Which Fuel Grade do you use in your Ranger Raptor?

[arandazz]

I’ve done a half-a**ed search on what it would take to switch a RR over to E-85, but haven’t found much. Anyone have knowledge in this?

I have a 94 tune & E40 tune from goose.
E40 performance is amazing, max before needing upgraded fuel system.

14.1 mpg with 94.
10.1 mpg with E40.

There is a Sunoco 94 pump and flex fuel E85 pump a mile from my house. The ethanol mix at the flex fuel isn’t guaranteed so you have to test and mix, which is a pain. Once I get a ethanol content gauge I will run E40 more regularly.

Sponsored

 

[Tailwagger]

Well.... I guess I'm in the minority. I use 87 octane and I get it from Costco most of the time because it's top tier gas (with detergents). When I'm not near Costco I get Exxon because I have one of their credit cards and get a $.10 per gallon price break.

I feel that I get great performance from my stock 25RR and wouldn't get a tune that makes me need to use higher 91 or higher octane due to the big price differential.

Minority, yes. Alone no. Same here. AFAIC, the truck has more than enough giddy-up stock. Given that up here 93 is $4 and 87 is $3, the tune just isn't worth an additional $20 a tank given the 35-45 MPH speeds my truck sees 95% of the time.

 

[Barely Krawlified]

I’m about 6 weeks and 1,300 miles into my new ‘25 RR. From delivery, I’ve been running 91 (I’m in CA and that’s all I can get in my area) from Chevron or Shell as I have a couple of each along my daily route.

I’m running the stock tune (again, I’m in CA and the ‘25 tune is not yet blessed by CARB) but I really like the performance of the truck and my understanding (I could definitely be wrong) is that the sensors will automaticalky adjust engine timing to a limited extent on the stock tune when running premium fuel. Not sure if its true but this truck is definitely very, very fun to drive.

 

[JimG]

I use 93 when I can find it. But will start using 95 at a station I just found in Scottsdale.
Wonder why they didn’t put a 91 or 93 sticker at the factory.

 

[Dino Jockey]

The first month I used 93. Then I went to 87 for a test run while towing and I had no issues with performance so I am sticking with 87 for now. Never gonna tune so not worried about it.

 

[pkvir]

I clicked on 93 but use the highest available grade when filling. Which is usually 93.

 

[Lion77]

Pro Cal tuned, so I MUST use minimum of 91 or higher. Everything around here is either 87 or 93. Very rarely is there a pump that mixes 91 or even 92 (yah odd), but 99% of them are just 87 and 93.

I do carry the Pro Cal tool with the factory cal JUST IN CASE of an emergency where only 87 / 89 is available. That way I can flash back to stock until the 87 is cycled through and I can refill with a fresh tank of 91 or higher.

That was one issue I had back in my Mustang GT days, I had a 2016 GT PP with a FP Stage 2 Power Pack. But that was a semi-permanent mod. You could flash back to stock....but the car wouldn't run right as it had the GT350 throttle body and intake, unlike the Raptor, it was more than just a simple ECU flash.

That's one thing I really like about the FP Pro Cal on the RR, it's ONLY software and fuel grade. So it leaves that option open to flash back to stock for an unexpected emergency where with the Mustang, FP told me that you could run a lower fuel grade in an emergency IF you only use light throttle just to limp to a station with higher octane, but they wouldn't have covered damage to the engine if it occurred (granted, the 5.0 was NA, so I think it was less likely to be damaged from doing that under light load as turbo engines are more knock sensitive and the RR is a lot heavier, so it's going to load the engine more even during normal driving).

I've yet to run into that situation anywhere I've traveled, but I'm sure out in no-man's land it might happen and it's a good backup to not leave you stranded or risk damage by running a lower grade and trying to just avoid heavy throttle.

I will say this, NOTHING sounded as good as that 5.0 with a FP Stage 2 and Corsa Cat Back. That car had the most amazing notes! I was driving on the highway one time and this dude in a Chevy Silverado rolled down his window and started yelling something at me.

I was like WTF? I was in the lane next to him, out of curiosity, I rolled my window down to hear what he was saying, "I'm a chevy fan, but that car sounds AMAZING". LOL.

Maybe someday I'll snag a used GT again (mine was Gen 2 Coyote, so the Gen 2's had the rotating assembly from the Gen 1 Boss 302, that's why the power packs could up the rev from 6500 to 7500 rpm without damage, because it had the entire piston, rod, heads and cam setup from the Boss 302), but NOT a manual again, NEVER. The Getrag manual in my GT was a POS. Great engine, crap transmission, so if I ever get another GT's it's going to be a quarter mile / street / touring setup vs. a track setup UNLESS I nab a GT350 with the Tremec TR6060.

 

[spazzyfry123]

Curious, for those that are not tuned, why are you running a higher octane than what the OEM lists out (87)? Better gas mileage (despite higher overall cost)? Engine longevity/reliability concerns? More pep? Because it feels right?

Around here, it's 87, 89, or 93.

 

[Johnny 5]

Curious, for those that are not tuned, why are you running a higher octane than what the OEM lists out (87)? Better gas mileage (despite higher overall cost)? Engine longevity/reliability concerns? More pep? Because it feels right?

Around here, it's 87, 89, or 93.

