Regular vs. premium gas for Ecoboost
10-21-2013, 04:19 PM
#71
One Bad MoFoMoCo Owner
I run 91 or 93 in mine all the time. The only 87 that has been in the truck is the gas the truck came with from the dealer. I do this because an extra 20 cents a gallon when gas is over $3 a gallon is not that big a deal. With more power from advanced timing you tend to get a little better fuel economy at least theoretically. So perhaps I'll get the extra $7 a tank back in fuel economy. If I just pick up a quarter mile per gallon I'm ahead. Additionally it gives me the advantage of having the full power of the engine available to me. So for a extra $7 a tank I pick up 20 horse power & 10ftlbs of torque. Works for me.
That means you need to get 6.7% better mileage to break even. Or roughly 1.2 mpg better for the average truck getting 18 combined mpg.
For the average guy, you need to get 11.3% better mpg, or about 2 mpg better.
In my experience, you can fall somewhere in between these numbers, easily. Surprised no one has argued you can't, given past threads. Based on my observation, you're right on, and as gas prices increase with the differential in price staying static, you do even better.
Thanks for posting!
10-22-2013, 12:13 AM
#72
Without adaptive timing, it would either not make full power on 87 octane, or not run on correctly with a tune designed to extract max power from the design, again on 87. I don't care how many folks pile on, that is simple proof the engine is DESIGNED for 91, and CAN run 87. On an optimized no adpative tune, it will perform best and make the most power on 91.
You are clearly taking about tuning and marketing strategy with that statement, I am speaking to the engines mechanical design. Mechanically, with a steady non adaptive tune, it will run best on premium.
It is not I who is suggesting the crutch of tuning is the basis of the mechanical engineering. As soon as regular is put in, power and mileage dip. I can't even follow why some are suggesting that means it optimized for 87, it's just not.
Pile on lemmings....
Last edited by isthatahemi; 10-22-2013 at 12:21 AM.
10-22-2013, 01:33 AM
#73
Inebriated 4 ur safety
Without adaptive timing, it would either not make full power on 87 octane, or not run on correctly with a tune designed to extract max power from the design, again on 87. I don't care how many folks pile on, that is simple proof the engine is DESIGNED for 91, and CAN run 87. On an optimized no adpative tune, it will perform best and make the most power on 91.
You are clearly taking about tuning and marketing strategy with that statement, I am speaking to the engines mechanical design. Mechanically, with a steady non adaptive tune, it will run best on premium.
It is not I who is suggesting the crutch of tuning is the basis of the mechanical engineering. As soon as regular is put in, power and mileage dip. I can't even follow why some are suggesting that means it optimized for 87, it's just not.
Pile on lemmings....
You are clearly taking about tuning and marketing strategy with that statement, I am speaking to the engines mechanical design. Mechanically, with a steady non adaptive tune, it will run best on premium.
It is not I who is suggesting the crutch of tuning is the basis of the mechanical engineering. As soon as regular is put in, power and mileage dip. I can't even follow why some are suggesting that means it optimized for 87, it's just not.
Pile on lemmings....
but it has adaptive timing so that it a moot point. Okay, I get one you are saying. (I think) But your way of thinking about is still not correct. The octane rating of a gasoline is the measure of the anti-knock quality of the fuel. Higher octane does not add power to engines that do not require it. All higher octane fuels do is reduce the tendency for the engine to knock especially under load. If you put 87 octane in an engine designed for 91 octane without VCT(Variable Cam Timing), then that engine will start to knock really badly especially under load causing engine performance issues. If you put 91 octane in a engine designed for 87 without VCT, then all you did is waste your money because it did nothing. In short, it is the VCTs ability to adjust the engine for the octane grade of fuel that is in it that adds power. The same goes for your VCT 3.7L and the VCT 5.0L.
The fact is that Ford designed it to run on both and NOT just one. You can't say "well if it didn't have this technology in it then....." because if that were the case then it would not be an Ecoboost. What Ecoboost is, as Ford puts it, is the combination of multiple technologies put together. Take one away, and it's not an Ecoboost anymore.
Last edited by Al Kohalic; 10-22-2013 at 10:13 AM.
10-22-2013, 11:13 AM
#74
but it has adaptive timing so that it a moot point. Okay, I get one you are saying. (I think) But your way of thinking about is still not correct. The octane rating of a gasoline is the measure of the anti-knock quality of the fuel. Higher octane does not add power to engines that do not require it. All higher octane fuels do is reduce the tendency for the engine to knock especially under load. If you put 87 octane in an engine designed for 91 octane without VCT(Variable Cam Timing), then that engine will start to knock really badly especially under load causing engine performance issues. If you put 91 octane in a engine designed for 87 without VCT, then all you did is waste your money because it did nothing. In short, it is the VCTs ability to adjust the engine for the octane grade of fuel that is in it that adds power. The same goes for your VCT 3.7L and the VCT 5.0L.
