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

[sgtsandman]

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

 

[Blmpkn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Blmpkn]

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, 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]

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]

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?

 

[cbxer55]

You have a Lightning?

Somewhere, in some garage or other. I seem to have forgotten which garage. Things that make you go Hmmmmm...............

 

[sgtsandman]

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]

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]

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]

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.