2015 Ecoboost recommended octane - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 09-17-2015, 12:13 PM   #1
Wex
Registered User
Newbie
 
Wex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Jacksonville
Region: Florida
Posts: 6
2015 Ecoboost recommended octane

Just got mine a few weeks ago. I've been putting 93 octane, is there a huge difference between 93 and 87?
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByMustang Evolution1442509950.394465.jpg
Views:	401
Size:	77.2 KB
ID:	191273


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Wex is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-17-2015, 12:42 PM   #2
Registered Member

Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Spokane
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,598
Run a couple of tanks of both, and track your mpg, idle smoothness etc....but only if you are trying to save money at the pump.

One thing I AM sure of is that the total HP and torque ratings quoted for your engine by Ford, are on 93 octane.

I've had two EB's......I admit they were the bigger 3.5...... But both got 10% better mpg on premium, and seemed to idle more smoothly. The engines had noticeably more pep, especially when I was towing.
You bought a performance engine......put the higher octane in it.
Guard 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 12:56 PM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
I believe car and driver did this test and found 30 hp loss with regular. Although it can run fine on 87 for optimal performance use premium


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-17-2015, 01:31 PM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,450
Check the fuel door and see if its lists premium fuel as required. Personally, a boosted performance vehicle should always be run on 93, but yes, you will notice a substantial performance decrease on 87 vs 93.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 01:54 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
jande063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Virginia Beach
Region: Virginia
Posts: 474
Car and driver found a decent difference during the 2015 lightning lap at VIR. On 87, the car would not develop anywhere close to full boost. Granted on that warmish day, it would not get there on 93 either, but it got substantially closer.
__________________
2014 Mustang V6-Built to run TTB, CAM-C, and ESP

Proving to my fellow racers that the disdain that some GT drivers have for V6 drivers is unfounded, one results archive at a time since 2013.
jande063 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 02:35 PM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
Older turbo cars generally will knock if you run 87. With the Eco boost fords knock sensors will actually detune the car and not run at full potential so it's safe just makes less horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 03:28 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
Panther140's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: xxx
Region: Other
Posts: 1,473
If you want to run the cheapest available gas through a 4 cylinder engine in your car, Im not sure you're the same kinda mustang guy that I am lol.


I run 93 NO FREAKING ETHANOL in my car and get 26-27 highway mpg on a bad day lol. My record is 30.7mpg on a very humid/damp day babying it. Ive never tried to run 87 in it. If you ever grab the 10% ethanol handle with 87 octane gas, that is the defining moment telling you that you can no longer afford a performance car.


You know how they make chicken nuggets? Same exact process is used for making 87 E10.
They take the waste from the gasoline manufacturing process and sell it as "fuel" to people in buick enclaves and minivans...
Panther140 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 03:36 PM   #8
Wex
Registered User
Newbie
 
Wex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Jacksonville
Region: Florida
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther140 View Post
If you want to run the cheapest available gas through a 4 cylinder engine in your car, Im not sure you're the same kinda mustang guy that I am lol.


I run 93 NO FREAKING ETHANOL in my car and get 26-27 highway mpg on a bad day lol. My record is 30.7mpg on a very humid/damp day babying it. Ive never tried to run 87 in it. If you ever grab the 10% ethanol handle with 87 octane gas, that is the defining moment telling you that you can no longer afford a performance car.


You know how they make chicken nuggets? Same exact process is used for making 87 E10.
They take the waste from the gasoline manufacturing process and sell it as "fuel" to people in buick enclaves and minivans...
lol....yes, point taken
Wex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 04:43 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarzTA17 View Post
Older turbo cars generally will knock if you run 87. With the Eco boost fords knock sensors will actually detune the car and not run at full potential so it's safe just makes less horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
The problem with that logic is that waiting for the knock sensors to pull timing is still a reactive approach. They only active if there has been, or is, knock, which is bad. One should run the appropriate octane for their vehicle to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther140 View Post
If you want to run the cheapest available gas through a 4 cylinder engine in your car, Im not sure you're the same kinda mustang guy that I am lol.


