I was looking through a 2012 brochure tonight and noticed the 3.5l ecoboost is not listed as E85 compatible. Am I missing something since I thought it was compatible?Thanks, doocrue

 

You didn't miss anything my friend, it's gasoline only.

 

Yea, if you want a Flex Fuel capable engine, you're stuck with the 3.7 V6 or the 5.0L V8. Neither the Ecoboost nor the 6.2L are flex fuel.

 

I see. Thanks for the info.

 

Almost all fuel around here has up to 10% ethanol. There's one place that has gas without it, but the stuff is about thirty cents higher. I've used some of both. Should we all be using the no-ethanol? Does it help to use premium gasoline?

 

good discussion:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...-ecoboost.html

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...-flexfuel.html

MikeWolfe was trying it, but we've never heard back from him.

 

Hi All:
Had the newest ECU software updates done by the local dealer last month
Been using a mix of 50% E85 & 50% Premium in my 2011 FORD F150 Super Crew 4X4 for several months now.
No problems noted.
Engine has a lot more power with this mix which I estimate is about 100 Octane.
Mileage was between 19.1 & 20.2 with premium only.
Averaging 17.5 to 18.3 with the 50-50 mix.
Works great for me.

 

I had the February update done. Is that the latest? My mileage seems to be improving as I rack-up a few more miles on the truck. Right now, I'm getting from 2-3 more MPGs using no-ethanol gas.

 

Flex Fuel = gimmick.

It's extremely inefficient and yields terrible mileage. I hate the stuff. We can thank the tree hugging liberals for that one.

 

where's that at

 

Where do you get your no ethanol gas???

 

We went from tetraethyl lead (leaded gas), to MMT, to MTBE, and now to E10. With every change brings complaints.

The big reason for the switch from MTBE to Ethanol is because, in many places in the country, we're finding high levels of MTBE in the ground water. Since it's a toxic contaminant, that's not exactly a good thing. Whether you're a tree hugging liberal or not.

Ethanol, by comparison, is much safer. I have no problem taking a big swig of Ethanol, but you wouldn't catch me drinking MTBE (unless I had already previously consumed a lot of ethanol and you dared me).

 

seriously ....

that kind talk is only intended to provoke and enrage people and is not needed.

you don't like it ... fine, whatever.

but your opinion is your own and is not shared by everyone on the forum. there are those of us who think it is a legitimate alternative to feed our vehicles. That hardly makes us gay, tree hugging liberals.

comparing the efficiency of the to fuels is a pretty narrow view, IMO. It is like saying "gas is crap because it does not yield the mileage a of diesel" ... they both have their place.

furthermore, crippling e85 by running it in an engine optimized for 87octane is like runing race gas in an engine with 6.0:1 compression and no timing lead. you can make it run, but there are prices to be paid, and efficiency is one of them. E85 like 12:1 compression at a minimum, or you are bound to get low efficiency.

flex fuels arent going anywhere ... better get used to the idea of them being around.

 

You have valid points. BUT, I just hate how the government FORCES me to buy 10% ethanol. I don't have a choice, I have to buy it, and that's what really irritates me!

 

At the federal level, the government actually doesn't force it. What they did do, is remove the provision that shielded MTBE manufacturers from lawsuits related to cleaning up MTBE ground water contamination. Instead of our tax dollars paying for MTBE cleanup through the EPA, it's now paid for by those private companies.

For many of those companies it didn't make sense to continue producing MTBE, when they could produce Ethanol which has little risk of groundwater contamination and, for a while, carried tax subsidies. Hence the phase out of MTBE in favor of E10.

Now, there are many state governments that do force E10, but that's a state government issue, not a federal issue.