Advice for Ecoboost options

[Dirty-EB-Chicago]

To the OP. Who is your plug? I wanta get on your level

Sponsored

 

[yomamma219]

So to clear things up with the Ford performance tune: I have read antidotes on this forum saying you can run 87 octane with it. I have never seen any official documentation stating this. The warranty sheet from ford performance expressly says that using 91 octane is a requirement and any damage caused by using less than 91 octane is not covered by the warranty.

Not sure if anyone cleared that up on page 2 because I got tired of reading all the banter.

OP I am by no means an expert on tunes but I have done a bit of research deciding if I wanted to go that route myself. It sounds like running a custom set of tunes would be best for what you want. It would probably be risky and a bit more expensive but from what I have seen I don't see a more valid option. I mean there are always "stage 0" tunes but they seem like hog wash.

 

[Spykexx]

So to clear things up with the Ford performance tune: I have read antidotes on this forum saying you can run 87 octane with it. I have never seen any official documentation stating this. The warranty sheet from ford performance expressly says that using 91 octane is a requirement and any damage caused by using less than 91 octane is not covered by the warranty.

Not sure if anyone cleared that up on page 2 because I got tired of reading all the banter.

OP I am by no means an expert on tunes but I have done a bit of research deciding if I wanted to go that route myself. It sounds like running a custom set of tunes would be best for what you want. It would probably be risky and a bit more expensive but from what I have seen I don't see a more valid option. I mean there are always "stage 0" tunes but they seem like hog wash.

There was a post in the FRPP tune thread with a member talking to FR about running 87. They stated running 87 is fine as long as you make sure to keep octane adjust set to On.

 

[jbailer]

The problem with talking to FP Techs who should be the experts on this is... their not. Most of the time when you call in there the guys that answer the phone are absolutely clueless, I mean REALLY dumb. The last time I called, I was talking to a guy about the software and the tune, he seriously had no idea they were 2 separate things and kept arguing with me. The guy beside him must have heard him saying stupid things and took the phone. He understood what I was talking about but just didn't have any information.

I'm sure if you got the right person at Ford Performance they would give you the correct answer. It is absolutely ok to run 87 on this tune. I had a good conversation with a guy who actually knew what he was talking about. He said this was new for Ford Performance and that's why there's so much conflicting information. This is the first application they've allowed 87 octane. All of their other tunes require 91. I told him what it said in the warranty and he said he would get it fixed.

Again, what I say means absolutely nothing because I'm not the one paying for repairs if your engine blows. In the end, you need to get it from FP and if you want it to be legal, it needs to be in writing. I actually have that in my email archive along with FP saying that I could use any other intake with their tune and it wouldn't impact their warranty.

 

[Spykexx]

The problem with talking to FP Techs who should be the experts on this is... their not. Most of the time when you call in there the guys that answer the phone are absolutely clueless, I mean REALLY dumb. The last time I called, I was talking to a guy about the software and the tune, he seriously had no idea they were 2 separate things and kept arguing with me. The guy beside him must have heard him saying stupid things and took the phone. He understood what I was talking about but just didn't have any information.

I'm sure if you got the right person at Ford Performance they would give you the correct answer. It is absolutely ok to run 87 on this tune. I had a good conversation with a guy who actually knew what he was talking about. He said this was new for Ford Performance and that's why there's so much conflicting information. This is the first application they've allowed 87 octane. All of their other tunes require 91. I told him what it said in the warranty and he said he would get it fixed.

Again, what I say means absolutely nothing because I'm not the one paying for repairs if your engine blows. In the end, you need to get it from FP and if you want it to be legal, it needs to be in writing. I actually have that in my email archive along with FP saying that I could use any other intake with their tune and it wouldn't impact their warranty.

What this man said ^:cheers:

 

[yomamma219]

Not trying to start an argument as I don't doubt that 87 is ok for general use on the tune. I was just telling him what I have read in the warranty paperwork for power packs on (ecoboost is listed as one of the options) on the Ford performance website. It explicity says damage caused by using fuel other than 91 or higher is not covered. There is a whole section titled "Premium Fuel Requirements"

Again not saying 87 is bad (mmkay) just putting in the warranty info since I thought that the OP had an interest in warranties.

 

[jbailer]

Not trying to start an argument as I don't doubt that 87 is ok for general use on the tune. I was just telling him what I have read in the warranty paperwork for power packs on (ecoboost is listed as one of the options) on the Ford performance website. It explicity says damage caused by using fuel other than 91 or higher is not covered. There is a whole section titled "Premium Fuel Requirements"

Again not saying 87 is bad (mmkay) just putting in the warranty info since I thought that the OP had an interest in warranties.

