Octane Question

[Tim H.]

Anybody know where to find Ranger Fuel?

https://www.roadrangerusa.com/locations-amenities/find-a-road-ranger

Sponsored

 

[Obijack]

Hate to throw a wrench then inject some logic.

With a direct injection engine all of those detergents in the fuel that are designed to keep the valves clean are never touching the valves....

 

[Tim H.]

Hate to throw a wrench then inject some logic.

With a direct injection engine all of those detergents in the fuel that are designed to keep the valves clean are never touching the valves....

You are 100% correct!

 

[cb4017]

You are 100% correct!

Hate to throw a wrench then inject some logic.

With a direct injection engine all of those detergents in the fuel that are designed to keep the valves clean are never touching the valves....

True enough but wouldn't those detergents help keep the injector orifices' clean?

 

[Tim H.]

True enough but wouldn't those detergents help keep the injector orifices' clean?

Yup

 

[Doc]

93 shell here ...
Regards

 

[Tim H.]

True enough but wouldn't those detergents help keep the injector orifices' clean?

https://www.agkits.com/lucas-fuel-t...erm=4583726550779328&utm_content=All Products

 

[JimJa]

If you want an argument bring up Octane or Oil. Everyone has their own opinion. BUT, the fact is there is about a 3% reduction in O2 for every thousand feet of altitude. I live at 7,500', which represents about a 25% reduction in O2. Because of that reduction, the rule of thumb is one Octane point per thousand feet. So...at 7,500' is 87 (recommended at SEA LEVEL) minus 7.5 = 79.5 Octane.

Yes, a turbo affects the above formula, but even "X" amount of turbo boost represents a reduction in O2 just because of the altitude vs the same boost at sea level. Sea level is the manufacture's rating altitude.

Today's vehicles (including Rangers) are controlled by computer. That computer will reduce the timing and thus horsepower to compensate for altitude or Octane. The timing will be advanced for higher Octane resulting in higher horsepower which is why Ford recommends higher Octane for towing. "Recommends" not "Requires." The computer is driven by knock sensors and retard the spark accordingly. Higher Octane, because of the advanced timing, will also give slightly better MPG (higher Octane = advanced spark = more power = less throttle = better mileage)

In my area 85 Octane is the lowest offered, but 87 and 91 are also offered. I use 85 until I drive to a lower altitude, then run 87. I'm in the middle of a test, running 91 for the first time and just finishes a 1,000 mile trip. Not scientific, but if there is an increase in MPG, it's minimal and not enough to warrant the difference in cost, particularly in SoCal (paid $4.25 yesterday in Primm NV for 91).

While on the subject I need to mention "winter gas." The main difference is the vapor point for easier starting. The main issue with vehicles used in the winter is warm-up. It takes up to 20 miles of highway driving to fully warm up the various oils in the drive line (engine, transfer case and the diffs). Those cold oils represent a significant drag and since most drives are less than 20 miles MPG suffers and the reduction is blamed on winter gas.

All the above is for information only. Please, please use whatever Octane, oil, gas, etc., you want. It's a personal decision and the great thing about being in America is, so far we still have a choice.

 

[Richard Conley]

Good Morning All,

So this is the first vehicle I have ever had that I have actually read the owners manual cover to cover. In the manual it states to run 87 octane fuel in the truck. Easy enough to do for the lower elevation folks as that is your regular fuel. For us here in the mountains, our regular octane fuel is 85. Just wanted everyones thoughts on the 85 octane vs 87 octane? Here, 87 is obviously the "plus" gas, so it's 10 or 15 cents more per gallon. Not a big deal if that saves the turbo, which is my concern. I had a 2014 Escape before I bought the Ranger. I had it at sea level for two years, then moved out here. I was told by numerous places that I took it for oil changes that the turbo was leaking. Always just used 85 octane in it....now I am wondering if using 85 had something to do with the turbo issues.

Sorry for the rambling, probably could have shortened that post.....

I get/use 93 from Costco 20 miles across the river in Iowa for $2.05/gal last fillup, Sam's is 1/2 mile away from Costco and it has 91 for the same price as 93 at Costco. In the wonderful state of IL where I live 87 is $2.59/gal.

