Octane rating

[brick]

I use premium in my EcoBoost, and regular in my old 2003 EB. I tow a 6000 lb boat with the EcoBoost, so regular fuel would be a poor choice.
brick

 

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Probably been asked before but who here run 87 in their ecoboost? On the 150 forums it seems they all run premium. I thought about using premium but think it might be a waste of money for just riding around with no or very light towing. Less than 1200 pounds. I'm sure not spending 70 cents more a gallon for no good reason. Thoughts?

I run 87 in my 2015 Ecoboost....no issues at all, including towing a 5k# trailer over the Rockies and Sierras

 

[The dude]

Ill probley run it when it gets steaming hot here in summer

 

[lbv150]

We keep our brand new purchased vehicles forever so we take the best care of them. The '16 Ecco Boost only gets Shell or Mobil premium. As they say...pay a little now or pay a lot later. Will the Ecco engine run on 87...sure, but I wouldn't run that crap in a lawnmower.

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

I've been using 87, and when we go on our trip next month, I will probably fill up with premium before we head out.

 

[positivemojo]

I've used 87 octane for years and put in a bottle of Techron Max every 10,000 miles - or oil change. Works like a charm.

 

[rjdelp7]

The octane rating, is in your owners manual. Using premium, when 87 is required is a waste of money. The "Eco-boost" is not a high performance engine, it is a fuel saver, hence "eco". From what I read about it, it does not save, all that much. Paying for premium, would defeat any savings. The EB engine adds $1400 to the price of the truck. It has more parts, to fail, out of warranty. Ford went all in, with eco-boost(v6 turbo charging), but GM and Ram trucks, still have V8s. Ford should give a V8 option. I personally will never own a full size truck, with a V6.

 

[LokiWolf]

The octane rating, is in your owners manual. Using premium, when 87 is required is a waste of money. The "Eco-boost" is not a high performance engine, it is a fuel saver, hence "eco". From what I read about it, it does not save, all that much. Paying for premium, would defeat any savings. The EB engine adds $1400 to the price of the truck. It has more parts, to fail, out of warranty. Ford went all in, with eco-boost(v6 turbo charging), but GM and Ram trucks, still have V8s. Ford should give a V8 option. I personally will never own a full size truck, with a V6.

And yet another person bashing the EcoBoost who has never driver one. Love it! This motor is a beast, it effortlessly pulls this beast of vehicle around. Torque is on demand instantly, and it has a massively flat Torque curve. Press the go fast pedal and it builds speed, with out breaking a sweat. Reminds me of my old 250 in that way. The 5.4 had less power, and worst MPG...no brainer for the 3.5Eco. The 5.0 averages the same MPG according to Fuelly, but has less Power, 5.0(360HP/380lbft) vs 3.5TT(365HP/420lbft). I used 2014 F-150 numbers, because that is the generation our Eco is. Why would you not want more power with the same MPG? As far as upgrades...the Eco can gain 80HP with JUST a tune. Can't do that on the Coyote. Love the 5.0, it sounds great, and is a great motor, but bashing the Eco, just because it has 2 less cylinders...just doesn't make sense.

Fact, it has been proven on a dyno, that the 3.5TT generates more power using 93 vs 87. Doesn't mean 87 is bad for it, but the Motor does respond to it.

We keep our brand new purchased vehicles forever so we take the best care of them. The '16 Ecco Boost only gets Shell or Mobil premium. As they say...pay a little now or pay a lot later. Will the Ecco engine run on 87...sure, but I wouldn't run that crap in a lawnmower.

I run Shell 87 most of the time. Quality gas, just 87 most of the time. 93 vs 87 does not define crap.

 

[powerboatr]

run 92 every fill up
or 87 with absolutely no ethanol

 

[rjdelp7]

And yet another person bashing the EcoBoost who has never driver one. Love it! This motor is a beast, it effortlessly pulls this beast of vehicle around. Torque is on demand instantly, and it has a massively flat Torque curve. Press the go fast pedal and it builds speed, with out breaking a sweat. Reminds me of my old 250 in that way. The 5.4 had less power, and worst MPG...no brainer for the 3.5Eco. The 5.0 averages the same MPG according to Fuelly, but has less Power, 5.0(360HP/380lbft) vs 3.5TT(365HP/420lbft). I used 2014 F-150 numbers, because that is the generation our Eco is. Why would you not want more power with the same MPG? As far as upgrades...the Eco can gain 80HP with JUST a tune. Can't do that on the Coyote. Love the 5.0, it sounds great, and is a great motor, but bashing the Eco, just because it has 2 less cylinders...just doesn't make sense.

Fact, it has been proven on a dyno, that the 3.5TT generates more power using 93 vs 87. Doesn't mean 87 is bad for it, but the Motor does respond to it.



I run Shell 87 most of the time. Quality gas, just 87 most of the time. 93 vs 87 does not define crap.

I wasn't bashing the Eco-boost. I was stating well known facts. You did not mention what your fuel mileage actually was. I hear 16mpg, city is average. 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.