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

[Spartan]

Not applicable in this situation, where the car in question is cheap and affordable above everything. No one would buy Camrys if they required premium. BMW? different story. Also this engine is being marketed and sold as an efficient and more powerful alternative, but the gas stipulation is in the fine print.

Finally no one is saying they cant afford the gas, but the advantages to the V6 are slim, if any. Torque delivery is it, otherwise it has less power with the same gas, questionable increase in mileage, increased complexity, and worse engine note.

On that last note Ford has done a commendable job with sound tuning and cancellation, however one still has to question being forced into a $1500ish premium. Furthermore, one can only imagine what Ford could have gotten out of the V6 with some massaging

I mean if you push any of these engines, the economy is going to go down for them all anyway. I mean it's all relative. The EB is going to deliver better MPG and even with the higher gas cost, it's still going to be more efficient so if anything it's a wash at normal speeds. When you hammer them like the reviewers have done, the GT was getting like 12 mpg..while the EB was still getting around 22 mpg. The V6 would probably be getting like 15mpg so the EB still wins here also.

Sponsored

 

[neodark]

I think the V6 is still worth mentioning if you will get very similar or better performance due to lack of 93 availability for the EB.

 

[Spartan]

I think the V6 is still worth mentioning if you will get very similar or better performance due to lack of 93 availability for the EB.

Im sure it will still be a nice car. Just silly Ford didn't let US decide if we wanted a V6 or EB in premium or with PP.

Stupid CAFE.

 

[jeebuspwnz]

Lack of availability? I can't easily get 93 in FL. I agree with you though, the difference between 87/93 price is negligible. On the plus side, I live at sea level.

If I'm going to be running 91, will I break 300hp?

If the % turns out to be on point, it would suck to lose 40HP either way.

That didn't cross my mind... and it's definitely something that Ford should comment on.

Ford doesn't have to comment on that at all. It's quite common for turbo cars to have their horsepower ratings set while using 93 octane despite the fact that much of the country cannot get it. I'd expect around 10hp drop using 91 vs 93.

 

[e30og]

Affordability of the car, has nothing to do with it. It's about intent, or reason for buying/owning a SPORTS CAR..

Sorry to hear, that the choice of recommended gas for a sports car is a problem for you.

Secondly, it is not about cost, because with the added performance you loose, (or gain..) is also in EFFECIENCY. Your engine operates better, & more efficient at higher octane ratings, thus you use less gas.

The price offset to not using 91~94 day to day, is childish and ancillary for a sports car owner. If your dire, it's always understandable but that is not what we are discussing, is it?

Who buys a Mustang, to treat it like a Camry ..? And why are you still talking about the V6..?

Instead of trying to imply I have a dire financial situation when it comes to fuel, watch the attitude and focus on the points I am making. Reason with me here...the EB is a great effort but it is barely an upgrade from the (intentionally) dated V6. If EFFICIENCY is what you are concerned with, consider the flipside where the V6 outperforms the EB on 87 and real world mileage is the same, unless the V6 also outperforms the EB on 87. Money aside, the EB is a motor is a less efficient machine. Furthermore, if the V6 was given a real shot, updated in addition to DI, no doubt it would pull the EB power numbers or maybe even exceed them.

while 5 bucks a fillup isnt breaking the bank, $1500 cost and a forced powertrain for premium trim is a different story. Maybe not a dealbreaker, but a sore spot for a motor that is barely an upgrade and is so sensitive to fuel type. If I had my way (and other people agree) I would have a V6 premium. Im pumped for the EB (I did buy one) but I think Ford fell short

 

[w3rkn]

Instead of trying to imply I have a dire financial situation when it comes to fuel, watch the attitude and focus on the points I am making. Reason with me here...the EB is a great effort but it is barely an upgrade from the (intentionally) dated V6. If EFFICIENCY is what you are concerned with, consider the flipside where the V6 outperforms the EB on 87 and real world mileage is the same, unless the V6 also outperforms the EB on 87. Money aside, the EB is a motor is a less efficient machine. Furthermore, if the V6 was given a real shot, updated in addition to DI, no doubt it would pull the EB power numbers or maybe even exceed them.

while 5 bucks a fillup isnt breaking the bank, $1500 cost and a forced powertrain for premium trim is a different story. Maybe not a dealbreaker, but a sore spot for a motor that is barely an upgrade and is so sensitive to fuel type. If I had my way (and other people agree) I would have a V6 premium. Im pumped for the EB (I did buy one) but I think Ford fell short

Sorry, I was not insinuating anything, You were...
That the only difference in 87 octane & 91 is soley based on cost... and that cost is what drives your only decision. Cost.. cost... cost.

