1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series All Ford Ranger and Mazda B-Series models

Slight pinging in 3.0

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #16  
Old 03-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Pablo-UA's Avatar
Pablo-UA
Pablo-UA is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hah! oct 93 gas kills spark plugs! Ferrozen!!! It is just a 87 gas with ferrozen adds...!
 
  #17  
Old 03-29-2009, 05:42 PM
pawpaw's Avatar
pawpaw
pawpaw is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SW Va
Posts: 13,777
Received 73 Likes on 71 Posts
Originally Posted by mfp4073
I put in 93 octane and the pinging went away. Seemed like it had more power, which leads me to think that it may be doing a silent preignitioning other times. I put in some of the Chevrons Techron Cocentrate Plus that pawpaw recommended. It was on sale 2 for 1 at Advanced Auto. Will run that through. Thinking a buildup in the cylinders may be what I am looking at. These trucks should run fine on low octane right?
OK, good feedback.

Well from the results you got, from going to a higher octane fuel & the pinging stopping & if you have the correct heat range spark plugs in, it kinda suggests that combustion chamber deposits may indeed be the problem & with the vehicles mileage, it's to be expected.

So, during this tank of Techron treated gas, do the spirited driving, high rpm blow it out routine, of Fords decarbon TSB & then see how it goes with 87 octane regular gas, after you use most of this treated tank up.

If you need too, do a second treatment.

Yes these engines are designd to use 87 octane.

I don't think one tank of 93 octane is likely to deposit foul the spark plugs, but Pablo is right about not using it constantly, in low compression engines & it causing deposit problems.

Using 93 octane in our low compression engines is sorta like retarding the spark timing, as it's more difficult to ignite & burns slower, so an engine like ours, thats timed closer to TDC, doesn't have time for all the 93 octane fuel to burn, before the exhaust valve opens, so all the fuel isn't consumed & can cause combustion chamber deposits over time.

Also things like the exhaust valve & manafold, cat converter, run hotter than designed, so long term use of higher than designed for octane fuel, isn't a good idea because of deposit loading in these engines & Ford so says in our owners manual.

Keep us posted on how it goes.
 
  #18  
Old 03-29-2009, 06:55 PM
mfp4073's Avatar
mfp4073
mfp4073 is offline
Fleet Mechanic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: down south
Posts: 1,725
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Will do. thanks for the help guys!!
 
  #19  
Old 03-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Bear River's Avatar
Bear River
Bear River is offline
Former ******
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 4,901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pawpaw
OK, good feedback.

Well from the results you got, from going to a higher octane fuel & the pinging stopping & if you have the correct heat range spark plugs in, it kinda suggests that combustion chamber deposits may indeed be the problem & with the vehicles mileage, it's to be expected.

So, during this tank of Techron treated gas, do the spirited driving, high rpm blow it out routine, of Fords decarbon TSB & then see how it goes with 87 octane regular gas, after you use most of this treated tank up.

If you need too, do a second treatment.

Yes these engines are designd to use 87 octane.

I don't think one tank of 93 octane is likely to deposit foul the spark plugs, but Pablo is right about not using it constantly, in low compression engines & it causing deposit problems.

Using 93 octane in our low compression engines is sorta like retarding the spark timing, as it's more difficult to ignite & burns slower, so an engine like ours, thats timed closer to TDC, doesn't have time for all the 93 octane fuel to burn, before the exhaust valve opens, so all the fuel isn't consumed & can cause combustion chamber deposits over time.

Also things like the exhaust valve & manafold, cat converter, run hotter than designed, so long term use of higher than designed for octane fuel, isn't a good idea because of deposit loading in these engines & Ford so says in our owners manual.

