Lincoln's Primary Focus: Core Segments

Well I hope it's as good as you say.  History is not on Ford's side if their previous attempts at turning a Taurus into a successful Continental are any indication.  I would love to eat my words because I think a REAL, AMERICAN STYLE luxury car is sorely needed.  I think Cadillac is trying too hard to be European in some areas.  I am rooting for Lincoln to succeed, but each new opportunity is squandered with less than stellar product.  So far I don't feel the magic is there in this new Continental, and if I am right, it may be time to say goodnight to another long cherished American automotive brand.

 

 

that is your opinion, which is nothing more than the opinion of someone who feels the need to post in every single Ford thread with nothing but negative rants and opinions and sarcastic jabs, and of course, never once, ever, does a mod notice or care.

 

But hey, thanks for that. But I disagree. Lincoln sales continue to climb and their future looks very promising.

I understand the persona of a V8 that means "high end" but like Drew has said over and over again that some still refuse to agree with(everybody has their own opinions) some here care way too much about the "how" rather than the results. A turbo 6 has more bottom end and will rev the same or even less than a n/a V8. I should say a modern turbo 6.

And why does it matter in a car that isn't supposed to be sporty to begin with? If "quiet luxury" is the goal then and 400hp/tq is the end result why does it matter if it is a turbo 6 with less emission or a n/a v8 that usually make a little more noise and usually need a few more revs for torque(not significant but 1-200rpm makes more noise with 8 cylinders than it does with 6).

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8?  Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

 

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

Edited November 30, 2015 by FordCosworth

First off those that say a turbo V6 is better than a V8, would they like the Corvette to lose the LT1 V8 and offer a twin turbo V6 in stead and make the Z06 the only V8 Corvette offered?

Second. Who says it has to be an N/A V8 in the Lincoln. Ford makes 1.6 and 2.0 liter turbo 4's. Why couldn't they make a 3.2 or 4.0 ecoboost V8?

Thanks for the tip.  I went over to Fuelly and looked at the overall average for the Ford F-150 and the overall average for the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 for the last several years, and although with the advent of Ecoboost the Ford has improved, it still is not as good as Chevrolet, a company that continues to rely on the excellent smallblock V8 for the vast majority of their pickups.  And with the upgrade to the six-speed transmission across more trucks in 2014, Chevy's smallblock continues to defy Ford engineers' assertion that a turbocharged V6 is a better way to go in a pickup truck.

Edited November 30, 2015 by ocnblu

Thanks for the tip. I went over to Fuelly and looked at the overall average for the Ford F-150 and the overall average for the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 for the last several years, and although with the advent of Ecoboost the Ford has improved, it still is not as good as Chevrolet, a company that continues to rely on the excellent smallblock V8 for the vast majority of their pickups. And with the upgrade to the six-speed transmission across more trucks in 2014, Chevy's smallblock continues to defy Ford engineers' assertion that a turbocharged V6 is a better way to go in a pickup truck.

You going to go with that? Not as good as Chevy?

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=49&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=63&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

2.7 in all samples is higher than 5.3

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=102&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=167&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

3.5 samples and 6.2 samples split

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=6&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

5.0 had highest of all.

I used gas and not flex fuel due to sample size. Left Body style and model at all. As you can see brands near mirror image of one another.

Edited November 30, 2015 by FordCosworth

Darn it, here we go again.  This is off-topic.  I did say what metric I compared.  It was overall model, F-150 v. Silverado 1500.  And even with the vaunted aluminum bodywork and + or - 70% Ecoboost share... the Ford has not performed as advertised, with a BIG sample to evaluate.

Darn it, here we go again.  This is off-topic.  I did say what metric I compared.  It was overall model, F-150 v. Silverado 1500.  And even with the vaunted aluminum bodywork and + or - 70% Ecoboost share... the Ford has not performed as advertised, with a BIG sample to evaluate.

 

 

But the metric you mentioned in your original post on this was:  

 

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

 

If it was overall sample, then that would include N/A 3.5L/3.7L V-6's, the a fore mentioned 5.0L and 6.2L. 

 

That is why I went one step further and actually looked at specific engine pkg's.

