Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://www.fordservicecontent.com/pubs/content/~WT/~MUS~LEN/3521/tsb13-02-01.pdf-
If I find out the TSB relates to an actual MPG issue then I'll do something about it.
Now the question is whether you'll take a mpg hit with this engine going for the more power option. They seem to be competing goals.
Actually, if the knock sensor is optimized for premium, you'll get better MPG on premium (unless you're driving hard enough to extract that extra power) as running a richer mixture is part of how they compensate for the lower octane of regular.
Maybe they can't put anything about better mileage because it's not officially tested that way.
You would need to check in your area to find out what is contained in the various fuels. (sometimes it's hard to really get a definitive answer, and sometimes the blends vary on season and availability of the Ethanol etc)
Clearly, the Ecoboosts are designed to make use of the higher octane if you put it in. Whether or not the octane alone makes a measureable difference, I would love to know. I am running some of my own tests and if I get any good data, I will share it.
One reason (probably the primary one unless the mid-grade was ethanol free..it's not in Cda) for the better mileage on the mid grade, is because Ford has designed their ecoboost engines to run on 87 octane because they knew that even if they stated it called for 89 to 91 octane, that many users would still fuel with 87, is that they have created engine management parameters that sense which fuel octane is being used. When it senses that 87 is being used, it retards the timing electronically, in order to protect the combustion from happening too soon, which causes damaging ping and knock issues.
But the spin-off from retarding timing in the case of these turbos, is that that reduces both power output and fuel economy. So when you use a higher grade gas, the engine management senses it and again will electronically advance the timing which will give higher fuel mileage, and providing the octane is high enough, can boost engine output too without causing the knock and ping.
I will be interested to read your findings and comparos after trying 91. There may be a point of diminishing returns regarding better mpg vs the extra cost of the higher octane. I think the USA also has ethanol free gas in the 91 grade. That is the way it is in Cda. I guess, too, that in order to have really conclusive findings, it would require enough tanks in both directions so are allowing for prevailing headwinds/tailwinds and hills etc.. and also if one pump delivers more gas than the one beside it..(this is a big issue here in Cda, we have some VERY crooked retailers here in Ont and trying to fight them with our crappy Weights and Measures Gvt Offices, seem to be a waste of time and loads of frustration..ask me how I know..)(no surprise really..obviously Weights and Measures are in bed with big oil).
So with the same line of thinking here, I would recommend that if anyone tows a trailer heavier than 1200 lb or regularly carries the vehicle's capacity in weight, to use mid grade. It probably does literally pay for itself and is easier on the engine in terms of heat created (turbos by their very nature creates a lot of heat, and anything that retards potential pinging, helps counter that) and longevity. If you tow a trailer of 2000lb and up I would definitely recommend 91 octane.
So anyone who wants even more detail (if you are like me, you like to know why is he saying that..what does that mean and why?) then the reason high test allows more advanced timing without the potential engine damaging ping and knock, is because 91 octane has a higher flash point..i.e. all fuel will combust quicker or sooner when under pressure. 87 takes less pressure to combust at exactly the same time as 91 does, so picture if the piston is on its way up and getting ready to be sent back down due to the spark plug firing the gas that creates the explosion, then if you present a gas that is too eager to ignite (87) with the exact same timing settings as consider 'advanced' in the quest for fuel economy and performance, as a gas that ignites late (91), then the 87 igniting too soon in relation to the piston not being in the right position in regards to what is known as TDC (top dead centre) the 'premature' combustion is what creates the ping/knock. This is the explosion actually trying to fire the piston back down, before it has had a chance to reach its TDC position (or more specifically before it has reached that specified advanced or retarded timing position in degrees relative to TDC). And what controls the spark plug firing (and when) is the timing settings. So you can see that when you set the timing advanced, it allows more pressure to build in the CC (combustion chamber) (and more pressure means more power and potentially more thorough combustion of the gas which creates fewer emissions and increases FE) and in relation to combusting the fuel, before actually igniting the fuel. And conversely then, if you present a fuel too eager to ignite (87) with the same timing settings, you are not getting an ideal timing and explosion process and can create very real and expensive damage to the engine.
So Ford has 'idiot-proofed'* you might say, the system. But those who check into why something is what it is and why maybe a higher cost fuel can be justified etc. often can reap the benefits of getting into the why of some things.. Owner's Manuals are written always with the intention to not possibly glaze over their owner's eyes, allowing for the best mix of costs and longevity potential regarding maintenance and running costs, AND/BUT also keeping themselves out of court..
