What a difference 91 octane makes in the 2.0 motor.

[Banjor]

I live in Northern California, where our 91 octane “Premium” is also 10%+ ethanol, so we have about the worst case scenario for gas. I have noticed a difference between the first two tanks of 87 and switching to 91 for the next several tanks. It took a while for the ECU to adjust before the difference was noticeable.

Another factor is the quality of the gas. I recently had to get a talk of cheapo 91 Oct. gas when I ran dry, and my BS BL has been performing like a dog on this tank. Next time I fill up it will be with a major tier one brand (She’ll, Chevron, 76, etc.) because I can’t stand the rough idle and dips in power I am getting from the off-brand swill in the tank right now.

I’d be willing to wager that the 2.0 is more sensitive than the 1.5 to both gas octane and quality. I wish I knew the boost pressure, but I’d bet that it’s significantly higher in the 2.0, which has lower compression (10x vs 11x) before boost aids in power delivery. That’s usually done to account for the larger air pressure provided by the boost, and the tune will be more power-oriented for the Badlands 2.0.

Those of us with the 2.0 also have only direct injection instead of direct and port injection, so we have to worry more about carbon buildup. I plan on running an intake/engine cleaner like Seafoam every year to help clean out deposits, but I only expect 3-4K of 50/50 city/highway driving and would do it twice a year if I drove 10K+ annual miles.

Sponsored

 

[SgtT11B]

I live in Northern California, where our 91 octane “Premium” is also 10%+ ethanol, so we have about the worst case scenario for gas. I have noticed a difference between the first two tanks of 87 and switching to 91 for the next several tanks. It took a while for the ECU to adjust before the difference was noticeable.

Another factor is the quality of the gas. I recently had to get a talk of cheapo 91 Oct. gas when I ran dry, and my BS BL has been performing like a dog on this tank. Next time I fill up it will be with a major tier one brand (She’ll, Chevron, 76, etc.) because I can’t stand the rough idle and dips in power I am getting from the off-brand swill in the tank right now.

I’d be willing to wager that the 2.0 is more sensitive than the 1.5 to both gas octane and quality. I wish I knew the boost pressure, but I’d bet that it’s significantly higher in the 2.0, which has lower compression (10x vs 11x) before boost aids in power delivery. That’s usually done to account for the larger air pressure provided by the boost, and the tune will be more power-oriented for the Badlands 2.0.

Those of us with the 2.0 also have only direct injection instead of direct and port injection, so we have to worry more about carbon buildup. I plan on running an intake/engine cleaner like Seafoam every year to help clean out deposits, but I only expect 3-4K of 50/50 city/highway driving and would do it twice a year if I drove 10K+ annual miles.

Keep in mind that California gets its gas regardless which brand from the same suppliers. There are only a couple of refineries that can blend Cali gas. The brand only adds their own additives such as fuel injector cleaner. The fact that Cali is gas is 10% ethanol is not a downgrade. In fact that ethanol helps keep the intake charge cooler, which is a plus in a turbo charged vehicle.

Be careful with SeaFoam, if Ford catches you using it, it can and will void your warranty. It can damage tubro seals.

What I find funny in one of the posts they are making like .3 seconds in 0-60 times wasn't a big deal. That is huge to me, maybe not for all but for me it definitely is worth the extra .25c I spend per gallon.

 

[sajohnson]

Keep in mind that California gets its gas regardless which brand from the same suppliers. There are only a couple of refineries that can blend Cali gas. The brand only adds their own additives such as fuel injector cleaner. The fact that Cali is gas is 10% ethanol is not a downgrade. In fact that ethanol helps keep the intake charge cooler, which is a plus in a turbo charged vehicle.

Be careful with SeaFoam, if Ford catches you using it, it can and will void your warranty. It can damage tubro seals.

What I find funny in one of the posts they are making like .3 seconds in 0-60 times wasn't a big deal. That is huge to me, maybe not for all but for me it definitely is worth the extra .25c I spend per gallon.

Everything I've ever heard is that all gasoline is essentially the same and brands add their own additives, as you said.

The only downside to ethanol is less energy/BTUs per gallon. It's a great octane booster.

One way to be reasonably sure you're buying good fuel is to look for the "Top Tier" label. Most name brand gasoline is Top Tier. That is supposed to ensure that the fuel sold at that station (all grades) has additional specified additives beyond what is required by law.

If you cannot find Top Tier, Chevron Techron fuel system cleaner (the concentrate) is good stuff. I just bought a case of 6 each 20 oz bottles from Amazon for $60 -- best price I found. Most auto parts stores in our area want $10-$12 for a 12 oz bottle.

