Octane effect.

we have 2.0 getting 25.6 mpg regular gas.....and 1500 miles...thus far

And the power and throttle response is satisfactory?

I use 87 octane most of the time, and yes power and throttle response is satisfactory.

I use 93 octane when price drop to satisfactory level and/or when I feel I'm in a good mood for some real sport. The engine definitely runs smoother, and throttle response is more... responsive with the better gas, of course.

I find no problem switching back from 93 to 87, or vice versa. At least, I got more options for some "Eco" or some extra "Boost".

I've put 93 in a few times for sport. Really don't notice any increase in performance. No difference in MPG. 100% 87 from now on.

Thank You all. I appreciate the information.

From experience and fact i realized that putting in anything higher in octane than what your vehicle actually needs is just wasting your money.

One important factor is the 87 usually has high ethanol .... as much as 10%...ethanol is just bad news with fuel systems, known to corrode gas lines, dry up seals and wreck havoc with fuel pumps.
Shell 91 octane ( premium gas) contains NO ethanol... your engine runs WAY better and you CAN feel the difference between the 87 and 91.
Generally, a turbo charged engine produces a bigger "hit" with 91, also it does NOT pull timing,and less chance of detonation... just my .2 cents!

DeMarco said:

From experience and fact i realized that putting in anything higher in octane than what your vehicle actually needs is just wasting your money.

Click to expand...

More specifically, what the vehicle is tuned for.

Used to be a turbo or supercharger automatically meant 93 octane period. Now, Ford's got the tuning worked out between the ECU/Spark tables and variable timing to where they can make the 87 work.

The engine should be able to adjust, minimally, for 93 octane but you won't see any earth shattering differences. As noted it may seem smoother and the throttle tip-in might be quicker.

If/when tuning becomes available for the Lincolns, the tuners can take advantage of the upper limits of the 93 octane world and go a little beyond what Ford allows for, while still remaining safe. With these direct injected turbo-and-variable-timing engines, an ECU tune can produce massive amounts of increases.

Now, if only they'd release a Lincoln spec'd Explorer counterpart with the new 400hp 3.0L twin turbo....

pdqford said:

In researching the MKC I have seen where the Horse Power and Torque ratings of both the 2.0 and 2.3 have foot notes indicating that those numbers are achieved using 93 octane fuel.


Does anyone have any feel for the effect of 87 octane on the HP/Torque and fuel mileage of these two engines?

Click to expand...

On a '14 Escape 2.0 the horsepower is 240, but it drops to 231 when running 87 octane.

I thought I saw the 2.3 was 285 with 93 octane and in vicinty of 270 with 87. That would be in line with the 4% drop seen in your 2.0

There isn't really much to notice even if you were to switch between the two. The power and throttle will obviously experience a slight increase or decrease but it will not be significant. Depending on your finances, it is best to stay within your budget. Well, that is my personal opinion because I believe that a little goes a long way. I would prefer to go slow on the road and go slow on my pocket too.

I have gone with both grades. No mileage difference detected on long full tank trips on same roads. Locally, no noticeable difference in performance. Was going to do a tune but based on these facts, unless a tune put me well over 300HP (say 325HP) I doubt it will be noticeable. Actually nice to have a reg gas vehicle for a change.