2.3L vs 2.7L power curves / dyno chart comparisons

RG7

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
197
Reaction score
687
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
B8 A4
Clubs
 
Thanks for posting this. Makes me believe if Ford does change course and allows sasquatch with the 7MT then I could deal with not having the 2.7. The 2.3 with a Ford Performance tune will do nicely. Ideal combo is MT, 2.7 and Sas but i just checked outside and didn't see any flying pigs :rolleyes:





Advertisement

 

Mopar2Bronco2021

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Scott
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
494
Reaction score
1,038
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
2018 Dodge Charger RT 5.7L
This is definitely one of the better threads on the site. Thanks to everyone adding input to spread some knowledge. I’ll definitely be considering a Ford designed tune on the 2.7 when they release one.
 

Mattwings

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
359
Reaction score
490
Location
Northville, MI
Vehicle(s)
2018 F150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Clubs
 
One final consideration for me is the carbon fouling issue with GDI engines. The 2.7l uses direct and port injection to combat the problem. To my knowledge, it can still be a problem in the 2.3l. It seems low rpm crawling and more typical off road use (lower rpm) could exaggerate that issue? My guess is the 2.3l and 7sp in most configurations will be excellent and if you have the auto, the 2.7l will be the engine that stands out. I love my current 2.7l btw, total beast and I get 21mpg combined in my 2018 crew cab F150 (3.55 gears, tow package, electronic locker)
 

tokyo

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Messages
107
Reaction score
237
Location
Utah / Japan
Vehicle(s)
siennavenzasparkXDfit
Clubs
 
So if I take the stock 2.7 and run 93 octane (which I run anyways) I'll get the standard 310 hp, 400 lbf of torque.

So is there a simple software tune (being as I don't want to replace intakes, coolers, and whatever), that'll bump those numbers for me? And if so, by gaining, what do I lose in return?
My understanding is the 2.7 actually takes advantage of the higher octane rating bone stock. Not all engines do.. I seem to remember reading an article online somewhere.. they tested HP in stock vehicles just using different octane fuels to see what would happen.

The 2.7 actually had higher HP numbers with higher octane as it "senses" the octane rating and adjusts accordingly. Some cars don't.. so putting 93 in a car that doesn't auto-adjust and is set for 87 from the factory is throwing money out the tailpipe... again memory is fading these days so don't take my word for it.

There is also a place that makes a tune for 2.7 (pre '18 anyway) that keeps that auto octane adjustment. Gear head tuning or something? Not as aggressive tunes, apparently, but it means you can just fill up with whatever octane is available, or fits the budget for that paycheck cycle :) and it will auto adjust. So you never have to worry about it, just like stock.

Many others if you have a 93 octane tune you are locked in and need to fill with 93 octane.
 

Spooled

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
597
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Republic of Texas
Vehicle(s)
2017 F-150
Clubs
 
There is also a place that makes a tune for 2.7 (pre '18 anyway) that keeps that auto octane adjustment. Gear head tuning or something? Not as aggressive tunes, apparently, but it means you can just fill up with whatever octane is available, or fits the budget for that paycheck cycle :) and it will auto adjust. So you never have to worry about it, just like stock.

Many others if you have a 93 octane tune you are locked in and need to fill with 93 octane.
Brew City Boost makes an adaptive tune and a separate adaptive tow tune as well. 87-93 octane.

Using higher grade fuel guarantees your engine will deliver it's advertised rating. I've seen datalogs of ecoboosts on 87 octane and you can see timing being pulled to keep the knock sensors happy. There's a legit 20-30hp difference on the factory calibration between 87 and 93 octane.

If you have a heavier foot, it's worth using a higher grade fuel.

If you get a 2.3 I recommend a higher grade fuel no matter what. It will help with the carbon build-up if you plan to keep the vehicle a long time.
 

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
1,559
Reaction score
2,753
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
One final consideration for me is the carbon fouling issue with GDI engines. The 2.7l uses direct and port injection to combat the problem. To my knowledge, it can still be a problem in the 2.3l. It seems low rpm crawling and more typical off road use (lower rpm) could exaggerate that issue? My guess is the 2.3l and 7sp in most configurations will be excellent and if you have the auto, the 2.7l will be the engine that stands out. I love my current 2.7l btw, total beast and I get 21mpg combined in my 2018 crew cab F150 (3.55 gears, tow package, electronic locker)
A fellow Maverick guy 5.0 Maverick posed the water methanol injection in his own thread earlier. Got me thinking so I looked it up and Snow Performance does make 2.3 and 2.7 kits for other vehicles. 10 to 15% power increases without other mods and cleans carbon buildup internally as a side effect.
 