Keep us posted on how it goes.
Right on the money Pawpaw. My expertise is catalytic converters, and that means I try to also learn as much as I can about why they fail. A lot of people ruin converters by using too high octane fuel. The fuel burns slower, and that means that more of it is unconsumed when the exhaust vale opens. The unburned fuel is not only burning outside the combustion chamber, but without the pressure of the combustion chamber, it rapidly cools, preventing complete combustion. Incomplete combustion means that oxygen is also left over. The O2 sensor picks up on the extra oxygen, and interprets it as a lean condition, triggering the addition of extra fuel. This as we know further cools combustion among other things, resulting in even more carbon deposits. One problem leads to another, and this can damage both the sensors and the catalytic converter. Plus it wastes fuel and limits the power output of the engine. It will often sound more powerful though, the fuel is still burning in the exhaust, and that can create a slightly louder and deeper sound, giving an impression of increased power.
 
  #20  
Old 03-30-2009, 11:02 AM
pawpaw's Avatar
pawpaw
pawpaw is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SW Va
Posts: 13,777
Received 73 Likes on 71 Posts
Yup, the cat converter has to process any unburned hydrocarbons, so anything left over form the engines power stroke & pumped down stream to it, causes it to run hotter than designed for & that plays havoc on it's matrix!!!!

Our low compression engines compression ratio, cam & spark timing & computer programming are optimized for 87 octane, so when we use a higher octane slower buring fuel than specified, the engines compression, valve & spark timing just aren't right, to be able to take full advantage of the higher octane fuels btu's, so some of those unburned hydrocarbons go to waste & cause down stream mischief, a vicious circle as you've outlined!!!!

Also another reason we shouldn't ignore a misfire, or over rich code, as that too pumps unburned fuel down stream, for the cat converter to process!!!!

Sometimes, little things mean a lot!!!! lol
 
  #21  
Old 03-30-2009, 07:11 PM
bazzman1953's Avatar
bazzman1953
bazzman1953 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ishpeming Mi.
Posts: 620
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
deleted, covered better by the heavy hitters before I posted
 
  #22  
Old 04-01-2009, 04:15 PM
mfp4073's Avatar
mfp4073
mfp4073 is offline
Fleet Mechanic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: down south
Posts: 1,725
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Ok, after a tank with the treatment I am now back on 87 octane. Seems to have a little more power and be running smoother. Further leading me to believe it was doing some silent preignitioning too. Not having the audible pinging so far and I have gone about 60 miles on the low octane. Still thinking of doing another tank of the treatment in a month or so.

Thanks all, for the input, suggestions, and tech explinations!
 
  #23  
Old 04-01-2009, 05:19 PM
pawpaw's Avatar
pawpaw
pawpaw is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SW Va
Posts: 13,777
Received 73 Likes on 71 Posts
Good to hear you seem to have gotten positive results.

If you later find the ping returns, no need to use premium fuel for the next treatment.

Just add the Techron at the pump, before filling up with regular Chevron, Texaco, or CalTex, so it'll mix well.

Just be sure to add the specfied oz/gal ratio of Techron, so it'll be effective & run most of the treated tank out.

Adding the Techron & filling up with one of those three fuels, all of which already have some Techron in them, raises the treat rate 10X above the pump gas concentration, so, often one treatment is enough.

If you'll continue to use one of those three fuels, they'll continue to tidy things up inside, just at a slower rate, so you may not need another treatment.

More thoughts for consideration.
Let us know how it goes.
 
  #24  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:13 AM
wendell borror's Avatar
wendell borror
wendell borror is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've read that it's a good idea to put sea foam through a 3.0 when it gets high in mileage as thier bad to carbon up. This can lead to power loose or pinging.
 
  #25  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:49 AM
Christoff's Avatar
Christoff
Christoff is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's time to replace my plugs, 98,000mi and I am still trying to decide whether or not to put AGsf-12pp or AGSF-22pp in my 2002 ranger 3.0. I had the same pinging problem you described early in the trucks life and I have used premium ever since and never had a problem. But this leads me to believe the problem may have been the original plugs?
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Milwaukee1979F150
Explorer, Sport Trac, Mountaineer & Aviator
9
10-04-2010 12:17 PM
garbear17
1997 - 2003 F150
6
01-09-2010 01:09 PM
RangerXLT89
4 Cylinder Engines
5
12-27-2004 09:22 AM
Adams1
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
6
08-12-2004 10:57 AM
thinkirish
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
4
05-09-2004 02:15 AM



Quick Reply: Slight pinging in 3.0



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.