Ranger Raptor Ford Performance Tune Before and After Results - Real World Numbers

[ducktapeonmydesk]

That’s 100% incorrect…..you run 87 here a 6100+ feet and above, you’re going to have knock, valve clatter and possibly worse in this truck. This truck recommends 91 as a minimum……..

Please point to a source showing me that the higher the altitude, the higher the octane required.

We are no longer talking about this truck, as we have already established you need to run 87 octane minimum (though, it is 91 if tuned). We are talking in general.

Source 2 (PDF Warning)
Source 3
Source 4 (note, you will have to log in to access this one or purchase it from SAE themselves)
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7

Edit: updated the links.

Sponsored

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

My old '02 Mustang GT w/the 4.6L couldn't begin to keep up with mine even before the tune.

I’d have to say, it can easily keep up with a 2002 Ford Mustang GT @ 5.4 seconds. If the truck tuned is capable of 5.36 or less (traction & weight limited) as demonstrated above in post #9, the RR is actually quicker/faster than a 2002 Ford Mustang GT.
https://www.mustangspecs.com/mustang-engines/mustang-performance/

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

Please point to a source showing me that the higher the altitude, the higher the octane required.

We are no longer talking about this truck, as we have already established you need to run 87 octane minimum (though, it is 91 if tuned). We are talking in general.

Source 2 (PDF Warning)
Source 3
Source 4 (note, you will have to log in to access this one or purchase it from SAE themselves)
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7

No, we have never moved beyond this truck and engine combination. You may have but the reference is still the FPT RR as is the OP’s thread. You obviously don’t live here or near our altitudes, nor participate in drag or track racing events either.

Most of what you‘re reading and posting, is either marked and identified as malicious sites (suggest you run your virus scan), applies to; naturally aspirated, carbureted vehicles, produced before the year 1990. Additionally mirrored in the first incorrect reference you commented with.

There is not one reference you’ve provided which addresses newer specification vehicles of 2010 and beyond.

Your references to AZ university, are not available publicly, so conclusively you have no source of basic reference and practical application. Even these articles are theoretical in context. Otherwise, your references are far outdated and non-applicable to the RR discussion.

What you’re demonstrating in your comments are; you have no practical experience and application at these altitudes with the RR, only theoretical application for much older carbureted vehicles.

 

[ducktapeonmydesk]

Now we have never moved beyond this truck. You obviously don’t live here, nor participate in drag or track racing events either.

We did, when I stated, "In newer ones, you shouldn't use lower than specified by the manufacturer."

I have lived at 7,000 feet.

I'm not going to argue about this. You were mistaken about the effect of altitude on octane ratings and that's okay.

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

We did, when I stated, "In newer ones, you shouldn't use lower than specified by the manufacturer."

I have lived at 7,000 feet.

I'm not going to argue about this. You were mistaken about the effect of altitude on octane ratings and that's okay.

You have no argument and no I’m not mistaken. Haven’t been for more than 50 years, on reciprocating aircraft, motorcycles and automobiles.

You have presented no argument, support or viable evidence for an argument, thus there is no argument. I’m not going to arguing your opinion anyway, simply provide factual and practical experience.

You may have lived at 7000 vertical feet once before but you aren’t now, and certainly not with the Ranger Raptor or any forced induction engine, by your own admissions. You have provided inaccurate references for this discussion, in light of the FPT’ed Ranger Raptor. Your most current reference is; a 1984 university study that is only applicable to pre-1990 carbureted vehicles and is no longer applicable and no reference forced induction engines.

You cannot make equal comparisons between much older NA, carbureted (circa 1984) and a currently manufactured, forced induction, FI engines, especially regarding recommended/required octane ratings at higher altitudes.

Additionally, you disagreed, however in actuality, have provided supporting references and evidence to support exactly what I commented too. Then agreed specifically to what I previously posted, while still insisting I’m mistaken.

You can’t have it both ways. Nor am I discussing or have refered to pre-1990 carbureted engine configurations.

 

[Catalyst]

My spidey senses tell me RANGER/HOBBIT is in the thread... unless ducktape is arguing with himself (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[MulchBags2]

If you get the tune you HAVE TO use premium gas?

 

[Peter949]

If you get the tune you HAVE TO use premium gas?

Have to no, but designed optimally with it yes.

 

[Dingus83]

I’m gonna join @ducktapeonmydesk side of the argument. Hard to believe Ranger/Hobb has been wrong going on 50 years now, that’s dedication to being wrong

 

[ducktapeonmydesk]

My spidey senses tell me RANGER/HOBBIT is in the thread... unless ducktape is arguing with himself (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Looks like he blocked me because I told him he was wrong.

 

[Roverhound]

Looks like he blocked me because I told him he was wrong.

Pretty soon it'll just be him on this forum.

 

[AMGRAPTOR]

Of course. You just might; it’s wild how much of a difference altitude makes on performance. What RPM are you launching from? I seemed to get better results around 2500RPM.

Yep 2500 for me as well.

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

Have to no, but designed optimally with it yes.

Product Benefits:

• 49-State legal
• +55hp, +83 lb.ft. torque
• 455 peak HP, 536 peak torque
• 91 octane or higher fuel only
• Includes automatic transmission performance shift schedule
• Improves throttle response throughout the entire RPM range
• 3-year/36,000 Mile Ford Performance warranty when installed by a dealer or ASE/Red Seal certified technician

Note: 49-State Approved, Non-California Approved. For US & Canada vehicles only.

Sorry, but 91 octane minimum is not an option but a requirement.

 

[Richie]

Honestly, the outright performance isn't the value of this tune, IMO. It's the changes to drivability mostly due to the updates to the shift strategy and bump in torque down low. It's a far more enjoyable vehicle to drive now. It feels lighter/sprightly-er.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The shift patterns are much better, and it holds gears significantly longer. It took me a couple of days to get used to this, with the normal drive mode being more engaging. I do notice the torque, especially when manually selecting gears on mountain roads.

 

[ducktapeonmydesk]

If you get the tune you HAVE TO use premium gas?

You have to use 91 with the Ford Performance tune.

Sponsored