* So has BMW (and many others, most brands in fact that are FI which is all in NA now) idiot-proofed their engines, cuz we all, I'm sure, have seen many BMW and MB owners fueling up at the gas stn with the 87 nozzle..
I made a great discovery recently though..it was a website that lists gas stns and their location and what grades they sell and what ethanol content levels in each.
And even more recent surprise to me, I have found two Shell stns within a 50 miles radius (wish it was a lot closer but at least one of them is in a direction I go at times so take all the jerry cans with me if I can) that actually sell ethanol-free 87! !!!!!!! Like wow, who wudda thunk? I'll really believe it though once I fuel there and find my mileage went up, which it will at least 2 to 2.5 mpg if the 87 really doesn't have any ethanol..
Apparently out east, it is a lot easier to find ethanol free stations.
Oh...another kicker here for bike owners who think they have to use the highest octane going..is that Sunoco 94 has ethanol in it E apparently boosts octane levels and is one of the cheap ways Sunoco offers their 94 that way..this might only be in Cda tho?
Something different from pure-gas.org you mean?
Looks like they offer a POI file too if you have a navigation gizmo.
On a side note, is there a way to tell if this reprogramming was already done by my dealer before I purchased it? Like in settings, version or anything?
The hwy ratings should be 33 MPG for FWD or 30 MPG for AWD.
Because Ethanol itself has a very high octane number, it gets added to gasoline to raise the octane rating of the gas.
So what you may be buying is a mixture of 89 or 90 octane gasoline which they then put Ethanol in (10%)to raise the octane rating to 93 and voila, you have 93 octane fuel, which has less energy in it.
Whereas, some stations will have 91 octane gasoline which is pure.
Some companies have sold 92, 93 or 94 octane fuel at the same price as 91 because of a perceived "free" benefit. Most times they have just diluted the gas with Ethanol. Yes, the octane rating goes up, but you need to burn more of it.
If you really want to know what is in your local fuel, you can do a quick test at the pump, with a graduated test tube or glass jar, a bit of water and a bit of the gas. The FAA suggests this method to ensure that no Ethanol is used in aircraft. (there are a select group of aircraft that can use automotive grade fuel)link title
Do some research on ethanol fuel testing, you will be amazed how easy it is. There are companies that sell "kits" for this, but it really amounts to a test tube with some markings on it.
Just to keep it "interesting", here is another thing to consider. Winter fuel vs. summer fuel.
I have always known that there are multiple blends throughout the year, but this article http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/summer-blend-vs-winter-blend- -gasoline-whats-the-difference-13747431 really clarified things.
I am sure many of us on this forum are in different regions, so we are likely all going to experience different fuel blends at different times.
If you go from one extreme to another (fuel-wise) I would bet the results would vary quite a bit.
Since we know that the EPA testing is done with Ethanol free fuel, I would also bet that it is done with the higher quality summer fuel as well.
I am looking forward to warmer weather to see how my Escape 2.0 FWD will do. I took delivery in November in Canada, so I have been using the inferior winter blends since then.
My 18-tank lifetime average is 24.33 MPG combined. Hand-calculated.
With the 1.6L on the highway I always get 35 to 38 mpg when not driving fast! 60 max ! Laugh all you want but sorry to say 58mph is the sweet spot which kicks my mpg up the fastest! Bottom line drive faster use a lot more gas ..........
Look here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v372/diz/35a2d89d-3d8e-4285-aed7-25afa99783bc.- jpg
"Measuring fuel economy during the tests is likewise hugely complex, which is why the automakers and the EPA both follow precisely the same protocol. For openers, the chemical composition of fuel varies slightly, so simply retrieving it from a local gas station won’t produce repeatable results. The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend). Before being used, the gas is analyzed to measure its properties, and fuel economy is then calculated based on the measured carbon content of the various tailpipe emissions—unburned hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)—that are collected in bags made of a special Kynar plastic. A $350,000 gas-analyzing machine then makes minute measurements. The one-percent accuracy of this machine from Japanese company Horiba is amazing considering the minuscule amounts of some of the exhaust constituents—some in quantities as low as a half-dozen parts per million."
If this stuff is true, seems to me nearly impossible to replicate EPA measurements in real life based on corner store gas and real life driving conditions.
Detailed Test Information (fueleconomy.gov)
I think the main thing is that the EPA rating gives you a consistent baseline to compare one model against another brand, even if you don't hit the numbers (although some of us always seem to manage to meet or exceed the EPA ratings).
and it did not matter winter summer spring fall, cheap gas.. however chevron regular did bump me up 1 or 2 mpgs. only thing that has helped with the escape if bumping my psi to 38psi, that has got me to low 20's mpg combined
Me too and usually better. It would drive me nuts if I couldn't hit the EPA numbers after a few thousand miles of "break-in".
When the city and highway cycles were the only two tests, they used to apply flat correction factors to get to the estimates you see on the sticker.
I'd love to be able to call up detailed info, beyond the sticker, to see what a vehicle got on each of the cycles.
My Volvo was rated at 21/29 on the old system, and 20/27 on the new one. The one time I recall doing much driving that matched the highway cycle (a few days in the Outer Banks), I averaged about 32mpg. My "mostly highway" commute here looks a lot like the high-speed cycle, and I average about 25mpg.
YMMV.
Vehicle: 2.0L SEL 4WD. 5,075 miles.
All three tanks of gas were purchased from same station (Citgo brand).
Station indicates that all grades may contain up to 10% ethanol.
While I did not drive the same exact route with each tank, I did try to drive the same type of conditions. All routes were about 80% highway (interstate or state highway, tried to maintain speed of 65 mph), and 20% city (speed limits between 25 and 35, with multiple stop signs and/or traffic lights.
I emptied my third and last tank of fuel today. I refueled each time when the low fuel light came on.
What did I learn - don't trust the readout on the display (calculate your mpg).
Don't trust the low fuel light or the miles-to-empty on display (in each case I had about twice the fuel left than what was being displayed (I will be taking the vehicle in for the previously discussed Ford TSB)).
Results:
Regular fuel. 22.3 mpg (display said 22.7).
Mid-grade fuel. 25.7 mpg (display said 25.1 mpg).
Premium fuel. 21.9 mpg (display said 22.8 mpg).
I will be trying another tank of the mid-grade. I don't know what to say about the results with the premium grade fuel - actually lower than using regular! Maybe the gas station owner is pulling a fast one and is selling regular gas as premium!
Only the tank of mid-grade approaches the EPA and Ford's reported mpg rating. Definitely won't be wasting the premium dollars n another tank of premium fuel! If the mid-grade performance holds true, I will probably stick with it, as 15% gain in mpg is better than the 5% up charge for the gas.
I tested some 87 octane fuel at one of my local stations yesterday for Ethanol content. (first time I have ever done this) It had no Ethanol. I am going to check various grades at the stations I usually buy gas from, just so I know.
Seems like a lot of effort and a pain in my back bumper, but if it makes that much difference, then I want to know!
How much are you currently paying for all 3 grades of fuel? Sometimes that is a clue to the fuel content. If the 93 is pure gas, then it should be significantly more than your 89. Does your station also offer 91?
In my opinion, it can take about 10k before the drive train feels broken in.
For the most part, the miles goes up every year.
MY '02 Explorer got it's best mileage @125k, back to back tanks.
Expensive break-in costs? These figures are generous, i.e. high compared to what I would expect most folks to experience in reality... but 10K miles of getting 20mpg instead of 25mpg... you use 500 gallons of gas instead of 400... at $4/gal that's $400. You can easily leave that on the table negotiating the price of your car! And who buys a different car over a $400 price difference? I would think if it's that close, you buy the car you actually like more.
Could be totally off base, but I do have 22 year old and 11 year old Fords, in addition to the others 4 that are newer.
What are expensive break in costs? If someone can't afford to not get the EPA average, then a previously owned economy car is a better choice.
Despite so far averaging below the EPA average, my wife's 13 Escape is getting slightly better mileage than her '09.
They both have 240 HP and new '13 hasn't been on anything close to a road trip.
North Americans love their power..not that long ago the majority opted for a V6 when we all know (if we look in the mirror and are honest with ourselves) that in most cases a properly sized and geared 4 cyl would do the trick. So Ford knows this, and they did not want to risk their investment in ecoboost tech, to get the reputation for not delivering the urge that NA's have come to expect. Remember the human nature aspect...we want our cake and eat it too. And still, in order to post fairly high expected FE numbers, Ford has still geared (the Fusion/or higher aero and static taxed 4WD versions of the Escape) as best examples of a quite heavy/safe cars, but equipped with a fairly small 1.6, its turbo urge notwithstanding) quite tall. This combo requires a delicate right foot and subdued starts and highway speeds. Which is rarely real-world.
My van's lifetime mpg peaked at 118k but I'm 3 years and 40,000 miles behind in updating my spreadsheet.