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


sgtsandman

Aircraft Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011 & 2019
Make / Model
Ford XLT & FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC & 2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
31X10.5R15 & 265/65R17
My credo
I sniff fuel for a living. Don't judge me!
Any noticeable performance difference with the higher octane gas? There is supposed to be.
 


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 32B05A80BF19AF Expires: July 1st, 2020

Blmpkn

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
544
Reaction score
240
Points
43
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
235/75/15
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
544
Reaction score
240
Points
43
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
235/75/15
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
Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
22,853
Reaction score
3,373
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
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 Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011 & 2019
Make / Model
Ford XLT & FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC & 2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
31X10.5R15 & 265/65R17
My credo
I sniff fuel for a living. Don't judge me!
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

Active member
Article Contributor
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
190
Reaction score
117
Points
43
Location
Central Colorado
Vehicle Year
2019
Make / Model
Ranger SuperCab
Engine Size
Direct Injected Turbocharged 140 Cleveland
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
LT 265/65 R17
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
544
Reaction score
240
Points
43
Location
Southern maine
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
235/75/15
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

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
841
Reaction score
130
Points
43
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 Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011 & 2019
Make / Model
Ford XLT & FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC & 2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
31X10.5R15 & 265/65R17
My credo
I sniff fuel for a living. Don't judge me!
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

I pooped in the furnace
Supporting Member
EMT / Paramedic
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
10,089
Reaction score
5,911
Points
113
Location
Over there --->
Vehicle Year
2009
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
466.63 teaspoons.
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
So friggin big!
My credo
RUM HAM!!!
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 Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011 & 2019
Make / Model
Ford XLT & FX4
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC & 2.3 Ecoboost
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
31X10.5R15 & 265/65R17
My credo
I sniff fuel for a living. Don't judge me!
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

Active member
Article Contributor
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
190
Reaction score
117
Points
43
Location
Central Colorado
Vehicle Year
2019
Make / Model
Ranger SuperCab
Engine Size
Direct Injected Turbocharged 140 Cleveland
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
LT 265/65 R17
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

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
231
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Oshawa, Ontario
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0L
Transmission
Automatic
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

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
577
Reaction score
142
Points
43
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.
 


Top