I was asking about performance & efficiency... and that the cost of 91 octane is negligible, something you are making a big deal out of.


Secondly, doesn't matter what the v6 stats are, it simple doesn't have 320ft-lbs of torque... so no amount of 91 octane will improve it. But the EB can easily be improved by a simple TUNE.. making the v6 moot. I don't think you will even care about a v6, once you take your EB Stang for a ride.

 

[stilesg57]

For the record, I am NOT advocating putting lower octane fuel in any turbo car. Put in the best you can; not doing so is absolutely a false economy.

That said, I'm just not going to believe this 40hp drop stuff until I see dynos showing that much of a hit. I still have my old dyno print outs from a dozen years ago: my old WRX dropped just 11whp at stage 2 (232whp -> 221whp) going from 91 to 85. Yes, my then-broke ass wanted a cheap-gas map. Also, that's not a typo: 85 is the low grade here, with 87 the mid grade and 91 primo. Welcome to Colorado ;)

~35whp drop going from 93 to 87 when my way less advanced, non-direct injected old ej20 dropped 11whp? Like i said: I'll believe it when I see the dynos.

 

[neodark]

Secondly, doesn't matter what the v6 stats are, it simple doesn't have 320ft-lbs of torque... so no amount of 91 octane will improve it. But the EB can easily be improved by a simple TUNE.. making the v6 moot. I don't think you will even care about a v6, once you take your EB Stang for a ride.

While it's very true that the twin scroll turbo makes the EB have more torque. (Especially on the low end vs the V6). It's also reasonable that it will follow a similar loss as HP which is about 42tq loss.

Or: EB 270hp/278tq vs V6 300hp/270tq

To be fair though, it's all speculation at this point... Simply based on some reviews. We won't know for sure until these cars are on the dyno. But, based on this... the V6 makes more sense, unless you run on 91/93 octane.

 

[geokots]

While it's very true that the twin scroll turbo makes the EB have more torque. (Especially on the low end vs the V6). It's also reasonable that it will follow a similar loss as HP which is about 42tq loss.

Or: EB 270hp/278tq vs V6 300hp/270tq

To be fair though, it's all speculation at this point... Simply based on some reviews. We won't know for sure until these cars are on the dyno. But, based on this... the V6 makes more sense, unless you run on 91/93 octane.

I see where your assumptions came from but HP is not tied to TQ. My understanding is that while octane can have a significant impact to HP on forced air engines it has less of an impact on TQ.

 

[geokots]

"Ecoboost can run on 87 octane "all day long", while losing 13 percent of its power, but retaining its peak torque."

 

[neodark]

Hmmm... I missed that, thanks.

 

[Butter77]

As one of my crazy college professors once put it....."Horsepower gets you to the end of the straight.....Torque gets you up outta da hole!" True story....

I'm pretty sure nobody ordering a 2.3 is trying to break land speed records with it....from what we have ALL read, the engine runs out of steam after 5K. Gimme all that torque down low where I can use it everyday. 13% drop in HP? Big whoop. Throw a tune at it for a couple hundred and you won't be worried about it anymore.

 

[e30og]

peak torque is more or less retained, however I would like to see where it is and for how long on 87. Specifically what the dyno looks like on 87 in comparison

 

[e30og]

Edmunds reports 270hp on 87

that being said i'm sure its perfectly safe for the engine itself if the ECU adjusts output that low, but its a heck of a drop!

 

[w3rkn]

peak torque is more or less retained, however I would like to see where it is and for how long on 87. Specifically what the dyno looks like on 87 in comparison

Why..?

If you are in fact looking at dyno charts, then you are concerned with performance, and/or efficiency. So why your fascination with 87 octane. Do you know what it is?


So what are you all on about..? Can't you get 91 octane..? Or you so anal, you have to min/max an internal discussion with yourself, to all..? As I can't think of one reason not to use 91+ octane. Unless after a concert, late at night and all you had was pocket money, etc.

Otherwise, why buy a MUSTANG, and be ultra concerned about 91 octane. Help me out here...

Sponsored