Torque and hp performance

[Ninjak]

I have the 2.7 with a full complement of charge pipes, down pipes, cai, and catback exhaust. I run 93. That said, I have used 87, and no my engine did not blow up. I drove on 87 for 4 hours coming home from a wheeling trip because the local station did not have 93 for some reason.

Now I do not run 87 all the time, but to say you can not put 87 in at all or something will go boom is a bit of a stretch.

Sponsored

 

[burgerking]

Yup, 5 gallons on an empty tank, so doing the math, with the small reserve, it is about 87.5 octane. Yeah, not 87, hugely different.

Are you claiming the qualitative experience of driving the vehicle and paying close attention to its sound, smoothness and power output is not evidence of it running well?

As much as I am a quantitatively oriented person by both natural disposition and education, I don't believe I need to log data to tell the engine isn't being affected negatively.

There is simply so much common knowledge and common sense here that you choose to ignore. Yeah, blindly trust the "authorities" they always know, never lie and never have alterior motives.

All this said, it's probably worth it to put this to rest. I can log:

Knock sensor 1 counts

Knock sensor 2 counts

Linear knock module value

Knock sensor adder

Octane adjustment

I would just do the first 2 counts (and maybe the last item). No reason to log the other items you mentioned.

Are you willing to have a wager here? I would put real money on it. There would be no statistically significant difference in these sensors between 87 and 91.

You should log Lrnd_Knk_Mod
If it's less than +1 there's still room to retard timing. I think that's what it means, I could be wrong.

 

[Ducati1098]

Especially with an aggressive non oe timing table.

lol are we still talking about the FP tune? The FP tune is anemic at best and far from aggressive.

If Ford is selling an emissions compliant tune, they're on the hook for any damages to mechanical components or emissions components.

Exactly. Which is why It’s just illogical to seriously believe Ford would release a tune not safe enough to capably adjust running any normal pump gas octane, knowing damn well that someone is going to forget to put 91 octane or higher in it.

I’d love to see any legitimate proof showing it not being able to safely correct or compensate for 87 resulting in any type of engine damage. Because we all know there have been plenty run 87 without issue

 

[crenca]

You should log Lrnd_Knk_Mod
If it's less than +1 there's still room to retard timing. I think that's what it means, I could be wrong.

That is right, its range is from +1 to -1, and (counter intuitively) +1 means it is adjusted as much as it can for low octane gas (I suspect for the 85 found in the mountains) to -1 means the tune has adjusted itself (by advancing timing mostly) as aggressively at it can, which is 93 octane or possibly higher (I have never ran E10 93). Mine sits at -1 with 3 or so gallons of E85 mixed in with a full tank of 91 (no 93 in my area). That works out to about 93, but the E20 to 25 mix I end up with gets it over the line as ethonal has an outsized effect particularly with these ecoboost turbo's...

 

[timhood]

Yup, 5 gallons on an empty tank, so doing the math, with the small reserve, it is about 87.5 octane. Yeah, not 87, hugely different.

Are you claiming the qualitative experience of driving the vehicle and paying close attention to its sound, smoothness and power output is not evidence of it running well?

As much as I am a quantitatively oriented person by both natural disposition and education, I don't believe I need to log data to tell the engine isn't being affected negatively.

There is simply so much common knowledge and common sense here that you choose to ignore. Yeah, blindly trust the "authorities" they always know, never lie and never have alterior motives.

All this said, it's probably worth it to put this to rest. I can log:

Knock sensor 1 counts

Knock sensor 2 counts

Linear knock module value

Knock sensor adder

Octane adjustment

I would just do the first 2 counts (and maybe the last item). No reason to log the other items you mentioned.

Are you willing to have a wager here? I would put real money on it. There would be no statistically significant difference in these sensors between 87 and 91.

Side bar: when your tank register “empty” (or more specifically, 0 miles to empty), you actually have about 1.5 to 2 gallons left (the reserve). Thus, the mix may be different than you think. That said, I brought this up primarily to let readers know how the fuel gauge works (and bonus, to also explain why it is not harmful to drive your vehicle to near empty before refueling. No harm to the fuel pump because there’s still plenty of fuel.)

 

[swamp2]

Side bar: when your tank register “empty” (or more specifically, 0 miles to empty), you actually have about 1.5 to 2 gallons left (the reserve). Thus, the mix may be different than you think. That said, I brought this up primarily to let readers know how the fuel gauge works (and bonus, to also explain why it is not harmful to drive your vehicle to near empty before refueling. No harm to the fuel pump because there’s still plenty of fuel.)

Indeed. I think in my tank, officially speced at 20.8 gal, there is about .75 - 1 gal of "reserve" i.e. that much fuel is remaining when my gauge says 0 miles remaining. My prior estimates include this effect.