I hope it didn't sound like I was arguing, not the intent at all. Everything you said is valid and also goes to my point. At this point allowing 87 octane on the tune is new to FP and they're a little screwed up with it.

Personally I think it's silly to even allow it for all the reasons everyone has said. It just doesn't make sense to pay for more performance and then run 87 octane gas. However then comes someone that really would like that and if it's ok with them, that's their business. We're all free to spend our money as we wish and our goals are our own.

 

[jtmat]

We're all free to spend our money as we wish and our goals are our own.

Exactly... I don't get where this thread went.... OP can do what he/she wants... the first post should have warded off the trolls... the first post laid out a clear position.

With that said, I would not run it (or any tune) with 87 either.

 

[5Mad]

Exactly... I don't get where this thread went.... OP can do what he/she wants... the first post should have warded off the trolls... the first post laid out a clear position.

I politely asked twice in that post for them not to do that. They can't help it. Lack of emotional control. Which is based on many things. An example:

Flame away, but running 91+ in an EB will give you more MPG

The poster is against 87 octane in an Ecoboost Mustang. So, given he doesn't run it, how would he know about mpg in it with that fuel? The answer is obvious: "he doesn't."

Octane and mpg do not go together. If they did you'd be getting 3X+ better mileage than a diesel. Diesel isn't really measured on octane but the octane rating is about 15-25. Ethanol has higher octane than gasoline but less energy density. 87, 89, and 93 octane where I'm located all have the same percentage of ethanol and gasoline. Same energy density.

Mpg won't improve with 93 over 87 as the gas/ethanol content is the same. Running 87 results in the engine compensating for the lower octane and you get less power - not less mpg. Which is obvious to those understanding what octane means. Pure gasoline would get better mpg but it must be available. We have ethanol/gasoline mixes here.

Find an E85 car. Test it. 15% ethanol. Fleet use has shown 76% of the mpg over pure gasoline. Higher octane. Lower mpg. "Energy density."

The problem with talking to FP Techs who should be the experts on this is... their not.

When I first spoke with him his position was it was ok. Then he started backtracking. Might as well write a book.

Octane is R+M/2 here. It's right on the pump. The "R" is really "motor at idle." "M" is "motor under heavy load." So R+M/2 adds the RON and MON and then divides the result to get an average. Pound the car hard and you're closer to MON. Drive with a sedate manner and you're nearer RON. DIN EN 228 has requirements for 95 octane RON and 85 octane MON for "super" rated gas. Difference is 10. R+M/2 would be 90 of course. Drive sedately and you're closer to 85. Drive hard and you're nearer to 95. Significant. This is without introducing temperatures and such. Bottom line is the higher octane is needed most at max load and least at idle. "Driving habits" is the big issue.

Running 87 with that Ford tune would probably be a bad idea for somebody driving the car aggressively but not a huge deal for a sedate driver. I burn 87 in that Lincoln engine. It's supposed to get 91+. It's a Jaguar engine. Pretty advanced all things considered. At 3.9L it had 20 more hp and 66 more ft/lbs of torque over the the Mustangs 5.0L the year they were made. Dual overhead cams, variable valve timing, etc., Burning 93 octane and you can pound away. Burn 87 and you'll get knock under heavy load. Up to at least 3/4 throttle it won't knock. Floored it will. RON/MON at work.

The Ecoboost is tuned and the engine management can deal with 87 octane gas all day long. Part of the requirement Ford placed on the car. With that FP tune it's meant for 91+. With that tune, driving aggressively a lot, 87 is probably not wanted. Sedate driving probably wouldn't matter. Driving habits more than anything. The only way to know would be to test it and see if one can induce knock. If so the answer would be apparent. Do I suggest that? No. I suggest people buy Prius cars and never exceed 25mph. My safety disclaimer...

Which gets to that point but doesn't really apply to me. As mentioned I have a Lincoln that requires 91 but has been running on 87 for 14 years and a heck of a lot of miles. My car. The wife wanted a colorful convertible. Ecoboost Mustang. The only improvement she was interested in was the rear license plate bracket upgrade. Skipping the locking lug thing anyway. "The car is fine the way it is." Yes, it is. She'll put whatever gas into it she wants. Unlike many posters here I'm not big on making other people's decisions for them. She puts 87 in. That's fine; the car can deal with that. Periodically I wouldn't mind taking it out and hitting the thing for a week or two. With that performance kit I could install the CAI and the tune. After filling the tank with better gas and letting it flow through first. Then take it on the highway for a nice hard drive to tune it. Then get my "week's rental of it with power." Then put it back for her.

