Minimum octane for 2016 2.0 ecoboost?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
922
Location
Eastern Wa.
2016 fusion 2.0 ecoboost. The manual says 87 octane minimum but I''ve been using 91 or higher. How sensitive are these engines to lower octane fuels?
 
Last edited:
They will get better fuel mileage running higher octane fuel. In some cases enough more fuel mileage to pay for premium, in other cases not.
 
Originally Posted by Corollaman
2016 fusion 2.0 ecoboost. The manual says 87 octane minimum but I''ve been using 91 or higher. How sensitive are these engines to lower octane fuels?


Factory tune is set for 87, so it is safe to run regular gas. However some tunes sometimes get better mileage/performance with higher octane. It really depends on the engine and ECU.
 
With my 2019 jeep cherokee trailhawk --bigger AT tires, no airdam, higher ride. Trailhawk is easily 2-3mpg lower than other cherokee models.
It has the 2.0T the owners manual recommends 91+ but requires 87.

I got 28.5mpg with 93 octane going from akron to Cincinnati(265 miles iirc), filled up with 87 octane
Drove city for a few days lots of lights full A/C it was very hot.

When I computed mileage for the entire trip including the first part(600miles total) my average was 28.9.. so the mileage didnt suffer much with 87.

It is abit peppier with 93octane esp when its very hot out. in the winter not nearly as much difference.

Also here there is a HUGE premium for .. premium gas.. usually 60cents/gallon
currently 87 is 2.22 and 93 is 2.82 (or 27% more) no way I'm getting even 10% more mpg with 93

That being said.. I do use 93 when towing in hot weather.
 
I mix a littlle higher octane in my Jetta with the 87.. It makes it easier to drive with the stick. But it has no real issue running 87.

And that's is a 1-1/2 tonne car with a 1.4T.

My issue is getting "fresh" high octane fuel in my neck of the woods. It's not consistent at all and pouring in a load of "bilge water" will make it run much worse or kill it, Bad gasoline is Not Covered by Factory warranty. Remember that.

Try it and see if you can feel and measure the diff. Give it a chance to change the tune maybe 40 miles of mixed driving.
 
Originally Posted by Corollaman
2016 fusion 2.0 ecoboost. The manual says 87 octane minimum but I''ve been using 91 or higher. How sensitive are these engines to lower octane fuels?

I would keep using what you have been, (91 or higher). I have never understood the logic of paying well into 4 digits more for a turbocharged, high performance engine, then turn right around and try to save a few bucks a fill up on cheaper, lower octane fuel.

It's the same with the 5.7 Chrysler HEMI. Yes, they'll run OK on 87. But you will not get the best performance or fuel mileage on that low octane fuel. I use nothing but 91 octane in mine. It delivers great mileage and performance as a result. Today you can get away with using cheap gas in a lot of these cars, because the vehicles on board computer will automatically detune most all of these engines and prevent harm. But at the same time it prevents the engine from performing to it's maximum...... Which is what you paid extra for in the first place.

It's absurd logic. There are hundreds of places to save money today. This should not be one of them.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
I have never understood the logic of paying well into 4 digits more for a turbocharged, high performance engine, then turn right around and try to save a few bucks a fill up on cheaper, lower octane fuel.

One reason might be because Ford designed it to use 87 octane fuel.
 
My wife's 2017 Chevy Equinox is not turbo, but it does have a 11.2:1 compression ratio. Regular works, but there is a noticeable improvement by using E85 100 octane in it. I cannot speak specifically to what Ford does, but GM does modulate timing in their engines in response to knock events,,, retarding timing to prevent knock. Even in their 6.2 Ecotec, they say it can use regular, but recommend premium to maximize engine performance. It would seem logical that Ford does something similar with their engines.

With the move to higher compression ratios in both NA and certainly in Forced Induction engines, it seems that higher octane levels are going to be in play if one wants to garner the most from these newer engines.

I know that in using E85 100 octane that MPG is not be that great, but on a cost per mile compared to Premium, E85 is the clear winner. So I get the performance of a high octane fuel along with a lower cost per mile.
 
Originally Posted by DavidJones
Run the 87. The more expensive stuff will do nothing for you but lighten your wallet.


That would be true in days gone by. But I am not convinced that it plays to the dynamics of modern forced induction engines.
 
My new F150 with the 2.7 ecoboost recently ran worse on a tank mid grade 89 than it has been 87. Just filled up with 18 gal of 87 (23 gal tank) and it's back to normal again. Owner manual says 87 is okay.

Over on F150forum.com there was a recent poll and 58% of respondents reported using 87 in their ecoboost. 323 respondents total, 188 said 87. 13 said midgrade (89), premium (91 & 93) was 122.
 
