93 grade gas WTF did it do too my truck - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 11-03-2009
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshtank View Post
hahaha sry type o
are is 87 89 93
so 89 would be the mid
is that ok for the truck
Is your truck tuned for 89? Its a waste if its not. Just run 87 just like the owners manual calls for unless you get a tuner and have different tunes for the different octanes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-03-2009
joshtank's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Winston GA
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
Is your truck tuned for 89? Its a waste if its not. Just run 87 just like the owners manual calls for unless you get a tuner and have different tunes for the different octanes.
yeah no its stock ill look at what the book says for my truck
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-03-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshtank View Post
yeah no its stock ill look at what the book says for my truck
Its a Ranger. Regular 87.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-03-2009
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
Its a Ranger. Regular 87.
haha yup
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-03-2009
therangerofdanger's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 618
well i hear ya on that, but I think my motor is showing age. pretty much any 87 I put in, the spark knock is so bad that I hate to drive my truck...literally. I do have a 3.0 though...so 89 and sometimes 93.

i have also heard that higher octane gas actually leaves behind more carbon
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-03-2009
BLK02's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by therangerofdanger View Post
well i hear ya on that, but I think my motor is showing age. pretty much any 87 I put in, the spark knock is so bad that I hate to drive my truck...literally. I do have a 3.0 though...so 89 and sometimes 93.

i have also heard that higher octane gas actually leaves behind more carbon
becuase it doesnt burn properly if your engine is not tuned for it...

I dont understand why so many people think running higher octane is better? the first few posters make me laugh, especially about being weary of going back to 87...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-03-2009
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLK02 View Post
becuase it doesnt burn properly if your engine is not tuned for it...

I dont understand why so many people think running higher octane is better? the first few posters make me laugh, especially about being weary of going back to 87...
Me neither lol. I'm surprised they aren't running around with intake Tornados and throttle body spacers too lol
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
Me neither lol. I'm surprised they aren't running around with intake Tornados and throttle body spacers too lol
You forgot the fuel magnets.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2009
wildbill's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Crestwood
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by therangerofdanger View Post
well i hear ya on that, but I think my motor is showing age. pretty much any 87 I put in, the spark knock is so bad that I hate to drive my truck...literally. I do have a 3.0 though...so 89 and sometimes 93.

i have also heard that higher octane gas actually leaves behind more carbon
Run a couple ounces of Lucas Oil Products' fuel treatment every other tank for a month. It'll work wonders for ya.... very good product.
Lucas Fuel Treatment : Lucas Oil
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-03-2009
hougy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cobb, GA
Posts: 206
Did I read right about 87 octane not having ethanol?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-04-2009
Hanks Rangers's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sandpoint, ID
Posts: 821
your gas station should say on the pump if it contains ethanol or not.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-04-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ridgefield,WA
Posts: 81
while on the subject of gas Im gonna have to disagree with saying running 92 oct (thats what we have here in WA) is not pointless. There was HUGE difference if running 92 in my crx compared to 87. gas milage did go up and feels like a couple more ponies. But as well there is no reason to run 92 in the ranger when it does just fine on 76's 87.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-04-2009
shizzy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roseville, mn
Posts: 99
your CRX proably had much higher compression then the Ranger does. If I remember correctly, my old 89 Prelude had 10-1 compression. I doubt the Ranger has anything over 8.5-1 compression.

Im sure the boost the original poster felt is the self induced butt dyno error factor.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-04-2009
DillonT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 352
every once in a while i throw 93 in the ranger for ****s and giggles. seems like a little but dyno improvement, but eh idk. its only a couple of dollars.
the timing on my mustang is advanced so much, i have to run 93 or it pings/knocks like mad.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-04-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
I have told this story many times. Sport Compact Car Magazine did a test back in 2000 or 2001. The got a bone stock V6 Accord and ran it on the dyno several times with the recomended 87 octane fuel. Then they ran it on 91. Each run made on 91 show a loss of about 10hp. Yes air temp, oil temp, water temp blah blah was taken into account. They aren't noobs. If your vehicle doesn't call for it then don't waste your money.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-04-2009
Jazz921's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 997
makes all the difference.

Last edited by Jazz921; 11-04-2009 at 12:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-04-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ridgefield,WA
Posts: 81
Yes stock compression on a b18c1 is 10.0:1 compression but the only reason i would really have to say I run 92 OCT in it is because of that extra resistance to detionation when at or above 8.5k and higer in the rpms. But like I said in a ranger there is no reason to run that high of a octane.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Truck too old? ELM327 too cheap? Computer gone bad? ccernst General Ford Ranger Discussion 1 04-25-2013 09:31 PM
Bolt size/grade for '99 Tow Hooks? icthusrulz Exterior Semi-Tech 2 07-30-2009 01:25 PM
Fuel Grade dixie_boysles General Ford Ranger Discussion 58 06-07-2009 09:59 PM
Grade 8 vs Grade 43 bolts?? buggman General Technical & Electrical 7 02-23-2009 10:25 AM
Can I Down Grade 16" to 15" blue_oval Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 8 02-03-2009 04:19 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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.