Eventually it'll be given to one of the sons. Put the CAI on and put the tune in. "Burn good gas and hit it as hard as you want." That.

After speaking with FP I'm going to skip the intercooler upgrade.

Cheers.

 

[jbailer]

The ECU will always push the timing to a safe knock limit to give it the most power. I really don't think it matters what octane you're running unless you want more power of course. The higher octane will allow more timing advance. The ECU continuously monitoring how much knock is detected will sense less and advance the timing more giving more power.

I can't imagine what the FP tech said to you to convince you an FMIC upgrade wouldn't help, that might even be amusing. I would strongly encourage you to chalk that up to yet another misleading or uninformed comment from them and talk to a respected performance shop. Many of us on the forum data logged charge air temps and showed that during a hard pull, the stock FMIC was terrible! The CATs climbed exponentially near red line. Upgrading to a good FMIC (I got the ATM), on a cooler day, my CATs actually went down. On a very hot day, they only went up slightly but stayed relatively close to the IAT compared to the factory FMIC. The ECU has to pull timing for those high CATs to protect from pre-ignition and protect the engine.

 

[Glenn G]

Op, the most limiting factor on these engines after the horrible stock tune and intercooler is octane.

I won't go into a long diatribe but More power from less displacement requires more cylinder pressure, which requires octane.

if i could only have 3 mods, they would be a Tune, Intercooler and 93+,(yes consider 93 a mod if you must) intakes are for sound only and the stock exhaust is OKish

One of the reasons the stock
ford tune is so bad is that they had to allow enough margin for the car to correct itself in the event someone puts 97 in it after driving around on 93 for a while.
Do not take my word for it (and you won't, I can tell)

get an OBD2 bluetooth adapter for less than 10 bucks, monitor your knock levels on 87 then 9,. Even under light boost.

87 is so bad for emissions and engines that it's been banned in Germany.

To put it in perspective, this car cannot reach the full potential of the stock tune and parts on 87, Modding it without octane is pointless.

 

[5Mad]

The ECU will always push the timing to a safe knock limit to give it the most power. I really don't think it matters what octane you're running unless you want more power of course. The higher octane will allow more timing advance. The ECU continuously monitoring how much knock is detected will sense less and advance the timing more giving more power.

The Lincoln is pretty close to being able to deal with it so I figure 14 years of engine management improvements probably gets there. Only way to know would be to test it really.

I can't imagine what the FP tech said to you to convince you an FMIC upgrade wouldn't help

Didn't say he said it wouldn't help. Said after talking to him I was likely going to skip it.

 

[5Mad]

87 is so bad for emissions and engines that it's been banned in Germany.

German gas octane is RON. In the US it's R+M/2. Thus, according to the German standard (DIN EN 228) the octane ratings are as follows:

Benzin: 91
Super: 95
Super Plus: 98.

R+M/2 typically shows RON is 10 higher than MON. Add and divide by two:

Benzin. 91 RON so about 81 MON. R+M/2 = 86.
Super. 95 RON so about 85 MON. R+M/2 = 90.
Super Plus. 100 RON. So about 95 MON. R+M/2 = 94.

I was aware that "regular" was disappearing but hadn't heard it had been outlawed. Regular "Benzin" in Germany is 91 RON, or about 86 using our octane formula. Then again it's been heard they're going to outlaw gasoline by 2030. That's a pollution thing though.

If your after the pollution thing buy a Tesla. Then, imho, you're burning coal instead of gas. Quite the improvement.

Looking back at the German thing, "Super" isn't rated for the Ford Tune as it's only 90 octane using the R+M/2 standard. You'd need Super Plus in Germany. Check DIN EN 228.

Cheers.

 

[Notes]

Op, the most limiting factor on these engines after the horrible stock tune and intercooler is octane.

I won't go into a long diatribe but More power from less displacement requires more cylinder pressure, which requires octane.

if i could only have 3 mods, they would be a Tune, Intercooler and 93+,(yes consider 93 a mod if you must) intakes are for sound only and the stock exhaust is OKish

One of the reasons the stock
ford tune is so bad is that they had to allow enough margin for the car to correct itself in the event someone puts 97 in it after driving around on 93 for a while.
Do not take my word for it (and you won't, I can tell)

get an OBD2 bluetooth adapter for less than 10 bucks, monitor your knock levels on 87 then 9,. Even under light boost.

87 is so bad for emissions and engines that it's been banned in Germany.

To put it in perspective, this car cannot reach the full potential of the stock tune and parts on 87, Modding it without octane is pointless.