The fact is that Ford designed it to run on both and NOT just one. You can't say "well if it didn't have this technology in it then....." because if that were the case then it would not be an Ecoboost. What Ecoboost is, as Ford puts it, is the combination of multiple technologies put together. Take one away, and it's not an Ecoboost anymore.
Ford EcoBoost Engine Presentation - YouTube
Correct on the meaning of octane, it has to do with the burn rate, or propagation of the flame front while gasoline is burning. Higher octane results in a slower burn rate, thus suppressing pre-ignition. Octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. One should note that higher octane fuels have less energy per gallon than regular fuels. Thus one would expect a lower fuel economy in a premium fuel motor running premium than in a regular fuel engine running regular. All other things being equal, which they never are.
That said, performance has to do with power and torque. Power and torque have to do with the amount of energy converted to rotary motion in a fixed amount of time (per second or per minute), not with the amount of energy in a gallon of gas. To get more power or torque one needs more air and fuel per second. This is done in three ways, 1) a larger motor, 2) higher rpm, 3) and/or higher pressures. Higher pressures as in a turbo-changed engine leads to pre-ignition and the requirement for premium fuel or detuning and loss of power, torque, and efficiency (fuel economy). This detuning can be very good in modern engines. There is no controversy about that.
The fact that most ecoBoost motors have no problems is irrelevant as would be the observation that just one had problems. Nor does it change the basic fundamental design of the motor and the modern miracle of efficient, reliable detuning to prevent knocking in a premium fuel design when using regular fuel.
One basic fact. Engines designed to use regular fuel see no benefit at all when using premium fuels. They gain no power, no performance when using premium rather than regular. They simply have a fuel which burns more slowly and has less energy per gallon.
You need a premium fuel design to benefit from premium fuel. Ford says this engine benefits from premium fuel, has better performance and power/torque. High pressures force more air into a compressed burn volume and thereby more fuel and thereby more energy produced than in a low pressure engine (per second, per revolution). This leads to knocking on regular fuel. This leads to a requirement to detune the engine when using regular fuel and decrease the efficiency of the engine to prevent knocking.
This detuning may work wonderfully but it doesn't change the fundamental design criteria of the motor required to handle the higher pressures at maximum performance and efficiency of the design.
I can golf with a baseball bat, but I wouldn't say the baseball bat was designed for golf. There is a design difference even if there is some compatibility in operations. I can use pro golf clubs which are designed with different specifications from novice clubs, but sadly I would not get pro performance. In fact my game would be better with the novice clubs. Hybrid pro/novice clubs would compromise both me and the pro.
Fortunately, having a premium design engine that runs well on regular is a great idea. It gives people some choice at the pump and with their budgets. Bravo for selling this great design. It just doesn't change the engineering facts. Some people mistake simple engineering facts as criticism or negative talk. It is not. Engineering is all about pragmatic compromises. Engineering is not about marketing speak. It's about function and understanding that function in basic principles.
I am sorry you don't like the implications that you see in talking about basic principles, but those are your implications, not mine.
The following 2 users liked this post by Rick boomer:
brucesears (10-22-2013),
SkiSmuggs (10-22-2013)
10-22-2013, 12:13 PM
#76
Senior Member
Correct on the meaning of octane, it has to do with the burn rate, or propagation of the flame front while gasoline is burning. Higher octane results in a slower burn rate, thus suppressing pre-ignition. Octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. One should note that higher octane fuels have less energy per gallon than regular fuels. Thus one would expect a lower fuel economy in a premium fuel motor running premium than in a regular fuel engine running regular. All other things being equal, which they never are.
That said, performance has to do with power and torque. Power and torque have to do with the amount of energy converted to rotary motion in a fixed amount of time (per second or per minute), not with the amount of energy in a gallon of gas. To get more power or torque one needs more air and fuel per second. This is done in three ways, 1) a larger motor, 2) higher rpm, 3) and/or higher pressures. Higher pressures as in a turbo-changed engine leads to pre-ignition and the requirement for premium fuel or detuning and loss of power, torque, and efficiency (fuel economy). This detuning can be very good in modern engines. There is no controversy about that.
The fact that most ecoBoost motors have no problems is irrelevant as would be the observation that just one had problems. Nor does it change the basic fundamental design of the motor and the modern miracle of efficient, reliable detuning to prevent knocking in a premium fuel design when using regular fuel.
One basic fact. Engines designed to use regular fuel see no benefit at all when using premium fuels. They gain no power, no performance when using premium rather than regular. They simply have a fuel which burns more slowly and has less energy per gallon.