I run 93 NO FREAKING ETHANOL in my car and get 26-27 highway mpg on a bad day lol. My record is 30.7mpg on a very humid/damp day babying it. Ive never tried to run 87 in it. If you ever grab the 10% ethanol handle with 87 octane gas, that is the defining moment telling you that you can no longer afford a performance car.


You know how they make chicken nuggets? Same exact process is used for making 87 E10.
They take the waste from the gasoline manufacturing process and sell it as "fuel" to people in buick enclaves and minivans...
You realize ethanol is a good thing right, provides knock suppression. Ever heard of E(thanol)-85 the 10% Ethanol fuel will take you further as far as performance is concerned, it just has a marginal impact on MPG. And i do mean marginal, adding 10% ethanol is 1.6 gallons per 16 gallon tank (for the sake of argument) will increase fueling needs by 3.5% from ethanol free fuel. Assuming your car makes 26 mpg on ethanol free fuel it would get 25.22 on the 10% ethanol fuel. Food for thought.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 06:38 PM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
Waylap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: US
Region: New Hampshire
Posts: 820
The Ethanol may be good for some but I had real world experience with Ford Test vehicles that soured it for me.
My agency was given free E85 test cars to use for a year. Required to put at least 3k miles a month on them. They were all junk within 6 months and crushed after their engineers examined them and made changes to make them barely marketable to the public.
It may be vastly different now but I will forever search for ethanol free gas if it's available. Especially in a Non flex fuel vehicle or smaller engines like lawn mowers, motorcycles, boats etc.
More octane rating does not equal race car. (But the EB does really need 93 for full potential)
Many of us grew up as marketing targets that "premium unleaded" was in fact premium or "the good stuff". Many high compression and FI cars need it or run at reduced horsepower without it. My GT doesn't have to have it but since placebo effect...I feel like I'm treating my car better and cleaner (which is a joke, it's not any cleaner") and I doubt on my daily commute I notice or use the extra 10-15 hp but it's worth it to me.
It's just one of those life quality quirks that feels good..like not skimping on toilet paper quality or razors or discount cola.
Waylap1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 06:51 PM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,260
For all you nut swingers tear down a motor that has been ran on e85 and one that has been ran on regular gas.
Actually do it don't assume DO IT! and then you will see what I'm talking about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with e85.


🍼and 🌽 fed coyote.
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 07:41 PM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: HARTWELL LAKE AREA
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapinator126 View Post
for all you nut swingers tear down a motor that has been ran on e85 and one that has been ran on regular gas.
Actually do it don't assume do it! And then you will see what i'm talking about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with e85.


🍼and 🌽 fed coyote.
agreed ^^^^^^
you will find the e85 engine is in better all around shape. The bearings will show less wear,the cylinder walls will most likely still show cross-hatch @ 100k,the internals will all be cleaner.this is of course if the engine has was designed to run e-85. Most engines in the last 30 years have been designed for e-85. Why would f-1 racers or top fuel drag engines run it if it was so bad on engines
ALLYDRIVER1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 08:12 PM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
I just don't understand why someone would buy a 310 HP sports car and put crappy 87 octane in it???? That's just stupid. I laugh when people spend 30k on a car and are concerned about the price of 93 octane over 87. Come on fellas. I just took a 2300 mile round trip with my mustang and rolled 93 octane the whole trip.

Non 🍼and non 🌽fed. I $uck!
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 11:54 AM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
89 5.0 stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: California
Posts: 94
what was your mpg? and how much did you spend on gas? just woundering....

Sent from my LG-D415 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
89 5.0 stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 01:57 PM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
wingntt17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
Who cares about the price you bought a sports car to drive and enjoy. That's what we bought them them for. I don't get enjoy the 2015 , my wife does. I get to love my 2007 GT/CS and put 93 octane in that also.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
wingntt17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 01:31 PM   #16
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: 77077
Region: Texas
Posts: 10
I tried a tank of 87, it really affects the engine from around 4K rpm, makes it feel flat. Not going there again.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
DavyGravy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 07:48 PM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
thelastsumurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Region: Florida
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther140 View Post
If you want to run the cheapest available gas through a 4 cylinder engine in your car, Im not sure you're the same kinda mustang guy that I am lol.


