Big hood size, engine optimism ?‍♂️

[Stampede.Offroad]

Yes, I agree. That's why I want around 300hp, and 400 ftlb. Which is right in the range that many of Ford's current engines are already making, and slightly more than the competition offers.

The torque and ability to turn large tires at low speed through a stout driveline is more important to me than the HP and ability to spin them at high speed.

Sponsored

 

[OX1]

Intercooler needs upgrading, as the stock one was only good enough for stock power and you're essentially heatsoaking

While you're at it, Charge pipes as well.

There are a number of options out there, including some not provided

Can you show me your datalogs from your Fusion Sport so we can compare?
Please stop talking in generalities about a car you don't have the slightest clue about.

 

[frinesi2]

How about we compromise and settle on Godzuki?

 

[securitysix]

How about we compromise and settle on Godzuki?

That just sounds like what you would call it if you somehow shoehorned a Godzilla engine into a Suzuki Jimny.

 

[RupertH]

If the engine is tuned for 87, adding higher Octane fuels will accomplish nothing. The engine has no way of determining what the Octane rating of the fuel is. Most likely, there's a knock sensor that will retard timing based on the assumption of low-Octane fuel or Carbon buildup on the cylinders that increases compression to a point where it overcomes the Octane (not necessarily Iso-Octane, more on that) in the fuel. At some point, it will reset and see if there's still knocking OR the setting has to be manually reset in the ECU.

More likely, changing the fuel to non-Ethanol will decrease performance in a modern turbo engine. If you think about what changes in the fuel, it makes sense. While Ethanol is less energy dense, it does have some important properties that have an effect on combustion. It's basically a combination of alcohol and water- both used in various places as power adders due to their cooling effect on the intake side. (want to see something really cool, google B-52 water injection takeoff) It's especially noticeable in forced induction systems. (See BMW M4 GTS) It's also going to have an impact on how the flame front moves across the cylinder- which the knock sensor may interpret as knocking, and retard timing.

With respect to Octane rating- that's something of a made up number, based on how the fuel reacts as compared to an Iso-Octane standard. Years ago, Lead and MTBE were a big part of the equation. No lead, and the switch to ETBE, which doesn't have the same combustion suppression properties in modern gas, meant other methods have been introduced to make up the difference to prevent the need to blend in more (very valuable) actual Iso-Octane. No clue what the actual number is, but I suspect if you were to pull the Ethanol from an 87 Octane fuel, and leave the rest the same, you'd end up with more energy density, but something below 85 Octane that would require adjusting the compression or timing or something and ultimately less power generated.

 

[Jalisurr]

If the engine is tuned for 87, adding higher Octane fuels will accomplish nothing. The engine has no way of determining what the Octane rating of the fuel is. Most likely, there's a knock sensor that will retard timing based on the assumption of low-Octane fuel or Carbon buildup on the cylinders that increases compression to a point where it overcomes the Octane (not necessarily Iso-Octane, more on that) in the fuel. At some point, it will reset and see if there's still knocking OR the setting has to be manually reset in the ECU.

More likely, changing the fuel to non-Ethanol will decrease performance in a modern turbo engine. If you think about what changes in the fuel, it makes sense. While Ethanol is less energy dense, it does have some important properties that have an effect on combustion. It's basically a combination of alcohol and water- both used in various places as power adders due to their cooling effect on the intake side. (want to see something really cool, google B-52 water injection takeoff) It's especially noticeable in forced induction systems. (See BMW M4 GTS) It's also going to have an impact on how the flame front moves across the cylinder- which the knock sensor may interpret as knocking, and retard timing.

With respect to Octane rating- that's something of a made up number, based on how the fuel reacts as compared to an Iso-Octane standard. Years ago, Lead and MTBE were a big part of the equation. No lead, and the switch to ETBE, which doesn't have the same combustion suppression properties in modern gas, meant other methods have been introduced to make up the difference to prevent the need to blend in more (very valuable) actual Iso-Octane. No clue what the actual number is, but I suspect if you were to pull the Ethanol from an 87 Octane fuel, and leave the rest the same, you'd end up with more energy density, but something below 85 Octane that would require adjusting the compression or timing or something and ultimately less power generated.

The Ecoboost engines aren't 'Tuned' for one octane grade. They are smart enough to run on 87 by pulling timing, giving up power to protect the engine, or they can get more performance from premium. From an owner's manual:

"3.5L V6 EcoBoostTM engine
Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer."

That's for an F150, but there is basically the exact same wording in the Mustang and Edge owner's manuals. I would assume it's true for all of them. From what I've read on the forums, there can be a noticeable butt-dyno difference if you are a spirited driver.