You need a premium fuel design to benefit from premium fuel. Ford says this engine benefits from premium fuel, has better performance and power/torque. High pressures force more air into a compressed burn volume and thereby more fuel and thereby more energy produced than in a low pressure engine (per second, per revolution). This leads to knocking on regular fuel. This leads to a requirement to detune the engine when using regular fuel and decrease the efficiency of the engine to prevent knocking.
This detuning may work wonderfully but it doesn't change the fundamental design criteria of the motor required to handle the higher pressures at maximum performance and efficiency of the design.
I can golf with a baseball bat, but I wouldn't say the baseball bat was designed for golf. There is a design difference even if there is some compatibility in operations. I can use pro golf clubs which are designed with different specifications from novice clubs, but sadly I would not get pro performance. In fact my game would be better with the novice clubs. Hybrid pro/novice clubs would compromise both me and the pro.
Fortunately, having a premium design engine that runs well on regular is a great idea. It gives people some choice at the pump and with their budgets. Bravo for selling this great design. It just doesn't change the engineering facts. Some people mistake simple engineering facts as criticism or negative talk. It is not. Engineering is all about pragmatic compromises. Engineering is not about marketing speak. It's about function and understanding that function in basic principles.
I am sorry you don't like the implications that you see in talking about basic principles, but those are your implications, not mine.
That said, performance has to do with power and torque. Power and torque have to do with the amount of energy converted to rotary motion in a fixed amount of time (per second or per minute), not with the amount of energy in a gallon of gas. To get more power or torque one needs more air and fuel per second. This is done in three ways, 1) a larger motor, 2) higher rpm, 3) and/or higher pressures. Higher pressures as in a turbo-changed engine leads to pre-ignition and the requirement for premium fuel or detuning and loss of power, torque, and efficiency (fuel economy). This detuning can be very good in modern engines. There is no controversy about that.
The fact that most ecoBoost motors have no problems is irrelevant as would be the observation that just one had problems. Nor does it change the basic fundamental design of the motor and the modern miracle of efficient, reliable detuning to prevent knocking in a premium fuel design when using regular fuel.
One basic fact. Engines designed to use regular fuel see no benefit at all when using premium fuels. They gain no power, no performance when using premium rather than regular. They simply have a fuel which burns more slowly and has less energy per gallon.
You need a premium fuel design to benefit from premium fuel. Ford says this engine benefits from premium fuel, has better performance and power/torque. High pressures force more air into a compressed burn volume and thereby more fuel and thereby more energy produced than in a low pressure engine (per second, per revolution). This leads to knocking on regular fuel. This leads to a requirement to detune the engine when using regular fuel and decrease the efficiency of the engine to prevent knocking.
This detuning may work wonderfully but it doesn't change the fundamental design criteria of the motor required to handle the higher pressures at maximum performance and efficiency of the design.
I can golf with a baseball bat, but I wouldn't say the baseball bat was designed for golf. There is a design difference even if there is some compatibility in operations. I can use pro golf clubs which are designed with different specifications from novice clubs, but sadly I would not get pro performance. In fact my game would be better with the novice clubs. Hybrid pro/novice clubs would compromise both me and the pro.
Fortunately, having a premium design engine that runs well on regular is a great idea. It gives people some choice at the pump and with their budgets. Bravo for selling this great design. It just doesn't change the engineering facts. Some people mistake simple engineering facts as criticism or negative talk. It is not. Engineering is all about pragmatic compromises. Engineering is not about marketing speak. It's about function and understanding that function in basic principles.
I am sorry you don't like the implications that you see in talking about basic principles, but those are your implications, not mine.
A couple of problems with your 'facts' regarding fuel in general.
First, fuel with a higher RON does not have lower energy density than a lower octane fuel. If that were the case how could high compression engines with higher levels of ignition advance and compression take advantage of fuel with LOWER density? Higher octane simply requires more energy to burn. Period. Raising octane by blending it with Ethanol is about the only method which lowers the energy density of gasoline.
Second, lower octane is much more volatile and fuel burns uncontrollably due to excessive timing, too much ignition advance and high compression to a point and in the case of older motors, hot spots from carbon build up in the engine itself.
Finally, don't confuse pre-ignition with detonation as they are two entirely separate but generally sequential events.
The hair splitting over whether this engine is designed for high or low octane fuel seems to mostly stem from outdated and worn out ideas that high dynamic compression engines, such as the EB, are 'detuned' for low octane fuel. They are not. The adaptive strategies employed by Ford and advertised by them indicates it was designed for 87 RON unleaded.
