MPG gain in sport vs. Its inherent extra wear on components

[D Fresh]

because its a piece of the puzzle....so is running better oils, so is whatever you wanna throw out there...

lets be real, a quick google search show LSPI articles dating back in excess of ten years.
lets also give Ford some acknowledgement that they have been improving the design since then.

therefor....I'll give some credit where its due and not lose sleep over my engine having problems as a daily driver, as designed by Ford, and if it does blow the fuck up...hello Ford, warranty please?

You might have misread my point.

But we agree.

Your piece of the puzzle point is exactly what I was getting at.

Personally I wouldn't operate with only the "Ford" pieces (knock sensor, 87 octane, blended oil changes at 10k miles, warranty) in place. Instead I'll do my part as well, knock sensor, 91 octane, full synthetic @ 5k miles, warranty, and not lugging my engine.

It may give me a false sense of control over things bit works for me.

You might of missed it when I said my biggest issue with the lugging in D is drivability.

Sponsored

 

[Floyd]

You might have misread my point.

But we agree.

Your piece of the puzzle point is exactly what I was getting at.

Personally I wouldn't operate with only the "Ford" pieces (knock sensor, 87 octane, blended oil changes at 10k miles, warranty) in place. Instead I'll do my part as well, knock sensor, 91 octane, full synthetic @ 5k miles, warranty, and not lugging my engine.

It may give me a false sense of control over things bit works for me.

You might of missed it when I said my biggest issue with the lugging in D is drivability.

My last couple of Rangers lasted decades each without issues using 87 Octane, and synthetic blend oil at regular intervals... never used a warranty, never lugged my engines.
My present Fords are 72 years old, 27 years old, 6 years old, and 2-1/2 years old, each runs as new.
Guess I'll stick with what works.

In Colorado, don't they sell 85 octane? If I lived at high altitude with a turbo, I 'd run 91 like you do, but its just a waste of cash where I live.

 

[pbethel]

Headlights and insurance don't make my engine run any better or worse.
They perform about the same function as the knock sensor.
I never actually managed to lug an engine with an AT. Only manual trans.
I don't like the way the computer ATs shift all the time but I don't have to honor a 5 year/ 50,000 mile warranty. Ford does.
But I am old enough to remember carbs and points and manual chokes and three on a tree and powerglides (talk about never being in the right gear).

 

[D Fresh]

My last couple of Rangers lasted decades each without issues using 87 Octane, and synthetic blend oil at regular intervals... never used a warranty, never lugged my engines.
My present Fords are 72 years old, 27 years old, 6 years old, and 2-1/2 years old, each runs as new.
Guess I'll stick with what works.

In Colorado, don't they sell 85 octane? If I lived at high altitude with a turbo, I 'd run 91 like you do, but its just a waste of cash where I live.

Nothing wrong with that.

I will just add that your last couple of Rangers were NOT small displacement turbos.

I've driven small displacement turbos for over 20 years. They always get 3 things. Premium, synthetic, and operated in their power band.

I'll stick with what works as well.

Headlights and insurance don't make my engine run any better or worse.
They perform about the same function as the knock sensor.
I never actually managed to lug an engine with an AT. Only manual trans.
I don't like the way the computer ATs shift all the time but I don't have to honor a 5 year/ 50,000 mile warranty. Ford does.
But I am old enough to remember carbs and points and manual chokes and three on a tree and powerglides (talk about never being in the right gear).

I learned to drive on a 3 on a tree.

Congratulations. You missed my point all together.

 

[FunInTheSun]

Now don't go Jasha Lottins over it...

I had to look. THAT is some seriously weird shit...

 

[HTX1811]

S = Better performance = less mpg.
D = less performance = more mpg.
My truck follows the above formula exactly.

 

[HTX1811]

There are some really odd folks out there.

I had to look. THAT is some seriously weird shit...

 

[FunInTheSun]

They left the knock sensor out or this engine?

I believe it has one, but I don't know where it is. There is a knock counter in the ECU Live Data screen, but I've never tried to provoke a knock event, and as far as I remember, mine read zero.

 

[Peter949]

Guess I'll throw my experience with S mode in here also. 95%+ S mode at 36k miles no problem. Difference in mpg is small but fun factor is more than worth with.

 

[Blmpkn]

There are some really odd folks out there.

Really odd folks with cute butts ?‍

 

[Floyd]

Nothing wrong with that.

I will just add that your last couple of Rangers were NOT small displacement turbos.

I've driven small displacement turbos for over 20 years. They always get 3 things. Premium, synthetic, and operated in their power band.

I'll stick with what works as well.

I learned to drive on a 3 on a tree.

Congratulations. You missed my point all together.

I too have a little personal experience with the Turbo Thunderbird, the SVO 2.3 in my Pinto, I even once turbocharged a 70CID RX7.
You may well know a lot more than I, but I get by.

Some of that tech (EEC-4) is antique now, but I can tell you that the 2.3L EcoBoost has a lot better and more reliable fuel management and electronic controls. Oil quality and driving technique was a lot more critical then than now.
Heck the RX7 was CARBURETED!

Don't get me wrong... If ever I thought I was always the "smartest man in the room", I grew out of that notion many years ago.

Its all up to you now!
I have heard your sage advice and will take it under advisement.

