2019 Ford Ranger 0-60 mph Real World Test on 93 Octane

[rangerdanger]

First run in Drive, second run in Sport. On 87 octane, it’s about 6.8 seconds and I clocked a roughly 0.1-0.2 second improvement on 93 octane.

2019 Ford Ranger XLT Crew Cab 4x4 301A
2.3L I4 EcoBoost
270hp (87 Octane), 295hp (est.) on 93 Octane
310lb/ft regardless of octane rating
10-Speed Automatic (10R80)
3.73 rear end

Sponsored

 

[Rick - Saber]

Thanks @rangerdanger . Looks like the 93 octane gives it a nice hp boost. I'm surprised the torque is not bumped up as well. Always willing to have more torque . Do you notice much difference in normal daily driving between the two octanes to be worth the extra in price per gallon?

 

[rangerdanger]

Thanks @rangerdanger . Looks like the 93 octane gives it a nice hp boost. I'm surprised the torque is not bumped up as well. Always willing to have more torque . Do you notice much difference in normal daily driving between the two octanes to be worth the extra in price per gallon?

I'm not the original creator, I just found it on YouTube.

 

[Doc]

I'm not the original creator, I just found it on YouTube.

Estimated horsepower ? How do they do that?
Is that the estimated crank hp?
Regards

 

[doug910]

Estimated horsepower ? How do they do that?
Is that the estimated crank hp?
Regards

I'm assuming it's from the 0-60 times. If you take the difference in times, you can calculate the estimated horsepower difference with some simple physics equations.

 

[Doc]

I'm assuming it's from the 0-60 times. If you take the difference in times, you can calculate the estimated horsepower difference with some simple physics equations.

Cool beans but 0.1 - 0.2 seconds improvement would not equate to a 25hp increase would it?
I believe those are projected based on stock hp values at the crank. However those values could have been taken off a Dyno. But why does the torque remain the same.
Regards

 

[Rick - Saber]

I'm not the original creator, I just found it on YouTube.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson "D'oh!" That's what I get for assuming something. Haha.

 

[DHMag]

Cool beans but 0.1 - 0.2 seconds improvement would not equate to a 25hp increase would it?
I believe those are projected based on stock hp values at the crank. However those values could have been taken off a Dyno. But why does the torque remain the same.
Regards

I could believe a 25hp increase for .2 seconds. Think aerodynamic drag, the faster you go, the harder it is to push through the air. As an example, based on Top Gear's Bugatti Veyron top speed test. It takes 270hp to reach 155mph, but requires an additional 700 hp to reach 253mph.

Now, we aren't driving Bugatti's, we are driving aerodynamic bricks.

 

[Doc]

I could believe a 25hp increase for .2 seconds. Think aerodynamic drag, the faster you go, the harder it is to push through the air. As an example, based on Top Gear's Bugatti Veyron top speed test. It takes 270hp to reach 155mph, but requires an additional 700 hp to reach 253mph.

Now, we aren't driving Bugatti's, we are driving aerodynamic bricks.

I like that ! Pseudoaerodynamic Brick

 

[JoedOH]

I’d find it more believable if there were something showing the times in the video or even time slips from a drag strip.

 

[Doc]

I’d find it more believable if there were something showing the times in the video or even time slips from a drag strip.

That was my point in a roundabout way I guess..
Regards

 

[Hounddog409]

Estimated horsepower ? How do they do that?
Is that the estimated crank hp?
Regards

All HP is estimated/calculated.

Torque is real world results and what gets the work/performance done.

 

[TacoHawkRanger]

The estimated HP is going to be a very rough number. I'd say +/-10 HP vs actual Dyno numbers at a minimum.

Apples to oranges a bit I know, but 236hp/266ft/lb (~205/225 to the wheels) Gen 2 Tacoma takes about 8.7 seconds 0-60 at sea level at about 60* weather. Just goes to show that HP is a cool number, but Torque is more important in the 0-60 department.

As a side note, I'm still floored at the power the ecoboost has, and excited with all the modifications that can be done to it!

 

[Jerry Caldwell]

Are you saying you gain HP by simply going to 93 octane fuel? Are your HP gains based on a dyno pull? I didn’t think these engines would make adjustments based on Octane like some of the Mustang power plants. If you gain HP you will gain torque. Also, the dyno runs I have seen on tuned Rangers (5 Star) indicates a fairly modest increase in power going from 87 to 93 octane. So modest that I don’t think it is worth the extra cost of fuel.

 

[tivct]

I’d be curious if he logged the octane modifier to make sure he was fully adapted to 93. It takes several steady high torque accelerations to learn.

Sponsored