I run 93 NO FREAKING ETHANOL in my car and get 26-27 highway mpg on a bad day lol. My record is 30.7mpg on a very humid/damp day babying it. Ive never tried to run 87 in it. If you ever grab the 10% ethanol handle with 87 octane gas, that is the defining moment telling you that you can no longer afford a performance car.


You know how they make chicken nuggets? Same exact process is used for making 87 E10.
They take the waste from the gasoline manufacturing process and sell it as "fuel" to people in buick enclaves and minivans...
You are kidding aren't you??????
__________________
'16 Eco-Boost Premium, White, Performance Pkg, 6R80 (again), Pwr Ebony Lthr with Nether Region Cooling, Adaptive Cruise Control, Enhanced Security Pkg., Reverse Park Assist., Big Worm OTT Graphix.

2014 GT Premium 200A, Black on black , leather , 6R80, Nav, Security. Pro Cal, HT catback exhaust 12.54@112
thelastsumurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 06:32 PM   #18
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Houghton
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3
2015 Ecoboost recommended octane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Check the fuel door and see if its lists premium fuel as required. Personally, a boosted performance vehicle should always be run on 93, but yes, you will notice a substantial performance decrease on 87 vs 93.

People say it runs better on 91 and 93. But users manual says to use 87.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
pcworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2016, 10:03 PM   #19
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Houghton
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3
According to this Canadian video, there is no real benefit to premium

https://youtu.be/FPPkPAbzwbU


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
pcworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2016, 04:56 PM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcworth View Post
According to this Canadian video, there is no real benefit to premium

https://youtu.be/FPPkPAbzwbU


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
Its important to understand the context articles like that can or cannot be applied in.

1. The ecoboost is a turbocharged platform. Turbos generate more heat, more cylinder pressure, and therefore typically need more octane to prevent knock or predetonation.

2. The Mustang's ECU has the ability to increase timing, up to a certain threshold, to increase power and impact MPG. Most tunes, or at least most tunes I have dug around in, have some innate ability to manipulate ignition advance in low load conditions to increase mpg. The octane of the gas will have zero impact on this because you're nowhere near the knock threshold.

Without going on a complete rant, I've pretty much made my point, but I just cant stand blanket statement articles like that. Most people watch that and have absolutely no idea what they're talking about or how it applies to them.

I've actually changed my mind, i'm going to rant a little more. The reason vehicles cruise at a 14.7:1 AFR is not because that is the optimum ratio, its because it produces the least emissions. 16:1 cruising is actually where you will see the best fuel economy, but 16:1 being a little leaner does tend to burn hotter as well. There's an actual heat chart somewhere out there I found when I was experimenting with MPG tuning but I cant find it now. At any rate, when increasing ignition timing and leaning out the AFR, a higher octane is actually needed to control the burn (higher octane burns slower) and you 100% will see a positive impact on MPG. That really goes beyond the scope of this discussion, but still. Its a frikkin boosted car, run the most octane you can.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2016, 05:56 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Pembroke
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
The problem with that logic is that waiting for the knock sensors to pull timing is still a reactive approach. They only active if there has been, or is, knock, which is bad. One should run the appropriate octane for their vehicle to begin with.
That's not totally true. When you first start the engine the ecu uses base tables where it is expecting 93 octane but the tables get adjusted as you drive and within a few minutes the ecu has figured out you are not running 93 and the tune has been adjusted accordingly.
dgc333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2016, 08:20 AM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc333 View Post
That's not totally true. When you first start the engine the ecu uses base tables where it is expecting 93 octane but the tables get adjusted as you drive and within a few minutes the ecu has figured out you are not running 93 and the tune has been adjusted accordingly.
Sorry, but i am going to have to disagree. Unless the car has an octane sensor, which i doubt, there is no way for it to know what fuel it is running. At cruising conditions the car is only making like 10 whp, nowhere near the knock threshold of 87 gas, the only way for the car to know what timing table to follow is if it is actively encountering knock.


