RedCandy5.0

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2...-on-87-octane/

MuddyLX

I doubt a Hellcat can make full power on 87 octane. I really don't see the news here. The owners manual tells you it will make more power with premium.

GT40 2

This is one reason I didn't get the ecoboost. I was curious to know how much less power it made on 87. I heard it was around 270hp.

cdynaco

It said 35hp less on 87. Though Ford is disputing that.

Whereas the 5.0 loses 10hp, the 4.6L3V loses 10#'tq, on 87.

FlyTexas

Why wouldn't it make less, it is just a turbo four...

The whole "EcoBoost" thing is just a marketing term, perhaps a smart one, but it is just a turbocharged 4, nothing more or less.

Turbos have a bad rep among the "average" car buyer in the US, they are seen as unreliable sports car relics of the 80s. So change the name to "EcoBoost" and suddenly it is new "fuel saving technology".

Notice that "Turbo" isn't anywhere on the outside of the car. That was on purpose.

Turbos need high octane, this isn't new.

3point7

I thought the drop in horsepower while using 87 octane in the ecoboost was already well known around here.

2k7gtcs

It's well known enough that I only put 93 in my Explorer Sport

JeffreyDJ

Agreed. I thought so as well.

Maybe not the exact number from a manual, but we'd been told 10-15%. The only surprise is the TQ number which was to be "unchanged." Ford says the number in the article/manual is inaccurate, since it was a "preproduction engine."

SD CALSPCL

I have no idea where you are getting your information on the "bad rep" for reliability, but I have been driving Turbos since 1986, without any problems. And, that includes Fords and VW's. Right now, I have a 310 HP, 320 lb ft torque engine giving me 32-35 mpg at 75 mph with only 1000 miles on the engine. I don't drag race, and I don't street race, so why would I need more power? If I did, I would simply get a tune.

As for the fuel required, my 3.5L, 365 hp SHO with twin turbos was great and ran fine on 87, which is mid-grade out here. I ran a tank of 91 once or twice a month. I had 24000 miles on it when I traded it and never did anything to it except change the oil. On a trip through Wyoming, cruising at 80 mph (legal there) with two adults and luggage, I was seeing almost 38 mpg.

The dealer did fill the Mustang with Premium when I picked it up and I have used Premium since then, but again, I don't think it is required to enjoy the car and drive it within the limits of where you live. HP is an overrated marketing tool...torque is what you need. And this engine is only 80 lb ft short of the 5.0.

JeffreyDJ

I missed this the first time around. Every major car manufacturer now makes Turbos. Turbos haven't had a bad rep for 30 years now and even then it was only some manufacturers. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but they've been mainstream for awhile now.

Additionally, it also doesn't say Ecoboost anywhere visible on the car either, but Ford hasn't tried to hide that the car is a Turbo in marketing or otherwise. In fact, they've played it up. A Marketing term is a marketing term. Every car manufacturer names engines and technology. Straight from the Ford website (emphasis mine):

I get you "hate it" (obviously), but I'm not even sure why. It's also you're trying to bait people into an argument with the very specific language you used, especially when it's not even close to being fully factual.

cdynaco

cdynaco

Maybe I'm wrong, but after reading the article, I took the OP's point to be there is a greater percentage drop in the 2.3 EB than then 5.0 NA.

Maybe its because with the turbo changing/increasing compression, they have to pull even more timing to avoid knock, than they have to with an NA engine where compression is constant.

FlyTexas

There is your views and impressions, then there are mine...

Go ask my mother, she'll tell you turbos are not reliable...

I never said it was accurate, I said it was an impression. There is part of the car buying market who believes it, even if it hasn't been true for a long time.

JeffreyDJ

Actually you made a statement that the "average" buyer sees them as unreliable. Your statement indicates you believe it to be accurate, despite no factual basis. It was never stated as an impression nor did you indicate it to be one. It couldn't even be categorized as an opinion because of the way you stated it.

FlyTexas

It is important to separate facts from people's beliefs and impressions.

Among my generation and older, there are still many people who don't know that the "EcoBoost" tag means it is a turbo, they think that it is a new fuel saving technology.

Even when I tell people, "no, it just means it is turbocharged", they still sometimes say, "yes, but it also has EcoBoost technology", completely missing the point.

Eh? I suppose it might not on the Mustang, but go look at a Fusion, an Escape, a F-150, they all say EcoBoost on them on the back and the sides.

I never said I hate it, that is simply you being defensive about it and reading into it something that isn't there. Pause for a second and think about that. What I said is indeed totally factual. What I said is that there is an "impression" and "belief" that turbos are not reliable. I didn't say they were not in fact reliable.

It doesn't matter what is actually a fact sometimes, it matters what people believe. It can take time and be expensive to educate the consumer on something when they believe something else.

A really good example is the diesel engine. Americans seem to hate them, believing them to be slow, dirty beasts. That hasn't been true for a long time, but instead we're spending a ton of money on hybrid nonsense when companies like VW get just as good, if not better MPG out of their modern turbo diesels as Toyota gets out of their Hybrids.

But American's don't want to hear it, and it would cost billions of dollars of ad money over many years to change that view.

FlyTexas

"sees" is the key word there...

If the average consumer believes it, then it doesn't matter if it is true or not...

As for it being categorized as an opinion, I wouldn't think I'd have to do that, it strikes me as obvious that it is an opinion... but ok...

^ The above statements regarding the views of the general public are my opinion based on my personal experience in talking to people of my generation and older, your millage may vary

There, is that better?

JeffreyDJ

If you've run into that many people to have that conversation with, I'd be surprised. Ford doesn't hide it, in fact they flaunt it in commercials, marketing material and otherwise. Heck, they even put "Boost" right there in the name.

Nope, not on the Mustang. Only under the hood in one spot. On my '14 Fusion it had the indicator on the back (which by the way didn't take premium gas).

I don't think you said they are indeed unreliable at all. But, what isn't factual is saying the "average buyer." Additionally, saying multiple times "It's only a.." does tend to indicate an aversion to said engine. If I misinterpreted, that's on me.

And, I don't disagree about Diesels, but that also has as much to do with the cost of diesel fuel and the big US oil companies as well.

FlyTexas

Fair enough on the "average buyer" comment...

Regarding my "it's only a turbo" comment, please don't take that the wrong way. My thought is that Ford is marketing it as "Eco" friendly, as if it is some new wonder technology. Or at least that is how I see the marketing.

Turbos aren't new, weren't invented by Ford, and I don't think they were invented to save fuel. From what I've read, people don't tend to get the MPG the sticker says, the Eco is nice, when driven softly, because it is a small engine, but step on it and put it into boost and it sucks fuel just like any other engine.

How about a new line of "EcoDiesel" engines?