Those living with the 2.3…

[DonM]

I have 12k on mile Base Squatch 4DR 2.3. I've run 92/93 for probably the last 10K. I think I have seen more of difference between Normal and ECO mode than 87 and 92/93. I have a 1400 mile run back home in a couple of weeks. Might run 87 on the way home to check again. The turbo and running into wind kills mileage. Fuelly has me at 17.4 overall with 19.6 best and 14.5 worst (that was the into the wind run).

Sponsored

 

[Jhuff]

I haven't used any 87 yet, only 89. Getting 21 around town and 15 when I need to get to work faster (on the interstate). Averaging about 19.

I did put in half a tank of non-ethanol 89 fuel a few days ago, and haven't averaged below 20mpg since (for that same commute). It's really a wash, price per mile, but better fuel for the same cost.

Might try premium next, but for a Badlands Squatch, I couldn't be happier where it stands now.

 

[Bshaw386]

I have about 2600 miles on mine. Been running it mostly on country roads with the exception of one trip to the Smokey mountains. I get 21 mpg running strictly 89

 

[Evergreen]

Mine has been built, but haven't taken delivery yet. I have no intentions of putting in anything other than 87. It's not worth it for questionable mileage gains and a **peak** 30 hp gain. If there were a guarantee for a meaningful mileage increase or if it was a magical 30 hp bump across the board I'd take it.

Anyone running "93 to use the best fuel" on a motor like this has read the advertisements near the fuel pumps one too many times and fallen for the marketing tricks

 

[BamBamBilly]

8,000+ miles on mine, it has only ever had regular unleaded 87 in it and I have no issues. I wish I didn't drive 90 miles a day for work because I hate seeing the mileage jump so fast (early December delivery) but here we are! Love my Bronco!

 

[Markco]

I only use reg on my 2 dr black diamond. I average 20 mpg. She has all the neck jerking power i need.

And most of my driving is NYC traffic.

 

[‘21OBX]

Have run 125k miles worth of 87 through my 2.7 ecoboost f150 and 1K miles worth of 87 through my 2.3 Bronco.

Not really living with the 2.3 ecoboost, I actually wanted the 4 cylinder. I am a firm believer that the 2.3 has more potential than the 2.7 in the long run. Just waiting for tuning and I will step the bronco up to higher octane fuel. I have a feeling that mild mods on a 2.3 will get you into the sweet spot.

Check out some of the mustang forums and what people have done with the 2.3. Amazing numbers some extreme are over 450hp not sure how daily drivable they are at that point.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Question for those that have been able to get some miles on the 2.3 and run a few tanks of gas through.

now that the novelty is wearing off, and the national average price of gas hit another all time high today, are you still buying premium gas?
Can you tell there is a horsepower bump?


(I haven’t taken delivery yet)

If a person was concerned about horsepower and performance they probably would have bought the 2.7. The four banger group doesn't much care. They either want to shift, or save money.

 

[GToddC5]

If a person was concerned about horsepower and performance they probably would have bought the 2.7. The four banger group doesn't much care. They either want to shift, or save money.

For me, I wanted to shift and didn't have the option for the 2.7 for '21, so I'll take more HP and performance with power adders. And say I did have the option for the 2.7, I would STILL be looking form more out of it. Not because I need it, but because I'm an idiot that craves more out of anything I have. One could argue that premium fuel along with a tune, CAI and high flow exhaust also create power where it doesn't commonly get used, but people still want it.

 

[Mr. Nice]

For me, I wanted to shift and didn't have the option for the 2.7 for '21, so I'll take more HP and performance with power adders. And say I did have the option for the 2.7, I would STILL be looking form more out of it. Not because I need it, but because I'm an idiot that craves more out of anything I have. One could argue that premium fuel along with a tune, CAI and high flow exhaust also create power where it doesn't commonly get used, but people still want it.

Your preaching to the choir here. This is what Car and Driver found on a 3.5...

At 128.7 horsepower per liter, the F-150's high-output V-6 engine is more power dense than a Porsche 911 Carrera's twin-turbo flat-six. Naturally then, the Ford hauls ass as effortlessly as it hauls a half-ton of manure. When fed 93 octane, this 5594-pound, self-propelled wheelbarrow will crash 60 mph in 5.3 seconds.