 

[D Fresh]

If you want an argument bring up Octane or Oil. Everyone has their own opinion. BUT, the fact is there is about a 3% reduction in O2 for every thousand feet of altitude. I live at 7,500', which represents about a 25% reduction in O2. Because of that reduction, the rule of thumb is one Octane point per thousand feet. So...at 7,500' is 87 (recommended at SEA LEVEL) minus 7.5 = 79.5 Octane.

Yes, a turbo affects the above formula, but even "X" amount of turbo boost represents a reduction in O2 just because of the altitude vs the same boost at sea level. Sea level is the manufacture's rating altitude.

Today's vehicles (including Rangers) are controlled by computer. That computer will reduce the timing and thus horsepower to compensate for altitude or Octane. The timing will be advanced for higher Octane resulting in higher horsepower which is why Ford recommends higher Octane for towing. "Recommends" not "Requires." The computer is driven by knock sensors and retard the spark accordingly. Higher Octane, because of the advanced timing, will also give slightly better MPG (higher Octane = advanced spark = more power = less throttle = better mileage)

In my area 85 Octane is the lowest offered, but 87 and 91 are also offered. I use 85 until I drive to a lower altitude, then run 87. I'm in the middle of a test, running 91 for the first time and just finishes a 1,000 mile trip. Not scientific, but if there is an increase in MPG, it's minimal and not enough to warrant the difference in cost, particularly in SoCal (paid $4.25 yesterday in Primm NV for 91).

While on the subject I need to mention "winter gas." The main difference is the vapor point for easier starting. The main issue with vehicles used in the winter is warm-up. It takes up to 20 miles of highway driving to fully warm up the various oils in the drive line (engine, transfer case and the diffs). Those cold oils represent a significant drag and since most drives are less than 20 miles MPG suffers and the reduction is blamed on winter gas.

All the above is for information only. Please, please use whatever Octane, oil, gas, etc., you want. It's a personal decision and the great thing about being in America is, so far we still have a choice.

As a high altitude driver for many years this has always been my understanding.

That being said, my ecoboosts get premium, 91 around here.

 

[JimJa]

There was a move by the Feds some years ago to have one Octane - 96. Wonder what happened to that? It's a great idea and would save the gas companies a LOT of money and perhaps some of that savings could have been passed along to users. Would simplify the entire industry from engine manufacturing, to trucking to delivery. Think about it. I believe the auto industry was in favor but I've never heard a thing since.

It's a statement of the greatness of our country that no matter where we reside, fuel is around the corner at the nearest gas station. That, when there are at last count 47 different blends in the country and double that for winter and summer fuel. For example, fuel sold in Chicago cannot be sold in St Louis.

WRT Ethanol someone noted a slightly lower fuel economy. This is because Ethanol has fewer BTUs per unit than gas. Hardly noticeable with the standard E10 (remember 10% is the maximum. Most fuel is between 7-8%), but with E85 the difference is significant.

 

[dtech]

There was a move by the Feds some years ago to have one Octane - 96. Wonder what happened to that? It's a great idea and would save the gas companies a LOT of money and perhaps some of that savings could have been passed along to users. Would simplify the entire industry from engine manufacturing, to trucking to delivery. Think about it. I believe the auto industry was in favor but I've never heard a thing since.

What was once called the "big 3" in the US - Ford, GM, Chrysler (Fiat) came out in support of a one octane standard, might have been 95 . Some of that support was attributed to the higher mpg standards passed in the Obama era.

Unsure what the refining industry position was/is but I wouldn't be surprised if they were lukewarm or opposed to the idea - the cost differential between regular and premium has shown a sharp increase and in some cases doubled in the past decade and it's still the pretty much the same process, so I'd suspect their profit margins are higher selling premium.

 

[Groo]

If you want an argument bring up Octane or Oil. Everyone has their own opinion. BUT, the fact is there is about a 3% reduction in O2 for every thousand feet of altitude. I live at 7,500', which represents about a 25% reduction in O2. Because of that reduction, the rule of thumb is one Octane point per thousand feet. So...at 7,500' is 87 (recommended at SEA LEVEL) minus 7.5 = 79.5 Octane.

