- Banned
- #61
I think in todays age, there is the size difference to avoid putting in diesel....yet somehow you see that people still F that up??
Sponsored
- Banned
- #62
Question for the OP, did you notice any knocking or anything abnormal before you solved your problem? curious minds
kieefer
Well-Known Member
I run 87 quite often especially when prices are around $4 a gallon. Usually 4 87 tanks to one 93.
I also run a tune and notice no difference in performance IF I stick with BP or Shell. Kroger’s 87 burns like crap. I’ve also noticed no pinging.
I also run a tune and notice no difference in performance IF I stick with BP or Shell. Kroger’s 87 burns like crap. I’ve also noticed no pinging.
Floyd
Well-Known Member
That is just one of the many rationalizations I have heard over the years.
Oh well, we Ford owners are now stuck with that d@&med nuisance capless filler, which wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't so code happy.
OP
OP
got3fords
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #66
Well myself having driven Fords for my last 2 capless vehicles, and my wife same, never had an issue with the filler and setting codes.That is just one of the many rationalizations I have heard over the years.
Oh well, we Ford owners are now stuck with that d@&med nuisance capless filler, which wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't so code happy.
Floyd
Well-Known Member
The reliability of a conventional cap still trumps the convenience of capless. especially if they are tethered.
Still I remember when every gas station had a big box of assorted gas caps because people went off and forgot them ... Many of those were surface mounted on the cars and painted to match.
I guarded my Pinto cap very carefully!
Dgc333
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Dave
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2021
- Threads
- 13
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 3,526
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Vehicle(s)
- 21 Ranger Lariat
- Occupation
- Engineer
Gee, I have owned 7 vehicles since 2011 with capless fillers and haven't had a code thrown by any of them.
Dgc333
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Dave
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2021
- Threads
- 13
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 3,526
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Vehicle(s)
- 21 Ranger Lariat
- Occupation
- Engineer
It's an appropriate word. The Ranger owners manual states that a minimum of 87 octane is "required" and using gas with lower octane can result in engine damage. When you tune your engine for more performance you give up the ability of the ECU to adjust for lower octanes than the stated "required" minimum. You can get away with a lower octane than the "required" minimum if you drive conservatively but start romping on it and you risk damaging the engine.
Superdannyboy
Well-Known Member
I have a specific 93 daily tune and a specific 93 performance tune. I have a lone ranger tune for any octane. If a specific octane of gas isn't required, then what's the point of having specific octane tunes? Wouldn't everyone just use the lone ranger tune?
OP
OP
got3fords
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #74
Wow, you just don't get it do you? I don't "romp on it all the time" and never suggested I do. Stop putting words in people's mouths. 91 is required in order not to damage anything with a tune that changes the ECU such that it cannot ajust to lower octane, as has been beaten to death already in this thread and elsewhere.
So in order not damage anything when I do need to get on it, and for my truck to perform as expected, I, and my truck, require at least 91 octane. Simple as that. Now go away.
OP
OP
got3fords
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #75
Nope, you totally still don't get it. I was not boasting shit. I was genuinely worried I might have fucked up. I posted to get feedback and I got great feedback except your crap. Many Ranger owners here have tuned trucks and they were the ones I got good feedback from. Assuming you don't have a tune, why are you even bothering to reply? You are not contributing in a positve way. So again, go way.
Sponsored
