Going_Going_Gone Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 My sister will be in the market for a new vehicle this summer and she thinks she's narrowed it down to either the Mazda CX-5 or the 2013 Escape. She told me she was told (I don't know by whom) that the 1.6 Ecoboost will require premium fuel but the 2.0 can run on either regular or premium. From what she says, she would favor the 1.6 as her hot rod days are behind her. However, she has no desire to buy premium, so...can anyone here say for sure if what she's heard is true or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 My sister will be in the market for a new vehicle this summer and she thinks she's narrowed it down to either the Mazda CX-5 or the 2013 Escape. She told me she was told (I don't know by whom) that the 1.6 Ecoboost will require premium fuel but the 2.0 can run on either regular or premium. From what she says, she would favor the 1.6 as her hot rod days are behind her. However, she has no desire to buy premium, so...can anyone here say for sure if what she's heard is true or not? From my understanding, the 1.6 will run fine on regular, but makes a few more HP on premium. You can run it either way, as is the same for all EcoBoost engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 My sister will be in the market for a new vehicle this summer and she thinks she's narrowed it down to either the Mazda CX-5 or the 2013 Escape. She told me she was told (I don't know by whom) that the 1.6 Ecoboost will require premium fuel but the 2.0 can run on either regular or premium. From what she says, she would favor the 1.6 as her hot rod days are behind her. However, she has no desire to buy premium, so...can anyone here say for sure if what she's heard is true or not? That's not true. It will run on regular, and it rated at a few horsepower less when using regular. From the owner's manual: Octane Recommendations Regular unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87 is recommended. Some fuel stations offer fuels posted as regular with an octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. Fuels with octane levels below 87 are not recommended. Note: Premium fuel will provide improved performance for vehicles with EcoBoost® engines and is recommended for severe duty use such as trailer tow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swine77 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 http://www.ftc.gov/b...utos/aut12.shtm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I know there have been countless discussions about what brand of gasoline is better, that they're all the same, it depends on the additives... too many topics and opinions to list them all, so I'll add my opinion. For a long time I have been filling up with 87 octane at the Marathon station a couple of blocks from my house. Lately I've been using BP fuel and I've seen at least a 5 mpg increase. I know the weather has been warmer and that's a factor, but I also believe the quality of the fuel additives, which improves the overall quality of the fuel makes a difference too. With gas prices where they are and to try to save a little $$, when my Escape arrives I am going to try to consistantly use BP 87 octane for maximum performance from regular gas. Just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going_Going_Gone Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 Thanks all of you, I'll pass this information on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlucarelli Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Gosh. With the high cost of vehicles today, and the complexity of technology, are you sure you want to consider a vehicle with such an anemic powertrain warranty? "Ecoboost" is Ford's fancy marketing term for "turbocharging". Turbocharging puts enormous stress on an engine. You're right - power goes up, and fuel economy is attractive (unless you have a "fun" right foot). However, consider that engine repairs will be very expensive out of warranty. Ford's Ecoboost series of engines do not, in my opinion, have enough emperical data to suggest they will be reliable and repair-free for the life of the vehicle. If Ford is committed to Ecoboost, and believes it has customer advantages, then Ford should back up their marketing buzz with a powertrain warranty reflective of their confidence in the technology. Other manufacturers in the small SUV space have much longer warranters. You should at least consider these alternatives before Ford. After all, the cost of the vehicle skyrockets when you have a $7,000 "catastrophic engine failure" event that occurs out of warranty, like I did. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) Gosh. With the high cost of vehicles today, and the complexity of technology, are you sure you want to consider a vehicle with such an anemic powertrain warranty? "Ecoboost" is Ford's fancy marketing term for "turbocharging". Turbocharging puts enormous stress on an engine. You're right - power goes up, and fuel economy is attractive (unless you have a "fun" right foot). However, consider that engine repairs will be very expensive out of warranty. Ford's Ecoboost series of engines do not, in my opinion, have enough emperical data to suggest they will be reliable and repair-free for the life of the vehicle. If Ford is committed to Ecoboost, and believes it has customer advantages, then Ford should back up their marketing buzz with a powertrain warranty reflective of their confidence in the technology. Other manufacturers in the small SUV space