I'm not doubting what you said about Sea Foam, but I've never heard that before. I did a quick Google search but could find nothing from Ford saying it will void the warranty. I don't care either way. I don't use Sea Foam, but it is a popular product. Do you have a link to a Ford document that says it should not be used?

On the 0.3 sec difference, as a life-long car guy I pay attention to specs like that, but not as much as I used to. Most people who aren't particularly into performance would say it isn't noticeable, and I'd have to agree -- especially when we're talking about a vehicle that does 0>60 in 6 to 7 seconds, depending on who is doing the testing. If it was a drop from 3.5 sec to 3.2, that would be more significant.

 

[SgtT11B]

Everything I've ever heard is that all gasoline is essentially the same and brands add their own additives, as you said.

The only downside to ethanol is less energy/BTUs per gallon. It's a great octane booster.

One way to be reasonably sure you're buying good fuel is to look for the "Top Tier" label. Most name brand gasoline is Top Tier. That is supposed to ensure that the fuel sold at that station (all grades) has additional specified additives beyond what is required by law.

If you cannot find Top Tier, Chevron Techron fuel system cleaner (the concentrate) is good stuff. I just bought a case of 6 each 20 oz bottles from Amazon for $60 -- best price I found. Most auto parts stores in our area want $10-$12 for a 12 oz bottle.

I'm not doubting what you said about Sea Foam, but I've never heard that before. I did a quick Google search but could find nothing from Ford saying it will void the warranty. I don't care either way. I don't use Sea Foam, but it is a popular product. Do you have a link to a Ford document that says it should not be used?

On the 0.3 sec difference, as a life-long car guy I pay attention to specs like that, but not as much as I used to. Most people who aren't particularly into performance would say it isn't noticeable, and I'd have to agree -- especially when we're talking about a vehicle that does 0>60 in 6 to 7 seconds, depending on who is doing the testing. If it was a drop from 3.5 sec to 3.2, that would be more significant.

I will try and find it... it was on another Ford Forum. Remember people ding ARCO for not being good gas, yet it is listed as Tier1. After all, ARCO is BP.

 

[sajohnson]

I will try and find it... it was on another Ford Forum. Remember people ding ARCO for not being good gas, yet it is listed as Tier1. After all, ARCO is BP.

I've been on automotive forums for years, in some cases over 2 decades. There have always been all sorts of claims like that. Some true, many not.

Google can help sort them out, but just because something doesn't show up with a search does not necessarily mean it's not true (or false).

If I had to *guess* I suspect that Sea Foam is fine -- turbo or not. After all, they want to sell as much of their product as possible. Still, it's possible that there is (say) a Ford TSB somewhere that expresses concerns about Sea Foam and Google didn't find it.

Gasoline (and oil) have always been big topics (esp. oil). I've seen people swear by various brands of gasoline. They will make statements like, "My car will ONLY run on Shell/Exxon/Texaco, etc." Seems doubtful. Or, as you said, "Arco [pick any brand] gas is "bad." Chances are, they went to a station that had water in the fuel, and it happened to be an Arco.

In any case, it can be difficult to tell fact from fiction on forums. I've found that after being on a forum for a while, and reading a bunch of posts, you can get a sense of who has a clue, who you can generally trust. Even then, if it is something important I go with the old, "Trust, but verify."

 

[Mark S.]

I'm not doubting what you said about Sea Foam, but I've never heard that before. I did a quick Google search but could find nothing from Ford saying it will void the warranty. I don't care either way. I don't use Sea Foam, but it is a popular product. Do you have a link to a Ford document that says it should not be used?

Here's an article from PickupTrucks.com with quotes from a Ford rep about induction system cleaners. The issue with EcoBoost engines is that the exhaust manifold where the turbocharger mounts is integrated with the head. That puts the turbocharger very close to the exhaust valves. Induction system cleaners use flammable fluids which become part of the mixture burned in the cylinder when you spray it into the intake. The PCM cannot immediately account for the change in mixture, so the cleaning fluid may not be fully burned in the cylinder. That means some of the burning cleaning fluid can exit the exhaust valves and get into the turbine side of the turbocharger. The turbine is designed to take the heat of exhaust gas (obviously), but not the kind of heat generated by still-burning exhaust gas.

The other problem is getting the cleaning fluid into the compressor side of the turbo, where it can possible ignite (due to the heat on the turbine side of the turbocharger) and/or cause damage to the turbine seals. You can avoid this issue by simply spraying the cleaning fluid into the intake tract between the turbine and the throttle body (see video below), but this won't address the overheated exhaust gas issue mentioned above.