 

[swamp2]

That is right, its range is from +1 to -1, and (counter intuitively) +1 means it is adjusted as much as it can for low octane gas (I suspect for the 85 found in the mountains) to -1 means the tune has adjusted itself (by advancing timing mostly) as aggressively at it can, which is 93 octane or possibly higher (I have never ran E10 93). Mine sits at -1 with 3 or so gallons of E85 mixed in with a full tank of 91 (no 93 in my area). That works out to about 93, but the E20 to 25 mix I end up with gets it over the line as ethonal has an outsized effect particularly with these ecoboost turbo's...

Great info. You do not have the FP Tune, correct?

Your mix numbers are spot on. Coincidentally, given the total lack of an ability nor information anywhere on how to calculate octane from %EtOH (as well as a lot of free tables and information online that are completely wrong...), I will be bringing this octane calculator app to the Google Play store. It's based on actual lab test data and published research out of University of Melbourne and Princeton.

Since E85 has to be 85% minimum %EtOH there in NM and assuming your 91 gets there with 10% EtOH, here is your quoted mix. It is indeed E20 and 93 octane.

 

[timhood]

Indeed. I think in my tank, officially speced at 20.8 gal, there is about .75 - 1 gal of "reserve" i.e. that much fuel is remaining when my gauge says 0 miles remaining. My prior estimates include this effect.

It’s more than .75, but hopefully you never have to find out. Ford gives 25-35 miles after 0. In the Bronco, that would be right in the 1.5-2 gallon range. I think people tested the F150 even beyond. But I think I’m derailing the conversation.

 

[crenca]

You do not have the FP Tune, correct?

I have the FP tune on a 2.3 manual. Would like to have an app now that you mentioned it, never thought to look for one. There are a few online calculators, all of them that I found wonky to use, I have a couple bookmarked on the desktop somewhere…

 

[swamp2]

I have the FP tune on a 2.3 manual. Would like to have an app now that you mentioned it, never thought to look for one. There are a few online calculators, all of them that I found wonky to use, I have a couple bookmarked on the desktop somewhere…

Interesting. I suspected that the FP tune would adjust beyond 93 octane, perhaps 94 or 95, but your data indicates not.

I am going to log mine (Raptor with FP tune), 87 and 93.

I hope to have the app in the Play Store very soon. It will be paid, not free. Its been quite a project actually...

 

[swamp2]

It’s more than .75, but hopefully you never have to find out. Ford gives 25-35 miles after 0. In the Bronco, that would be right in the 1.5-2 gallon range. I think people tested the F150 even beyond. But I think I’m derailing the conversation.

Ford specifies a mileage until bone dry (you said "Ford gives")? I've never seen that. Can you share the reference? I am tempted to test my own rig.

 

[swamp2]

Physics AND lawyers.

Physics dictate that LSPI, detonation, and pinging will kill an engine. Especially with an aggressive non oe timing table.

If Ford is selling an emissions compliant tune, they're on the hook for any damages to mechanical components or emissions components.

They don't put octane requirements on there just to waste ink, or take up word count...

No.

The requirement is there as the tune specifies a power level that will be achieved. The octane is z gun prerequisite for making the promised power. Much in the same way the official hp output of some (maybe all) Broncos is qualified with the statement that a certain octane is required to get that power (it's 93 in the case of the Raptor).

As I and others have pointed out, and empirically demonstrated the knock detection and timing adjustment system in these Ecoboost engines (with or without the FP tune) accommodates 87 octane.

 

[crenca]

Interesting. I suspected that the FP tune would adjust beyond 93 octane, perhaps 94 or 95, but your data indicates not.

Yep I agree - my data/experience suggests that the FP tune for the 2.3 maxes itself out (i.e. -1 indicated on the Lrnd_Knk_Mod gauge on the ProCal) sometime around 92 octane, not having the ability to utilize more.

I calculate my octane conservatively - assuming the E85 I'm using is a "winter" blend of at most 70% ethanol, and possibly as low as 98 octane. I should test it of course (for ethanol content) but I'm lazy. Since I don't want to push my in tank ethanol higher than 25% or so I don't want to mix in more, but with the tune maxed out what would be the point

 

[swamp2]

I calculate my octane conservatively - assuming the E85 I'm using is a "winter" blend of at most 70% ethanol, and possibly as low as 98 octane. I should test it of course (for ethanol content) but I'm lazy. Since I don't want to push my in tank ethanol higher than 25% or so I don't want to mix in more, but with the tune maxed out what would be the point

You're in NM correct? I believe NM regulations require 85% EtOH in E85. Oddly here in CA it can be 79%.

As posted prior, right about 3 gal of E85 will get you 93 and E20.

 

[burgerking]

I was assuming it took 95 octane to get max timing advance. I will probably just mix 87 and E85 and check the learned knock value and adjust from there.

Sponsored