Dyno run - 2.7L completed

[BadmansSAS]

OK....what part of Ford powertrain engineering do you work for again?



That's WAY different than saying that I need to run 93. As for your comment "cheap out," how is that "cheapening out"? There's no damage being done; the truck has plenty of power and torque with 87, so why should I pay for more (assuming there's more to be had in the first place) if I don't need it??

Or did I "cheap out" by not buying a Braptor, for example? By your logic, I "cheapened out" and left power on the table by buying a 2.7. What do you say to those who bought the 2.3?



Ummm....no, it doesn't "want" 93. Not by any stretch.



"Should be"??? I'll follow the manufacturer's documented lead, if you don't mind. No E20 or E30, thank you very much.



I somehow doubt that.



Right back at ya.

Pardon. How many ecoboost fords have you tuned? Seen the calibration files from or data logged extensively? How many was that again, remind me? Have you ever used e20/30 for power or even see the spark table mappoints from a ford calibration files? Please fill me in so I can understand your level of comprehension here.

Because on the surface, you’ve shown me that you have absolutely zero knowledge of this subject. You’re sure good at quoting and spouting opinion though. You must be an interwebs forums pro guy. lol.

Sponsored

 

[ATLien]

While there's no doubt running 93 Octane makes more power (about 15hp according to Ford's specs on the 2.7), there's nothing wrong with 87 Octane as long as it's from a reputable supplier. The manual indicates as much. The computer adjusts for it and it doesn't do any damage to the vehicle. You'll just have a few less ponies and slightly worse fuel economy.

I'll often run 87 when doing long, highway trips. Don't miss the extra power cruising at 75, it's cheaper, and will be mostly burned out by the time I'm back home. Other than that, I do usually run 93 when I can enjoy the extra oomph.

 

[BadmansSAS]

While there's no doubt running 93 Octane makes more power (about 15hp according to Ford's specs on the 2.7), there's nothing wrong with 87 Octane as long as it's from a reputable supplier. The manual indicates as much. The computer adjusts for it and it doesn't do any damage to the vehicle. You'll just have a few less ponies and slightly worse fuel economy.

I'll often run 87 when doing long, highway trips. Don't miss the extra power cruising at 75, it's cheaper, and will be mostly burned out by the time I'm back home. Other than that, I do usually run 93 when I can enjoy the extra oomph.

Not once did anyone say that running 87 will damage anything.

 

[Oldhippie]

I have no real knowledge but doesn’t “knock” have to be happening for a “knock sensor” to recognize it and isn’t “knock” always bad/damaging?

 

[ATLien]

Not once did anyone say that running 87 will damage anything.

Well, you did refer to it as " shit low octane gas". It is low octane, but there's nothing inherently "shitty" about it.

 

[BadmansSAS]

I have no real knowledge but doesn’t “knock” have to be happening for a “knock sensor” to recognize it and isn’t “knock” always bad/damaging?

Knock is not good. But these modern engines have very good knock sensing ability as well as they run in closed loop. So they have the ability to pull spark in real time as well as adjust fueling on demand. This is all very common on most modern engines.

That being said, there are limits. But they are very wide. And using 87 in high load/cylinder pressure situations is pushing to those limits quite a bit. You could easily see -10* in knock retard. That is like losing 100hp roughly. Possibly more actually. In the coyote 5.0 world, a degree is worth about 10-15hp. Multiply that by 10. You get the point.

But sure its "safe" to run. By why would you be that cheap that you cant pay a few bucks more a tank to not give your Bronco the best possible fuel for a knock free burn? I dont get the mentality to buy a high cylinder pressure capable twin turbo engine, then feed it garbage gas? I guess its the uninformed way, or wives tales that convince people that 87 is fine for all and "wont do any harm", why waste my money. Well its far from a waste. You mpg would go up as well running higher octane at the same driving style. Now, if you hotrod it since now you have all this new found power, then mpg will suffer. But either way these TT engines are designed to run on 91+. 87 will work but you will be picking up KR all the time and you will be down quite a bit of power/tq.

Again, no damage should happen if you run 87. But you are a cheap bastard and need to know that. Next time get a Ford fiesta or a honda civic.

 

[Brian_B]

I would caveat - 87 is fine ~with the stock tune~

Run any sort of performance tune and they all make the assumption you are running something higher, and adjust the mapping accordingly

You ~might~ be ok with a mild tune like ProCal and 87 octane, but they require 91+ for a reason, and it’s not just so you don’t leave performance on the table

 

[B22-2023]

there's nothing wrong with 87 Octane as long as it's from a reputable supplier. The manual indicates as much.

I asked AI to double check and it brought up this image:

 

[BadmansSAS]

I asked AI to double check and it brought up this image:

I too have AI access, but mine has been specifically trained on Ford performance tuning and service for all Ford model vehicles. This is what it has to say on this subject.



