What a difference 91 octane makes in the 2.0 motor.

[SgtT11B]

My previous family vehicle was a Ford Escape Titanium (2020) with the 2.0 engine. The Badlands has the same engine, I was shocked how lethargic it felt vs. the Escape. My dealer told me they only put 87 octane in the car. My FE always had 91, drove the BS until just about empty. Filled her up with 15 gallons of 91 and 1 gallons of E85. Here in Cali our E85 is a full E85 or it gets taxed like regular gasoline and is near 105 octane. This got me to E14.9 and just under 92 octane. Much better...

Sponsored

 

[Tigger]

I had to re-read this. I read FE as First Edition but I assume you meant Ford Escape.

 

[SgtT11B]

I had to re-read this. I read FE as First Edition but I assume you meant Ford Escape.

Correct...FE Ford Escape

 

[bbbronco_in_LBC]

My previous family vehicle was a Ford Escape Titanium (2020) with the 2.0 engine. The Badlands has the same engine, I was shocked how lethargic it felt vs. the Escape. My dealer told me they only put 87 octane in the car. My FE always had 91, drove the BS until just about empty. Filled her up with 15 gallons of 91 and 1 gallons of E85. Here in Cali our E85 is a full E85 or it gets taxed like regular gasoline and is near 105 octane. This got me to E14.9 and just under 92 octane. Much better...

Interesting... Maybe I'll try premium again now that break-in has passed. Went from first tank 91 to mid-grade and now been running 87 for about 2K miles. Not sure about the E85 suggestion - sounds like a good way to void your warranty.

 

[DMEARC]

My previous family vehicle was a Ford Escape Titanium (2020) with the 2.0 engine. The Badlands has the same engine, I was shocked how lethargic it felt vs. the Escape. My dealer told me they only put 87 octane in the car. My FE always had 91, drove the BS until just about empty. Filled her up with 15 gallons of 91 and 1 gallons of E85. Here in Cali our E85 is a full E85 or it gets taxed like regular gasoline and is near 105 octane. This got me to E14.9 and just under 92 octane. Much better...

A lot of modern cars will try to squeeze every ounce of performance out of their engines, especially if those engines are relatively small. One way of doing this is by constantly adjusting the engine timing. With higher octane gasoline, that adjustment can stay nearer the “performance” range without knocking.

 

[Bill G]

Have run many tankfuls with both "regular" and "premium" in my BL over the past 1 1/2 yrs.
Premium seems to run a little better; smoother and less throttle needed to go. This has been born out by slightly better mpg.
HOWEVER, when regular popped up over $6 per gal and the split between regular and premium hit @ 50-60¢ per gal I started running only regular. The improvements with premium aren't enough for me to pay the price.
I'm 73 and most times I drive like it (if I want racing, I'll take the Tiger out), so regular works just fine for me.

 

[SgtT11B]

Interesting... Maybe I'll try premium again now that break-in has passed. Went from first tank 91 to mid-grade and now been running 87 for about 2K miles. Not sure about the E85 suggestion - sounds like a good way to void your warranty.

Ford says E15 is acceptable.

 

[bjbena]

Have run many tankfuls with both "regular" and "premium" in my BL over the past 1 1/2 yrs.
Premium seems to run a little better; smoother and less throttle needed to go. This has been born out by slightly better mpg.
HOWEVER, when regular popped up over $6 per gal and the split between regular and premium hit @ 50-60¢ per gal I started running only regular. The improvements with premium aren't enough for me to pay the price.
I'm 73 and most times I drive like it (if I want racing, I'll take the Tiger out), so regular works just fine for me.

I'm not 73 but I feel like you. The difference I felt between 87 and Premium is not worth it. Now, I definitely try to do 87 non ethanol. Not for the power, but for the MPGs.

Ford says E15 is acceptable.

Yes, but he said E85.

 

[SgtT11B]

I'm not 73 but I feel like you. The difference I felt between 87 and Premium is not worth it. Now, I definitely try to do 87 non ethanol. Not for the power, but for the MPGs.

Yes, but he said E85.

I blend 1.5 gallons of E85 with 14.5 gallons of 91. That gets me to 92 octane and E15.

 

[sajohnson]

FWIW -- my old commuter car (now our 'backup' car) is a 2002 Subaru WRX (also 2.0L turbo).

Years ago, I modded it to Cobb Stage 2. The torque and hp increase was substantial, but surprisingly it did/does not matter much what octane fuel is used. The tune allows the user to select the expected octane from 86 or 87 up to 93 or 94 (Sunoco). As I recall, there was zero difference in torque(!) and only 5-10 hp difference (IIRC it was just 5 hp) on the top end -- close to redline.

Whether the Badlands is similar IDK.

We've been running premium (93 octane around here) in the BL because we don't drive enough for the difference in cost (50-60 cents/gallon) to be a concern, and I figure we might as well get all of the performance we paid for. That said, it ran fine on the 87 octane from the dealer.

