Ecoboost Awakening

[obk787]

When I picked my car up about 2 weeks ago the dealer told me there was regular gas in their (which I was pissed about but what ever) so I ran that tank dry then filled up with 93 BP didnt feel much difference. Ran that thak near dry and filled up again 93 BP and now I am almost at 500 miles and today the car seems like it finally woke up and became a little beast. It just wants to keep pounding through gear and pulling hard to nearly 6k. It feels like a different car.

Anyone else had a similar surprise???

Sponsored

 

[Budzinski]

Was wondering that.. Had my car 2 weeks and still on the same tank from the dealer at 87.. Car seems sluggish and my friends auto Eco seems way faster then my standard.. Hoping it gets a little better with 93.. Heard you only get around 285hp with low grade octane and get the full power with 93

 

[obk787]

Was wondering that.. Had my car 2 weeks and still on the same tank from the dealer at 87.. Car seems sluggish and my friends auto Eco seems way faster then my standard.. Hoping it gets a little better with 93.. Heard you only get around 285hp with low grade octane and get the full power with 93

On 87 octane on dyno to the wheel you push around 240ish to 250 with 93 on higher rpm its peaks at around 270 to the wheel 280 on a nice cool day. I think with 285hp ur referring to the hp rating at the crank

 

[TiE2000]

On 87 octane on dyno to the wheel you push around 240ish to 250 with 93 on higher rpm its peaks at around 270 to the wheel 280 on a nice cool day. I think with 285hp ur referring to the hp rating at the crank

HP rating at crank is 310 (fords claim) Don't think anyone has removed the motor to dyno it yet for true crank HP. People are seeing between 270 and 285 on 91/93 octane and different dynos.

 

[NVulture]

After a 1000 miles on 87 I finally decided to give her the good stuff last night and yes, it definitely feels like a different car. 87 felt sluggish and sort of jumpy off the line. With 93 it takes off smooth and accelerates like a bat outta hell! 93 on normal mode seems faster than 87 in sport mode. Can't wait to flip the switch into sport mode today! Extremely surprised with the difference it makes. Not going to use 87 again...

 

[obk787]

Yea after these results the few dollar money saving per tank is not worth it for the performance of the car as well as health. If the car reacts this differently between two different gas octanes I dont care what Ford says. It cant be good for the health of the car in the long run

 

[5TAR5CR3AM]

I dont care what Ford says. It cant be good for the health of the car in the long run

Can you explain as to why you said this? When you put a lower octance in, the ecu senses it and adjusts accordingly. I seriously doubt any harm will come from using a lower octane on the stock tune.

 

[Sabre]

I can tell you that I was sorely disappointed in both the MPG and power of the 3.5 Ecoboost in my F 150 after I first bought it....not at all what I expected and thought that I was going to get when I bought it. Then, after about 1500 miles on the odometer, it just woke up one day.....like a whole new engine had been put in. I had done nothing different...same style of driving, same gas, same gas source, etc. It then became the pickup and engine that I had thought I was buying....both in HP, throttle response and MPG. I mentioned this to a Ford Rep one day. He smiled and then hinted at ( but would never come right out and say it ) that Ford had built in a bit of a "detune" into the ECM until the vehicle hit a certain mileage limit...a "factory break in period" if you will. I don't know if this what you experienced, but it's what happened to me and my Ecoboost.

 

[Reaper]

Yea after these results the few dollar money saving per tank is not worth it for the performance of the car as well as health. If the car reacts this differently between two different gas octanes I dont care what Ford says. It cant be good for the health of the car in the long run

It won't hurt the engine as someone mentioned before. You might just be feeling the raw I4 more. I don't understand the point in running a charged engine with 87 especially when the performance characteristics change so greatly on the EB.