MARC URBANO CAR AND DRIVER
Power at the wheels dropped from 380 to 360 horsepower with the change from 93 to 87 octane. That difference seemed to grow, and we could even feel it from the driver's seat at the test track. Compared with premium fuel, regular feed sapped the F-150's urgency both leaving the line and in the meat of the tach sweep. The rush to 60 mph softened to a still-blistering 5.9 seconds, and the quarter-mile stretched from 14.0 to 14.5 seconds, with trap speed falling 4 mph. Tapped into the Ford's CAN bus, we recorded a peak boost pressure roughly 1.9 psi lower during acceleration runs on regular gas, down more than 10 percent compared with the 18.1-psi peak on premium. The high-octane gas also helped when soft-pedaling the accelerator, elevating 75-mph fuel economy from 17.0 to 17.6 mpg. That won't make a financial case for running 93 octane, but then you didn't buy the expensive engine as a rational choice. You can think of this EcoBoost engine's more aggressive high-octane tune as a sort-of sport mode that can be switched on or off with every fill of its 36.0-gallon tank.

 

[ctandc]

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned (if it was and I missed it I apologize) is the brand or quality of the gas in question. Check out Top Tier gas listings. Different brands of gas are mixed differently by suppliers (detergents / additives). I know plenty of people who think that's just marketing BS - fine I won't argue. I'm just going by what I've learned through a friend whose family has been in the wholesale fuel business for 30+ years.

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to buy the most expensive - hell Costco's Kirkland branded gas is top tier. To simplify, these are gasoline brands that go beyond the Fed mandated minimums for additives.

As for 93 vs 87 - do what you think is right. It's an age old argument. I've run 93 in our '22 BB 2.3 - but it's only got @ 500 miles on it. Will likely run 87 - just like a run 87 in my '12 F150 5.0. But my '19 Mustang GT I just sold always got 93. Different tools - different jobs.

MAYBE in the next year or so we can get a shop that focuses on TRUCKS look at a tune for the 2.3 in the Bronco. I don't give a shit about PEAK HP. I want more TORQUE at low to mid RPMs. It's the reason I ended up putting the Ford Performance Tune on my '19 GT 6 speed. I didn't care about peak HP (it was 460HP peak STOCK) I wanted more grunt down low - where the Coyote needed it. Same as the Bronco.

Off idle to say 3500RPM - that's where a person who drives their Bronco in real life - not testing 0-60 for a magazine - needs it.

I need to peruse Ranger 2.3 dyno's and see what difference 87-93 octane made under the peak. I'm sure there is a difference, just wonder how much.

 

[daymoon]

Anyway for OP to retroactively add a poll to their opening post? Will make it easier for those just glancing at this thread to see what people are using.

Maybe,
1. Running 91-93 10 Auto
2. Running 87-89 10Auto
3. Running 91-93 7MT
4. Running 87-89 7MT

just a suggestion!

 

[Mr. Nice]

Check out some of the mustang forums and what people have done with the 2.3. Amazing numbers some extreme are over 450hp not sure how daily drivable they are at that point.

This is what Consumer Reports thinks. The 2.3 eco is on their most likely to need a rebuild list.

2015 Ford Mustang

Chrome
2015 Ford Mustang 4-cyl.
Typical mileage: 76,000-85,000

 

[ctandc]

This is what Consumer Reports thinks. The 2.3 eco is on their most likely to need a rebuild list.

2015 Ford Mustang

Chrome
2015 Ford Mustang 4-cyl.
Typical mileage: 76,000-85,000

Just curious - how did their rating change in 2016? What about 2020? Same platform, same engine?

It might be pertinent to note that this applies to the 2015 Mustang EB - and that was the first year of the 2.3 EB variant. I wonder if Lincoln MKC was rated the same (Also first year of the 2.3 EB in that vehicle) by Consumer reports?

Ford also sold @ 120K Mustangs in 2015. A little less than half were 2.3EB.

And JD power gives the '15 Mustang 79/100 (#3 in the category) for reliability.

I ain't saying Ford or the 2.3 is perfect. Not even close, but just posting a single year (intro year) from the Mustang using Consumer Reports is a bit much. Especially considering CR's reliability ranking for cars is based SOLEY on CR readers surveys.

At least JD power verified the people submitting data actually own the vehicle in question.

Just saying.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Just curious - how did their rating change in 2016? What about 2020? Same platform, same engine?

It might be pertinent to note that this applies to the 2015 Mustang EB - and that was the first year of the 2.3 EB variant. I wonder if Lincoln MKC was rated the same (Also first year of the 2.3 EB in that vehicle) by Consumer reports?

Ford also sold @ 120K Mustangs in 2015. A little less than half were 2.3EB.

And JD power gives the '15 Mustang 79/100 (#3 in the category) for reliability.

I ain't saying Ford or the 2.3 is perfect. Not even close, but just posting a single year (intro year) from the Mustang using Consumer Reports is a bit much. Especially considering CR's reliability ranking for cars is based SOLEY on CR readers surveys.

At least JD power verified the people submitting data actually own the vehicle in question.

Just saying.

You would have to take it up with them. Some folks think there wasn't a Moon landing either.
Just saying.

Sponsored