Running 87 octane fuel in a 2024 Ford Bronco WildTrak equipped with the 2.7L EcoBoost V6 can have several negative implications due to the engine’s turbocharged design and factory calibration expecting 91+ octane for optimal performance. Key concerns include:


1. Increased Knock Retard and Decreased Power

• The 2.7L EcoBoost relies heavily on knock sensors and dynamic ignition timing. 87 octane has lower resistance to detonation, so under boost, the ECU will aggressively reduce spark advance to avoid knock.
• Result: noticeable power loss, especially under load, towing, or spirited driving.

2. Reduced Fuel Economy

• Retarded timing reduces combustion efficiency.
• More fuel may be injected under enrichment conditions to avoid detonation (rich mixture cools combustion chambers), further degrading miles per gallon.

3. Potential for Carbon Buildup

• Prolonged low-octane usage increases the likelihood of incomplete combustion and post-injection enrichment cycles, promoting intake valve and piston crown deposits—an issue already present in direct-injection engines without port fuel injection.

4. Increased Risk of Pre-Ignition at High Load

• Though the PCM protects the engine via timing and throttle intervention, under high-load conditions (e.g. wide-open throttle in hot weather or with a heavy load), pre-ignition risk rises with 87 octane.
• If control limits are exceeded (e.g. turbo output exceeds calibrated thresholds before sufficient timing retard), this can cause misfire DTCs or even short-term overheating of combustion surfaces.

5. Adaptive Learning Limitations

• The octane adjust ratio (OAR) logic in Ford's torque-based strategy adapts over time to poor fuel quality, but:
  • It stores learned retard strategies until cleared or reset via FORScan or a reflash.
  • This can affect performance even after switching back to higher octane fuel unless learning is reset.

6. Delayed Catalyst Warm-Up & Emissions Impact

• Richer combustion at startup and knock avoidance can increase unburned hydrocarbons during cold starts, reducing three-way catalyst efficiency and increasing emissions output temporarily.

OEM Recommendation: Ford specifies 91 octane minimum for best performance on this engine, with 87 octane being acceptable only under light-load conditions. It is not advised for towing, off-roading, or high-speed use.


Would you like to see how ignition timing and knock learn behavior are mapped in HP Tuners for this platform?

 

[Spooled]

A friend is letting me tag along for a bunch of dyno runs on his hot rod, and I get a free one on my WT 2.7L; perfect timing now that my main mods are done. Problem is it’s tomorrow morning, and I’ve got a full tank of 87 - wish I had 93 in so I can activate my full tune for the run. Does anybody recommend a canned booster like from VP Racing or someplace to juice up my tank and improve or simulate higher octane? I’ve never used that stuff before. Thanks! And I’ll post results here when done.

Don't let the Dyno operator run your bronco in 7th. yes it's the 1:1 ratio, but It'll hit the speed limiter and it will be a wasted run. 5th or 6th is what you want

 

[adam1991]

Pardon. How many ecoboost fords have you tuned? Seen the calibration files from or data logged extensively? How many was that again, remind me? Have you ever used e20/30 for power or even see the spark table mappoints from a ford calibration files? Please fill me in so I can understand your level of comprehension here.

Because on the surface, you’ve shown me that you have absolutely zero knowledge of this subject. You’re sure good at quoting and spouting opinion though. You must be an interwebs forums pro guy. lol.

On the surface, you told me that I NEED--NEED--to run 93. Or higher.

And that I'm "cheapening out" by running anything less.

Ponder those words, oh wise one.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tell us all again, oh interwebs pro, how we "cheapened out" by not buying a Braptor for even MOAR POWER!

 

[adam1991]

On these TT motors, it wants 93.

No it doesn't.

 

[adam1991]

I dont see how folks can tow or go hard/heavy wheelin and not use 93.

which is WAY WAY WAY different than your blanket statement of "these things want 93" or "But you should be running 93 on a 2.7 no matter what. 91+ at least.".

 

[BadmansSAS]

On the surface, you told me that I NEED--NEED--to run 93. Or higher.

And that I'm "cheapening out" by running anything less.

Ponder those words, oh wise one.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tell us all again, oh interwebs pro, how we "cheapened out" by not buying a Braptor for even MOAR POWER!

Maybe you dont read so well. Circle back and read my last post. Then reply calling me a liar, or that your brother's mother told you 87 is fine and 93 is chocolate milk or some other excuse for not having a lick of proof or facts.

Go ahead, I'll wait. Lets see what you can google up and reference that supports your case here.

 

[adam1991]

Not once did anyone say that running 87 will damage anything.

but you did say that "But you should be running 93 on a 2.7 no matter what. 91+ at least"

Define "no matter what".

Sponsored