As off topic as this is going to fuelly is kind of a mixed bag no matter what vehicle you're looking at. For instance, Ford now has a n/a 3.5 AND 3.5T in the F150. They only break them down by displacement so you would be looking at both if you clicked "3.5". You also are relying on all of those people with only a handful of fillups to be accurate when odds are somebody with less than 10 fill ups, in a way, cherry picked them. Whether they wanted to see their road trip mileage or their towing a boat on vacation mileage.

Also, From what I see both 2015 models, across the board, say they are averaging 17.1mpg. Breakdown of engines for those two? No clue at all. For all I know thats 90% 2WD 2.7s for Ford and 90% 4WD 6.2's for Chevy. Point being, as they are "real world" you're also looking at a lot of idiots trying to keep track of something and you won't get an even sample of all the variables. If you want you can break down all 201 vehicles from 2015 Ford F150s and get a real idea of what those people are getting in 2WD and 4WD and engine size but looking at it from a broad perspective you're missing a lot of information and the numbers can be misleading.

Edited November 30, 2015 by ccap41

Let me ax you all a question:  what is that old saying about being doomed to repeat history?  Ford Motor Company is about to do just that.  Have they no memory?

 

 

91-Continental.jpg

 

That Continental sold in fantastic numbers, well beyond what the V8 Seville did... and also far far greater than the V8 RWD Continental before it.   I know what you're trying to say, but at the same time you picked a poor example to try and make your point.

 

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

 

 

I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans.  My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford.  If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. 

 

 

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

 

 

I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans.  My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford.  If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. 

 

 

Sooo, the power of a big V8 and the fuel consumption of a small one.

 

Not bad.

 

 

 

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

 

 

I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans.  My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford.  If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. 

 

 

Sooo, the power of a big V8 and the fuel consumption of a small one.

 

Not bad.

 

 

Er... no... it has about the same horsepower as the 5.3. ... and only the same fuel economy if you use more expensive fuel.  On 87, I only get 18mpg highway in the Expedition EL (I do 90% highway).  The Suburban is a reliable 21-22 mpg highway over the same routes regardless of what I do.  The Expedition EL will only do that if I use 89 or even better, 92.

 

 

 

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

 

 

I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans.  My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford.  If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. 

 

 

Sooo, the power of a big V8 and the fuel consumption of a small one.

 

Not bad.

 

 

 

" But the small-block’s 4100-rpm torque peak never provided the instant thrust of the Expedition’s boosted V-6, nor the pull we expected from its burly exhaust note. "

 

 

 

 

A turbocharged 6 inherently produces fewer emissions than an n/a V8? Just a side question, I am genuinely interested in knowing the real answer.

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratings

And maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too.

 

 

I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans.  My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford.  If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. 

 

 

Sooo, the power of a big V8 and the fuel consumption of a small one.

 

Not bad.

 

 

 

" But the small-block’s 4100-rpm torque peak never provided the instant thrust of the Expedition’s boosted V-6, nor the pull we expected from its burly exhaust note. "

 

 

Use too much of that instant thrust and you'll pay for it at the pump especially if you're filling up with the recommended 89 octane.  It's either Eco or Boost... but not both at the same time.  Sorry, I just got better overall results from the 5.3 than the 3.5 EB over 1,000s of miles in each. 

Drew, the Diesel like torque is what sets the old Ecoboost apart from the brand new 5.3L

Drew, the Diesel like torque is what sets the old Ecoboost apart from the brand new 5.3L

 I know the numbers are there, but honestly I didn't feel it. It may come into play more when towing a trailer,  but in my case of long distance turnpike running, it was simply a non-factor. I didn't feel either were noticeably better on acceleration, I prefer the NVH characteristics of the 5.3 and the fact that I get stated fuel economy on regular gas instead of mid-grade. Neither is bad, I just prefer the 5.3 for my usage cycle and I have thousands of miles in each to satisfy my own opinion. 

 

I give higher marks to other EB engines in other applications (Fusion 2.0t v. Malibu 2.0t for example). No need to get defensive if I prefer a non-Ford product from time to time.