Higher octane will allow the computer to advance the timing. Two things happen then... 1) advanced timing equals more power 2) less chance of pre-detonation.

High octane will help when the engine is under load or ambient temps are at their highest. Manufacturers know that if they put a premium designation on fuel it will hurt sales. So your vehicle will run on 87 and most will never know the difference. You have a high performance 2.0 turbo from Ford. You choose what fuel you run, but 91 or 93 will be better. Forced induction will always benefit from higher octane. My flame resistant suit is now on.
 
The mileage difference typically comes because many premium fuels do not contain ethanol and have a higher energy content. In any case, paying $0.50 extra per gallon for premium, somewhere between 15-20% extra, will never, ever make up for the difference, which is around 3% in mileage improvement. Stick with 87.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Corollaman
2016 fusion 2.0 ecoboost. The manual says 87 octane minimum but I''ve been using 91 or higher. How sensitive are these engines to lower octane fuels?

I would keep using what you have been, (91 or higher). I have never understood the logic of paying well into 4 digits more for a turbocharged, high performance engine, then turn right around and try to save a few bucks a fill up on cheaper, lower octane fuel.


Simple. It's not a "high performance engine", it's throwing a turbocharger on a low performance engine to make it viable, to get better fuel economy (if you're driving it like grandma), to meet EPA numbers. EPA has their own reasons but it's marketed to the consumer as paying less for fuel, which is what buying lower octane does too (obviously).

Better question is, who in their right mind buys a Fusion and thinks the goal is pretend it's a sports car for use on public roads? Makes no sense.

Quote
It's the same with the 5.7 Chrysler HEMI. Yes, they'll run OK on 87. But you will not get the best performance or fuel mileage on that low octane fuel.


Maybe the same, if (again) the vehicle is treated like a sports car, but for trucks doing work, it's not the same because there is additional work being asked of the engine to haul a load.

Quote
I use nothing but 91 octane in mine. It delivers great mileage and performance as a result. Today you can get away with using cheap gas in a lot of these cars, because the vehicles on board computer will automatically detune most all of these engines and prevent harm. But at the same time it prevents the engine from performing to it's maximum...... Which is what you paid extra for in the first place.


Quote
It's absurd logic. There are hundreds of places to save money today. This should not be one of them.


Yes it's absurd, to pretend people should pay extra for their domestic sedan to floor it (else the performance difference was zero because neither was maxed out yet) to get from one stop light to the next slightly faster, putting more stress on the already stressed little 2L turbo engine and lighter duty tranny (also to improve fuel economy by reducing drag and adding complexity with more gears), and trashing their CV axles, tires, etc.

If you want a sports car, buy one. If it needs higher octane fuel it will be stated in the owner's manual.

On the other hand, it does make sense to go higher octane if you live in an unusual market where the cost difference is less than the slightly higher fuel economy using it.
 
We have a 2017 2.3 EB Explorer that requires a minimum 87 octane fuel. The OM says that to get the max HP use 91 octane or higher especially if you tow in high temps 91 octane is preferred. That year, 2017, we used 93 octane, premium on the East Coast, for a summer trip from NJ to Key West. The next year, 2018, we made the same trip and used only regular, 87 octane fuel. The only difference was with the 93 octane fuel the Explorer had more power accelerating on the highway. The mpg difference with 93 octane was only within 1 to 2 mpg more. For the $0.60 to $1.00 extra for the 93 octane for that trip it was not worth it. Currently premium fuel around me is costing $0.70- $0.76 per gallon more than 87 octane fuel, it's just not worth it for the limited benefits. We use top tier 87 octane fuel and Mobil 1 5W-30 dexos 1 Gen 2 rated oil to handle LSPI potential issues and potential timing chain issues with TDI gas engines.

Whimsey
 
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by billt460
I have never understood the logic of paying well into 4 digits more for a turbocharged, high performance engine, then turn right around and try to save a few bucks a fill up on cheaper, lower octane fuel.

One reason might be because Ford designed it to use 87 octane fuel.

It will run on 87 octane, yes. But it will not deliver peak performance or mileage with it. So again the question becomes why pay extra for a high performance engine, then reduce it's performance by using a cheaper, lower octane fuel? False economy at it's best.
 
Originally Posted by Corollaman
2016 fusion 2.0 ecoboost. The manual says 87 octane minimum but I''ve been using 91 or higher. How sensitive are these engines to lower octane fuels?


Read that as a warning! Do not go below 87! The computer can only compensate down to that level, as you can see there is no warning for higher octane.
 
As pointed out by Dave9, the 2.0L Ecoboost engine isn't a "high performance engine". Just being turbocharged doesn't make it one. It's turbocharged because it's a 2.0L engine trying to move a 1-3/4 ton car and get decent fuel economy at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top