 

[Meanderthal]

Here's an article from PickupTrucks.com with quotes from a Ford rep about induction system cleaners. The issue with EcoBoost engines is that the exhaust manifold where the turbocharger mounts is integrated with the head. That puts the turbocharger very close to the exhaust valves. Induction system cleaners use flammable fluids which become part of the mixture burned in the cylinder when you spray it into the intake. The PCM cannot immediately account for the change in mixture, so the cleaning fluid may not be fully burned in the cylinder. That means some of the burning cleaning fluid can exit the exhaust valves and get into the turbine side of the turbocharger. The turbine is designed to take the heat of exhaust gas (obviously), but not the kind of heat generated by still-burning exhaust gas.

The other problem is getting the cleaning fluid into the compressor side of the turbo, where it can possible ignite (due to the heat on the turbine side of the turbocharger) and/or cause damage to the turbine seals. You can avoid this issue by simply spraying the cleaning fluid into the intake tract between the turbine and the throttle body (see video below), but this won't address the overheated exhaust gas issue mentioned above.

I have used the CRC stuff on my VW Golf R a few times. As you stated, I avoided sending it through the turbo by instead spraying into the intake manifold. There is a sensor that can be temporarily removed on that manifold and was a perfect spot to spray into.

As for the heat generated by still burning cleaner entering the exhaust manifold, I have two thoughts without anything other than logic to back them up.

1. The engine is running at idle or just above idle (2k rpm) when spraying the cleaner. If you were running the car at high rpm and high load while driving it (say up a mountain highway pulling a load at 80 mph) I would suspect the heat generation to be much higher.
2. When doing the cleaning, you only spray intermittently. At least I have always done it that way because the engine isn't entirely happy and will try to stall. Again, there might be some extra heat generated but it is intermittent, giving the heat time to dissipate.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Mark S.]

1. The engine is running at idle or just above idle (2k rpm) when spraying the cleaner. If you were running the car at high rpm and high load while driving it (say up a mountain highway pulling a load at 80 mph) I would suspect the heat generation to be much higher.
2. When doing the cleaning, you only spray intermittently. At least I have always done it that way because the engine isn't entirely happy and will try to stall. Again, there might be some extra heat generated but it is intermittent, giving the heat time to dissipate.

I don't disagree with this. My previous post was regurgitating an article I read (which I now cannot find) quoting a Ford rep. The author of that article was attempting to discover Ford's recommended valve cleaning procedure since there isn't one listed in any of its maintenance documentation. The rep said Ford does not recommend valve cleaning, period stop. If the valves are contaminated, he said, Ford recommends replacing the head!

I've since seen YouTube videos from purported Ford technicians describing various cleaning procedures.

 

[sajohnson]

Here's an article from PickupTrucks.com with quotes from a Ford rep about induction system cleaners. The issue with EcoBoost engines is that the exhaust manifold where the turbocharger mounts is integrated with the head. That puts the turbocharger very close to the exhaust valves. Induction system cleaners use flammable fluids which become part of the mixture burned in the cylinder when you spray it into the intake. The PCM cannot immediately account for the change in mixture, so the cleaning fluid may not be fully burned in the cylinder. That means some of the burning cleaning fluid can exit the exhaust valves and get into the turbine side of the turbocharger. The turbine is designed to take the heat of exhaust gas (obviously), but not the kind of heat generated by still-burning exhaust gas.

The other problem is getting the cleaning fluid into the compressor side of the turbo, where it can possible ignite (due to the heat on the turbine side of the turbocharger) and/or cause damage to the turbine seals. You can avoid this issue by simply spraying the cleaning fluid into the intake tract between the turbine and the throttle body (see video below), but this won't address the overheated exhaust gas issue mentioned above.

Good videos, thanks.

We were talking about gasoline (above) so when Sea Foam was mentioned what I had in mind was as a fuel additive -- which is why I mentioned Techron.

Looks like we should sell the Badlands before the warranty expires and I have to keep a couple spare cylinder heads in the garage.

So it sounds like the carbon buildup on the intake valves is mostly due to the crankcase fumes from the PCV system. Too bad there isn't oil with some additive that would prevent that.

On thing's for sure -- I'm not gonna replace the head every 20,000 miles!

 

[sajohnson]

I don't disagree with this. My previous post was regurgitating an article I read (which I now cannot find) quoting a Ford rep. The author of that article was attempting to discover Ford's recommended valve cleaning procedure since there isn't one listed in any of its maintenance documentation. The rep said Ford does not recommend valve cleaning, period stop. If the valves are contaminated, he said, Ford recommends replacing the head!

