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-loses-big-power-on-87-octane/

The dyno from Mishimoto not showing as bad of a loss but still not "torque remains unchanged" like they are claiming.

Truth somewhere in the middle :shrug:

Hey guys,

We completed dyno pulls with both 87 and 93 octane on our completely stock EB Mustang. Check out the plots below.

Thanks

 

[tg33316]

I plan to buy a 15 v6 or EB this year. I will get more fun driving one of these than a GT in metro areas. My concern with the EB is loss of performance due to hot humid weather in ft lauderdale. I have owned 4 turbo cars over the yrs and performance was always dependent on fuel quality and humidity and temperature. I have read and experienced that you can expect 5 -10% loss in hp and reduced torque due to these factors. This has been the case with 2 Audis a Shelby Charger and a Merkur XR4TI ....all turbos. I don't look forward to trying to put my right foot through the floor to try to get the engine to perform to it's max and wonder if there is a performance issue with the engine. The other concern is if you have turbo failure post warranty, I am concerned with replacement cost...I have read that vw 2 litre turbos cost to replace is north of $3000. So I may be faced with buying a v6 manual 3.55 and buy after mkt sway bars....urethane bushings and othe components as needed.

 

[wireless]

well, for what it's worth, you don't need to put the foot to the floor to enjoy the EB engine like you do the V6.

You really need to ring out the V6 -- it's two different style cars to drive. The V6 loves to be held until redline, and the EB is a low/mid range monster.

Plus, regardless of heatsoak, a tune on the EB will make you forget about the V6. That's the best $500 or so you could spend on the car. The numbers you get from a tuned Ecoboost would take a LOT more money to match on the V6.

Regarding the replacement cost... well, simply put, we just aren't there yet. I do know that vw 2.0 turbo's don't cost ANYWHERE near $3,000 to replace.

I think if you want a fun car to drive, you should go with the Ecoboost. It's going to respond fantastically to mods. N/A engines do get heatsoaked as well, don't forget that.

Sponsored