The following users liked this post:
Al Kohalic (10-22-2013)
10-22-2013, 12:35 PM
#77
Oddball, don't let a few incorrect "facts" get in the way of a story
The following users liked this post:
OddBall (10-22-2013)
10-22-2013, 01:13 PM
#78
Inebriated 4 ur safety
A couple of problems with your 'facts' regarding fuel in general.
First, fuel with a higher RON does not have lower energy density than a lower octane fuel. If that were the case how could high compression engines with higher levels of ignition advance and compression take advantage of fuel with LOWER density? Higher octane simply requires more energy to burn. Period. Raising octane by blending it with Ethanol is about the only method which lowers the energy density of gasoline.
Second, lower octane is much more volatile and fuel burns uncontrollably due to excessive timing, too much ignition advance and high compression to a point and in the case of older motors, hot spots from carbon build up in the engine itself.
Finally, don't confuse pre-ignition with detonation as they are two entirely separate but generally sequential events.
The hair splitting over whether this engine is designed for high or low octane fuel seems to mostly stem from outdated and worn out ideas that high dynamic compression engines, such as the EB, are 'detuned' for low octane fuel. They are not. The adaptive strategies employed by Ford and advertised by them indicates it was designed for 87 RON unleaded.
Rick boomer, please google this "direct injection engines and knock" ecactly like how I have it there. Read the SAE and MIT papers on how boosted direct injection engines do not require as high of octane levels as port injected engines do to run properly.
A recent modeling study conducted by Leslie Bromberg and Daniel Cohn at MIT.
http://m.green.autoblog.com/2010/11/...gines-could-o/
" In their paper, presented at the*SAE 2010 Powertrains Fuels & Lubricants Meeting*in late October, Bromberg and Cohn wrote:Small, very high power density, spark ignition engines which are fueled with ethanol methanol or mixed alcohols can be used as a substitute of heavy duty diesel engines, with higher engine thermal efficiency and much reduced size and weight. In this manner a 3.6 liter engine could potentially be used to replace a diesel engine with a displacement as high as 11 liters. These extreme downsizing indicates the potential of a SI, knock-free engine, operating at the same peak pressure as the diesel engine and higher engine speeds. However this aggressive downsizing may not be practical because other constraints (durability, exhaust temperatures). More modest downsizing up to 5 liters could offer a practical solution.Engine downsizing is thought to be*constrained by low-speed preignition, a condition which can lead to engine failure, but Bromberg and Cohn suggest that:*With the use of alcohol-based fuels it is possible to reduce much further the tendency of knocking in spark ignited engines...By eliminating the knock constraint, much higher compression ratios can be used. Similarly, turbocharging allows for substantial engine downsizing.Of course, it's worth noting that although the research was conducted on heavy-duty vehicles, both Broomberg and Cohn believe that:The high efficiency downsized alcohol engine approach could also be used in light-duty vehicles."
Also..... http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/69496
Also..... http://papers.sae.org/2012-01-1634/
Last edited by Al Kohalic; 10-22-2013 at 02:26 PM.
The following users liked this post:
OddBall (10-22-2013)
10-22-2013, 02:05 PM
#79
Senior Member
Mine runs fine on 87 however I have noticed on highway tanks I can get around 1.5 MPG better milage according to the trip computer with 93. This is by no means any sort of scientific testing. Also...I have noticed that winter blend drops my milage by .5-1.5 depending on driving conditions using 87.
10-22-2013, 05:27 PM
#80
but it has adaptive timing so that it a moot point. Okay, I get one you are saying. (I think) But your way of thinking about is still not correct. The octane rating of a gasoline is the measure of the anti-knock quality of the fuel. Higher octane does not add power to engines that do not require it. All higher octane fuels do is reduce the tendency for the engine to knock especially under load. If you put 87 octane in an engine designed for 91 octane without VCT(Variable Cam Timing), then that engine will start to knock really badly especially under load causing engine performance issues. If you put 91 octane in a engine designed for 87 without VCT, then all you did is waste your money because it did nothing. In short, it is the VCTs ability to adjust the engine for the octane grade of fuel that is in it that adds power. The same goes for your VCT 3.7L and the VCT 5.0L.
The fact is that Ford designed it to run on both and NOT just one. You can't say "well if it didn't have this technology in it then....." because if that were the case then it would not be an Ecoboost. What Ecoboost is, as Ford puts it, is the combination of multiple technologies put together. Take one away, and it's not an Ecoboost anymore.
I never said that Ford did not design it to run on both, you are just back-pedalling on that. It's design was OPTIMIZED to run on 91. You agree with that yet state I am wrong. You just obfuscating here, I think the point is clear.
And "Ecoboost" is a marketing name, not an engineering title.
Looks like you bought Ford's PR hook, line, and sinker.
Last edited by isthatahemi; 10-22-2013 at 05:32 PM.