• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

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


sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
TRS Forum Moderator
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
12,695
Reaction score
12,390
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011/2019
Make / Model
Ranger XLT/FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC/2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift/Stock
Tire Size
31X10.5R15/265/65R17
Any noticeable performance difference with the higher octane gas? There is supposed to be.
 


Blmpkn

Toilet enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
6,350
Points
113
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2023
Make / Model
Ford Bronco
Engine Type
2.3 EcoBoost
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
2.5"
Tire Size
285/75/18
My credo
Its probably better to be self deprecating than self defecating.
We did a 300 mile trip in the Ranger on Wednesday... and averaged 27.7 mpg in our FX-4 SuperCab. We run 91 Octane Shell gas... truck has about 5,500 miles on it at this point.

View attachment 38420
Not bad! Mostly flat roads? Avg speed?
 

Blmpkn

Toilet enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
6,350
Points
113
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2023
Make / Model
Ford Bronco
Engine Type
2.3 EcoBoost
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
2.5"
Tire Size
285/75/18
My credo
Its probably better to be self deprecating than self defecating.
Any noticeable performance difference with the higher octane gas? There is supposed to be.
How is there supposed to be? Does the computer sense it has fancier gas and advance timing/add more boost?

All octane is good for is detonation resistance.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
32,213
Reaction score
17,527
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
How is there supposed to be? Does the computer sense it has fancier gas and advance timing/add more boost?

All octane is good for is detonation resistance.
Yes it does. And with more octane it is happier to play a little harder.
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
TRS Forum Moderator
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
12,695
Reaction score
12,390
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011/2019
Make / Model
Ranger XLT/FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC/2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift/Stock
Tire Size
31X10.5R15/265/65R17
How is there supposed to be? Does the computer sense it has fancier gas and advance timing/add more boost?

All octane is good for is detonation resistance.
It says right in the manual if you are going to be doing any heavy hauling or towing that a higher octane fuel is recommended. I was just wondering what someone who has used it had to say about it. Being that they are in Colorado, there might not be much of a difference since above a certain altitude, higher octane for a vehicle to run correctly is pretty much a must.
 

HenryMac

Well-Known Member
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
382
Points
63
Location
Central Colorado
Vehicle Year
2019, '31, '27
Make / Model
Ranger, A & T
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
2.3 Turbo, 350, 5.0 HO
Transmission
Automatic
Total Drop
Stock, about a foot, about a foot
Tire Size
LT 265/65 R17, P285/70R15 & P195/65R15, 820-15 & 500-15
Not bad! Mostly flat roads? Avg speed?
8,200 ft elevation at starting point
7,700 ft elevation at destination
65 mph.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any noticeable performance difference with the higher octane gas? There is supposed to be.
That's all we have run since we bought the truck... The manual states "For best overall vehicle and engine performance... 91 or higher is recommend" Good enough for me.

The truck is averaging over 25 mpg since the day we bought it.

Page 140 and 141 87 - 91 Octane.jpg
 
Last edited:

Blmpkn

Toilet enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
6,350
Points
113
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2023
Make / Model
Ford Bronco
Engine Type
2.3 EcoBoost
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
2.5"
Tire Size
285/75/18
My credo
Its probably better to be self deprecating than self defecating.
above a certain altitude, higher octane for a vehicle to run correctly is pretty much a must.
For a turbocharged engine perhaps, at least the reccomended octane rating. For an n/a vehicle the higher you go the less octane you need simply because there's less air. I know Denver and other such places sell 85 as regular. Anywhere at sea level of course would have 87 as regular.
 

cbxer55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
1,863
Reaction score
763
Points
113
Location
Midwest City, Oklahoma
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Automatic
Well, my 98 Ranger 3.0 pings like a sumbitch on 87 octane. Still pings on 89 and lightly on 91. I have to use 93 octane if I don't want to hear that marbles-in-a-tin-can sound. It is what it is. Been that way for years. Tried everything, except tearing it apart to de-carbon it, which will never happen. I view carbon buildup as a free compression increase, and fuel up accordingly. I know no one believes it, but it really does run good the way it is now. With no muffler, MAC intake and chip on the computer, it screams bloody murder. And besides, it's my bad weather vehicle. So my Lightning and Mustang can stay in the garage and hibernate when Mother Nature is angry. Like all next week.
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
TRS Forum Moderator
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
12,695
Reaction score
12,390
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011/2019
Make / Model
Ranger XLT/FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC/2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift/Stock
Tire Size
31X10.5R15/265/65R17
For a turbocharged engine perhaps, at least the reccomended octane rating. For an n/a vehicle the higher you go the less octane you need simply because there's less air. I know Denver and other such places sell 85 as regular. Anywhere at sea level of course would have 87 as regular.
Perhaps I got it backwards then. I thought it was opposite.
 