I've since seen YouTube videos from purported Ford technicians describing various cleaning procedures.

Hopefully one or more of them work and are turbo friendly.

 

[Mark S.]

Hopefully one or more of them work and are turbo friendly.

There was a retired automotive engineer that used to frequent the Mustang EcoBoost forum who used one of the spray cleaners on his car every 20k miles. He said he had been using similar products on all of his turbocharged cars for decades without issue. His procedure was to spray into the intake tract between the turbo and the throttle body while keeping the RPM above idle but below 3000. I think Eric is right that exhaust gas temp (EGT) at those RPMs should not be an issue for the turbo, which isn't really spinning all that much anyway since it's not under load. I suspect Ford's reticence at recommending a prophylactic spray cleaning procedure like this relates as much to marketing as to the possibility of damaging the turbo. Endorsing valve cleaning would be tacit admission that valve contamination is an issue.

If I were truly worried about valve deposits I would rather do a periodic cleaning like this than install a catch can.

 

[SgtT11B]

I've been on automotive forums for years, in some cases over 2 decades. There have always been all sorts of claims like that. Some true, many not.

Google can help sort them out, but just because something doesn't show up with a search does not necessarily mean it's not true (or false).

If I had to *guess* I suspect that Sea Foam is fine -- turbo or not. After all, they want to sell as much of their product as possible. Still, it's possible that there is (say) a Ford TSB somewhere that expresses concerns about Sea Foam and Google didn't find it.

Gasoline (and oil) have always been big topics (esp. oil). I've seen people swear by various brands of gasoline. They will make statements like, "My car will ONLY run on Shell/Exxon/Texaco, etc." Seems doubtful. Or, as you said, "Arco [pick any brand] gas is "bad." Chances are, they went to a station that had water in the fuel, and it happened to be an Arco.

In any case, it can be difficult to tell fact from fiction on forums. I've found that after being on a forum for a while, and reading a bunch of posts, you can get a sense of who has a clue, who you can generally trust. Even then, if it is something important I go with the old, "Trust, but verify."

Exactly...regarding running a little E85. The stock fuel system will compensate up to a point of ethanol in the fuel. I have read that even though Ford says don't go above E15, I know for a fact in the Mustang world people run E30 with no issues with the stock fuel system and making good power with E30.

Turbo cars will love ethanol due to the cooling properties of the fuel in the combustion chamber. I only run E15 though in the BS.

Regarding the carbon buildup on the valves. Ford along with other auto makers changed the strategy of the ECU to help with carbon buildup. I think the jury is still out whether this will help or not.

Also, regarding the catch can, Ford can void your engine warranty due to a catch can. Which I think is ridiculous but it can happen.

 

[Mark S.]

This is one of the sources regarding Ford's lack of an approved induction cleaning procedure. Apparently it's not just the turbocharger, it's also the catalytic converter.

 

[SgtT11B]

This is one of the sources regarding Ford's lack of an approved induction cleaning procedure. Apparently it's not just the turbocharger, it's also the catalytic converter.

That video is 7 years old now...I wonder if they finally have some approved method now.

 

[sajohnson]

There was a retired automotive engineer that used to frequent the Mustang EcoBoost forum who used one of the spray cleaners on his car every 20k miles. He said he had been using similar products on all of his turbocharged cars for decades without issue. His procedure was to spray into the intake tract between the turbo and the throttle body while keeping the RPM above idle but below 3000. I think Eric is right that exhaust gas temp (EGT) at those RPMs should not be an issue for the turbo, which isn't really spinning all that much anyway since it's not under load. I suspect Ford's reticence at recommending a prophylactic spray cleaning procedure like this relates as much to marketing as to the possibility of damaging the turbo. Endorsing valve cleaning would be tacit admission that valve contamination is an issue.

If I were truly worried about valve deposits I would rather do a periodic cleaning like this than install a catch can.

Very good point. The last thing most mfrs want to do is accept responsibility for potential problems.

That's reasonable. I'm leaning that way as well.

That's if intake valve deposits are ever a problem for us. We drive very little -- but when we do drive the engine gets fully warmed up.

Just curious -- why would you rather not install a catch can? I know very little about them but I'm getting ready to watch the "Engineering Explained" video here:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a27182434/how-oil-catch-can-works/

Off the top of my head, one issue might be -- what happens if the owner forgets to empty the can and it gets full?

Sponsored