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

[cbxer55]

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.

Likely you mean 3.73. Same as I have. Lucky to get 18 mpg. Around town, likely around 15. I gave up keeping tabs on it years ago. Throw in the fact mine pings on anything less than 93, and it's not worth worrying about gas mileage. My Mustang has a readout on the dash, have to scroll to get it, that tells me what the MPG is. 4.0 V-6, currently reading 23.2, and that's about a 50/50 mix of highway and in town.

 

[55trucker]

Memory fail....yeah 3 instead on 1, I suffered thru that pinging situtation as well until I replaced the MAF, for whatever reason the oem piece fed the PCM incorrect info on the airflow, PCM was leaning out the mixture, engine pinged mildly under light throttle when the converter was locked up & was a nightmare when the a/c was on. All that went away with a fresh aftermarket MAF. The tailpipe is still so clean you can wipe your finger in the outlet & nothing comes out.

 

[sgtsandman]

What octane fuel did you use?

All were driven with 87 octane fuel.

 

[sgtsandman]

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.

My 2011 only barely thought about 23 mpg one time. That was before the tire change and some of the other mods I've done knowing full well there would be a mpg penalty. Happily, it's still getting about 19 mpg on the highway, which is what is what it is expected to get. 20+ mpg is probably a thing of the past and it is a truck. Heck my 1998 with the 2.5 Lima usually only got about 22 mpg. I figure it's a truck and it's going to get truck gas mileage. The 2019 doing as well as it is, is a nice plus.

 

[55trucker]

I really feel compelled to dump the entire powertrain in favor of shoehorning a Mustang ecoboost/6r80 trans into the engine bay. If 3600lbs. of Mustang will get near 32 mpg then I won't sneeze if I can get 29 out a 3300lbs truck.
Near 300 horse is a nice bonus too. *won't need those 3.73 gears anymore either*.

 

[8thTon]

Likely you mean 3.73. Same as I have. Lucky to get 18 mpg. Around town, likely around 15. I gave up keeping tabs on it years ago. Throw in the fact mine pings on anything less than 93, and it's not worth worrying about gas mileage. My Mustang has a readout on the dash, have to scroll to get it, that tells me what the MPG is. 4.0 V-6, currently reading 23.2, and that's about a 50/50 mix of highway and in town.

Something is wrong - my 3.0 never pings at all. With a 4.10 rear I max out at 19mpg, although I never had a pure highway trip to test that.

 

[Blmpkn]

I really feel compelled to dump the entire powertrain in favor of shoehorning a Mustang ecoboost/6r80 trans into the engine bay. If 3600lbs. of Mustang will get near 32 mpg then I won't sneeze if I can get 29 out a 3300lbs truck.
Near 300 horse is a nice bonus too. *won't need those 3.73 gears anymore either*.

A mustang gets that mileage cause that mf'er slices through the air like a hot knife through a wet turd compared to a pickup.. Which moves through the air as easily as the average fat American trying to run up stairs with an open parachute on their back.

It's more about drag coefficient than weight.

**wicked scientific example time**

My fiance has a 09 focus, 2.3 auto, 230k. It gets near 35mpg.

My manual ranger with the same motor with half the miles under the same driving conditions gets 27 AT BEST, and weighs a measly 400+/- more pounds.


The 98-11 ranger has a drag coefficient of .49, higher than a 2018 jeep wrangler (.454).. a considerably larger and boxier vehicle. Christ... A semi truck only comes in at .6 or so lol.

For comparisons sake, the nazi engineering nightmare that's the new a-class Mercedes holds the production vehicle record low at .22.

The ranger has a frontal area 3 feet larger than the Mercedes (25sqft)
The semi truck has a frontal area about 4x larger than the ranger..yet.. Despite the gargantuan difference in area comparing the vehicles the ranger still manages to be less than half as aerodynamic as the merc and barely any better than a semi lol.

In closing, attempting to make a truck fuel efficient is a horrible waste of an attempt.

 

[cbxer55]

Something is wrong - my 3.0 never pings at all. With a 4.10 rear I max out at 19mpg, although I never had a pure highway trip to test that.

There is another guy on here, who like me, has to run 93 for the same reason. I do have a modified exhaust, no muffler, CAI and JET chip on the computer which alters timing. So the need for the 93 is likely of my own doing. I don't really care anyhow, as I use the 93 in all the vehicles listed in my sig line except the Mustang. For some reason I haven't been able to nail down, every time I put 93 in the Stang, I get random misfire codes within 40 miles. Really odd, never had that happen before. Doesn't do it on any other fuel, and the 93 doesn't cause any issues in the other four vehicles. I am going to purchase a tuner for the Stang with a 93 octane tune in it. See what happens.

 

[HenryMac]

Any noticeable performance difference with the higher octane gas? There is supposed to be.

All were driven with 87 octane fuel.

With the exception of using Sinclair 91 octane at our 1st fill up, we have run Shell Premium (also 91 Octane here in the mountains) exclusively in our Ranger. We have about 7,000 miles on the truck. We've never reset "Trip 1" so our average mpg since Sept 2019 is over 25 mpg.

At our last fill up we were averaging over 27 mpg.

Based on mileages I've seen posted on various websites where folks are running 87 octane.... we're getting better mpg.

Maybe try using premium in your Ranger and let us know what you find out.

 

[HenryMac]

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's an EcoBoost motor. The computer does detect the higher octane and adjusts for it. Especially beneficial on turbocharged motors.

https://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/

As this fella states "This has been known for a while. The ECU will pull loads of timing on regular fuel to prevent detonation".

 

[cbxer55]

Sinclair. That's what I use. It's the only station in this area that has 93, and he has it trucked in from Arkansas. It's actually Shell SU2000 93 octane. And he can't keep it in the ground. Sells every drop he gets. Has to have the truck come in two to three times a week. So it never sits around down there and gets stale. Seen a guy pull up with a big towing rig pulling a triple-engined offshore boat, three blown big blocks, three stern drives, six four barrel carbs. He put $1000 in the thing, told me it wasn't full. Guess he records his mileage as gallons per mile. LMAO!!

 

[Blmpkn]

Yes the computer does detect the higher octane and adjusts for it. Especially beneficial on turbocharged motors.

https://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/

I'm familiar with cobb, having left the disappointing world of turbo subarus years back.. but we didn't have any of that fanciness. Your choices were to run 93, 91, or run something lower and blow up

 

[Dirtman]

Yes... it's an EcoBoost motor. The computer does detect the higher octane and adjusts for it. Especially beneficial on turbocharged motors.

https://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/

As this fella states "This has been known for a while. The ECU will pull loads of timing on regular fuel to prevent detonation".

How's this system any different then a knock sensor system thats been used for 30+ years?

 

[HenryMac]

How's this system any different then a knock sensor system thats been used for 30+ years?

More advanced... http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/how-the-knock-detection-system-works-in-the-ecoboost/

 

[sgtsandman]

With the exception of using Sinclair 91 octane at our 1st fill up, we have run Shell Premium (also 91 Octane here in the mountains) exclusively in our Ranger. We have about 7,000 miles on the truck. We've never reset "Trip 1" so our average mpg since Sept 2019 is over 25 mpg.

At our last fill up we were averaging over 27 mpg.

Based on mileages I've seen posted on various websites where folks are running 87 octane.... we're getting better mpg.

Maybe try using premium in your Ranger and let us know what you find out.

I'm willing to give it a go. I won't have any trips that long range in the immediate future but I will have some around 2 hours of driving time that I can experiment with. Possibly a drive or two across the state. However, with PA fuel prices, I won't be making premium fuel a habit.