 

Drew, the Diesel like torque is what sets the old Ecoboost apart from the brand new 5.3L

 I know the numbers are there, but honestly I didn't feel it. It may come into play more when towing a trailer,  but in my case of long distance turnpike running, it was simply a non-factor. I didn't feel either were noticeably better on acceleration, I prefer the NVH characteristics of the 5.3 and the fact that I get stated fuel economy on regular gas instead of mid-grade. Neither is bad, I just prefer the 5.3 for my usage cycle and I have thousands of miles in each to satisfy my own opinion. 

 

I give higher marks to other EB engines in other applications (Fusion 2.0t v. Malibu 2.0t for example). No need to get defensive if I prefer a non-Ford product from time to time.

 

 

 

Defensive?

 

Drew, you originally stated that the 5.3L and 3.5L ecoboost netted similar fuel economy, completely ignoring the fact the ecoboost runs and tows like a 6.2L. 

 

Honestly, I don't care what anyone likes, but edification is certainly needed around here,

 

Darn it, here we go again.  This is off-topic.  I did say what metric I compared.  It was overall model, F-150 v. Silverado 1500.  And even with the vaunted aluminum bodywork and + or - 70% Ecoboost share... the Ford has not performed as advertised, with a BIG sample to evaluate.

 

 

But the metric you mentioned in your original post on this was:  

 

Also, you have me wanting to go over to Fuelly to see what kind of real-world MPG ppl are getting, say, in a 3.5 EB F-150 v. a 5.3 and 6.2 Chevy/GMC.

 

If it was overall sample, then that would include N/A 3.5L/3.7L V-6's, the a fore mentioned 5.0L and 6.2L. 

 

That is why I went one step further and actually looked at specific engine pkg's.

 

Understandable.  My fault.  When I went over there, I hit "browse vehicles", then I punched in the two trucks consecutively.  That's when I realized it had to be more than anecdotal that a gamble on aluminum construction and turbocharged small displacement engines was not worth the investment.

Yes, defensive.  I stated that they get the same fuel economy ONLY IF the Ecoboost gets higher octane fuel of 89 or 91.  The 5.3 does the job on regular.  The Ecoboost could only manage 18mpg with me on 87 octane where as the Suburban reliably gets 21 - 22 on the same trips. 

 

Most people aren't towing ever, and even those who do tow will don't do so regularly.  Someone who tows with one of these regularly is the exception rather than the rule.  Largely, these are turnpike cruise ships and nothing more. Try not to focus on the feature that is unimportant to most consumers just to try and defend your product. 

 

For typical, mundane, every-day, vast majority use, the 5.3 is simply the better package here. 

What you clearly missed and ignore Drew, is that the 3.5L using fewer gears manages fuel economy like a small V8 and the power and towing of a larger V8.

 

That is my final point, and it is a clear one.

What you clearly missed and ignore Drew, is that the 3.5L using fewer gears manages fuel economy like a small V8 and the power and towing of a larger V8.

 

That is my final point, and it is a clear one.

 

Edification? The Suburban has a 6-speed auto just like the Expedition EL.  You're thinking of the Yukon with the 6.2 liter that come with the 8-speed.  

 

The EX EL only gets close to small V8 fuel economy if you fill it with premium.  (Ex EL - 21mpg highway per EPA, Suburban 23 mpg highway per EPA).  If you fill the Ex EL with regular, you'll get 17-18 mpg highway. 

 

Since you keep bringing up the 6.2 liter (shouldn't have done that), I went and looked up the fuel economy..... it BEATS the 3.5 EB rating of 15 city/21 highway/17 combined by 1mpg on the highway and does it on REGULAR GAS!  So you're still better off with the 6.2 over the 3.5 EB.  The GM 6.2 liter also has MORE horsepower (55 hp more) and MORE torque (40 lb-ft more), and still bests the EB in fuel economy!

 

So the answer is pretty clear to me -  Whichever needs you have in a large SUV: Get the V8. Every day driving with relatively good fuel economy? Get the 5.3.  Need towing and good fuel economy without spending $$ on premium fuel? Get the 6.2.   If you're towing over 8,100lbs regularly... well then you'll be stuck buying premium fuel 33 gallons a a time or getting 18 mpg on your commute to work in the EX EL.

You really shouldn't have made me go look this stuff up.  Apparently Ford expected the Mustang Ecoboost to lose 13% of it's power when running on regular instead of 93.....  

