geophb
Well-Known Member
https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/thre...gas-87-octane-and-premium-gas-92-octane.1208/
^This is for a mustang. Using the premium curve if you do the math to account for drive train losses it puts it right at the factory rated crank hp for the mustang.
My guess is the factory power ratings are done for the ranger assuming you are using premium fuel, even though the manual states 87 minimum. (minimum being the keyword here)
I don't know that for a fact, so don't quote me on it. Edit: Power ratings done with 87.
^This is for a mustang. Using the premium curve if you do the math to account for drive train losses it puts it right at the factory rated crank hp for the mustang.
My guess is the factory power ratings are done for the ranger assuming you are using premium fuel, even though the manual states 87 minimum. (minimum being the keyword here)
I don't know that for a fact, so don't quote me on it. Edit: Power ratings done with 87.
Last edited:
Nevada_Bob
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Doug
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Threads
- 2
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 450
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Vehicle(s)
- 2020 Lariat
87 is minimum. 91 or higher is what's recommended
Probably the easiest performance mod is to swap from 87 and run a few tanks of 91 or better.
From the Owners Manual:
"For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel is most noticeable in hot weather as well as other conditions, for example when towing a trailer."
Lunchbox88
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Logan
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2019
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 303
- Location
- Missouri, USA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ranger SuperCrew FX4
No, Ford HP/TQ ratings were done with 87 octane.
Lunchbox88
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Logan
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2019
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 303
- Location
- Missouri, USA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ranger SuperCrew FX4
geophb
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Defn sticking with the cheap stuff.
Heres thread I found related.
https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/300-hp-with-higher-octane-fuel.1442/page-4
Heres thread I found related.
https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/300-hp-with-higher-octane-fuel.1442/page-4
HTX1811
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- HC
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Threads
- 26
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Vehicle(s)
- 19 Ranger STX 4x4,16 Audi A7
- Occupation
- Retired
I am going to do a few Dyno pulls today. Not really going to help you but we will know the potential the truck has. I have a SPD high flow catted down pipe, full SPD exhaust, drop in K&N filter, and a 5Star Tuning 93 performance tune.
HTX1811
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- HC
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Threads
- 26
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Vehicle(s)
- 19 Ranger STX 4x4,16 Audi A7
- Occupation
- Retired
No. I’m not going to spend the time and effort to run the tank down, de-tune, run 87, re-tune, then run some 93 tanks to do that.
HTX1811
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- HC
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Threads
- 26
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Vehicle(s)
- 19 Ranger STX 4x4,16 Audi A7
- Occupation
- Retired
Dyno done.
+155 crank HP and + 274 crank tq compared to factory published numbers.
320 hp at the wheel and 438 tq at the wheel.
+155 crank HP and + 274 crank tq compared to factory published numbers.
320 hp at the wheel and 438 tq at the wheel.
Clump
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Charlie
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 267
- Reaction score
- 933
- Location
- Felton, DE
- Vehicle(s)
- 2022 Explorer ST former 2021 Ranger Lariat Tremor
Wow! That is STOUT!
Porpoise Hork
Well-Known Member
Those torque numbers seem a little off for only having a a tune and exhaust. What shop did you take it to?
I know the 5* 93 performance tune is good for 75hp and 92 tq on its own. But I have never seen an exhaust and K&N drop in produce that much additional hp/tq on top of that. Typically a full exhaust is good for around 10% additional hp/tq and a K&N is negligible with at best 5-6 hp to the crank. So by those numbers that exhaust is producing an additional 180 +/- torque. I want to say there's one of three possibilities here. A, their dyno is off. B, Ford under reported the actual numbers for the Ranger. Or C, if accurate that's an insane increase and the factory exhaust is incredibly restrictive.
I know the 5* 93 performance tune is good for 75hp and 92 tq on its own. But I have never seen an exhaust and K&N drop in produce that much additional hp/tq on top of that. Typically a full exhaust is good for around 10% additional hp/tq and a K&N is negligible with at best 5-6 hp to the crank. So by those numbers that exhaust is producing an additional 180 +/- torque. I want to say there's one of three possibilities here. A, their dyno is off. B, Ford under reported the actual numbers for the Ranger. Or C, if accurate that's an insane increase and the factory exhaust is incredibly restrictive.
Sponsored
