Afsigma21
Member
The owners manual even states that 91 Octane for 'optimal performance' on a non tuned engine...
" For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended."
Sponsored
Sponsored
2024+ Ranger 2.7 Ecoboost Ford Performance Calibration Now Available!
- Thread starter hand-filer
- Start date
- Watchers 18
" For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended."
stemplar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2023
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 245
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Vehicle(s)
- 2025 Ranger Lariat 2.7
There is a difference between "required" and "recommended". The 2.3 and 2.7 are designed to run on 87 octane, but can benefit from higher octane, especially when hot or under heavy load as when towing. Source: https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...ingEnabled=False&userMarket=USA&buildtype=web
So if you've heard of the ecoboost 2.3 or 2.7, then you have indeed heard of a turbo engine that does not require premium fuel. Note, premium fuel isn't to be confused with "top tier"; the latter just means a brand name with a detergent additive package.
GeorgeRem
Member
WTF happened, the original link is dead, and looking at Ranger calibration the 2.7 liter engine isnt mentioned for the Ranger (but it is for the Bronco)
Edit: found it here https://fordauthority.com/2025/03/2024-ford-ranger-2-7l-ecoboost-performance-tune-revealed/
Edit: found it here https://fordauthority.com/2025/03/2024-ford-ranger-2-7l-ecoboost-performance-tune-revealed/
Last edited:
Sponsored
Satex
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Blake
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2024
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 92
- Location
- San Antonio
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Ranger 2.7 Ecoboost
- Occupation
- Retired
That's a performance question. The statement was about OCCASIONALLY using premium to keep injectors "happy." If "happy" means well maintained injectors, then the question isn't about engine performance
tubingchamp
Active Member
Maybe they weren't quite ready to release it.. Haha
Satex
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Blake
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2024
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 92
- Location
- San Antonio
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Ranger 2.7 Ecoboost
- Occupation
- Retired
I think you're wrong. Higher octane fuels don't ignite without higher compression. The difference isn't temperature. That's my understanding anyway.
Sponsored
OP
OP
hand-filer
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #26
I emailed FP asking for clarification regarding availability. This was the response:
Hello,
The kit is still going through its last validations and approvals, sorry for the confusion. I would anticipate the official launch will be coming soon. I would continue to keep an eye on the website for updates.
Thank You,
##### ######
Ford Performance Info Center - Supervisor
(800) 367-3788
######@ford.com
www.performanceparts.ford.com
So it looks like premature release information followed by a bombardment of inquiries followed by the link going offline.
Hello,
The kit is still going through its last validations and approvals, sorry for the confusion. I would anticipate the official launch will be coming soon. I would continue to keep an eye on the website for updates.
Thank You,
##### ######
Ford Performance Info Center - Supervisor
(800) 367-3788
######@ford.com
www.performanceparts.ford.com
So it looks like premature release information followed by a bombardment of inquiries followed by the link going offline.
Last edited:
tubingchamp
Active Member
True, technically!
Octane = resistance to compression! But heat is a byproduct of higher compression, so it still results in higher temperatures.
Always happy to learn something new, I'm not an expert
Awirez
Well-Known Member
Right, octane rating pertains to the fuel's resistance to combustion by compression. Higher octane is going to be better for turbo engines to optimize the compression stroke, else lower octane may cause preignition and the spark timing will be retarded, and efficiency is decreased.
Temperature does influence how effectively a given octane rating performs. But as stated, if you are able to compress the air/fuel mixture more, a byproduct is increased temperature from the increased compression.
Temperature does influence how effectively a given octane rating performs. But as stated, if you are able to compress the air/fuel mixture more, a byproduct is increased temperature from the increased compression.
Truckin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2024
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 180
- Location
- Not far enough away from Chicago
- Vehicle(s)
- 24 Ranger
Forgot to add. I’m hoping aftermarket tunes show up.
my 16 150 2.7 added a 5 star tune. Was able to run regular, got couple mpg more unless I floored it. Then it was just plain fun with more getup and go
my 16 150 2.7 added a 5 star tune. Was able to run regular, got couple mpg more unless I floored it. Then it was just plain fun with more getup and go
Lion77
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2025
- Threads
- 7
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 153
- Location
- United States
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Ranger Raptor
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Technically lower octane fuels are high energy (chemical energy potential), but the problem arises with fuel volatility as mentioned above. If the fuel is too volatile for the heat in the combustion chamber on the intake / compression stroke, then it will auto ignite before intended and lead to non-ideal and often damaging conditions.