 

Power drops from 310 hp to 275 hp just by filling it up with 87 instead of 93?  Does that mean the 400 hp MKZ will drop to 345 hp if I put 87 in it instead of 93?

You really shouldn't have made me go look this stuff up. Apparently Ford expected the Mustang Ecoboost to lose 13% of it's power when running on regular instead of 93.....

Power drops from 310 hp to 275 hp just by filling it up with 87 instead of 93? Does that mean the 400 hp MKZ will drop to 345 hp if I put 87 in it instead of 93?

I wonder about The % drop for the GM 2.0L Turbo I4 Ecotec LTG Engine, since it too recommends Premium Fuel. Putting in 87 will retard timing, hurt power output and MPG. Same with GM's 3.0 and 3.6 turbos. And same thing with the 4.0L turbo V-8 coming too from GM.

Hmmm

Edited December 1, 2015 by FordCosworth

I'm aware of this and trying to find the answer.... but the drop in the Mustang is rather a surprising amount. 

 

the Fusion 2.0T drops from 240 to 231 on 87 octane.... 9 horsepower is expected and acceptable on a turbo engine.  The Mustang is dropping 35 hp, that is not insignificant.

Hard to compare a turbo V6 to a N/A V8 for fuel economy when they are in different vehicles.  There are a lot of variables there. You could probably pick and chose various engines in various cars that will beat others.

 

But why use an N/A V8 when you can turbo it?  Still a mystery to me as to why there is no Ecoboost V8.

 

You really shouldn't have made me go look this stuff up. Apparently Ford expected the Mustang Ecoboost to lose 13% of it's power when running on regular instead of 93.....

Power drops from 310 hp to 275 hp just by filling it up with 87 instead of 93? Does that mean the 400 hp MKZ will drop to 345 hp if I put 87 in it instead of 93?

I wonder about The % drop for the GM 2.0L Turbo I4 Ecotec LTG Engine, since it too recommends Premium Fuel. Putting in 87 will retard timing, hurt power output and MPG. Same with GM's 3.0 and 3.6 turbos. And same thing with the 4.0L turbo V-8 coming too from GM.

Hmmm

 

 

As I said... I'm aware there is a power drop on lower octane fuel on pretty much all decently powered turbo engines (My Encore is 87 octane recommended as is the 1.5T from Ford, so I doubt there is any power drop there).  A 9 horsepower drop like in the Fusion 2.0T is fine and well within expectations.  The Mustang has a 35 hp drop,  that seems fairly severe. 

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

Hard to compare a turbo V6 to a N/A V8 for fuel economy when they are in different vehicles.  There are a lot of variables there. You could probably pick and chose various engines in various cars that will beat others.

 

But why use an N/A V8 when you can turbo it?  Still a mystery to me as to why there is no Ecoboost V8.

First paragraph - full agreement

Second paragraph - it's in the works.

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

 

Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln.  Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....

I'm aware of this and trying to find the answer.... but the drop in the Mustang is rather a surprising amount. 

 

the Fusion 2.0T drops from 240 to 231 on 87 octane.... 9 horsepower is expected and acceptable on a turbo engine.  The Mustang is dropping 35 hp, that is not insignificant.

C/D's Lightning Lap Mustang was plagued by engine/power issues. They specifically ragged on it for being overly sensitive to fuel quality.

I can only imagine what it would be like in a pickup or whatnot.

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

 

Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln.  Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

 

Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln.  Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....

FYI, the Navi is 91 recommended to get the 380/460.

And from what I've read, yes the PCM in the F-150 will take advantage of the better fuel - the guys in the F-150 forums say yes.

 

I'm aware of this and trying to find the answer.... but the drop in the Mustang is rather a surprising amount. 

 

the Fusion 2.0T drops from 240 to 231 on 87 octane.... 9 horsepower is expected and acceptable on a turbo engine.  The Mustang is dropping 35 hp, that is not insignificant.

C/D's Lightning Lap Mustang was plagued by engine/power issues. They specifically ragged on it for being overly sensitive to fuel quality.

I can only imagine what it would be like in a pickup or whatnot.

