EcoBoost Motor Hurts on 87 Octane
1/13/15, 12:20 PM
#1
TMS Staff
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EcoBoost Motor Hurts on 87 Octane
A leaked pre-production training manual shows that when the new EcoBoost is filled with 87 octane, the power figures drop quite substantially. But don't worry, there's a bright side.
Read the rest on The Mustang Source homepage. >>
1/14/15, 06:37 AM
#2
Legacy TMS Member
We all know that the new EcoBoost Mustang is a house of power and torque, especially when you consider the diminutive size of the motor. However, when it was first coming out, rumor was that if you filled up the tank with the cheaper stuff, those horsepower and torque figures would drop drastically. And for a moment they did.
A training manual that found itself up on Mustang6G shows that when the new EcoBoost is filled with 87 octane, those power figures drop quite substantially. A drop to the tune of 35 horsepower and 20 lb-ft of torque.
Now, however, Ford has come out to say those training manuals were actually only for the pre-production motors, and using lower-grade gas will only drop the horsepower rating a few ticks, which really isn’t a big surprise, since every car will lose horsepower with worse gas; it’s just a fact. The cool thing, though, is that the motor will not lose torque, which is what you want to get you off the line quickly.
Instead of looking at the glass being half empty, I want to see what the ratings get up to using race gas. Any takers?
A training manual that found itself up on Mustang6G shows that when the new EcoBoost is filled with 87 octane, those power figures drop quite substantially. A drop to the tune of 35 horsepower and 20 lb-ft of torque.
Now, however, Ford has come out to say those training manuals were actually only for the pre-production motors, and using lower-grade gas will only drop the horsepower rating a few ticks, which really isn’t a big surprise, since every car will lose horsepower with worse gas; it’s just a fact. The cool thing, though, is that the motor will not lose torque, which is what you want to get you off the line quickly.
Instead of looking at the glass being half empty, I want to see what the ratings get up to using race gas. Any takers?
1/14/15, 02:00 PM
#3
Does anyone really think there is that much of a difference between the pre-production 2.3 and the production model 2.3? Suddenly Ford "claims" there is some huge difference that will prevent a drop in hp when using 87 octane but they don't say what. Because pre-production! lol Yea, I'm not buying that until I see someone take a production model 2.3 and dyno it using both octane ratings.
1/14/15, 03:36 PM
#4
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Does anyone really think there is that much of a difference between the pre-production 2.3 and the production model 2.3? Suddenly Ford "claims" there is some huge difference that will prevent a drop in hp when using 87 octane but they don't say what. Because pre-production! lol Yea, I'm not buying that until I see someone take a production model 2.3 and dyno it using both octane ratings.
As you can see, not much of a change in peak TQ and a huge drop in HP. The TQ doesn't drop as quickly or as much on 93, however.
Last edited by JeffreyDJ; 1/14/15 at 03:38 PM.
1/14/15, 03:45 PM
#5
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Actually, the clarification from Ford was the TQ numbers in the manual were incorrect. They didn't verify or repute the HP numbers, but I doubt the HP numbers were that wrong based on the Dyno's I've seen posted elsewhere, one of which I posted below.
As you can see, not much of a change in peak TQ and a huge drop in HP. The TQ doesn't drop as quickly or as much on 93, however.
As you can see, not much of a change in peak TQ and a huge drop in HP. The TQ doesn't drop as quickly or as much on 93, however.
Last edited by cdynaco; 1/14/15 at 03:49 PM.
1/14/15, 04:50 PM
#6
Actually, the clarification from Ford was the TQ numbers in the manual were incorrect. They didn't verify or repute the HP numbers, but I doubt the HP numbers were that wrong based on the Dyno's I've seen posted elsewhere, one of which I posted below.
As you can see, not much of a change in peak TQ and a huge drop in HP. The TQ doesn't drop as quickly or as much on 93, however.
As you can see, not much of a change in peak TQ and a huge drop in HP. The TQ doesn't drop as quickly or as much on 93, however.
The horsepower numbers do drop off noticeably. A lot more than "a few ticks".
Meanwhile the actual torque numbers only drop about 7 lb ft. That's not bad at all. It just means that while running 87 the car is going to run out of oomph at the top end sooner than it would if running the 93.
Thanks for that chart Jeff, good stuff.
1/18/15, 07:17 PM
#8
This is so typical of a manufacture. When bad news hits the spin machine steps in and steps up. I work for a very large electronics manufacture. I am an enginer and have to go through this all of the time. Pre production just means first right of the information. They are the for the most part the same. Sales or Marketing will step in and remove features or functions and tell everyone this is what we are going with. Its a pain in the a$$ to go through.
Most people that buy cars even performance cars don't have any knowledge of the business end of the car. They want style, speed and bragging rights. Hell most people to this day even think the higher the octane the better it is for every car. Even after all the articles on the news and on the internet you would think most would know what Octane rating really is!!!
If yiu want a real muscle car--- Yea it has to have a V8!!
Most people that buy cars even performance cars don't have any knowledge of the business end of the car. They want style, speed and bragging rights. Hell most people to this day even think the higher the octane the better it is for every car. Even after all the articles on the news and on the internet you would think most would know what Octane rating really is!!!
If yiu want a real muscle car--- Yea it has to have a V8!!
1/21/15, 10:39 AM
#9
I don't want to sound well, you know, but horsepower is what you brag to your buddies about, and torque is what moves your Mustang down the street. Losing less than 10ft lbs of torque by using cheaper fuel seems like a smart trade-off for those of that don't now, and never will race these cars.
1/21/15, 11:59 AM
#10
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
I don't want to sound well, you know, but horsepower is what you brag to your buddies about, and torque is what moves your Mustang down the street. Losing less than 10ft lbs of torque by using cheaper fuel seems like a smart trade-off for those of that don't now, and never will race these cars.
1/21/15, 12:51 PM
#11
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I don't want to sound well, you know, but horsepower is what you brag to your buddies about, and torque is what moves your Mustang down the street. Losing less than 10ft lbs of torque by using cheaper fuel seems like a smart trade-off for those of that don't now, and never will race these cars.
When you want to have some fun, fill it with prem. It will feel sort of like adding a tune.
But for daily driving or freeway droning, 87 is fine and I can move those few bucks towards other things that I enjoy.
I think giving the driver the choice is a great feature Ford rolled out in 08.
1/21/15, 12:55 PM
#12
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
I agree. I have numerous interests that all require money. Throwing away $5 here, $10 there, is what wrecks your budget.
When you want to have some fun, fill it with prem. It will feel sort of like adding a tune.
But for daily driving or freeway droning, 87 is fine and I can move those few bucks towards other things that I enjoy.
I think giving the driver the choice is a great feature Ford rolled out in 08.
When you want to have some fun, fill it with prem. It will feel sort of like adding a tune.
But for daily driving or freeway droning, 87 is fine and I can move those few bucks towards other things that I enjoy.
I think giving the driver the choice is a great feature Ford rolled out in 08.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post