What octane fuel/petrol do you use?

Frenchy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
1,551
Location
Poncha Springs
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 1983 Datsun 280ZX 2+2 Turbo
Occupation
Ford Dealership Mechanic
Nope. Proportion of oxygen (barring local variation) is the same at sea level as at the top of the mountain--about 20%. It's just that at sea level it's about 14psi and at 10k feet it's at 10psi.


You have the same volume of air, but since it's at a lower pressure you have fewer molecules of air, including fewer molecules of O2.
Hence why I said you have less oxygen.... Why do you have less oxygen? Simply put it isnt as dense. Now does this mean you can run a lower octane? NOPE!! ONLY USE THE MINIMUM THAT THE VEHICLE MANFACTURER WILL ALLOW AS A MINIMUM!!! IF STATED BY MANUFACTURER THEN A HIGHER OCTANE WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE VEHICLE OF IF A TYNE IS INSTALLED!!!





Advertisement

 

Racket

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
541
Location
Here and There
Vehicle(s)
2019 Lariat Supercrew 2WD
Occupation
Transient
Everything I've read here is that people pick up 1-2 mpgs MAYBE. It does not make sense to pay 50-80 cents more a gallon to get 1-2mpg more.
A little off topic, but it's one of the reasons the Velossa Tech Big Mouth was of interest to me. It overcame my skepticism- the other component is the right foot.
 

codestp202

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
115
Reaction score
160
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Ranger
A little off topic, but it's one of the reasons the Velossa Tech Big Mouth was of interest to me. It overcame my skepticism- the other component is the right foot.
Yeah, saw that too. But it would take a lot of fill ups to come close to making up in cost w/ the big mouth. Not really worth it for me.

After having a Fiesta ST track car that I modded to hell and back and completely ruined the resale value, I'm trying to keep the Ranger relatively stock. Obviously the big mouth is reversible, but I don't think I put on enough miles to justify it.
 

Frenchy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
1,551
Location
Poncha Springs
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 1983 Datsun 280ZX 2+2 Turbo
Occupation
Ford Dealership Mechanic
Yeah, saw that too. But it would take a lot of fill ups to come close to making up in cost w/ the big mouth. Not really worth it for me.

After having a Fiesta ST track car that I modded to hell and back and completely ruined the resale value, I'm trying to keep the Ranger relatively stock. Obviously the big mouth is reversible, but I don't think I put on enough miles to justify it.
When trying to justify different things for your vehicle it can be tough. No doubt about that. Things i have noticed that helpd overall fuel mileage on my truck so far, using premium fuel(not to much of a price difference from 87 to 91 in Colorado, can't say for where you live) and the Livernois tune wich is reversible. I have yet to do it but I'm considering knocking the 1 inch restrictor out of the stock muffler as that can help(to an extent) and the nosie level will be close to stock level. How do you remove the restrictor? A 4 foot pipe and hammer will solve the problem lol. Now you know and perhaps it will become worth it for you now.
 

Racket

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
541
Location
Here and There
Vehicle(s)
2019 Lariat Supercrew 2WD
Occupation
Transient
Yeah, saw that too. But it would take a lot of fill ups to come close to making up in cost w/ the big mouth. Not really worth it for me.

After having a Fiesta ST track car that I modded to hell and back and completely ruined the resale value, I'm trying to keep the Ranger relatively stock. Obviously the big mouth is reversible, but I don't think I put on enough miles to justify it.
I think it depends on your math. I figure I am getting close to the equivalent of an additional two gallons of gas from each tank.

I figure in a year and a half I hit the break even point from there it's theoretical money in my pocket.
 

wanted33

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Nov 18, 2018
Messages
879
Reaction score
2,141
Location
Down south in Dixie
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT, Jeep Wrangler
Occupation
Old used up LEO
I use 87 octane, and mine runs just fine. If I towed anything of weight I would use 93 just to help out.
 

codestp202

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
115
Reaction score
160
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Ranger
I suppose if the Big Mouth truly gave 2mpg gain, then that is probably the best bang for your buck upgrade for gas mileage. Looks like they are about $130 shipped. Still though, lets say you get two gallons extra per tank, that's about $5.60 for 2 gallons of 87 here. So you'd have to go through about 23 tanks of gas to even break even. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of someone who ran the big mouth + 91 and saw a real gain of 3-4mpg. I'm averaging about 19.4mpg and that's about 80 city / 20 highway on 87. It's hard to trust the data I see on forums as there are SO many factors in what impacts gas mileage and a 1 mpg gain/loss could come from too many other factors other than an upgrade to 91.
 

