2018+ Ford EcoSport banner
21 - 34 of 34 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
All we run in both our Eco and Maverick is Mid-grade. I feel like both run better and its not usually priced that much higher so for me its worth it.
That's where I've settled, too. The slightly better octane lets the ECU advance the timing a bit, giving you a little more power, and it just seems to idle and feel happier with it. I'm sure you can feel the difference in your turbo truck.
I'll keep running 93 in my ST because it's tuned and I have to, but the Eco really likes the midgrade. Even if it's just psychological, I'm sold. lol
 

· Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Me too on the mid grade,started that with the Escape turbo
You really notice it in turbos. Peak hp isn't all that much more, but it's just punchier everywhere with more octane.
But like I said, the 2.0 has a 12.1:1 compression ratio. That was muscle car territory when I was a kid. You never heard of an economy car with that much compression back in the day, because they all used regular. That much compression would blow up a Pinto. I remember the 70's, when all the fast cars became pathetically slow. A '78 Corvette with a 350 V8 only made 180 hp.! The '69 model made 300 minimum, with the same engine.

We know how that happened, so I won't go on about that, but the fact remains that the 2.0 has a pretty high compression ratio. That's good for getting all you can out of your fuel. It keeps the pollution down, too, and a modern ECU will just retard the timing to compensate when things get demanding. That's good for the engine, but it's Snoozetown for the driver.
Better gas will do for the 2.0 what it did back when 12:1 was premium-only.

I think next tank (putting on my lab coat), I'll give it 93 just to see... :geek:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I keep seeing posts here and elsewhere of people claiming 30+ miles per gallon. I have the 4-cylinder AWD and have never come close to that. Even if it's all highway miles, maybe 26 to 27 that's it. If it's only city and short trips...about 22.

Even the manufacturer doesn't claim much better.

Are people just exaggerating or do some people really get that kind of mileage?

I'm not complaining. I drive so few miles it almost doesn't matter....still this is puzzling to me.
Any comments would be appreciated.
30.6 is the best I've ever had, disappointing for a 3-hole at 3000lbs
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
You really notice it in turbos. Peak hp isn't all that much more, but it's just punchier everywhere with more octane.
But like I said, the 2.0 has a 12.1:1 compression ratio. That was muscle car territory when I was a kid. You never heard of an economy car with that much compression back in the day, because they all used regular. That much compression would blow up a Pinto. I remember the 70's, when all the fast cars became pathetically slow. A '78 Corvette with a 350 V8 only made 180 hp.! The '69 model made 300 minimum, with the same engine.

We know how that happened, so I won't go on about that, but the fact remains that the 2.0 has a pretty high compression ratio. That's good for getting all you can out of your fuel. It keeps the pollution down, too, and a modern ECU will just retard the timing to compensate when things get demanding. That's good for the engine, but it's Snoozetown for the driver.
Better gas will do for the 2.0 what it did back when 12:1 was premium-only.

I think next tank (putting on my lab coat), I'll give it 93 just to see... :geek:
A lot of good points. Funny enough I had an early 90's Firebird with a V6 that I traded a Maverick Grabber with the V8 for straight up. What a terrible driving experience that was! The Firebird looked the part but drove like a dog. Our Eco is the SES and I find that in sport mode it's quite peppy. I never once felt that way about the driving experience in the Firebird!

My wife tends to drive our Eco more conservatively than I do, but it still seems to have more punch running mid-grade.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I have the 2020 Ecosport SES AWD that I got with 19.1k miles on it 20 months ago. When I hit 45k, I noticed a drop on mpg efficiency. I take the same roads and at the same times ever since I got my mini-mini SUV. I average about 80 miles a day. I remember getting 27+ mph on city/highway (70%/30%) that dipped to 24 - 25 mpg.