I can tell you that I was sorely disappointed in both the MPG and power of the 3.5 Ecoboost in my F 150 after I first bought it....not at all what I expected and thought that I was going to get when I bought it. Then, after about 1500 miles on the odometer, it just woke up one day.....like a whole new engine had been put in. I had done nothing different...same style of driving, same gas, same gas source, etc. It then became the pickup and engine that I had thought I was buying....both in HP, throttle response and MPG. I mentioned this to a Ford Rep one day. He smiled and then hinted at ( but would never come right out and say it ) that Ford had built in a bit of a "detune" into the ECM until the vehicle hit a certain mileage limit...a "factory break in period" if you will. I don't know if this what you experienced, but it's what happened to me and my Ecoboost.

This happens with most if not all vehicles as there is some kind of break-in period. I'm sure the break-in might be more noticeable with the EB than my NA V6 per say, due to the configuration with a turbo and running 93.

 

[RubyRacer]

I also noticed a bit of a wake-up after about 1500 miles. I used 93 the entire time I had the car (picked it up with 55 miles on it and had the dealership fill it with 93 when I got it (I was at the gas station with the salesman when he did it). Then it was like a new car around 1500 miles. I thought maybe I constantly got bad 93 until that point, but a break-in period for the car seems more likely, because it hasn't "de-tuned" since 1500 miles, even when I'm getting 93 from the same stations I did before it "woke up."

 

[foghat]

I also noticed a bit of a wake-up after about 1500 miles. I used 93 the entire time I had the car (picked it up with 55 miles on it and had the dealership fill it with 93 when I got it (I was at the gas station with the salesman when he did it). Then it was like a new car around 1500 miles. I thought maybe I constantly got bad 93 until that point, but a break-in period for the car seems more likely, because it hasn't "de-tuned" since 1500 miles, even when I'm getting 93 from the same stations I did before it "woke up."

I hope I experience something similar with my GT. Picked it up today and, honestly, I'm a little underwhelmed with the performance. Only have 30 miles on it right now, so hope that has something to do with it.

 

[Waylap1]

I hope I experience something similar with my GT. Picked it up today and, honestly, I'm a little underwhelmed with the performance. Only have 30 miles on it right now, so hope that has something to do with it.

What car did you drive before this? Just curious. I haven't driven the 2015 GT yet but every time a floor my 2011 GT its a grin maker. I hope I'm not disappointed as well.

 

[Reaper]

I hope I experience something similar with my GT. Picked it up today and, honestly, I'm a little underwhelmed with the performance. Only have 30 miles on it right now, so hope that has something to do with it.

Underwhelmed in a GT? I didn't think that was possible. Are you noticing any performance issues or are you used to driving a Ferrari? ;)

 

[foghat]

What car did you drive before this? Just curious. I haven't driven the 2015 GT yet but every time a floor my 2011 GT its a grin maker. I hope I'm not disappointed as well.

Underwhelmed in a GT? I didn't think that was possible. Are you noticing any performance issues or are you used to driving a Ferrari? ;)

I came from a full bolt on 135i. Was putting about 404hp/460tq to the wheels. Weighed about 3400 pounds. Also, at my altitude (~3600 ft) turbos lose less hp than NA. All that torque made for great get up and go.

I definitely need more seat time in the mustang, I suspect/hope a big part of it is the fact it is a more refined acceleration experience than the bmw.

 

[obk787]

Can you explain as to why you said this? When you put a lower octance in, the ecu senses it and adjusts accordingly. I seriously doubt any harm will come from using a lower octane on the stock tune.

The main reason I say this is because I used to work at a gas station and nearly all gas station tank end up having some water build in tanks from getting fuel delivery in the rain to the seals around the ground tank starting to age which is normal to fractions of a percent and legal u r allowed to because it happens naturally. If u dont believe me and know someone that owns a gas station ask them to print a reading from their gas station tanks. So with that being said the 87 octane you use end up being franctions lower than 87 probably aroung 86.8 or so. Another thing is most gas stations do not put the same amount of performance boosting (detergent type) chemicals in each octane level. usually less in lower octane. This ends up effecting longevity. Usually the best 2 gas stations tend to be BP and shell and the worst with no chemicals being Hess

Sponsored