EPA Diesel Engine “Delete Tuning” Crackdown...Is It Here Now?

[Regcabguy]

The 2.7 is an amazing engine and shocks you the first time you drive one and lay into the throttle. They also don't have the cam phaser problems associated with the 3.5.

How's that engine with four occupants,uphill at altitude?

 

[phsycle]

How's that engine with four occupants,uphill at altitude?

Not to answer for him, but few years back, I've had 6 (4 adults, 2 kids), fully loaded in the bed, pulling a 5k lb trailer. Supercrew, 2.7L 4WD. Power for days pulling up mountain passes at 8-9k ft. Passing people in the fast lane, uphill. You need not worry. I did use premium fuel when heavily loaded, though. Just as a precaution.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

How's that engine with four occupants,uphill at altitude?

Well, with two adults and ~7000 worth of camper behind it, going from Alamogrodo NM to Cloudcroft NM it had zero problems climbing the 6% grade. I can set the cruise at 75 on the interstate (with plenty of power left to accelerate if need be) and not have to slow down unless another vehicle is slowing me down.

Places where either of my Tundras lost speed and down shifted, the 2.7 just spools the turbos and keeps pulling.

If for some reason the 2.7 doesn't have enough grunt for ya... A simple tune will turn it into a little terror with out nuking your fuel economy.

Also... EcoBoost trucks don't care about altitude ;-).

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Not to answer for him, but few years back, I've had 6 (4 adults, 2 kids), fully loaded in the bed, pulling a 5k lb trailer. Supercrew, 2.7L 4WD. Power for days pulling up mountain passes at 8-9k ft. Passing people in the fast lane, uphill. You need not worry. I did use premium fuel when heavily loaded, though. Just as a precaution.

There is a noticeable difference in performance when jumping from 87 up to premium. It kinda shocked me how much that motor holds back due to octane when you run 87.

 

[Regcabguy]

Good news! We just returned from the car show here. The F-150's sure are spacious. Decent seats. I liked them better then the Superduty's.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Good news! We just returned from the car show here. The F-150's sure are spacious. Decent seats. I liked them better then the Superduty's.

I love mine!

 

[Dirt Rider]

It would be entertaining to get all you guys in a room and duke it out! LOL Such passion ! Well I have a love affair with gas and Diesel and find EV interesting, but to soon to get excited about. Now please continue the discussion...

 

[ttengineer]

There is a noticeable difference in performance when jumping from 87 up to premium. It kinda shocked me how much that motor holds back due to octane when you run 87.

That’s not how fuel works.

All the octane rating does it tell you how resistant the fuel is to early ignition.

It does not make an engine perform any better than a lower grade unless the engine is tuned for a specific ignition timing like a high performance sports car.

If you run premium fuel in your engine that is tuned for 87, you’re literally wasting your money. Only a few engines are actually made to run higher octane fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[verdesard0g]

^^ Not totally correct. Modern engines have knock detectors so you can run regular when driving sanely , the engine will detune when a knock is detected. Run premium when wanting to run more aggressive, the engine will not ping and will keep its more aggressive tune.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That’s not how fuel works.

All the octane rating does it tell you how resistant the fuel is to early ignition.

It does not make an engine perform any better than a lower grade unless the engine is tuned for a specific ignition timing like a high performance sports car.

If you run premium fuel in your engine that is tuned for 87, you’re literally wasting your money. Only a few engines are actually made to run higher octane fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm guessing you don't have much experience with a twin turbocharged, direct injected, gas motor that has a 10.3-1 compression ratio???


Ford designed it to pull timing and boost when using 87 octane and to increase it when when using premium. The truck constantly adjust its timing and boost based on the octane of the fuel in the fuel rail.

It even says in the owners manual "For vehicles with EcoBoost engines, to provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty
usage such as trailer tow."


...and now you know...

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That’s not how fuel works.