I thought this started after I brought my Ecosport to Ford for the regular oil change. I noticed that I lost the system menu information that gives you the fuel efficiency percentage when your driving at a certain mpg. Does this sound familiar? Could they have change my system programming that affected my car's performance? L

I also tried using Shell's MaxPower (93 grade fuel) that boasts of its ability to clean your engine fyel system related parts when my car hit 50k miles. And it seems to have improved the mpg to 26+ on my first full tank. I used the 93 grade for about two months and reverted back to 87 grade. I've been averaging around 26.6 mpg on the last three full tank fill. What do you guys think about the system menu programming change and/or the use if premium gasoline. Really appreciate your opinion on this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
I have the 2020 Ecosport SES AWD that I got with 19.1k miles on it 20 months ago. When I hit 45k, I noticed a drop on mpg efficiency. I take the same roads and at the same times ever since I got my mini-mini SUV. I average about 80 miles a day. I remember getting 27+ mph on city/highway (70%/30%) that dipped to 24 - 25 mpg.

I thought this started after I brought my Ecosport to Ford for the regular oil change. I noticed that I lost the system menu information that gives you the fuel efficiency percentage when your driving at a certain mpg. Does this sound familiar? Could they have change my system programming that affected my car's performance? L

I also tried using Shell's MaxPower (93 grade fuel) that boasts of its ability to clean your engine fyel system related parts when my car hit 50k miles. And it seems to have improved the mpg to 26+ on my first full tank. I used the 93 grade for about two months and reverted back to 87 grade. I've been averaging around 26.6 mpg on the last three full tank fill. What do you guys think about the system menu programming change and/or the use if premium gasoline. Really appreciate your opinion on this.
First, welcome new member! I have an SES, too. The sporty model! 🏂

From what I have gathered, the SES sport suspension is simply different shocks. The springs and sway bars have the same part numbers as any 4WD EcoSport.

But, we're talking about octane. I'm glad you posted, because I've been playing with octanes in my SES recently, and I didn't update what I thought about it.
I've run 87, 89 and 93.
93 gives a noticeable bit more power. It doesn't transform the car, but you feel it. More importantly, it's better for the engine if you're stressing it with a heavy load, hauling/towing stuff, going off road, or just driving it hard, though I doubt most EcoSport owners bought it for that.
When I was a kid, 12:1 compression meant that you HAD to run premium gas. Those carbureted engines would knock or even self-destruct on lesser fuels.
Now, the 2.0 with 12.1:1 compression runs just fine on regular. It's all run by robots.

However, "For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended." - Owner's manual, p. 128

With premium, this car will give you more power and slightly better mileage. Not enough to offset the cost, but slightly better.

I love my Eco. It's the perfect winter car for me. I plan to keep it until I become too unhealthy to drive, or can no longer get gasoline, whichever comes first. I like it that much.

Premium is a dollar higher than regular where I live. If I were rich, it wouldn't matter, but I'm not rich. I hate giving money to oil companies, but I'm their slave.

As for your lower mileage, maybe it's the colder weather? I definitely get way worse mileage when it's really cold.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Thank you for the advice. I will research that recommendation in the owners manual. Honestly, I stopped taking time reading the book after my first car. I only do specific readings for specific needs like changing engine air or cabin filters; or to change bulbs on my previous cars, etc. You're definitely right on the cold weather. I would do 22-23 mpg driving 65 on the highway that would gradually increase after driving at the same speed for 10 minutes. I guess I have to do some test myself driving with different octanes on same driving conditions. I will keep everyone posted on this. Some time this year, I'll try another tire size again (ones that's allowable as per the tire chart) and evaluate how it affects the car's driving and fuel performance. Also will keep everyone posted.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I have a 2018 2.0 and I drive about 140 miles round trip each day with about 100 of it on the interstate. If I set the cruise control at 73 I can maintain around 28.4 mpg if I creep it up to 77-78 then I drop down to about 27.6 mpg. If I get in a rush and keep up with traffic at 80mph+ I will easily drop to 24.5-25 mpg. I run regular 87 octane.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
I have a 2018 2.0 and I drive about 140 miles round trip each day with about 100 of it on the interstate. If I set the cruise control at 73 I can maintain around 28.4 mpg if I creep it up to 77-78 then I drop down to about 27.6 mpg. If I get in a rush and keep up with traffic at 80mph+ I will easily drop to 24.5-25 mpg. I run regular 87 octane.
The 2.0 Duratec is a proven engine. If you bought this car (like I did) and plan to keep it (like I do), you have to accept that it was never a mileage champion.

This car was built for the few who can afford it in the 3rd world. It was made to survive, not go fast or perform by any parameters we expect in NA.

That's why I love it.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top