have much longer warranters. You should at least consider these alternatives before Ford. After all, the cost of the vehicle skyrockets when you have a $7,000 "catastrophic engine failure" event that occurs out of warranty, like I did. Good luck. Three posts doubting the reliability of the Ecoboost engine, OK we get it. There's nothing on this forum, the Ecoboost forum or on the web that supports your doom and gloom engine failure fears. All mechanical devices, especially automobile engines have a chance of breakdown or failure. Engines most often experience issues when they are relatively new and still in the 5000 mile break in period, if that's the case it's still under the 5 year/60000 mile warranty. Too bad your failure occurred just beyond that, that's the chance we all take. If someone is worried about reliability, get an extended warranty. You drove your Escape over 21000 miles a year, what were the driving conditions, what are your driving habits and maintenance schedules, you fail to elaborate on that. If you don't want to get flamed, called a troll or banned, you better support your argument with facts, or keep them to yourself. Edited April 28, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillboy Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I have a small amount of reservation regarding the longevity of a small displacement boosted motor, especially when compared to large V8s. I think the people that are gonna have problems with turbos are the people that really hammer on them (think small Jap cars with fart cans driven by young guys wearing flat brim caps skewed sideways), and people who never open the hood and check the oil level. Ford has addressed the latter to some extent I think since the 2.0 takes 5.7 quarts of oil and my 2.5 liter Subaru calls for only 4.2 quarts. I think this will give the uncaring/uninterested car owner somewhat of a chance in not seizing their engine between oil-life-monitor prompted, 10,000 mile oil changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tankmt Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Look at what the other manufacturers are doing with turbos. The Escape lists 3 engines, the 2.5 NA, the 2.0 ecoboost and the 1.6 ecoboost. If you want an turbo charged version, go with the 2.0 ecoboost. The 2.0 gets you closer to the displacement of the 2.5 NA. If any failure were to occur it will be the turbo and those things are expensive. Turbos spin at very high rpms and lubrication is critical. It's all personal preference on the engine. Turbo goes out on 1.6 ecoboost and you have something like a 3.0 V6 pushing a 1977 Lincoln Town Car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillboy Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I'd like a '77 Town Car if I could have 1977 fuel prices and NOT 1977 disco music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Look at what the other manufacturers are doing with turbos. The Escape lists 3 engines, the 2.5 NA, the 2.0 ecoboost and the 1.6 ecoboost. If you want an turbo charged version, go with the 2.0 ecoboost. The 2.0 gets you closer to the displacement of the 2.5 NA. If any failure were to occur it will be the turbo and those things are expensive. Turbos spin at very high rpms and lubrication is critical. It's all personal preference on the engine. Turbo goes out on 1.6 ecoboost and you have something like a 3.0 V6 pushing a 1977 Lincoln Town Car. The Ecoboost engines have additional cooling for the Turbo bearings, which was an issue 30 years ago when turbo engines where being used more. Also improvements in oil lubrication tech etc since then have more or less mitigated any issues on turbo engines. If the turbo goes on a Ecoboost engine (how many have failed really? I haven't seen anything with the F-150, which would be the primary one I'd think it would fail on), your going to have severe driveabiitly issues with it...i.e. lucky to drive it to the dealership. Ford has tested all these engines to last last least 150K miles before a major component needs to be replaced/fixed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Ecoboost engines have additional cooling for the Turbo bearings, which was an issue 30 years ago when turbo engines where being used more. Also improvements in oil lubrication tech etc since then have more or less mitigated any issues on turbo engines. If the turbo goes on a Ecoboost engine (how many have failed really? I haven't seen anything with the F-150, which would be the primary one I'd think it would fail on), your going to have severe driveabiitly issues with it...i.e. lucky to drive it to the dealership. Ford has tested all these engines to last last least 150K miles before a major component needs to be replaced/fixed. And in temperature extremes. It's not 1985 any more and turbos are not to be feared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 If any 2.0L owners are considering or wondering about running premium to boost HP, save your money, the 2.0 has plenty of power on quality 87 octane fuel. I got the car with a full tank, probably Marathon, which is the closest station to the dealership and since then I've filled up one and a half tanks with BP 87 octane. For my normal driving needs, I don't think I would ever be able to tell the difference by running premium. If I was towing, or driving in the mountains everyday, I would try both to see if there were any improvement, but for inner city freeway, secondary and residential streets, mine performs just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.