I just found this video with a quick search -- it's a 2DR Bronco with the 2.3L 4cyl turbo. Not exactly the same but interesting:

Bronco: 87 vs 93 Octane Performance Test. Is 93 Really Any Better?:

 

[Terry]

My previous family vehicle was a Ford Escape Titanium (2020) with the 2.0 engine. The Badlands has the same engine, I was shocked how lethargic it felt vs. the Escape. My dealer told me they only put 87 octane in the car. My FE always had 91, drove the BS until just about empty. Filled her up with 15 gallons of 91 and 1 gallons of E85. Here in Cali our E85 is a full E85 or it gets taxed like regular gasoline and is near 105 octane. This got me to E14.9 and just under 92 octane. Much better...

Tell me about it. I had a 2.0 escape that felt like a rocket compared to this badlands Bronco. I usually switch between super and regular but I’ll switch to straight high test from now on. Did you notice the turbo lag in certain spots of the power band is much more pronounced in the Bronco vs. the Escape ? I certainly have.

 

[sajohnson]

Tell me about it. I had a 2.0 escape that felt like a rocket compared to this badlands Bronco. I usually switch between super and regular but I’ll switch to straight high test from now on. Did you notice the turbo lag in certain spots of the power band is much more pronounced in the Bronco vs. the Escape ? I certainly have.

I was thinking curb weight might explain the difference. It looks like the Escape is between 3,300 and 3,700 lbs.; and the BS BL is 3,700 lbs.

The Escape can do 0>60 in 6.7 sec., the BL does it in 6.9 seconds.

Above is from Google.

I just did a quick search to get a rough idea. If it's possible to get the 2.0L in the 400# lighter version of the Escape, that would obviously make a difference.

Something else is gearing, which I haven't looked into.

Car & Driver got 5.7 seconds for the Escape//and 5.9 for the BS BL:
https://www.0-60specs.com/0-60-times/

Of course C&D typically has the lowest numbers because they do something like disregarding the first 0.5 sec (or similar). Other sources may be more realistic.

Interestingly, Motor Trend's times are reversed. They measured 6.9 sec. for the Escape and 6.5 for the BL:
https://www.0-60specs.com/ford/escape-0-60-times/
https://www.0-60specs.com/ford/bronco-sport-0-60-times/

In any case, they should be pretty close.

 

[Mark S.]

Bronco: 87 vs 93 Octane Performance Test. Is 93 Really Any Better?:

There are two major flaws with this video. First, the MPG test is using the indicated value as the standard. That indication is affected by a great number of factors, and unless they are all the same for both tests the result is meaningless. The only way to properly test is to average over several tanks. I did this with my car (results here and here), and measured no significant difference between octanes for fuel economy.

Second, the PCM (powertrain control module) takes time to adjust to a change in fuel octane. If you've been burning regular gas exclusively the fuel/ignition mapping is set such that the engine will produce less power to mitigate knocking. After putting premium in the tank the knock sensor will fire off less often—because engine power is down and higher octane requires more heat/pressure to ignite—and the PCM will begin to advance timing to permit greater power output. Eventually the knock sensor will begin to fire again, the PCM will stop advancing timing, and the engine is now producing the maximum possible power with the new octane fuel. This takes time. How long? I don't know for sure, but we can garner clues from vendors who sell "tunes." Many include documentation suggesting up to 100 miles of driving before the PCM fully adjusts to changing parameters.

 

[Mark S.]

Of course C&D typically has the lowest numbers because they do something like disregarding the first 0.5 sec (or similar). Other sources may be more realistic.

I don't think you can trust any of them. Car testers do all kinds of crazy things to get the best times (manufacturers LOVE to see good time from reviewers), none of which any of us will ever do to our cars—unless you just don't care about it. This video is a good explanation of how badly they flog cars to get the best times.

 

[13MikeH]

FWIW -- my old commuter car (now our 'backup' car) is a 2002 Subaru WRX (also 2.0L turbo).

Years ago, I modded it to Cobb Stage 2. The torque and hp increase was substantial, but surprisingly it did/does not matter much what octane fuel is used. The tune allows the user to select the expected octane from 86 or 87 up to 93 or 94 (Sunoco). As I recall, there was zero difference in torque(!) and only 5-10 hp difference (IIRC it was just 5 hp) on the top end -- close to redline.

Whether the Badlands is similar IDK.

We've been running premium (93 octane around here) in the BL because we don't drive enough for the difference in cost (50-60 cents/gallon) to be a concern, and I figure we might as well get all of the performance we paid for. That said, it ran fine on the 87 octane from the dealer.

I just found this video with a quick search -- it's a 2DR Bronco with the 2.3L 4cyl turbo. Not exactly the same but interesting:

Bronco: 87 vs 93 Octane Performance Test. Is 93 Really Any Better?:

Excellent example of real world test. Average dude, average vehicle, less than wow results. Gain of 12 miles of range over a tank of gas, and cut 3/10 of a second on 0-60.
Those of you willing to spend the extra 50¢ to $1 per gallon have at it, the Bush family thanks you. Those seething for more POW-ER!! * POW POW!! Try a Dodge Challenger... It's a whole different category. Y'all arguing over who has the shiniest penny. To each their own. If you FEEL like it's a big boost...great.

Sponsored