Ranger performance at altitude

[dtech]

precisely why planes had mixture controls in the cockpit to adjust for altitude.

Sponsored

 

[RoadBoss]

I usually turn on tow mode when driving the passes just so it shifts more appropriately, but this truck absolutely flies up the passes. I don't usually have to give it more than 1/4 throttle, and it just goes. you can even leave the cruise control on if the road is empty.


Also I used to run 85 octane, and the truck did 'fine'. still had plenty of power going over the passes, but I've been running 91 lately and it definitely feels better, and gets better fuel mileage

coming back from camping near gunnison a few days ago, I felt like I was one of the only vehicles not struggling over monarch pass.

Also, I still managed to get about 23mpg on that leg. with a lift, softtopper, 32" E rated tires, and about 6-800 lbs of gear in the truck.

The truck just seems like it loves everything I can throw at it.

 

[dtech]

I usually turn on tow mode when driving the passes just so it shifts more appropriately, but this truck absolutely flies up the passes. I don't usually have to give it more than 1/4 throttle, and it just goes. you can even leave the cruise control on if the road is empty.


Also I used to run 85 octane, and the truck did 'fine'. still had plenty of power going over the passes, but I've been running 91 lately and it definitely feels better, and gets better fuel mileage

coming back from camping near gunnison a few days ago, I felt like I was one of the only vehicles not struggling over monarch pass.

Also, I still managed to get about 23mpg on that leg. with a lift, softtopper, 32" E rated tires, and about 6-800 lbs of gear in the truck.

The truck just seems like it loves everything I can throw at it.

Running 85 octane is interesting - I thought the owners manual specified 87 as a min. Per the other discussions in the thread the turbo will as much as possible compensate for less dense air by adding boost - some engine mgmt systems probably do ok on 85 octane whereas other makers specifically warn that the min recommended octane must be used or engine damage could occur - with elevated temps from increased pre detonation.

I've camped , hunted and fished in the Gunnison area, those valleys where the forks of the cimmaron river run and deep and it's very scenic back there - but never had much success in hunting the area. In the 80s would make annual trips up the Taylor Park and fish and then troll blue mesa for kokanee and rainbows.

 

[RoadBoss]

Running 85 octane is interesting - I thought the owners manual specified 87 as a min. Per the other discussions in the thread the turbo will as much as possible compensate for less dense air by adding boost - some engine mgmt systems probably do ok on 85 octane whereas other makers specifically warn that the min recommended octane must be used or engine damage could occur - with elevated temps from increased pre detonation.

I've camped , hunted and fished in the Gunnison area, those valleys where the forks of the cimmaron river run and deep and it's very scenic back there - but never had much success in hunting the area. In the 80s would make annual trips up the Taylor Park and fish and then troll blue mesa for kokanee and rainbows.

Well I think the key is it say 87 is the minimum "recommended".
It will definitely run fine on 85 octane, but there is certainly a difference in performance and fuel mileage (though honestly it still has lots of power, compared to a lot of other trucks I've driven). No signs of detonation, but I'm sure the computer is likely compensating quite a bit.
And for the difference in price in most places in CO, I can't justify buying 87 - its usually more than halfway up in price from 85 to 91, so I'll likely just buy 91 from now on, though I like knowing I can run 85 in a pinch if necessary.

And yeah I can't imagine there'd be much hunting in the gunnison area. Don't usually see much wildlife around other than birds and small game.

 

[dtech]

Well I think the key is it say 87 is the minimum "recommended".
It will definitely run fine on 85 octane, but there is certainly a difference in performance and fuel mileage (though honestly it still has lots of power, compared to a lot of other trucks I've driven). No signs of detonation, but I'm sure the computer is likely compensating quite a bit.
And for the difference in price in most places in CO, I can't justify buying 87 - its usually more than halfway up in price from 85 to 91, so I'll likely just buy 91 from now on, though I like knowing I can run 85 in a pinch if necessary.

And yeah I can't imagine there'd be much hunting in the gunnison area. Don't usually see much wildlife around other than birds and small game.

hey just as a heads up I did look at the owners manual (page 141) regards fuel - and it does give a warning that in high altitude areas not to use fuel sold as regular grade unless it is min of 87 octane, does mention the risk of engine damage.

I agree with your cost comment on 91 vs 87 octane, and for yrs I've used 91 in my Saabs because the difference in engine responsiveness from 87 is immediately noticeable. Saab used a spark current cc ion detection system to manage knock , most makers used acoustic sensor.