Higher octane fuels are less volatile, but technically also have slightly lower chemical potential energy. Their advantage comes in the fact that you can optimize the timing and compression that offer a net benefit to extract more potential energy from that fuel.
My advice is focus more on making ideal conditions for your engine rather than chasing a few HP under ideal conditions. I.E., I'd rather focus on allow that engine to make it rated power over as much of the environmental range as possible than 20hp more on a 70-degree balmy day but making 40 hp less on a hot, making the vehicle feel inconsistent.
Over the years I've learned this leads to more enjoyable experience than anything (in addition to the fact that your vehicle maintains its optimal function over its lifespan). I've seen dynos of some LS V8's make 50 hp LESS on a dyno than rated (stock engines) due to buildup on the injectors, lack of maintenance and fuel quality issues (around 100k+ miles of wear and tear). But I've also seen a maintenance overhaul restore that to within a few HP of factory new or even slightly better (due to wear in actually enhancing power).
One of the biggest things is to use good quality oil changed regularly to prevent vaporization. Oil vapors in the PCV system really kill timing advance, it's a commonly know performance killer in the 5.0L GT's on track days. Since those are NA, you can run a catch can help, but fresh synthetic oil and high-quality fuel is still the winner. There's not much to "catch" if there's not much vaporization!
Turbos complicate that because you need a dual valve catch can for vacuum and boost operation, i've found a lot of those valves to be sub-optimal and can gum up so I'm not personally a fan of cans fur turbo engines. Also avoid any of those dry or K&N filters, they allow far more dust contamination and are only suitable for on-road track conditions, anything else you're just coating your intake and valves with fine dust that gets through which is going to rob you of far more power than the measly 10hp gains, especially as the miles pile on and the rings begin to wear faster, robbign you of compression!
Not only that, but their dust capacity is 1/3 that of a paper filter, so they flow better for a very short time, then clog up and flow WORSE than a paper filter by a considerable margin, making LESS power. So that's why I say their application works for on-road racing where it makes some sense (not many miles, fairly low dust conditions), but not for the majority of applications.
Sorry for another long post, but it's a bit of a complex issue with many facets to it. Engines are fickle like the human body, but consistency is built through rigorous maintenance and trying to create the ideal environment to maximize performance.
Higher octane fuels are less volatile, but technically also have slightly lower chemical potential energy. Their advantage comes in the fact that you can optimize the timing and compression that offer a net benefit to extract more potential energy from that fuel.
My advice is focus more on making ideal conditions for your engine rather than chasing a few HP under ideal conditions. I.E., I'd rather focus on allow that engine to make it rated power over as much of the environmental range as possible than 20hp more on a 70-degree balmy day but making 40 hp less on a hot, making the vehicle feel inconsistent.
Over the years I've learned this leads to more enjoyable experience than anything (in addition to the fact that your vehicle maintains its optimal function over its lifespan). I've seen dynos of some LS V8's make 50 hp LESS on a dyno than rated (stock engines) due to buildup on the injectors, lack of maintenance and fuel quality issues (around 100k+ miles of wear and tear). But I've also seen a maintenance overhaul restore that to within a few HP of factory new or even slightly better (due to wear in actually enhancing power).
One of the biggest things is to use good quality oil changed regularly to prevent vaporization. Oil vapors in the PCV system really kill timing advance, it's a commonly know performance killer in the 5.0L GT's on track days. Since those are NA, you can run a catch can help, but fresh synthetic oil and high-quality fuel is still the winner. There's not much to "catch" if there's not much vaporization!
Turbos complicate that because you need a dual valve catch can for vacuum and boost operation, i've found a lot of those valves to be sub-optimal and can gum up so I'm not personally a fan of cans fur turbo engines. Also avoid any of those dry or K&N filters, they allow far more dust contamination and are only suitable for on-road track conditions, anything else you're just coating your intake and valves with fine dust that gets through which is going to rob you of far more power than the measly 10hp gains, especially as the miles pile on and the rings begin to wear faster, robbign you of compression!
Not only that, but their dust capacity is 1/3 that of a paper filter, so they flow better for a very short time, then clog up and flow WORSE than a paper filter by a considerable margin, making LESS power. So that's why I say their application works for on-road racing where it makes some sense (not many miles, fairly low dust conditions), but not for the majority of applications.
Sorry for another long post, but it's a bit of a complex issue with many facets to it. Engines are fickle like the human body, but consistency is built through rigorous maintenance and trying to create the ideal environment to maximize performance.
Sponsored
Last edited:
Similar threads
