Pet Peeves

[Ranger Danger]

You must live somewhere flat. No way a 4x4 ranger gets that much on a hill, I don't care how you drive it.

Mike, I noticed you posted a reply to another, so updating here. I continue to get fantastic milage, I have yet to tow anything myself. When I picked it up and it was at 390/400, then as it calculated to my driving 420, 430, 450, 470, and now 450. At the first 450 mark, I ran it to almost empty to validate it was really getting all those miles and it was. I'm freaking pleased as hell by that.

Sponsored

 

[VAMike]

Mike, I noticed you posted a reply to another, so updating here. I continue to get fantastic milage, I have yet to tow anything myself. When I picked it up and it was at 390/400, then as it calculated to my driving 420, 430, 450, 470, and now 450. At the first 450 mark, I ran it to almost empty to validate it was really getting all those miles and it was. I'm freaking pleased as hell by that.

I can boost the MPGs running flat on a highway. If I'm in hills, it drops. No amount of driving style changes can make a truck hit its max MPG when lifting itself up a grade. If you're far enough north to not hammer the AC that's worth a mile or two also; I definitely see an improvement for the week or two between summer heat and winter blend fuel.

 

[RedlandRanger]

I can boost the MPGs running flat on a highway. If I'm in hills, it drops. No amount of driving style changes can make a truck hit its max MPG when lifting itself up a grade. If you're far enough north to not hammer the AC that's worth a mile or two also; I definitely see an improvement for the week or two between summer heat and winter blend fuel.

I totally agree with the hill statement. If you need/have to go up and down hills it will definitely affect your mileage significantly. When I go hiking, I have to typically drive up 3-4000' and the mileage goes down 2-3 MPG on the way in. It comes back up on the way back down, but not all the way. Hills definitely make a big difference. When I'm driving in the flat valley, I've seen 25MPG - but ONLY when it is flat.

 

[Lunchbox88]

Yep, I live in a hilly area and it really destroys my mileage compared to a lot of people on here.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

You must live somewhere flat. No way a 4x4 ranger gets that much on a hill, I don't care how you drive it.

I mean, I don't live in the mountains, but I also don't live in flat Kansas either. There are some hills here. And I definitely do see a drop when doing hilly stuff. I won't be getting 28mpg on hilly drives, maybe more in the 25-26mpg range depending on speed. And I can see how mountains would affect it some.

Another thing that may be happening is I live in a place with very few freeways, mostly rural highways. Not very often do I drive faster than 60-65mph on long trips. I do notice that speed is a huge factor as well. I'll get 28-29mpg at 60mph, but the minute it speeds up to 70mph, it'll drop fast to around 24-25mpg, and further down the faster you go. So there is a sweet spot like there is for every vehicle.

So you're right, there are a lot of factors, terrain, speed, driving style, mods, etc. But I think we're just saying that it is possible. Some of us may be fortunate enough to live in a place that helps mileage, others in a place that hurts mileage. Such is life.

 

[bking]

I mean, I don't live in the mountains, but I also don't live in flat Kansas either. There are some hills here. And I definitely do see a drop when doing hilly stuff. I won't be getting 28mpg on hilly drives, maybe more in the 25-26mpg range depending on speed. And I can see how mountains would affect it some.

Another thing that may be happening is I live in a place with very few freeways, mostly rural highways. Not very often do I drive faster than 60-65mph on long trips. I do notice that speed is a huge factor as well. I'll get 28-29mpg at 60mph, but the minute it speeds up to 70mph, it'll drop fast to around 24-25mpg, and further down the faster you go. So there is a sweet spot like there is for every vehicle.

So you're right, there are a lot of factors, terrain, speed, driving style, mods, etc. But I think we're just saying that it is possible. Some of us may be fortunate enough to live in a place that helps mileage, others in a place that hurts mileage. Such is life.

I spoke with an engineer that I know at Ford. He said that using premium wouldn't make that much of a difference unless that station was using pure gasoline (no ethanol). I have found a station that supposedly provides pure gasoline in their mid-grade gas so I'm going to try that out in the next tank.

I live in Northeastern Ohio so we do have some rolling hills. No mountains or anything close, and I do have a heavy foot. I figure the pure gas is worth a try.

 

[Lunchbox88]

Correct, Premium fuel (of the same ethanol blend) should not effect the MPG in any tangible way. What you are getting it for is its resistance to knock. Which in essence mean you can squeeze it harder and make more power off of it without pre-detonation.

 

[VAMike]

Correct, Premium fuel (of the same ethanol blend) should not effect the MPG in any tangible way. What you are getting it for is its resistance to knock. Which in essence mean you can squeeze it harder and make more power off of it without pre-detonation.

...which means that you need less fuel under boost because the anti-knock measures consume fuel. How much this matters, and whether you save enough to pay for the higher price gas, is complicated.

 

[VAMike]

So you're right, there are a lot of factors, terrain, speed, driving style, mods, etc. But I think we're just saying that it is possible. Some of us may be fortunate enough to live in a place that helps mileage, others in a place that hurts mileage. Such is life.