 

[Frenchy]

hey just as a heads up I did look at the owners manual (page 141) regards fuel - and it does give a warning that in high altitude areas not to use fuel sold as regular grade unless it is min of 87 octane, does mention the risk of engine damage.

I agree with your cost comment on 91 vs 87 octane, and for yrs I've used 91 in my Saabs because the difference in engine responsiveness from 87 is immediately noticeable. Saab used a spark current cc ion detection system to manage knock , most makers used acoustic sensor.

To add on to it the EcoBoost engines prefer 91 and up anyway. When I came to Colorado a year ago I noticed 85 for the first time. I looked into it and it is designed for carburated vehicles. The stuff i found also said to not use it for fuel injection vehicles what so ever. Unfortunately with that said here in Colorado 87 is considered mid grade but when you go to other states it is considered regular so therefore they are charging way to much for 87 out here but I still wont go lower that 87 in any of my vehicles.

 

[dtech]

To add on to it the EcoBoost engines prefer 91 and up anyway. When I came to Colorado a year ago I noticed 85 for the first time. I looked into it and it is designed for carburated vehicles. The stuff i found also said to not use it for fuel injection vehicles what so ever. Unfortunately with that said here in Colorado 87 is considered mid grade but when you go to other states it is considered regular so therefore they are charging way to much for 87 out here but I still wont go lower that 87 in any of my vehicles.

yeah and the oil companies gouge even more for gas in the mountains, with leadville's elevation some cars might even get by on 80 octane . Historically an amazing place, but I fished in some of the smaller apline lakes last summer and didn't do real well. Leadville supplied lead for tetraethyl lead when it was used as an octane booster and of course for so many bullets in the world wars.

 

[Frenchy]

yeah and the oil companies gouge even more for gas in the mountains, with leadville's elevation some cars might even get by on 80 octane . Historically an amazing place, but I fished in some of the smaller apline lakes last summer and didn't do real well. Leadville supplied lead for tetraethyl lead when it was used as an octane booster and of course for so many bullets in the world wars.

With the high elevation it does not help. But with running 91 in the truck she does well up here. With the tow tune from Livernois she does much better!!

 

[Montana Ranger]

I tow a 6,000 lbs travel trailer with my 2019, and am usually passing the trucks going up passes. (Last week, I passed a V6 Tacoma with a trailer half the size of mine) As mentioned above, the computer-controlled turbos compensate for altitude very effectively. To date, I haven't been on any passes over 5,000 feet with the trailer in tow, but I anticipate minimal performance loss any higher. The highest I've been without the trailer has been around 8,000 with no discernible performance loss.

As for mileage, I get a sorry 9 mpg with the trailer, which is largely due to the aerodynamic drag of the trailer. Premium fuel makes absolutely no difference in my experience to date. Without the trailer, I consistently get >20 mpg, with the exception of the stretches of interstate that are 80 mph. Mileage drops significantly when over 70.

I also have a 2011 Subaru Outback with the 3.6 boxer-6. I opted for the 3.6 because IMHO the Outback with a normally aspirated standard 2.5 is woefully underpowered, especially at altitude and on onramps to the interstate where the speed limit is 80.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

I tow a 6,000 lbs travel trailer with my 2019, and am usually passing the trucks going up passes. (Last week, I passed a V6 Tacoma with a trailer half the size of mine) As mentioned above, the computer-controlled turbos compensate for altitude very effectively. To date, I haven't been on any passes over 5,000 feet with the trailer in tow, but I anticipate minimal performance loss any higher. The highest I've been without the trailer has been around 8,000 with no discernible performance loss.

As for mileage, I get a sorry 9 mpg with the trailer, which is largely due to the aerodynamic drag of the trailer. Premium fuel makes absolutely no difference in my experience to date. Without the trailer, I consistently get >20 mpg, with the exception of the stretches of interstate that are 80 mph. Mileage drops significantly when over 70.

I also have a 2011 Subaru Outback with the 3.6 boxer-6. I opted for the 3.6 because IMHO the Outback with a normally aspirated standard 2.5 is woefully underpowered, especially at altitude and on onramps to the interstate where the speed limit is 80.

If it makes you feel any better, my father-in-law was also noting his trailer towing mileage to be 9.3mpg this weekend. And he has about the same size camper, tows with a new Silverado 1500, and only was doing 59mph and relatively flat roads. So in the grand scheme of things, disappointing, but couldn't do any better with a full size. I enjoy pointing that out to him from time to time. haha

Sponsored