 

[BassRanger]

These trucks have 4 knock sensors IIRC, one per cylinder(maybe 2, can't remember). They play a very integral part in the operation of the engine. These ECUs are constantly trying to advance timing until either knock is detected or you reach maximum available spark advance in the table. The trends of this data effect your OAR, which which shift your global spark to allow more(or less) advance. This is what allows the truck to both run on lower octane and take advantage of higher octane.

Spark knock just isn't a big concern for most modern vehicles. The ignition timing feedback loop has advanced to a point where you very rarely hear about catastrophic engine failure from spark knock, especially in a stock configuration.

The real concern with these trucks is risk of injury lowering these undamped tailgates. That's where our efforts should be focused.

 

[Floyd]

These trucks have 4 knock sensors IIRC, one per cylinder(maybe 2, can't remember). They play a very integral part in the operation of the engine. These ECUs are constantly trying to advance timing until either knock is detected or you reach maximum available spark advance in the table. The trends of this data effect your OAR, which which shift your global spark to allow more(or less) advance. This is what allows the truck to both run on lower octane and take advantage of higher octane.

Spark knock just isn't a big concern for most modern vehicles. The ignition timing feedback loop has advanced to a point where you very rarely hear about catastrophic engine failure from spark knock, especially in a stock configuration.

The real concern with these trucks is risk of injury lowering these undamped tailgates. That's where our efforts should be focused.

Great post! especially that last sentence!

 

[D Fresh]

I too have a little personal experience with the Turbo Thunderbird, the SVO 2.3 in my Pinto, I even once turbocharged a 70CID RX7.
You may well know a lot more than I, but I get by.

Some of that tech (EEC-4) is antique now, but I can tell you that the 2.3L EcoBoost has a lot better and more reliable fuel management and electronic controls. Oil quality and driving technique was a lot more critical then than now.
Heck the RX7 was CARBURETED!

Don't get me wrong... If ever I thought I was always the "smartest man in the room", I grew out of that notion many years ago.

Its all up to you now!
I have heard your sage advice and will take it under advisement.

In regards to the smartest man in the room bit, you ain't the only one.

Not trying to tell anyone what to do with their truck, just sharing my opinion.

Yes, engine management systems have come a long way from MegaSquirt ECUs. But I don't mind doing my part as well.

In turn I will take your sage advice and try to let the Ranger do it's thing whilst I just enjoy the drive.

 

[JimJa]

Might as well insert my 2 cents worth - everyone else has. Bear with my being verbose please. '19 with 35K, 100% in "S," with some "just to see" in "D." Am-Soil 0W-30 @ 10K

1) '84 NA Audi 4000 Quattro 5 cyl, 2.2L 4000RPM @ 70MPH. Mobil One @ 5K. 142K and took it in for a broken spring in the clutch and valve cover gasket @ 132K. Tech said he'd never seen an engine valve train that clean. Did a leak-down and said results were what he'd expect on an engine with 25-30K

2) '13 ST. Lived in San Diego for 38 years and had to across a 235' high bridge. Experimented with instant MPG driving over in 6th (under load and boost) and 5th with no boost. MPG always a couple better with no boost. Son now has the car and it has 85K. Runs fine with no mechanical issues. Am-Soil 0W-30 @ 10K. Still gets just under 30MPG, same as my '18 RS.

3) Now live in WY at 7,500'. 35 miles one way for any and all shopping. Speed limit on 2 lane is 70, interstate 80. Truck shifts into 10th at about 3,200RPM on level in S and will rev to 4,200 on the downhill under braking. MPG 24. My experience shows wind is a huge factor and best MPG seems to be at 60-65. Can get 26-27 at 65. Above that wind resistance plays an ever increasing role. Mfgr's spend countless hours in the wind tunnel to optimize wind flow. Bigger tires, leveling, wind deflectors, etc. all contribute against that as does staying on the boost. As was said it's about load, load with these smaller engines equals boost.

Most engine wear occurs in the first 10 minutes and the main difference between winter and summer gas is vapor pressure. It takes 20 miles to fully warm up all the gear oil and that high-viscosity, cold oil/grease is a real drag on fuel economy. I'll get the same MPG winter/summer, AFTER the first tank when traveling and everything is up to operating temperature. Also cold air is more dense so at the same speed you're pushing through heavier air which is like going a bit faster in the summer. How much more, I have no idea, but every little bit works against your MPG.

There is a mentality among American mfgrs stemming back to the late '50s-'60s when engines had a zillion cubic inches and turned over at 1200 RPM at 70. Transmission had to kick down twice to get any life. Europeans (and Honda) took a different approach and built smaller engines (because engine/gas taxes dictated) and kept them in the middle of the torque curve. Our Audi was a 2.2L engine and plenty of power for passing because at 4000 it was in the middle of that torque curve. With the push for CAFE American mfgrs seem to be - finally - doing the same. Maintain your vehicle with regular oil/filter changes and there is no reason why today's vehicles won't last at least 200K. I would never fear the additional RPM driving in Sport. Depending upon where you drive, highway, in-town or urban you might get 1-2 MPG more in Drive, but I have to admit the truck is so much more fun in Sport. BTW, I also have a '17 Escape 2.0L and it's always driven in Sport. Now has 85,000 miles. Oil intervals at 10K and MPG is same as when new, around 27-28. No oil consumption.

Sponsored