All the octane rating does it tell you how resistant the fuel is to early ignition.

It does not make an engine perform any better than a lower grade unless the engine is tuned for a specific ignition timing like a high performance sports car.

If you run premium fuel in your engine that is tuned for 87, you’re literally wasting your money. Only a few engines are actually made to run higher octane fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"When Car & Driver went from 93 octane premium to the 87 octane cheap stuff, the Ford F-150 lost 20 horsepower going from 380 horsepower on 93 to 360 horsepower on 87."

"The drop in power made a substantial difference according to the testers and could be felt at the test track. Felt or not, the drop in power didn’t make a huge difference in performance with the Ford F-150 0-60 mph time dropping only a few tenths to 5.9-seconds to 60 mph. The quarter-mile time on 87 octane dropped by half a second to 14.5 seconds, and the trap speed dropped four mph."

Redirect Notice

 

[Ouiwee]

No, you don't understand how science works, simple as that! You follow popular concensus of "scientists" as though it is gospel of the sheep!

Problem is, without knowing all the variables "scientists" cannot form a proven hypothesis, hence the change from "ice age" to "global warming" in one generation!

Yes there have been horrible changes to the earth in the past 200 years, yes the climate is "changing", just like it has continuously thru the millenia but blaming it on diesel and coal almost exclusively is ignorant and brain damaged, there is way more to this planet and its environment than "scientists" can prove so far yet they continually and assininely scream and cry that mankind and it's power generation is the sole cause of "global warming", pull your head out and stop drinking the koolaid lil feller, "scientists" don't have all the criteria to make these claims corrrectly and THAT'S why the continuing change in the narrative!

To be sure, anyone who writes that scientists cannot form a 'proven' hypothesis cannot by definition understand how science works. No hypothesis can ever be 'proven' using the scientific method since it employs inductive logic. Scientists cannot and do not 'prove' anything...they only have more or less evidence in support for a given theory. At this point, there is an immense amount of evidence in support of the rapid warming of the planet--no matter the cause.

 

[luthj]

Almost all gasoline engines made in the last 10 years have fairly high compression ratios. This improves fuel economy and performance. Due to the large range of loads, altitudes etc, that the engines run at, variable cam and ignition timing are used to prevent detonation and provide optimal fuel economy. This means that bumping from the 87 to a higher octane results in better power, especially at sea level. For naturally aspirated engines, the gains are usually small, maybe a couple percent. The higher the compression ratio the bigger the gains.

Forced induction causes the adjusted compression ratio to rise with the boost level. Cramming more fuel/air into the cylinder means more power, but with lower octane fuel the ignition needs to be retarded significantly. Higher octane fuels allow the engine to run optimal ignition and cam timing. In some cases the gains can be as much as 10%.

A well designed turbocharged gasoline powerplant pulls just as well as a diesel of similar power rating. Power is power. And with 7-10 speed transmissions coming standard, the low end "grunt" that gets the diesel bros a joygasm matters little.

 

[Ouiwee]

Since diesel fuel has roughly 15% more energy density, it might not be entirely accurate to say that diesel engines are inherently more efficient. Also, it seems many in this thread are comparing turbocharged diesel engines with naturally aspirated gasoline engines. With modern direct injected turbocharged gasoline engines, the difference in torque is not nearly as dramatic and fuel efficiency is improved with gasoline direct injection (by comparison).

 

[luthj]

For the same compression ratio, a gasoline (otto cycle) engine is more efficient. Due to the higher stability of diesel fuel, diesel engines typically have much higher compression ratios than gasoline engines. Thus a diesel engine (diesel cycle with diesel fuel) will have slightly higher thermal efficiency. This typically becomes much more obvious in industrial or heavy hauling applications. For partial load operation (typical highway cruising) the diesels higher efficiency is somewhat offset by the increased air flow (thus wasted exhaust heat). While the gasoline engine runs at stoichiometric at all loads.