 

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the only things I notice between 87 and 91 were a change in engine smoothness and a big change in fuel economy.  But I wasn't drag racing any of these vehicles, so I couldn't tell you what 0-60 times were.  I don't know what the max acceptable horsepower drop is, but I'd think 35hp is a bit much. 

 

 

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

 

Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln.  Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....

 

The 3.5EB in the F-150/Expedition rating of 365/420 is on 87.

According to F-150 forums, putting in premium adds about 20hp/40lbs-ft torque - look at the Navigator - 380/460. Only diff is fuel octane.

 

Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln.  Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....

FYI, the Navi is 91 recommended to get the 380/460.

And from what I've read, yes the PCM in the F-150 will take advantage of the better fuel - the guys in the F-150 forums say yes.

 

 

Yes, when you mentioned it, I went and looked up the spec on the Lincoln Media Site.   And that is probably at least partially the reason for the jump in fuel economy in the EX EL when I ran 91..... get the power sooner = get off the gas sooner. 

^^^^^

And now reading this I should have thought about the Expedition when you mentioned " PCM/ Ford " and not defaulted to F-150.

I'm aware of this and trying to find the answer.... but the drop in the Mustang is rather a surprising amount. 

 

the Fusion 2.0T drops from 240 to 231 on 87 octane.... 9 horsepower is expected and acceptable on a turbo engine.  The Mustang is dropping 35 hp, that is not insignificant.

Yeah that's too much if you ask me. I assume 90% of buyers will only put 87 in too because it's just that much cheaper.

I can't imagine that that kind of reduced FE helps with Eco anymore than it does Boost.

I can't imagine that that kind of reduced FE helps with Eco anymore than it does Boost.

 

 

Its just the way it is with ALL turbo motors from every mfg.

Perhaps. But it really sticks out like a sore thumb when you're touting the tech for its FE advantages over normally aspirated engines with more cylinders.

Edited December 1, 2015 by El Kabong

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Those prices are cheap.

And gobs of torque, excellent drivability, improved fuel economy and incredible upgradability are all benefits to the cheap cost of the GTDI upgrade.

 

You can debate the amount or merits of each, but not the fact.

Or, here is a thought, get the slower V6 instead.

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed.

I'll let you argue with wings over that. He begs to differ.

Those prices are cheap.

And gobs of torque, excellent drivability, improved fuel economy and incredible upgradability are all benefits to the cheap cost of the GTDI upgrade.

 

You can debate the amount or merits of each, but not the fact.

Or, here is a thought, get the slower V6 instead.

Yeah, it's a fact that price per mile goes up using a premium fuel.

 

They are advertised as both economic and powerful and it seems some of the motors are one or the other. Spend more money, get power and mileage. Spend normal amount of money, normal power and sub par economy. 

 

 

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

 

I won't completely agree with that ONLY because not all of the EcoBoost engines are as drastic as the above mentioned 2.3 and 3.5. Like my Escape is, and the Fusion, and rated 240hp with premium and 231 with regular. From my experiences of running different octanes of fuels there is nothing measurable so best and worst are both done on 87(others will dispute this on the Escape forums though). Reardless, I still run 89 to make myself feel good and the price really isn't that bad where prices are right now.

 

There is nothing wrong with a small diesel and they are GREAT if you're putting on a lot of miles but they just don't have the "fun" a gasoline counerpart would have or the big diesels. Great engine, just doesn't really strike my enthusiast side so much.

If you're on a budget and you need your truck to do it all then yes, I can see where a V8 or EB would be good for a giggle in a straight line. I have a co-worker who has a regular-cab EB for just that reason.

I'm not in that position, and judging by the number of street-sport trucks being sold neither are many others. I'm quite happy taking nine seconds to get to 60. And I have good reason to believe I'm governed to a similar top speed as my Hemi was

 

 

 

So if the fuel economy and performance is improved with the 91 octane, then the solution is simple.  Use that.

 

It is so freaking cheap these days anyway.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade.

 

For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year.  At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon.

 

500x2.0= 1000

461x2.4= 1106.

 

You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless.

Exactly!

It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere.

Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly.

Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed.

 

One of the problems is... Every vehicle on the road is tested with premium fuel. I believe 93 octane.

 

"The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)."

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates