2017 Explorer 2.3L // Regular vs Premium Fuel

[WallaceMI]

did anyone ever tried to use regular vs premium fuel over a longer period of time to see if there is a significant effect to MPG and performance? I'm specifically interested in results for the 2.3L EcoBoost w/ AWD.

I only used regular so far but the car never felt underpowered. I have an average MPG of 19.7 over approx. 12.000 miles.

 

[Exit32]

Just looked at the fuel economy readout on my 2016 Platinum equipped with the 3.5-liter Ecoboost. I have 19,364 miles on the vehicle and average fuel mileage since the vehicle was new has been 21.1 mpg. I'd guess roughly 50/50 city/highway driving, and I use 93-octane, Top Tier fuel exclusively.

One thing I haven't seen discussed here is how high-performance, turbocharged engines adjust to accommodate lower octane fuel. The powertrain control module will regard timing to reduce detonation, but another thing it can do is enrich the fuel mixture to reduce detonation. If the Ecoboost does this with 87-octane fuel, then a higher volume of fuel will be consumed and gas mileage will be less that if 93-octane fuel is used.

Sooty tailpipes are an indication that the fuel mixture is rich. I suspect Ecoboosts running premium fuel are noticeably less sooty than Ecoboosts running regular-grade fuel.

Yes, I realize that regular fuel is "recommended" by Ford for Ecoboost engines. Betcha that's Ford's marketing department making that recommendation -- not powertrain engineering.

 

[blwnsmoke]

You would need a 3-4mpg increase to offset the additional cost of premium. You will not see those types of gains, at most 10%

However, if yoou live in a hot/humid climate, I would run it during those months.

 

[whimsey]

For a 3,600 mile trip we took to Key West at the end of June we used mainly 93 octane with some half tanks mixed with 89 octane. Mind you it was mainly driving at 75-85 mph for hours on end. The mpg was running 24+. Back at home we use regular and average about 21 mpg, of course their is a lot more local driving involved. This is with our 2017 2.3. At the start of the trip the Explorer had about 5,300 miles total on it, so it was relatively new. This a lot better than our 2005 with the 4.6 V-8, that gets closer to 15 mpg most of the time . In NJ 93 octane is running about $.50 more than regular. On our trip sometimes 93 octane was almost $1.00 more than regular.

Whimsey

 

[WallaceMI]

Does your Explorer feel more responsive with premium compared to regular?

 

[peterk9]

did anyone ever tried to use regular vs premium fuel over a longer period of time to see if there is a significant effect to MPG and performance? I'm specifically interested in results for the 2.3L EcoBoost w/ AWD.

I only used regular so far but the car never felt underpowered. I have an average MPG of 19.7 over approx. 12.000 miles.

Hey Wallace. This is a question that has come several times and has been discussed in a few threads.
http://www.explorerforum.com/xenfor...our-best-mileage-from-a-2-3l-ecoboost.464249/
http://www.explorerforum.com/xenforo/index.php?threads/2-3-ecoboost.449751/
Since everyone has their own driving style and drive under different conditions most mileage figures are going to reflect that. Before you buy a 2.3L Ecoboost AWD I suggest that you take it for a good test drive. Several members felt the 2.0L was under powered and that the 2.3L was an improvement. Although I don't have the 2.3L, I can say that I didn't notice any mileage or performance difference between 87 and 89 in my 3.5L Eco. I am going to try 91 for a while and see if that does anything to make the extra cost worthwhile.

Peter

 

[whimsey]

Does your Explorer feel more responsive with premium compared to regular?

From a "seat of the pants" feel I can not feel the difference between 93 octane and 87 in "normal" driving conditions. At $.50/gallon difference for 93 octane it's hard to justify. Even if it "dumps" more fuel into the oil using regular vs premium doing 5,000 mile oci's vs 7,000 mile oci's is less expensive than $.50/gallon additional for 93. I sent a 7,000 mile oci using Mobil 1 5W-30 to Blackstone, we'll see how it does.

Whimsey

 

[peterk9]

...... Even if it "dumps" more fuel into the oil using regular vs premium doing 5,000 mile oci's vs 7,000 mile oci's is less expensive than $.50/gallon additional for 93.......
Whimsey

Why would the engine "dump" any gasoline into the oil regardless of octane?? I've never experienced that before running 87.

Peter

 

[whimsey]

Why would the engine "dump" any gasoline into the oil regardless of octane?? I've never experienced that before running 87.

Peter

Just going by what others say that Ford enriches the fuel mixture to quell spark knock when using 87 octane fuel in Eco Boost engines. Whether it's true or not I have no idea, wish I did.

Whimsey

 

[kmarnes]

I think this is what you are talking about.

I just returned from a lengthy road trip from Vancouver BC to Saskatchewan. I encountered large mountain passes and prairie conditions and used the adaptive cruise control extensively on roads that were largely empty. With premium 94 octane I got about 11.1L/100km (21.19mpg), and with regular 87 octane I got about 13.2L/100km (17.82mpg). It was actually a noticeable difference. But still difficult because I usually filled the tank a quarter tank so there was some mixture with the other gas. And road conditions weren't exactly the same with both tanks, but they were pretty similar. I did my measurements once I entered the mountain passes.

Rule of thumb for me... if you are going for freeway driving in mountain conditions... use premium. City driving, use regular. Premium is quite expensive in Vancouver, but once I escape, premium is much cheaper. In Saskatchewan, I had to fill up with regular because they didn't sell premium in a tiny hick town I visited... and they didn't even have pay at the pump. Was confused. Audi owners would have been screwed there. Was able to fill up for $48 vs $80.