 

[Paint]

Now tune it for E85 go-go corn juice and watch it GOOOOOOOO

 

[RupertH]

Exactly:
Non-Ethanol=lowered cooling+other effects
85 Octane, fine for NA engines@high altitude=too low for a turbonormalized engine

If you did the 87 first, there's a chance the reset parameters on the engine hadn't kicked in yet before you'd burned the tank of 91. I have no idea how Ford does that piece of logic. Or, the standard timing is somewhere in the middle, and you didn't run at WOT to exhaust the available combustion suppression in the fuel at that F/A mix.

The Ecoboost engines aren't 'Tuned' for one octane grade. They are smart enough to run on 87 by pulling timing, giving up power to protect the engine, or they can get more performance from premium. From an owner's manual:

"3.5L V6 EcoBoostTM engine
Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer."

That's for an F150, but there is basically the exact same wording in the Mustang and Edge owner's manuals. I would assume it's true for all of them. From what I've read on the forums, there can be a noticeable butt-dyno difference if you are a spirited driver.

Which probably means it is tuned for more than 87, but drops to a lower map when indicated by the sensors. As stated above, no way of knowing how it determines if it's safe to go back once the detune is triggered. My car has two maps, and as I understand it, can only be kicked back into '91' by manually changing the setting once it's triggered.

 

[Jalisurr]

Which probably means it is tuned for more than 87, but drops to a lower map when indicated by the sensors. As stated above, no way of knowing how it determines if it's safe to go back once the detune is triggered. My car has two maps, and as I understand it, can only be kicked back into '91' by manually changing the setting once it's triggered.

Yeah, it'll have multiple maps. My LS7 does the same (except it wants 91+ as the base and 93+ for best performance), and the general rule of thumb is you have to run a full tank of 93+ through it before it'll be making full power again once you've been running 91 for a while.

 

[BAUS67]

Seeing how there is not much going on right now I will entertain you all with some knowledge of something I learned long ago and it may not apply now because ECM tuning has come a long way since then.

So the year would be 1990 and I own me this bad to bone, nasty little mind twister call a 5 OH Mustang. I always worked on it, not to fix it, just to make it faster, and always had the battery disconnected. When done working I would reconnect the battery and ALWAYS go through the same procedure. No electronics on, restart, don't touch anything, allow to find an idle ( on it's own), allow to come up to temp, when at temp kick the A/C on, push on the brake ( making the computer make small changes with load changing). Then and only then, begin to drive. And once I could get to a point where it was safe, BEAT THE LIVING SNOT OUT OF IT. Why do this??? It was explained to me one time that Ford's ECM is adaptive. Meaning it had a "base" tune burned into it. While running it would adjust from this tune for how the sensors were reading. If you would always "put around" (like grandma') then it would think that is how it was supposed to run. Now after you would BEAT THE SNOT out of it would come around. But if you teach it to be on KILL all the time then that is how it runs. This all may sound crazy but I know because I could prove it to people, with their cars. I know a lot here like proof but my proof is only experience.

Along the same lines I would read about installing a shorter belt for an extra 20 HP. so I bought one and went to my favorite stretch of pavement where I always did my testing. First gear, powershift second and see how long it would lay rubber in second. Then install the shorter belt and guess what ?? It laid rubber twice as long in second. I'd say it works. Then go to track and sure enough couple of tenths. Back to back, with belt then with short belt. ( and yes I said read because this was before cell phone/ internet thing and that was how I got my info, by reading car magazines and applying good old fashioned "hot rodding")

I could amaze people in how much better I could make their cars run with ZERO $. By checking voltage at the TPS. checking initial and advance timing, giving the ECM the relearn trick. Just by optimizing what was there would make a big difference especially to those who are not gearheads.

I'm sure I have bored the engineers in here but I just had to put my own uneducated, common sense approach to the conversation. ECM's have come along since then, It was just for the engine back then. Speaking of which ....................... If I have it right the ECM Ford use in the speed density days which started in 86 was used all the way through 04 before being replaced by a "clean sheet" approach. i.e just revamped/ updated/ revised/ what ever term you want to use, the same computer just more inputs. To put it in perspective GM went trough, throttle body injection. bank fired port injection and then finally sequential port injection. The Mustang was sequential port injection from the start !!! Just like putting the distributor in the front of the engine and not having two exhaust ports next to each other, make it right from the start !!!!!

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as I have stated before, I am not an engineer but I do have some real world experience and I'm 52 so I'm getting to the age where sometimes I am mistaken or get my facts wrong. ?

 

[frinesi2]

It's called fuel trim and all closed loop lambda control ECUs do it

 

[frinesi2]

Its amazing what you can do with mid to late 90s cars if you know a thing or two about electronics. Maybe some day I'll tell the story about how I converted R33/R34s and a 22B to OBD-II using a W210 as a test mule ...

Sponsored