Performance , 91 octane in 2022 ranger vs 87

[Joeiconic]

From the Ford website, the 270/310 is with premium fuel.

Sponsored

 

[canyonslicker]

Now I can put 91 octane in and convince myself it was week ago price for 87.. Still really high but take it when you can get it ?

 

[D Fresh]

Ford ecoboosts will absolutely make more power on premium. To what degree is questionable. Ford uses the OAR to advance ot retard timing on ecoboost engines.

 

[Wytchdctr]

Can anyone post a dyno between 87 and 93 in a Ranger - not a Mustang?

The 300hp stock on 93 was busted as Ford certified the 270 on 93 according to their own website.

 

[JasonTremor]

Can anyone post a dyno between 87 and 93 in a Ranger - not a Mustang?

The 300hp stock on 93 was busted as Ford certified the 270 on 93 according to their own website.

The 5 star tuning link I posted earlier has some Dyno charts that show a ranger stock tune on regular and premium fuel for comparison.

 

[Wytchdctr]

The 5 star tuning link I posted earlier has some Dyno charts that show a ranger stock tune on regular and premium fuel for comparison.

I saw a bunch of tests with 87 and 93 vs their tunes. Must have missed it.

That or assume their correction was the same for different variables.

 

[JasonTremor]

I saw a bunch of tests with 87 and 93 vs their tunes. Must have missed it.

That or assume their correction was the same for different variables.

Yeah, those charts are a bit busy as they are showing several different tune tests on one chart for the 87 and 93 octane perspectives.

 

[Wytchdctr]

Yeah, those charts are a bit busy as they are showing several different tune tests on one chart for the 87 and 93 octane perspectives.

I'll have to look on the computer vs the phone. I still only see stuff listed as an 87 tuned graph. Their site is not very friendly to my POS phone.

 

[Langwilliams]

I've seen a few articles/posts on dyno numbers an all seem to indicate ford underrated the ranger at 270/310 if you factor in a 15% driveline loss. Maybe the newer transmissions are more effective. A 10% loss would put it closer.

I have the Livernois tuner an tunes. I'm very happy with them an I feel their 87-89 tune is more powerful than the stock tune on 93. I'll admit I don't hammer it like I used to. I'd floor it a few times a week for the heck of it before now I bet I go a whole tank sometimes without any real time with the pedal on the floor. The last few weeks I've been on the stock tune since I have a CEL light for the evap an it's been to the dealership an it's going back for a new sensor. Sport mode on the stock tune feels like normal mode on the Livernois tune an sport mode is night an day to stock.

Added note: All engines vary to some degree an dyno's vary greatly.

 

[JasonTremor]

 

[JohnnyO]

I ran several tanks of everything and alls I know is that I averaged 1.5 mpg better with 89 over 87 and no change in mpg with 93 over 89. Therefore it doesn't cost me any more to run 89 since the mileage is better. Most of the time I run E15 88.

 

[Wytchdctr]

am I blind or are the curves the same on the "daily tow" from 93 and 87? It doesn't give a specific peak number but those seem really close together.

 

[Langwilliams]

I ran several tanks of everything and alls I know is that I averaged 1.5 mpg better with 89 over 87 and no change in mpg with 93 over 89. Therefore it doesn't cost me any more to run 89 since the mileage is better. Most of the time I run E15 88.

You did better than I did. A 1.5 mpg increase would pay for the extra cost of plus. I didn't get 1 mpg more. It ran better.

 

[Wytchdctr]

am I blind or are the curves the same on the "daily tow" from 93 and 87? It doesn't give a specific peak number but those seem really close together.

beer + MS paint = CSI level stuff right here people.

I see people say that the truck is good at limiting its power to what it should do stock; that is why it doesn't fall on its face when it gets hot - countered by people claiming 30hp diff between 87 and 93. I don't buy it's that big of a difference on a stock tune at all. These dynos back that up. So thank you for posting the link. Now, I run 89 for some insurance against knock/detonation; especially with the heat right now. See the original pics and reference where the hp and torque lines are at 4, 5, and 6k rpm. My stupid edits probably made it harder to see. Not saying it doesn't give a bit and it will sure as hell help of the knock sensors "hear" anything going wrong (like when its 110 actual temp outside), but all things being equal. I don't see it being worth the extra cost for a performance upgrade or claim. A tune or some other mod is probably worth more in the long run vs running more expensive gas than needed. Why did the mustang show that big jump? Its rated for more power maybe? So they may have the knock sensors turned up a bit to listen for when someone cheaps out and gets 87 in a sports car.


This could have been avoided had Ford done what Hyundai/Genesis did on the coupe and get them certified at both high and low octane. On my v6 the difference was a few hp; on the turbo it was close to 20hp; but they also wanted you to run the higher octane but know you could. The engine could deal with it. My Cobalt SS warned that 87 was for emergencies and to limp it home if you were forced to run it... if I remember right.

 

[SigOris]

here we go again

What’s the harm?

Sponsored