For me it's because it burns better. And the F-150's, 2.7's, has horsepower ratings for regular unleaded and premium unleaded.

Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) 325 HP 400 lb-ft

Premium Unleaded (91+ Octane) ~340-345 HP (estimated) ~410-420 lb-ft (estimated)

My 2018 F-150 only stated horse power with 87

My 2022 F-150 had 87 and 91 Octane specs.

 

[Lion77]

The stock RR will not make its rated power on 87. You have to run 91, otherwise the ECU will pull timing advance at higher RPM's where the power is made due to knock (higher octanes are less volatile, so they are more resistant to auto ignition, allowing more aggressive spark advance without pre-detonation). In the lower cruising rpm ranges at light loads, there's rarely a difference in fuel grades, so it doesn't affect low end torque.

My wife's little turbo cx-9 AWD suv is rated for 23hp less on 87 than on 91. Makes 227 hp on 87 and 250 hp on 91 as per Mazda, but it makes the same torque below 4k on both 87 and 91+.

So, the higher grades only come into the picture above 4k rpm, which that car rarely sees since it's a daily. But I usually throw in 91+ if we do any long trips where it's heavily loaded with stuff and people.

Bigger more powerful engines take an even bigger hit from lower fuel grades as described above with the F-150's, or like the CX-90 sport, which makes 280hp on 87, but 340 hp on 91+. I think Ford's reasoning for tuning EcoBoost engines, any config, to run on lower grades comes down to a few things:

#1 your average joe probably doesn't understand fuel grades and their relation to detonation which can damage piston lands, wrist pins, bend / snap rods or blow head gaskets. If they tuned their engines to run only on premium to maximize performance, the rates of damage to the engine from accidentally filling with lower octane would be quite high across the customer base and it wouldn't be covered under warranty...imagine how many customers would jump ship.

#2 if people don't care about the extra power, they can sacrifice performance for fuel cost savings (what most people do as cars are more a means to an end than having one just because).

#3 in an emergency, obviously you can fill it up with any standard fuel grade, from 87 up to 93 and safely drive the car.

The Ranger Raptor is obviously an enthusiast model, and the Pro Cal is more or less a factory Hi Po cal, marketed towards the most diehard performance fans who understand the implications of fuel grades and are willing to give up lower fuel grades for the performance benefits.

My reasoning for doing the Pro Cal, is because even with the stock ECU cal, I have to run premium to get the full rated power... if I tow anything, I have to run premium to prevent knock (especially in hot dry weather) that can damage the engine....if I drive at high altitude, I have to run premium to prevent knock (all this is in the service manual). That's all on the stock tune. I can only run 87 for mundane uses and I don't get the full rated power. Fine for a daily driver, something I might do if I have a Lariat with the 2.7 or 2.3, but I have a Raptor. It's a freaking muscle Baja truck!

So why not just forgo low octane and get the extra 50 hp, 106 lb-ft of torque, the much better shift schedule etc.? I'm not buying a RR to pinch pennies on fuel grades...now do I want to preserve some semblance of fuel economy? Sure. But I get the same mileage as I did stock (aside from actually using the throttle more, but cruising on the highway at 78 mph, on a 135-mile trip my average was 20.8 mpg with Pro Cal + Tonneau cover, all else stock).

Sorry for the long arse post, but its kind of a complex subject.

 

[Barely Krawlified]

Curious, for those that are not tuned, why are you running a higher octane than what the OEM lists out (87)? Better gas mileage (despite higher overall cost)? Engine longevity/reliability concerns? More pep? Because it feels right?

I know others have their reasons but my reason for running 91 on my stock/non-tuned RR is because the folks at Ford recommend it (See Pg. 174 of the '25 RR owner's manual)

 

[Lion77]

Yah that too!

 

[spazzyfry123]

Great comments! I, too, have only run 93 in mine. I’m fearful for any potential detonation, so it’s worth it to me for peace of mind - more so than the performance gains with the OEM tune.

Now if they would have put a fuel tank in the truck that has a size worth a damn…

 

[cc1999]

What is the opinion on the No Ethanol I believe its 90 octane from QT I'm running the Pro Cal tune so I have been using the 93 octane premium option.

With the QTs around here no ethanol is 87, if I want no Ethanol at 91 I have to go to Casey’s.

I found myself in another area last week where 87 with ethanol or without was the only choice.
I was in my 24 RR which has the Ford tune in it, it’s not not the first time I had to fill it up with 87.

The trucks computer still seems to compensate tuned or not. Honestly it’s happened 3-4 times now, and I really can’t tell any difference at all. Given 91 is an option I do choose it for my ford tuned 24 RR , but rarely choose 91 with my 25 RR with stock tune.

 

[80238]

You need to add 85 for us high altitude people.

Be nice to sticky this and get the results long term

I use Petrocan 94 (Only 94 available in the Yukon) and drop down to 91 if not available. Something to be aware of for Canadian drivers is that Ethanol content in all Canadian fuel changes from 10% in the summer to 7.5% between September-March to aid with cold weather starting.

According to this Channel, as of 2023 here's Canada's fuel rankings from best to worst:

1. Shell V-Power 93
2. Husky 94
3. PetroCan 94
4. Chevron 94
5. Esso/Mobil 93
6. Chevron 91
7. Shell 91
8. Costco 91

Sponsored