And again, i'd like to address your own wording: " the ecu has figured out you are not running 93 and the tune has been adjusted accordingly." Even so, that would still be a reactive approach, which was my initial statement.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 07:11 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Pembroke
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 202
No it doesn't have an octane sensor and doesn't need one to figure what the tune needs to be for the octane in the tank. The knock sensors are sensitive enough to detect the onset of knock long before it can cause damage and they are used to provide feedback just like the O2 sensors do to adjust the tune. Whether you have 93 or 87 in the tank the ecu is doing the same thing, it is pushing the tune up to the onset of knock then backs off and learns what the tune needs to be for the fuel in the tank.

You can call it reactive, the engineers that design control systems call it closed loop feedback.
dgc333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 07:28 PM   #24
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Houghton
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3
Unlike the mechanics and turbo experts in this discussion, I know very little about turbos and knock sensors. I do, however, know that my owners manual says to use regular gasoline. I cannot imagine that Ford would recommend a fuel that would damage the engine. For someone who is accelerating their car hard I imagine the extra carbon atoms makes a difference, but for someone using it as a daily driver I doubt it will do anything more than suck up the extra 50c per gallon that it is around me. I drove back from Detroit yesterday and the car was happy as a clam cruising at 80 mph, at 2500 rpm. Even with my regular gas, the overtaking performance is a very impressive feeling.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
pcworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 08:16 PM   #25
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 3,158
Just run straight methanol. Treat it like it's a top fuel engine. The most that can happen is a grenaded engine.

All jokes aside, run what the manual says. I'm certain things are timed with the factory compression to run 87 without any spark knock.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2016, 01:40 PM   #26
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc333 View Post
No it doesn't have an octane sensor and doesn't need one to figure what the tune needs to be for the octane in the tank. The knock sensors are sensitive enough to detect the onset of knock long before it can cause damage and they are used to provide feedback just like the O2 sensors do to adjust the tune. Whether you have 93 or 87 in the tank the ecu is doing the same thing, it is pushing the tune up to the onset of knock then backs off and learns what the tune needs to be for the fuel in the tank.

You can call it reactive, the engineers that design control systems call it closed loop feedback.

I deleted my original post because i came across like much more of an *** than i intended. I have years of tuning experience, and i think youre wrong. You undoubtidly think i am wrong as well, so i guess to keep it civil we will have to agree to disagree. Run whatever octane you see fit.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2016, 02:37 PM   #27
Registered Member
Regular
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Region: Georgia
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
I deleted my original post because i came across like much more of an *** than i intended. I have years of tuning experience, and i think youre wrong. You undoubtidly think i am wrong as well, so i guess to keep it civil we will have to agree to disagree. Run whatever octane you see fit.
My original post was deleted by me also. I was going to say to just run nitro methane. Treat it like a top fuel car. The ecoboost engines are coming apart anyway.

Sometimes its best to be civil. Now my comment is just funny.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Revvv is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
93 OCTANE vs 91 OCTANE TUNE bradtaylornator 2011-2014 Mustang GT 20 12-26-2015 09:07 AM
2015 Mustang: Leaning toward Ecoboost model... tedness 2015 Mustang GT 82 05-19-2015 04:59 PM
2015 3.7 Vs 2015 2.3 ecoboost 2011 Kona Blue 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6) 114 01-05-2015 06:16 AM
2015 Mustang. Independant Rear Suspension and an Ecoboost 4 cylinder. Thoughts? 4968coyote 2015 Mustang GT 81 01-14-2014 02:02 PM
new 2015 engine lineup info including Ecoboost Coyote Ricky35 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6) 84 05-04-2013 10:13 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



11:58 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.