Dirtman

Former Middleweight Moss Fighting Champion
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
19,304
Reaction score
13,326
Points
113
Location
41N 75W
Vehicle Year
2009
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
It's up there.
Total Drop
It's down there.
Tire Size
Round.
My credo
I poop in the furnace.
Well, my 98 Ranger 3.0 pings like a sumbitch on 87 octane. Still pings on 89 and lightly on 91. I have to use 93 octane if I don't want to hear that marbles-in-a-tin-can sound. It is what it is. Been that way for years. Tried everything, except tearing it apart to de-carbon it, which will never happen. I view carbon buildup as a free compression increase, and fuel up accordingly. I know no one believes it, but it really does run good the way it is now. With no muffler, MAC intake and chip on the computer, it screams bloody murder. And besides, it's my bad weather vehicle. So my Lightning and Mustang can stay in the garage and hibernate when Mother Nature is angry. Like all next week.
You have a Lightning?
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
TRS Forum Moderator
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
12,695
Reaction score
12,390
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011/2019
Make / Model
Ranger XLT/FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC/2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift/Stock
Tire Size
31X10.5R15/265/65R17
My 2019 Supercrew STX FX4 4X4 with a fiberglass bed cap, got a good long term run over the past week. 1,300+ miles from PA to TX driving 23 hours straight, only stopping to refuel and take bathroom breaks. The return trip was similar miles but for 26 hours straight (road construction traffic jams). The truck pretty much met Ford's mpg estimates for the truck as it is configured. One note, the on board MPG calculator is not accurate. It reads high. My Scangauge II code reader does a better job and gives a better picture but only applies to driving sessions between engine start and shut off.

Fuel................Miles....Gallons.....MPG
Stop
1.....................365.9.....15.421......23.7
2.....................375.3.....16.394......22.9
3.....................380.9.....15.441......24.7
4.....................342.0.....13.989......24.5
5.....................325.0.....14.216......22.9
6.....................342.1.....13.301......25.7
7.....................388.1.....15.558......25.0

Most of the trip was at 70 mph highway speeds. 4X2 Supercab models may perform better. For a Supercrew 4X4, I don't think it did badly at all. The 1999 Honda CR-V it replaced would have performed similarly and would have been hard pressed to meet those 25 mpg numbers. So, for a much larger and heavier vehicle to perform the similarly, if not better than a compact crossover SUV with similar tires, I think Ford did a good job.
 

HenryMac

Well-Known Member
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
382
Points
63
Location
Central Colorado
Vehicle Year
2019, '31, '27
Make / Model
Ranger, A & T
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
2.3 Turbo, 350, 5.0 HO
Transmission
Automatic
Total Drop
Stock, about a foot, about a foot
Tire Size
LT 265/65 R17, P285/70R15 & P195/65R15, 820-15 & 500-15
My 2019 Supercrew STX FX4 4X4 with a fiberglass bed cap, got a good long term run over the past week. 1,300+ miles from PA to TX driving 23 hours straight, only stopping to refuel and take bathroom breaks. The return trip was similar miles but for 26 hours straight (road construction traffic jams). The truck pretty much met Ford's mpg estimates for the truck as it is configured. One note, the on board MPG calculator is not accurate. It reads high. My Scangauge II code reader does a better job and gives a better picture but only applies to driving sessions between engine start and shut off.

Fuel................Miles....Gallons.....MPG
Stop
1.....................365.9.....15.421......23.7
2.....................375.3.....16.394......22.9
3.....................380.9.....15.441......24.7
4.....................342.0.....13.989......24.5
5.....................325.0.....14.216......22.9
6.....................342.1.....13.301......25.7
7.....................388.1.....15.558......25.0

Most of the trip was at 70 mph highway speeds. 4X2 Supercab models may perform better. For a Supercrew 4X4, I don't think it did badly at all. The 1999 Honda CR-V it replaced would have performed similarly and would have been hard pressed to meet those 25 mpg numbers. So, for a much larger and heavier vehicle to perform the similarly, if not better than a compact crossover SUV with similar tires, I think Ford did a good job.
What octane fuel did you use?
 

55trucker

Active Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
602
Reaction score
183
Points
43
Location
Oshawa, Ontario
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
3.0 V6
Engine Size
3.0L
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
-
Total Drop
mild
I can barely get those figures on the highway (24 mpg or 12 litres per 100k), but then my reg cab truck has the 3L engine & the less fuel friendly 3.71 rear gears.
 

Eddo Rogue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
3,952
Reaction score
2,472
Points
113
Location
Burbank,CA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ranger 4x4
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
OHV
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
skyjacker front leveling kit
Tire Size
31-10.50R15
My credo
Crossed threads are tight threads.
Try
You can't change the laws of physics... trucks are not aerodynamic and no matter what magic you do to the engine, it's still gotta push a 2 ton brick through the air.
Trying to explain physics or logic to the masses is an exercise in futility.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Members online

Today's birthdays

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Latest posts

Truck of The Month


Kirby N.
March Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Top