Kev-Mo Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 (edited) On 5/14/2019 at 6:29 PM, 2005Explorer said: It can depend where you live. Where I live regular is only 85 octane which is considered too low for any modern vehicle. Mid-grade is usually 87-88 octane and is usually E10. Mid-grade here actually costs a little less with the ethanol blended in then the regular. Premium is usually 91 octane here. So basically you are forced to either use the mid-grade or premium. I usually just use the mid-grade. I'm not sure who even uses the regular here? Maybe old low performance vehicles? Yep - like I mentioned in Denver and all of the Inter-mountain west above 5000'. So the Owners Manual says 87, and no footnote about 85 being OK above 5000'. But the companies that deliver the fuel to you say 85 is 'scientifically' OK, but by the way, we'll charge you the 87 price and you'll just get used to it. Question for the Flatlanders - What would you put in your vehicles if you lived here? I drive in the high mountains a lot. I run 85 mostly if I am just running around town - I live at 6000', But if I know I am going skiing or for a mountain trip I spring for the 87, which 'scientifically' is counter rational - but by the seat of my pants the old girl seems to run better on 87 up there. Edited May 16, 2019 by Kev-Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Kev-Mo said: Yep - like I mentioned in Denver and all of the Inter-mountain west above 5000'. So the Owners Manual says 87, and no footnote about 85 being OK above 5000'. But the companies that deliver the fuel to you say 85 is 'scientifically' OK, but by the way, we'll charge you the 87 price and you'll just get used to it. Question for the Flatlanders - What would you put in your vehicles if you lived here? I drive in the high mountains a lot. I run 85 mostly if I am just running around town - I live at 6000', But if I know I am going skiing or for a mountain trip I spring for the 87, which 'scientifically' is counter rational - but by the seat of my pants the old girl seems to run better on 87 up there. I always use the mid grade here because although where my house is I'm over 5000 ft. once I drive down off the hill I'm at a much lower altitude. The 87 mid-grade here is actually cheaper then the regular. It is enriched with 10% ethanol, but I don't mind that. I guess it can hurt your MPG slightly, but if your paying a little less for it then it doesn't matter. I just feel better running the octane that the manual calls for no matter what they say is 'scientifically' ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 The owner's manuals for both my 2017 Lincoln and 2018 Mustang mention fuels under 87 octane in high altitude areas. They specifically say that those fuels are not recommended. The manual for our 2014 Taurus also calls out fuel under 87 in high altitude areas and do not recommend it for the SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, brucelinc said: The owner's manuals for both my 2017 Lincoln and 2018 Mustang mention fuels under 87 octane in high altitude areas. They specifically say that those fuels are not recommended. The manual for our 2014 Taurus also calls out fuel under 87 in high altitude areas and do not recommend it for the SHO. That’s because Ford can’t control your altitude or any other factors so they’re playing it safe and CYA by saying don’t use 85. Otherwise somebody would fill up with 85 then try to tow something heavy down to lower altitude. Not worth all the warnings and caveats they’d have to put in. I can understand not wanting to take a chance but I think for normal local driving it would be just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 I went train watching in SE Wyoming this weekend and saw my first new Ranger. It was a Lightning Blue extended cab and still had in-transit tags. Nice truck, I think once they get stock out here in the western states they shouldn't have any trouble selling in decent quantities, at least out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Ford made another 11,993 in April. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 (edited) Personally, I think they are going a little slower than expected getting more Rangers out there in XL and XLT but in saying that, I can understand the thinking behind not doing that - they're playing the long game here and building solid foundation for the future and a keep those sales in the face of new Bronco's arrival late next year. Edited May 20, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.