Uh Oh.....MPG controversy....

[HenryMac]

The 2.3 eb is more efficient on 87 than my old turbo subaru was on 91 lol.

Couldn't even DREAM of running the subie on less than 91 without getting a hole in the top of a piston.. and that's with less boost AND a lower static CR.

Boggles my mind how the 2.3 eb can take so much boost with such a high cr ratio with such low octane honestly. Super impressive.

And even more efficient and impressive with 91 or 93 octane.

 

[cschannuth]

Fuel mileage is all about driving conditions and how you drive the vehicle. I have a 2019 F-150 with the 2.7 eco-boost and it will run in the high 20s on flat 2 Lane Highway‘s at 60 mph all day long. It will also get 10 miles per gallon if I’m towing a 7000 pound trailer with it. It’s a tiny engine so the boost needed to tow eats up a lot of fuel. The Ecoboost is a monster and I love it. I drive about 60,000 miles per year for work and almost all of it is highway and my average mileage is almost 23. I’m easy on the throttle and I get off the throttle early and coast to stops so that really helps improve my mileage.

 

[Rackster]

Interesting details folks. I’ve been running the 87 octane the whole while. Just noticed that I’m at 26.7 mpgs at the moment. I fully expect to be around 28 average by the end of summer in mixed driving. When temps dip and the dreaded winter blend returns the challenge will be to maintain as much of the gains I can.
I’m intrigued a bit by the feedback on the higher octane. Traditionally I feed my vehicles what is prescribed by the manufacturer. Normally higher octane gives you the quick burn and power while lower octane gives you a longer burn and efficiency. But this is my first turbo motor so it may be a new learning curve. It has me wondering about a test tank on the next fill to see if there is a gain to be had. And whether that gain is justified for the added cost. Perhaps higher octane could offset the winter blend losses, but I’m skeptical. Most loss is due to lower temperatures. The cold beats down the mpgs.
To be clear, I drive conservatively in the Ranger. But I do get some itches that need scratching so I attend to those. But I have an S2000 that usually does the scratching!

 

[sgtsandman]

My experience has been that the higher octane doesn’t improve power and fuel mileage enough to out weigh the increased expense. If I’m doing some heavy hauling or towing, I’ll fork over the extra expense since it is recommended but for daily driving with no extended hauling or towing, I’ll stick with 87.

 

[Blmpkn]

Interesting details folks. I’ve been running the 87 octane the whole while. Just noticed that I’m at 26.7 mpgs at the moment. I fully expect to be around 28 average by the end of summer in mixed driving. When temps dip and the dreaded winter blend returns the challenge will be to maintain as much of the gains I can.
I’m intrigued a bit by the feedback on the higher octane. Traditionally I feed my vehicles what is prescribed by the manufacturer. Normally higher octane gives you the quick burn and power while lower octane gives you a longer burn and efficiency. But this is my first turbo motor so it may be a new learning curve. It has me wondering about a test tank on the next fill to see if there is a gain to be had. And whether that gain is justified for the added cost. Perhaps higher octane could offset the winter blend losses, but I’m skeptical. Most loss is due to lower temperatures. The cold beats down the mpgs.
To be clear, I drive conservatively in the Ranger. But I do get some itches that need scratching so I attend to those. But I have an S2000 that usually does the scratching!

High octane fuel burns slower than the lesser grades, and doesn't add any power by itself.

Also, I've read a bit saying that one test tank with high grade wouldn't be enough. The truck won't be properly adjusted until a few tanks have been run through it, apparently.

 

[cbxer55]

I run 93 octane in my 98 3.0 Ranger, because it pings if I don't. Probably 23 years and 178,000 miles worth of carbon deposits. Ford issued a TSB on the subject. Mainly told Ford techies to tell their customers to drive more aggressively. I drive mine like I stole it. But it's a lot of years and a lot of miles, so oh well, I just go ahead and use it. I use it in my blown Lightning, and both motorcycles. Only vehicle I have that I can use 91 or less is my 07 4.0 Mustang.

I don't mind the extra cost for the 93. Truck loves it. It's got an aftermarket intake, custom exhaust, JET tuning chip and fully ventilated hood. It runs superb, even being a 3.0. 93 is kind of rare in Oklahoma, but fortunately there's a Sinclair station 3.5 miles away that always has Shell V-Power 93 octane. And it's only `5 to 20 cents more than all the other stations 91. Not open on weekends, so I generally go there and fill up two five gallon containers for my bikes for the weekend. If I don't use it in the bikes, it goes in the Ranger.

On the subject of gas containers, these stupid new containers with the funky nozzles. Go to your local Tractor Supply. They sell good old fashioned nozzles that fit on all the new containers. The nozzles also have a fine wire screen in them. You'd be surprised the things that screen catches. I thought gas stations filtered the fuel at the pump? I also use a homemade funnel with two fine mesh screens in it. It still catches things the mesh in the nozzle missed. Since I mostly fill my Ranger via this method, having to change the fuel filter has become a thing of the past.

