spark plug suggestions

[Nailzs]

hey guys
im doing a long-range type experiment on my truck on which plugs are best for it
so far i have tried:
autolite iridium
11.6 MPG,slight rough idle, even power
bosch +4's
13.6 MPG, rough idle, higher powerband
motorcraft originals
13 MPG, smooth idle, very even powerband


im also going to be trying the bosch +2's as well as the bosh plat-iridum plugs
anyone have any other suggestions?

 

[WIEGS]

How about some plugs from NGK I here they are some of the best!

Spark Plugs

NGK Double Platinum 6579 PTR5F-11 .054" $11.71
NGK Iridium plug 6044 ITR5F-13 .054" $11.71
NGK IX iridium 7164 TR55IX .054" $7.32

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Champions seem to burn oil the best in my Ranger, they seem to last alot longer than Autolight's although most people really run them down. When I drove it to school everyday I used to get 2 weeks on Autolights before I got a miss, Champions could go a month. I have had a set in there for over a year now and they need changed badly, I don't drive it much anymore aside from about 20 miles around town on weekends. Milage was always misserable and power was lacking so I really couldn't tell you if they would have done better in a healthier engine or not.

 

[MAKG]

Just be careful about your precision.

The difference between 11 and 13 MPG is barely significant on a single tank of fuel. 13 MPG and 13.6 MPG are not distinguishable.

And most importantly, if you're getting that mileage, something is broken on your truck. You'll get a much more meaningful answer if you fix it first. Otherwise, you're measuring some combination of your problem and random variables, not the spark plugs.

 

[Nailzs]

makg, while u have good points, i dont think they apply in this case
running the 33's my exact mpg and speed are going to be off. im positive that 13mpg is not the true mpg, just what i am reading w/ a incorrect speedo sensor for my tires. the engine is in excellent condition, and the only thing wrong with it right now is the rear main seal
the reading im getting arent true reading, but they do give a base line to figure out which plugs are better for one thing or another in this engine
thats really all im doing, figuring out which plugs are best for mpg and which are best for power, etc.
any preferences on plugs?

 

[MAKG]

No, big tires do not explain that poor a reading.

And even if they did, you should correct it to make a meaningful measurement.

Your tires are simply not 40% bigger than stock. Nowhere near that. Closer to 10%.

You will not answer your questions with a broken truck.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

My parents 1994 Explorer only gets 16 on the highway, same as my college roomates 2000 Ranger and about everyone else I have spoken with that had a 4.0 4x4. I would say low teens are plausable with a lift and bigger tires. As long as all the measurements are off by the same factor it would be accurate enough to tell which is better, with no garentees on exact milage.

 

[MAKG]

No, guessing is not a substitute for simple calculations.

And you're assuming your parents' '94 is in perfect working order.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

It is not guessing, his scale doesn't jive with everyone elses scale but is still right against his other readings. If his gearing is wrong it and throws the speedo off it should be off by the same factor across the board.

The '94 Exploder milage readings are consistant with most other 4.0 powered rigs, and the milage hasn't changed in the 11 years they have had it, it is slow (bone stock with 3.27 gears) but runs like a top. They seem to be gas sucking pigs for what they are regardless, on the highway my 5.4 with 3.31 gears and almost twice the power flirts with 20.

 

[MAKG]

Yes, but that factor is 10%, not 40%. You simply can't explain mileage THAT bad with moderate lift and tires. His tires would need to be 44 inches or so to explain an effect that bad.

There is another problem here. And if you don't know what it is you don't know ANYTHING about the spark plugs.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yes, but that factor is 10%, not 40%. You simply can't explain mileage THAT bad with moderate lift and tires. His tires would need to be 44 inches or so to explain an effect that bad.

There is another problem here. And if you don't know what it is you don't know ANYTHING about the spark plugs.

I guess I don't consider that milage that bad for a OHV 4.0, not the best but they are not all that economical anyway from what I have noticed from other 4.0 owners. Being a stick it could even be where he is shifting at.

 

[MAKG]

We know it's a 1996, and those all got 20 MPG highway.

17 - 13 MPG is 30%.. Please be honest. Did you do that calculation or eyeball it?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Sorry I think I edited my thread at the same time you posted, your dot wasn't green so I thought it was fair game yet. I double checked and the year was wrong so the info I had wasn't right.

I did eyeball it and came up with twice of what was called "barely significant on a single tank of fuel" earlier. Looking at Nailzs's sig I also see alot of power sucking stuff that wasn't on there in 1996.

 

[MAKG]

Fair 'nuff.

As for "power sucking," I only count 3 HP. It's still far too small.

It is indeed hard to get a mileage measurement within 10% on a single tank. You can estimate this with your own truck. Get 13 MPG one tank and 15 MPG the next? That's almost 20%. To get a real feel, you need a "bunch" of measurements, and an appropriate measure is standard deviation from the mean (NOT standard error), if all the variables are held constant. A few MPG is pretty normal; fuel pump shutoffs aren't very accurate or reproducible.

 

[Nailzs]

all that aside about my truck, 85ranger is right in as long as my truck remains the same, the readings should still be accurate as a baseline on which plugs do better. ok, so my truck gets bad gas mileage and apparantly has a problem with it - as long as that problem doesnt change or all of the sudden get worse it wont affect the baseline readings for the plugs
makg, you're getting too technical on this one imho