There are definitely a lot of factors, I was responding mostly to the (maybe just perceived) attitude of "if you just drive differently you can get 28MPG". Maybe you can, but depending on where you're driving, no way. It's not that the driver is doing something wrong, it's just physics. (And some of those cases are where the 2.7 engine would get better MPG, even though the 2.3 will do better in other cases, because it wouldn't need to boost to get up the hill where the 2.3 does.)

 

[Lunchbox88]

...which means that you need less fuel under boost because the anti-knock measures consume fuel. How much this matters, and whether you save enough to pay for the higher price gas, is complicated.

Im not sure what you mean by "anti-knock measure consume fuel." Not that it may not be right, Im just not picking up what you putting down. The anti-knock aspect is just the high octanes resistance to detonation. Im definitely not an expert, but my understanding is that while using higher octane does indeed allow for higher boost, therefore high cylinder pressures, the amount of fuel must be increased as well with that air increase in order to keep the appropriate A/F ratio. That resistance to knock does give you some advances with advancing the timing and engine down-speeding which could yield some efficiency gains, but again I dont think you will see a tangible difference in mpg in most people cases (Which I think you already agree with). Especially since on the highway just cruising with no load, you aren't really in boost at all (unless you hit a hill which I have seen 13psi boost with the cruise set to 75). Under load though it really shines because you can jam more air and go-juice in and hit it with spark a little faster to get you that power/torque that we love so much.

 

[VAMike]

Im not sure what you mean by "anti-knock measure consume fuel." Not that it may not be right, Im just not picking up what you putting down. The anti-knock aspect is just the high octanes resistance to detonation. Im definitely not an expert, but my understanding is that while using higher octane does indeed allow for higher boost, therefore high cylinder pressures, the amount of fuel must be increased as well with that air increase in order to keep the appropriate A/F ratio. That resistance to knock does give you some advances with advancing the timing and engine down-speeding which could yield some efficiency gains, but again I dont think you will see a tangible difference in mpg in most people cases (Which I think you already agree with). Especially since on the highway just cruising with no load, you aren't really in boost at all (unless you hit a hill which I have seen 13psi boost with the cruise set to 75). Under load though it really shines because you can jam more air and go-juice in and hit it with spark a little faster to get you that power/torque that we love so much.

If the engine detects preignition it will retard the timing (reduces efficiency but also reduces preignition) and run richer (extra fuel that doesn't contribute to engine power because there's no more air to combust with, but will cool the mixture and lower the combustion speed). This is separate from (on top of) increasing the fuel injected as the amount of air increases under boost, which always happens regardless of your octane rating. An engine running on a higher octane fuel will need to apply those anti-preignition measures later than an engine running on a lower octane fuel. So in some cases an engine running a mild boost will see better fuel economy with a higher octane fuel if it is in that window where the lower octane fuel would need to retard timing and run rich but the higher octane fuel does not. For most people that's unlikely to happen often enough and consistently enough to make a noticeable difference, but in some cases it might actually happen.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

There are definitely a lot of factors, I was responding mostly to the (maybe just perceived) attitude of "if you just drive differently you can get 28MPG". Maybe you can, but depending on where you're driving, no way. It's not that the driver is doing something wrong, it's just physics. (And some of those cases are where the 2.7 engine would get better MPG, even though the 2.3 will do better in other cases, because it wouldn't need to boost to get up the hill where the 2.3 does.)

You are correct, there was some of that attitude under the surface, I'll admit, yes. And I do honestly appreciate you putting my straight. Made me think outside of my own experiences, which is always good.

 

[VAMike]

You are correct, there was some of that attitude under the surface, I'll admit, yes. And I do honestly appreciate you putting my straight. Made me think outside of my own experiences, which is always good.

no foul, we all sometimes rethink comments on the internet and it's a lot harder to gauge attitudes in text

 

[mransr]

My only real pet peeve is the creaky door pull/armrest, that really annoys me...I'd like it if the armrest was farther back on the door and the dashboard temp controls were easier to see too. OH, and it would be great if the trucks butt wasn't so high in the air...so I guess I do have more than one pet peeve

 

[Lunchbox88]

If the engine detects preignition it will retard the timing (reduces efficiency but also reduces preignition) and run richer (extra fuel that doesn't contribute to engine power because there's no more air to combust with, but will cool the mixture and lower the combustion speed). This is separate from (on top of) increasing the fuel injected as the amount of air increases under boost, which always happens regardless of your octane rating. An engine running on a higher octane fuel will need to apply those anti-preignition measures later than an engine running on a lower octane fuel. So in some cases an engine running a mild boost will see better fuel economy with a higher octane fuel if it is in that window where the lower octane fuel would need to retard timing and run rich but the higher octane fuel does not. For most people that's unlikely to happen often enough and consistently enough to make a noticeable difference, but in some cases it might actually happen.

I think we are essentially in agreement.

Sponsored