Not very happy right now.

[Jayrod]

On my 2011 f150 ecoboost, I ran 87 for a short time and had problems.

Ran 91+ and never had another problem.

Normally, I would never run anything under 91 on a turbo car with any performance, but it "said 87 was ok" so I tried it.

running 87 is asking for trouble. The knock sensor SHOULD detect any issues and change the parameters and run safely, but it isnt perfect.

Just run friggen 91+

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------



This guy gets it!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is wrong, and not to be mean. My point is normal driving on 87 is exactly what Ford states in the new manual. If the truck fails while on 87 in normal conditions Ford will be paying for it, bottom line. You can be a fuel snob all you want but it doesn't change the fact the motor is built to run on 87 and Ford stands behind that. Maybe next year it should be 91-93 only. But until they make that change the point stands.

 

[smurfslayer]

Thanks for that link, the article was from the pre ’15 vehicles, but I thought I remembered seeing some ’15 and later issues on youtube.

Ford says the common / NHTSA issue is a misfire, but the OP indicated no evidence of misfire, just power mysteriously gone. Now, OP reports the TSB “fix” was done, but we don’t hear back afterwards.

Time will tell, hopefully.

 

[dlbb]

Thanks for that link, the article was from the pre ’15 vehicles, but I thought I remembered seeing some ’15 and later issues on youtube.

Ford says the common / NHTSA issue is a misfire, but the OP indicated no evidence of misfire, just power mysteriously gone. Now, OP reports the TSB “fix” was done, but we don’t hear back afterwards.

Time will tell, hopefully.

yea the link is from pre15 3coboost. my personal opinion from reading and driving the ecoboost. it doesn't like cruise control, cool with me cause i don't either lol. as with all the other ford's i have owned, it loves to be hammered once a week minimum. well that is what i tell myself anyways.

 

[Truckzor]

If Ford says it is designed to run on 87, then there is no debate here: you can put 87 octane in it all day for its whole life. Yes, you may have slightly decreased performance in hot weather or while towing but it won't damage your engine in any way.

Ford doesn't say it was designed to run on 87. Ford says 91 is recommended but it can run on 87 with decreased performance.

If someone wants to put 87 in their Raptor, then that's their choice.

Yes. And it's a bad choice. It's a nice truck. Put good fuel in it.

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

He is wrong, and not to be mean. My point is normal driving on 87 is exactly what Ford states in the new manual. If the truck fails while on 87 in normal conditions Ford will be paying for it, bottom line. You can be a fuel snob all you want but it doesn't change the fact the motor is built to run on 87 and Ford stands behind that. Maybe next year it should be 91-93 only. But until they make that change the point stands.

Again, if the truck is bone stock and fails while under warranty, of course Ford will fix it.

But to say the truck is designed to run on 87 is completely wrong. You can't just make up your own facts. 91 octane or better is what the owner's manual recommends.

Yes, the truck can run on 87 but it's basically in limp mode with reduced power. They designed it that way for marketing purposes. They didn't want every magazine article or online review saying it needs premium.

 

[CatchMeOffroad]

Ford doesn't say it was designed to run on 87. Ford says 91 is recommended but it can run on 87 with decreased performance.

"Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87."

I guess you threw away your user manual

 

[xrocket21]

"Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87."

I guess you threw away your user manual

you guys burn 87 all day long in your twin turbo, HO motor. Have at it.

I drive extra far just to get 93 instead of 91. ( I run octane specific tunes, but still)

 

[Truckzor]

"Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87."

I guess you threw away your user manual

It also very clearly states that 91 or above is the recommended fuel. If you guys want to run shit gas in your expensive trucks have at it. Just don't expect them to run well or last as long.

 

[Jayrod]

It also very clearly states that 91 or above is the recommended fuel. If you guys want to run shit gas in your expensive trucks have at it. Just don't expect them to run well or last as long.

Right but you skipped right over the part where you are wrong. The truck is meant and designed to run on 87, sorry if that offends you but Ford specifically worded that. Now if we want to talk about how 87 is not much different than 91, we can engage in that conversation.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

you guys burn 87 all day long in your twin turbo, HO motor. Have at it.

I drive extra far just to get 93 instead of 91. ( I run octane specific tunes, but still)

Lol you have a tune man, of course you have to run 93.

 

[xrocket21]

Right but you skipped right over the part where you are wrong. The truck is meant and designed to run on 87, sorry if that offends you but Ford specifically worded that. Now if we want to talk about how 87 is not much different than 91, we can engage in that conversation.

 

[Truckzor]

Right but you skipped right over the part where you are wrong. The truck is meant and designed to run on 87, sorry if that offends you but Ford specifically worded that. Now if we want to talk about how 87 is not much different than 91, we can engage in that conversation.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------



Lol you have a tune man, of course you have to run 93.

Ok, so the truck was designed to run on 87, just not optimally.

Why anyone would pay $80k for a high performance truck just to have it run poorly and unreliably is beyond me.