OK_Hunter

Wildtrak
Active Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
38
Reaction score
48
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Infinity g37
The 2.7 bronco is rated at 310 hp, while the 2.7 f150 is rated at like 330 hp. Would this discrepancy be due to fuel octane requirements?
 

Spooled

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
597
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Republic of Texas
Vehicle(s)
2017 F-150
Clubs
 
The 2.7 bronco is rated at 310 hp, while the 2.7 f150 is rated at like 330 hp. Would this discrepancy be due to fuel octane requirements?
There's a lot of variables that come into play with factory ratings. The F-150 is 325hp and the Edge ST is 335HP. Frame rail/packaging restrictions could make exhaust/intake routing more restrictive. Maybe they had to fit a smaller intercooler to the Bronco. Maybe they just pulled some power out if they think Bronco owners will run their trucks harder so their taking some stress off the engine and reduce potential warranty costs. Maybe they don't want to shove Jeeps dick in the dirt any harder than they already are :ROFLMAO: Having it at 310 leaves room for small power bumps in the future. Also widens the power gap for the inevitable 3.0 Ecoboost that will come in the future.
 

ajjones44

Outer Banks
New Member
First Name
Andre
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Location
New Braunfels TX
Vehicle(s)
Fusion, Suburban
This is the thread I’ve been waiting on! Coming from the LS world my last two cars put down 650hp/750hp respectively. I’m big on E85 and/or meth. I foresee a down pipe, exhaust and tune shorty after I receive my Bronco.
 

timhood

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
272
Reaction score
400
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Several
If you get a 2.3 I recommend a higher grade fuel no matter what. It will help with the carbon build-up if you plan to keep the vehicle a long time.
The issue with the carbon buildup is that the fuel is sprayed directly into the cylinder and not over the valves like port injection. So, the grade of fuel makes no difference and higher-grade fuel offers no benefit for reducing carbon buildup on the valves. It does allow the engine to make its maximum intended power as you mentioned, since timing will not be retarded to avoid knock.

Carbon buildup occurs within a set temperature range, so the real way to avoid it is for the engine to not operate within that range. There's not much control we (users) have over that.
 

Bybotie

Wildtrak
Member
First Name
Nigel
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
10
Reaction score
18
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Edge ST
The "loss" of power in the 2.7L for the Bronco is due to the exhaust. To make max power you will have to address this. I will get mine tuned asap. I'll add exhaust and an intercooler when it's available.
 

Chadillac

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Chad
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
261
Reaction score
468
Location
Between the Hedges, Georgia
Vehicle(s)
‘21 Bronco
I am truly giddy about the turbo 4 bronco with a manual transmission. Exhaust and a BOV it’ll sound downright raunchy on the trails. 270hp is fine for me. My daily driver only makes 160
 

Ford49

Big Bend
Member
First Name
Patrick
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
15
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT/'65 Mustang/F-150 Lightning/Fusion
Vehicle Showcase
1
I have a tuned fusion sport with the 2.7. I highly recommend Unleashed performance. I’m in the same boat as a lot of people want am torn because I want the manual but also the 2.7.
The 2.7 motor is silky smooth and so powerful. I have a 6 speed auto and it just feels amazing.

I Will most likely go with the 2.7 unless it’s a huge upcharge
 
OP

edgeflyer

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
516
Reaction score
1,185
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2013 FX4
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #44
Brian are you employed by or affiliated with 5star?????????????????????????
No, but they make great Ecoboosts tunes. Their 5.0 tunes are good and safe, but leave some on the table. Honestly, they just had the easiest to get to Dyno sheets for comparison. With that being said, if they want to sponsor my Bronco, I will let them. I am running MPT in my 5.0 now. Haven't looked at their Ecoboost tunes yet.
 
OP

edgeflyer

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
516
Reaction score
1,185
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2013 FX4
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #45
,
The issue with the carbon buildup is that the fuel is sprayed directly into the cylinder and not over the valves like port injection. So, the grade of fuel makes no difference and higher-grade fuel offers no benefit for reducing carbon buildup on the valves. It does allow the engine to make its maximum intended power as you mentioned, since timing will not be retarded to avoid knock.

Carbon buildup occurs within a set temperature range, so the real way to avoid it is for the engine to not operate within that range. There's not much control we (users) have over that.
This is exactly right. Ford learned some lessons from the first gen DI motors, but if I got the 2.3, I would run DI intake valve cleaner through it before every other oil change just for good measure. This has to be done through the intake, not in the fuel tank. Dirty intake valves rob lots of power and fuel efficiency. Wouldn't exactly scare me off the 2.3 though. HP is great, but with turbos, and the gearing we get, it is going to shame some old V8's on the bottom end.
Also, I know 5 Star was offering an extended warranty backing their tunes. Not sure if the others do. And no, I still don't work for 5 Star, just happen to know that info...
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top