worse mpg with 93 octane - Page 3 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource
Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiast!

Go Back   Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource Arrow Ranger-Forums Technical Engine Forum Arrow 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech

4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-29-2009
FireRanger's Avatar  
I am: Matt L
Join Date: May 2004
Location: CT
Vehicle: 2003 Ford Ranger Edge
Posts: 0
Total Props: 0
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
. And you Matt. You just flat out ignore science because it doesn't fit your paradigm. And you ask what I'm smoking?
No, I don't ignore science. The only one ignoring anything is you. Let me try one last time explain this in terms that might soak through your head.

I said "Using 93 in an engine tuned or 87 will degrade performance and MPG".

You claim I'm wrong. But since I'm not wrong, that would therefore make you wrong. And since this is perhaps the most hard and fast proven and obvious fact relating to fuel, I can only conclude you are on crack.
Reply With Quote
+ 0 -
Old 01-29-2009
IN2 FX4's Avatar
I am: Gary Wam
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Vehicle: 2002 Ford Ranger FX4
Posts: 772
Total Props: 3
Compression is the best way to take advantage of higher octane fuel but advancing the timing will also provide some extra power when using higher octane fuel. This is true for street engines that are running normal pump grade fuels. At this point it is not important to me why this is true and I don't want to research it to find out all the details.

I do know it is true because I have personally experienced it. I have a tuner that is programmed for two grades of fuels (87 and 91 octane) at different performance conditions. I have used an acceleration test that uses only 3rd gear at the same location to determine if this tuner works or not. I use an accurate stop watch to time acceleration from one speed to another about 40mph higher. The test has repeatedly shown the 91 octane program gives higher performance than the 87 octane program.

I did not program the tuner but I do know that it is using timing to obtain more power out of the higher octane fuel. Obviously it is not changing compression.

As an added benefit the higher octane program (with high octane fuel of course) also provides slightly better gas mileage when driven under comparable conditions but not enough to offset the higher cost.

This is in no way intended to disagree or support any of the other posts. It is provided as additional information.

2002 FX4 Bright Red Supercab 4.0 SOHC, manual 5-spd & Tcase, 33" BFG MTs, K&N air filter, Modified air box inlet, Gibson SS cat. back exhaust, Bama flash, Hidden Hitch round receiver, Rear helper air springs, Electric trailer brake controller, Line-X bed liner, WAAG bar with KC lights and Wildernest shell.
Reply With Quote
+ 0 -

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Timing & Octane vs MPG wydopnthrtl General Ford Ranger Discussion 11 11-01-2008 01:17 PM
MPG's are getting worse 00xlt4x4 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 6 11-11-2007 07:09 AM
98 3.0 MPG Log (shows how mods affected MPG) Marcaronio 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 23 05-11-2007 08:11 PM
Squealing/Chirping Noise getting worse and worse... pastfinder 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 25 05-06-2007 09:58 AM
why would my new alpine speakers sound worse than my stock speakers? james13f Audio & Video Tech 21 04-03-2005 05:01 PM

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 AM.