I had to wrap my head around the 93 octane for a second, but then I figured that's the same as our 98+ in Belgium. Thx to wiki, interesting read btw!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

 

[solodogg]

The poster is against 87 octane in an Ecoboost Mustang. So, given he doesn't run it, how would he know about mpg in it with that fuel? The answer is obvious: "he doesn't."

Octane and mpg do not go together. If they did you'd be getting 3X+ better mileage than a diesel. Diesel isn't really measured on octane but the octane rating is about 15-25.

Mpg won't improve with 93 over 87 as the gas/ethanol content is the same. Running 87 results in the engine compensating for the lower octane and you get less power - not less mpg. Which is obvious to those understanding what octane means. Pure gasoline would get better mpg but it must be available. We have ethanol/gasoline mixes here.

Find an E85 car. Test it. 15% ethanol. Fleet use has shown 76% of the mpg over pure gasoline. Higher octane. Lower mpg. "Energy density."

The Ecoboost is tuned and the engine management can deal with 87 octane gas all day long.

As mentioned I have a Lincoln that requires 91 but has been running on 87 for 14 years and a heck of a lot of miles.

"The car is fine the way it is."

She'll put whatever gas into it she wants. Unlike many posters here I'm not big on making other people's decisions for them. She puts 87 in. That's fine; the car can deal with that.

Eventually it'll be given to one of the sons. Put the CAI on and put the tune in. "Burn good gas and hit it as hard as you want."

After speaking with FP I'm going to skip the intercooler upgrade.

Why oh why do I continue to feed the troll. Oh well, here's another waste of 10 minutes of my time touching on some points from his past comment that leads me to believe he is f*cking with all of us...

1.) I know the difference between 87 and 93 because my car was purchased pre-owned from someone who only ran 87 and logged every fill up on Fuelly. I followed his logs, and ran 3 talks of 87 myself prior to switching to 93. Power went up TREMENDOUSLY (my wife asked me if I had already modified the tune), and fuel economy went up 1-1.5mpg in all city driving. I have detailed logs if you need proof of this.

2.) Clearly this statement tells me you know nothing about modern engines. Diesels run 100% on compression alone, not spark/timing, thus your comparison is silly at best. If fuel was the only thing that contributed to MPG, manufacturers wouldn't need to employ engineers to maximize efficiency. Octane is a measure of the point where the fuel goes bang. Higher octane, higher resistance to compression pre-ignition. Keep all of this in mind for a later point...

3.) You were ALMOST correct on something, but failed to understand that more timing without pre-ignition means more efficiency, thus higher octane does mean higher MPG when it can be efficiently used. Your statement would be correct for a platform that cannot advance timing to take advantage of a higher octane fuel, but would be 100% incorrect for one that can increase ignition timing.

4.) E85 requires more fuel for the same amount of bang per ignition, thus the lower fuel economy. While it does have a higher resistance to compression pre-ignition, so does water...would that increase performance? Once again, comparing different fuel types is stupid, and doesn't apply to your argument.

5.) The ecoboost is tuned for 91+, plan and simple. MPG ratings were done on premium fuel, horsepower ratings were done on premium fuel. The ECU compensates for 87 because they knew most Americans were cheap asses, and would not spend the extra money to make the car run properly. Jump in engineers who spent many hours de-tuning the car so that your wife could save $5 at the pump.

6.) We get it, you own a Lincoln LS you are very proud of. Congratulations! With that out of the way, your Lincoln does not have a turbocharger on it, and does not run at the very edge of its tuning abilities. While your car can run 87, I can assure you it does not like it. Thank an engineer who knew people like you would be an issue, and didn't tune the car on the edge of its life.

7.) So...if you don't tell people what to do, why are you modifying it if she thinks it's fine the way it is?

8.) If she wanted to cook a turkey using gasoline and a blow torch, you would be ok with that also? My wife likes to pack the gas tank as full as she can, when I found out and informed her that it could possibly damage some of the emissions components, she thanked me for telling her and quit. She also runs 93 in her Ecoboost Edge...

9.) You'll tell a kid to burn good gas, but not a wife? Makes sense...

10.) Should have asked Ford about CAI's and spark plugs while you were at it. Yeah might have told you the car "is good enough the way it is"


Seriously...I still don't understand why someone would come on an Internet forum to ask for advice, start out by saying they won't listen to anyone telling them to do the one thing that even the manufacturer of the car recommends, then spend days arguing why he is right and everyone else is wrong. But, then again, I have just spent another 10 minutes arguing with an idiot, and not beating on my car...:headbonk:

Sponsored