Big Blue

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lee
Joined
May 5, 2020
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,655
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XLT FX4 Supercrew lighting blue
Occupation
Retired mechanical designer
I suppose if the Big Mouth truly gave 2mpg gain, then that is probably the best bang for your buck upgrade for gas mileage. Looks like they are about $130 shipped. Still though, lets say you get two gallons extra per tank, that's about $5.60 for 2 gallons of 87 here. So you'd have to go through about 23 tanks of gas to even break even. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of someone who ran the big mouth + 91 and saw a real gain of 3-4mpg. I'm averaging about 19.4mpg and that's about 80 city / 20 highway on 87. It's hard to trust the data I see on forums as there are SO many factors in what impacts gas mileage and a 1 mpg gain/loss could come from too many other factors other than an upgrade to 91.
Like has been said a lot of factors go into justifying anything we do. A mod such as a tune or the big mouth are one time cost. So justifying it over time is easy. The cost differential of gas is an ongoing cost so it needs to be immediately justifiable. That's why a 30 to 40 percent increase in the cost of gas for a 10 percent gain in mpg doesn't make sense unless there is some other perceived or tangible gain that the owner feels is worth the cost.

That said 23 tanks of gas to justify the big mouth. Is only about a year if you tank up every other week. Not too bad of a payback.
 

codestp202

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
115
Reaction score
160
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Ranger
Like has been said a lot of factors go into justifying anything we do. A mod such as a tune or the big mouth are one time cost. So justifying it over time is easy. The cost differential of gas is an ongoing cost so it needs to be immediately justifiable. That's why a 30 to 40 percent increase in the cost of gas for a 10 percent gain in mpg doesn't make sense unless there is some other perceived or tangible gain that the owner feels is worth the cost.

That said 23 tanks of gas to justify the big mouth. Is only about a year if you tank up every other week. Not too bad of a payback.
Yup I agree with everything you're saying
 

Michael Bailey

Well-Known Member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
112
Reaction score
176
Location
Jemez Springs, NM, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat 4x4, 2017 Escape SE 2.0 4x4, 1974 Norton Commando 850, 1967 Norton P11 750
Occupation
Trout Fisher, Layabout, US Army SGM (Ret)
Vehicle Showcase
1
I know that it would be quicker with 93 but it runs fine with "pool" 87 and I still have more than sufficient passing power.

But if I were a few decades younger...
 

dtech

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
430
Reaction score
607
Location
colorado
Vehicle(s)
Ranger Lariat FX4 abundantly chromed, Saab 9-5, Hyundai Sante Fe (all turbos)
I know that it would be quicker with 93 but it runs fine with "pool" 87 and I still have more than sufficient passing power.

But if I were a few decades younger...
If I were just 4 decades younger and had a lick of sense I would still have my 1975 850 Roadster, I loved how that bike sounded, looked and rode. Nice to see you still have yours.
 

Michael Bailey

Well-Known Member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
112
Reaction score
176
Location
Jemez Springs, NM, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat 4x4, 2017 Escape SE 2.0 4x4, 1974 Norton Commando 850, 1967 Norton P11 750
Occupation
Trout Fisher, Layabout, US Army SGM (Ret)
Vehicle Showcase
1
If I were just 4 decades younger and had a lick of sense I would still have my 1975 850 Roadster, I loved how that bike sounded, looked and rode. Nice to see you still have yours.
You aren't seeing the '67 Norton P11 up in front of my Commando, either.
 

Jrel209

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
81
Location
Wa
Vehicle(s)
2020 Ranger XLT crew cab
New owner here, after the first free tank from dealer i put in 89 and got avg 18.5mpg on highway. Once i had about 10miles left in tank (according to onboard display) i put in 92. My avg on hwy is now 21.5mpg...... have no idea why it made that much of a difference. Ill probably stick with 92 going forward, it feels like it has smoother shifting in town as well.
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top