 

[sgtsandman]

My ‘82 Toyota Celica was like that. I had to run Plus or Premium in it or with would ping under load. After a few years of doing that, I was finally able to go back to 87. I guess the carbon finally burned off.

There are a couple other places that sell those conversion kits including Rural King too but they don’t have the screen you are talking about. I have a couple filter funnels, so, it hasn’t been a big concern but I’ll have to make a note to take a run out tractor supply and check out what they have.

 

[sgtsandman]

High octane fuel burns slower than the lesser grades, and doesn't add any power by itself.

Also, I've read a bit saying that one test tank with high grade wouldn't be enough. The truck won't be properly adjusted until a few tanks have been run through it, apparently.

You could be on to something there. Once I’m able to drive the 2019 on a regular basis, I’ll give it a whirl and see what happens.

 

[cbxer55]

My ‘82 Toyota Celica was like that. I had to run Plus or Premium in it or with would ping under load. After a few years of doing that, I was finally able to go back to 87. I guess the carbon finally burned off.

There are a couple other places that sell those conversion kits including Rural King too but they don’t have the screen you are talking about. I have a couple filter funnels, so, it hasn’t been a big concern but I’ll have to make a note to take a run out tractor supply and check out what they have.

Tractor Supply has two different types. One has a nozzle that is about a half inch in id. The other is a high flow with a nozzle over an inch. It'll dump a five gallon container in a minute easy. Both have a metal screen at the base of the nozzle. Both my motorcycles have rather small fuel filters that are a PITA to change. They're attached to the pump in the tank. I always keep the tanks on them topped up, to prevent rust. So I fill them every time I return from a ride. Using the filtered nozzle and double filtered funnel has helped make changing the filters a very rare occurrence.

 

[Roert42]

I have a funnel I use if I have gas or kero that's been sitting a while. I think It has a very fine mesh or something for a filter, it actually filters out any water in the fuel.

 

[sgtsandman]

Tractor Supply has two different types. One has a nozzle that is about a half inch in id. The other is a high flow with a nozzle over an inch. It'll dump a five gallon container in a minute easy. Both have a metal screen at the base of the nozzle. Both my motorcycles have rather small fuel filters that are a PITA to change. They're attached to the pump in the tank. I always keep the tanks on them topped up, to prevent rust. So I fill them every time I return from a ride. Using the filtered nozzle and double filtered funnel has helped make changing the filters a very rare occurrence.

I have one with the 1” nozzle and the other the 1/2”. The 1” pours to fast for what I have to fuel. So I’ll look the 1/2”

 

[cbxer55]

I have one with the 1” nozzle and the other the 1/2”. The 1” pours to fast for what I have to fuel. So I’ll look the 1/2”

I only have the high flows myself. You can control it by how far you tilt the container as you're pouring. I had one of the 1/2 nozzles, it's long since met the round-open-top file.

 

[Dirtman]

High octane fuel burns slower than the lesser grades, and doesn't add any power by itself.

Also, I've read a bit saying that one test tank with high grade wouldn't be enough. The truck won't be properly adjusted until a few tanks have been run through it, apparently.

Engines keep increasing in compression, most made since the 2000's are right on the edge where 87 octane may not work without pinging, especially under heavy load like towing. But they can run fine on it by use of the knock sensor. If the engine knocks for a milisecond the knock sensor picks it up and computer retards the ignition timing to compensate. You loose power since the timing is not properly advanced but the engine otherwise runs fine. When you put higher octane in the knock sensor never goes off so the timing is free to ramp up to maximum giving you more power. Some ECUs also richen the fuel mix when a knock is detected to cool down the cylinder temps which obviously wrecks fuel mileage and it's not running as efficient so more power loss.

After a "Knock event" the computer has a blackout time where it will not re-introduce timing or correct the fuel mix. Otherwise it would just be constantly knocking and correcting every 2 seconds... So yes if you're engine is in that blackout time and you go to fill up from 87 octane to 93 you will not see any difference in power until the computer releases from blackout time and is allowed to roam free again. That amount of time is a mystery and different for every vehicle. Could be an hour, could be certain amount of drive cycles, could be a certain amount of fill ups, who knows but EVENTUALLY if the engine was in that blackout time and you put in higher octane gas you will see a difference in power and fuel efficiency.

If the engine never saw a knock on 87 octane however, you will never see a difference between 87 and a higher octane because the engine is already running at peak efficiency and the computer never did anything to reduce power anyway. You are wasting money on high octane fuel.

The trick is to know your engine and fill up with high octane before a trip where you might be towing or hitting steep hills and think the engine might ping. That way it never ends up stuck in "blackout time".

 

[cbxer55]

Wouldn't disconnecting the negative terminal reset it? Just curious. My 98 and my Lightning have no knock sensors. My 07 Mustang is the only vehicle I have with one. The Lightning actually has them, but they're turned off in the tune by Ford, since the blower makes noise the computer misinterprets as knock.

 

[Dirtman]

Wouldn't disconnecting the negative terminal reset it?

No clue. Not everything is always reset when you do that, depends where and how that info is stored by the computer. Different ECUs do different things.