'2023 6.4L Power Increase?

[jsalbre]

I can’t find any of the supporting evidence at the moment, but I believe someone had some document at one point that pointed to there being some programming changes a while back and they just failed to update the manual.

 

[wyvern]

I can’t find any of the supporting evidence at the moment, but I believe someone had some document at one point that pointed to there being some programming changes a while back and they just failed to update the manual.

This doesn’t make sense to me entirely, as there are some 2020 manuals with the 89 octane recommendation and some with just the 87 octane mentioned.

If the software changed over for the 2020 model year they’d all be in alignment, no?

 

[jsalbre]

This doesn’t make sense to me entirely, as there are some 2020 manuals with the 89 octane recommendation and some with just the 87 octane mentioned.

If the software changed over for the 2020 model year they’d all be in alignment, no?

No, that’s exactly the problem. The truck changed a long time ago, before 2019 MY. The manuals didn’t get changed until some later point. That’s why the 2019 and early 2020 manuals say 89, and the current online versions (after early 2020) all say 87. They went back and updated them.

My 2020 was ordered before the 2020 builds started. It delivered with a paper manual that said “89”, but the manual available online on the date it arrived at the dealership (I think it was revision 2) said “87”.

 

[wyvern]

No, that’s exactly the problem. The truck changed a long time ago, before 2019 MY. The manuals didn’t get changed until some later point. That’s why the 2019 and early 2020 manuals say 89, and the current online versions (after early 2020) all say 87. They went back and updated them.

My 2020 was ordered before the 2020 builds started. It delivered with a paper manual that said “89”, but the manual available online on the date it arrived at the dealership (I think it was revision 2) said “87”.

I have seen more than a few reports that corroborate the paper manuals being out of alignment with the updated online manuals for various MYs.

Very interested if you can find any documentation or literature referring to the software updates to the 6.4L.

 

[wyvern]

Did some science to me power wagon.

The first and lighter picture (227.2 mi) is on a fill of solely 93 octane.

The second and darker picture (217.2 mi) is with a full tank of solely 87 octane.

Tried to get almost the exact same mileage, terrain was mostly the same between the two trips, potentially a bit more uphill grades on the 87 octane fill.

I wasted the money so you don’t have to.

 

[MEGA HO]

Did some science to me power wagon.

The first and lighter picture (227.2 mi) is on a fill of solely 93 octane.

The second and darker picture (217.2 mi) is with a full tank of solely 87 octane.

Tried to get almost the exact same mileage, terrain was mostly the same between the two trips, potentially a bit more uphill grades on the 87 octane fill.

I wasted the money so you don’t have to.

Did you hand calculated by any chance to confirm lie-o-meter reading?

 

[wyvern]

Easy enough to back out, the delta is the key concern here.

Here is the hand calculus derived from fuel receipts and trip mileage:

93 octane trip miles traveled: 227.2
gallons used: ~16.4
93 MPG: 13.85

87 octane trip miles traveled: 217.2
gallons used: ~15.5
87 MPG: 14.01

I will try 89 octane next on a similar trip and report back.