Octane rating

[07xln]

Rjdelp7 it's time to give up buddy. Every time you post it's just more wrong on top of wrong


I started out running 87 in my 17 expy then got bored one night and browsed the owners manual and read that 91 was recommended (not required Rjdelp7) when towing or in hot climates and would provide better performance. Since then I've only ran 93. To me it feels like the truck runs better. I don't pay attention to gas mileage really and it's my money so I'll buy 93 if I want.

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

How do justify spending, a extra $1400 for this engine? What about break downs? Have you had issues? A co-worker has had his in the shop twice already. Both times were turbo related problems. One was a oil leak and one turbo actually failed(Ford claimed only second one, in country). His truck was in the shop for two weeks. They considered replacing the whole engine, but were able to fix it. Now he is close to being out of warranty and does not trust it anymore. The 93 octane issue, I am skeptical of any power gains. The extra heat from burning higher octane, is harder on the turbos.

The 3.5L Twin Turbo EcoBoost engine is standard in Expedition, there is no extra charge, there are no other options. The EcoBoost engines had some early problems. This engine has been in service since 2011. There were issues with the cam phasers (this engine has 4, for intake and exhaust on each bank) and timing chains on the early engines. It has the usual carbon issues that all direct injection engines have. One way to lower the carbon build up is to use full synthetic oil because of its higher temp capabilities.

I love the EcoBoost in my 17. It has way more power than the 5.4L Triton, and accelerating from 40 to 70 on an entrance ramp takes about 2 seconds compared to the 4-6 seconds that the 5.4L Triton used to take in my 05. I have the extended warranty so I'm not worried about the EcoBoost.

 

[JExpedition07]

I've never driven an ecoboost but they seem impressive. I have however driven 6.7 power strokes and 6.2 gas in super duties and they haul a**. I understand the ecoboost is great but a V8 option wouldn't be bad. An ecoboost probably couldn't touch the 6.2 V8 in the super duties, those things feel like they want to rip the truck into pieces when you hammer them. And GM offers a 6.2 V8 in escalade and yukons I wish Ford put one one in on high trim level expeditions.

 

[rjdelp7]

Rjdelp7 it's time to give up buddy. Every time you post it's just more wrong on top of wrong


I started out running 87 in my 17 expy then got bored one night and browsed the owners manual and read that 91 was recommended (not required Rjdelp7) when towing or in hot climates and would provide better performance. Since then I've only ran 93. To me it feels like the truck runs better. I don't pay attention to gas mileage really and it's my money so I'll buy 93 if I want.

Recommended or required, what's the difference? Having to use premium, in a SUV is unacceptable and a waste. Ford is trying to appeal, to soccer moms, who want gas mileage, with the 3.5l. If I worried about gas mileage, I would not drive a Expedition. I do not know why, they can't give people a V8 option. I bet it would outsell the 3.5lt

 

[JExpedition07]

Video of 6.2 vs ecoboost in 150s, sorry to get off topic but it is a relevant issue about options, I think it's fair to ask for a V8.

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

Recommended or required, what's the difference? Having to use premium, in a SUV is unacceptable and a waste. Ford is trying to appeal, to soccer moms, who want gas mileage, with the 3.5l. If I worried about gas mileage, I would not drive a Expedition. I do not know why, they can't give people a V8 option. I bet it would outsell the 3.5lt

I drove Mercedes ML350s, 2003, 2006, 2009 all of the required premium fuel IT is very acceptable. If you can't afford it then you can't play with this crowd sorry. You don't have any like minded individuals here.

 

[powerboatr]

video doesn't really mean much 6.2 in a 5700lb truck. gobs of power
3.5 has tons of power
still a tq vs tq race, 6.2 has more tq. off line.
and the 3.5 was just barley one truck length behind, but never faded, in fact it stayed right there.
3.5 you can still tow 9500 lbs in the expy, and when not towing you get pretty dam good mpg
where as the 6.2 drinks fuel like a 747 , empty or loaded. not as bad as the v10..but very close
back few years i ran diesels and pushed them to the limits on dyno days and scarring the kids in their little rice burner fast and furious cars.
nothing says you just got your ass spanked like a 8000 lb crew cab dually leaving you in a fog of black smoke. nothing replaces raw tq and omg hp to keep you going.

 

[JExpedition07]

My fathers 2016 F250 has the 6.2 and it gets about 14 to 15 average in summer which my triton gets 15.5 so that's not bad in my book as it's a heavier vehicle too.

 

[JExpedition07]

My other question is if the 3.5 is going to be such a workhorse why isn't available in the heavy duty trucks then. I feel if it could really compete with V8 on long term reliability it would be up with the big dogs. Maybe they just don't see a segment that would buy a V6 in that size vehicle and that's it im not sure.

 

[The dude]

I have to agree with some of what rjdelp7 said. If ANY manufacturer designs a truck motor that requires premium they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Companies with fleets wouldn't buy it, and most average consumers would stay away from it also unless they had money to burn. While I like my eco I would've opted for the 5.0 if it was an option. Not because of sound or power or gas mileage. Because in the end I think it will be a less expensive motor in the long run