Yes, a turbo affects the above formula, but even "X" amount of turbo boost represents a reduction in O2 just because of the altitude vs the same boost at sea level. Sea level is the manufacture's rating altitude.

Today's vehicles (including Rangers) are controlled by computer. That computer will reduce the timing and thus horsepower to compensate for altitude or Octane. The timing will be advanced for higher Octane resulting in higher horsepower which is why Ford recommends higher Octane for towing. "Recommends" not "Requires." The computer is driven by knock sensors and retard the spark accordingly. Higher Octane, because of the advanced timing, will also give slightly better MPG (higher Octane = advanced spark = more power = less throttle = better mileage)

In my area 85 Octane is the lowest offered, but 87 and 91 are also offered. I use 85 until I drive to a lower altitude, then run 87. I'm in the middle of a test, running 91 for the first time and just finishes a 1,000 mile trip. Not scientific, but if there is an increase in MPG, it's minimal and not enough to warrant the difference in cost, particularly in SoCal (paid $4.25 yesterday in Primm NV for 91).

While on the subject I need to mention "winter gas." The main difference is the vapor point for easier starting. The main issue with vehicles used in the winter is warm-up. It takes up to 20 miles of highway driving to fully warm up the various oils in the drive line (engine, transfer case and the diffs). Those cold oils represent a significant drag and since most drives are less than 20 miles MPG suffers and the reduction is blamed on winter gas.

All the above is for information only. Please, please use whatever Octane, oil, gas, etc., you want. It's a personal decision and the great thing about being in America is, so far we still have a choice.

Groo here
Close But.........
Pulled gas for 10 years [under stand fuel differences] , pilot for more [understand altitude effects on engines] SCUBA instructor [taught gas pressures effect]....
The reduction in O2 is due to reduction in pressure..
The % of O2 is the same, the amount is different [we and engines use amount]..
A carb or non-computer controled injector are the same.
they mix fuel at a fixed rate, this is why racers change jets due to air pressure or an airplane
has a manual mixture control.
A computer reads the air pressure [and other things] and leans or richins as needed.
Fuel and air are burned in pounds [aka weight] so as the air gets thinner [lighter]
you use fewer pounds of fuel.[
A turbo ,at the least , supplies air at sea level pressure.[called a normalizer]
A turbo / super charger usually has a way to blow off extra pressure[wast gate etc]
So, as long as the turbo / super charger has enough extra pressure, the engine does not know
how high it is [ in a plane this is called critical altitude, aka how high it will still supply rated power]
Therefore , a turbo ranger is set to produce a given pressure and HP.
If there is enough reserve in the turbo , it will do so to at least the highest big town[aka Denver,, the mile high city] and the octane required will be the same as sea level, so min 87.

 

[dtech]

Groo here
Close But.........
Pulled gas for 10 years [under stand fuel differences] , pilot for more [understand altitude effects on engines] SCUBA instructor [taught gas pressures effect]....
The reduction in O2 is due to reduction in pressure..
The % of O2 is the same, the amount is different [we and engines use amount]..
A carb or non-computer controled injector are the same.
they mix fuel at a fixed rate, this is why racers change jets due to air pressure or an airplane
has a manual mixture control.
A computer reads the air pressure [and other things] and leans or richins as needed.
Fuel and air are burned in pounds [aka weight] so as the air gets thinner [lighter]
you use fewer pounds of fuel.[
A turbo ,at the least , supplies air at sea level pressure.[called a normalizer]
A turbo / super charger usually has a way to blow off extra pressure[wast gate etc]
So, as long as the turbo / super charger has enough extra pressure, the engine does not know
how high it is [ in a plane this is called critical altitude, aka how high it will still supply rated power]
Therefore , a turbo ranger is set to produce a given pressure and HP.
If there is enough reserve in the turbo , it will do so to at least the highest big town[aka Denver,, the mile high city] and the octane required will be the same as sea level, so min 87.

it is unwise to use any fuel less than 87 octane specified by the manual - as I've mentioned previously I know several instances where owners of turbo and super charged vehicles found out the hard way that using 85 octane can have a costly downside.

Sponsored