Ford Performance Calibration Tune for 2.7L Bronco's AVAILABLE NOW! - Lethal Performance

[John Whammer]

Heres the 2.7 on Ford’s site. Not available when I last checked tho:

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9603-B27

Sponsored

 

[Merc4x4]

Here, let me help you out. It's easy even on pump gas. Here is a mostly stock 1.8 liter Miata motor (Pauter Rods, Wiseco pistons, stock head. Toga oil pump... stock crank and most of the motor other than rods and pistons), using a RX-7 turbo II transmission and RX-7 Turbo II rear differential. It's not an exotic build, I built and designed the turbo system, manifold, intercooler, and provided the Haltech E6k engine management and initial tuning. Mind you, this was the early 2000's, but it wasn't a high $$$$ build. It was dead reliable though.



10.94 @ 139 MPH - 5500' above sea level. It was probably pushing somewhere north of 425 HP (or 236 HP/Liter) and that was 20 years ago with a crappy Haltech E6k, no direct injection, pump gas, driven to and from the track over 30 miles.

This wasn't some crazy build. It was less than $5000 ($8000 in today's dollars) with all the parts (including the internals and RX-7 Turbo II parts).

I should have put one of those in my FC Turbo that ate it's apex seals, LOL.

I was young decided a turbo back exhaust would be great. It was a lot of fun shooting 1 foot flames out the exhaust, until the engine died.

I bought a '90 Eagle Talon TSi AWD and traded the FC for a cat back exhaust. The 4G63 was a beast. One of my favorite cars.

 

[Merc4x4]

Heres the 2.7 on Ford’s site. Not available when I last checked tho:

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9603-B27

It now says it can program up to 37" tires (pretty sure it said up to 35" tires before) and gives you circumference if you're modifying with ForScan.

• Ability to change tire size up to BFG 37x12.5R17 KO2 (2,779mm circumference). [Additional modifications required.]

• Ability to change axle ratio up to 4.70

 

[drbob1]

Having done some tuning, anything more than incremental (say 20%) is going to require upgrading other parts too. Which is why Ford is being cautious, if we already have a suspect rear end... However these numbers border on the "why?" kind of levels. I'd be really interested at 50 HP, not at this point. Stage II Ford?

Meanwhile Lethal Performance, 3 questions outstanding:
1. Is the "3 years for parts effected by the tune" weasel words for "we're not going to replace your rear end if you break it after this install'?
2. We'll have to wait for delivery to see what effect this has on mileage?
3. PLEASE dyno this with 91 (and maybe 87). Since I can almost never find 93, it means nothing to me if the gains on this are great on 93 and absent on 91!

 

[mpeugeot]

Having done some tuning, anything more than incremental (say 20%) is going to require upgrading other parts too. Which is why Ford is being cautious, if we already have a suspect rear end... However these numbers border on the "why?" kind of levels. I'd be really interested at 50 HP, not at this point. Stage II Ford?

Meanwhile Lethal Performance, 3 questions outstanding:
1. Is the "3 years for parts effected by the tune" weasel words for "we're not going to replace your rear end if you break it after this install'?
2. We'll have to wait for delivery to see what effect this has on mileage?
3. PLEASE dyno this with 91 (and maybe 87). Since I can almost never find 93, it means nothing to me if the gains on this are great on 93 and absent on 91!

When you talk upgrading parts, I think just about the engine internals, and that depends on how they built the engine originally. In the case of some engines, take the Ford/Mazda 1.8 BP for example, it was originally designed to be a turbo motor which was going to be homologated in Group N rally cars. Even in its normally aspirated stock form will tolerate making 2x the factory power limit.

The 2.7 ecoboost is similar in some ways, especially when you factor in the fact that the engine was anticipated to be used in a truck, requiring the low rpm torque needed for towing. The block was even stiffer and more rugged than the early 3.5 ecoboost engines. It has the potential for a lot more power if you can spin it faster.

As a relatively short stroke, small bore engine, it is actually better suited for higher RPM than the miata motor (which has a 2mm longer stroke). The only question is the heads and turbos (which I have not looked at closely); Offhand, I don't know how much flow they are capable of.

One other big factor is that any direct injection motor is going to be worlds apart in detonation resistance compared to a port fuel injected motor.

Detonation is usually the limiting factor in power production assuming you can deliver sufficient fuel to the cylinder (which could be a limitation of the factory fuel system). Otherwise, detonation is primarily a function of rpm, compression, heat, octane, and ignition timing.

If you are talking an unmodified stock motor running 91 octane, ya, 20% might well be a limitation due to the turbos, the intake/exhaust, octane, and/or the fuel system. However with some relatively modest changes externally, power may be able to rise with a simple tune substantially (larger compressor impeller, turbine, and/or increased housing A/R's alone) could make for significantly more power with no other changes.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the aftermarket does. Personally, I am pretty satisfied with the advertised 330 HP in the 2 door, but more is always better.

 

[Merc4x4]

When you talk upgrading parts, I think just about the engine internals, and that depends on how they built the engine originally. In the case of some engines, take the Ford/Mazda 1.8 BP for example, it was originally designed to be a turbo motor which was going to be homologated in Group N rally cars. Even in its normally aspirated stock form will tolerate making 2x the factory power limit.

The 2.7 ecoboost is similar in some ways, especially when you factor in the fact that the engine was anticipated to be used in a truck, requiring the low rpm torque needed for towing. The block was even stiffer and more rugged than the early 3.5 ecoboost engines. It has the potential for a lot more power if you can spin it faster.

As a relatively short stroke, small bore engine, it is actually better suited for higher RPM than the miata motor (which has a 2mm longer stroke). The only question is the heads and turbos (which I have not looked at closely); Offhand, I don't know how much flow they are capable of.

One other big factor is that any direct injection motor is going to be worlds apart in detonation resistance compared to a port fuel injected motor.

Detonation is usually the limiting factor in power production assuming you can deliver sufficient fuel to the cylinder (which could be a limitation of the factory fuel system). Otherwise, detonation is primarily a function of rpm, compression, heat, octane, and ignition timing.

If you are talking an unmodified stock motor running 91 octane, ya, 20% might well be a limitation due to the turbos, the intake/exhaust, octane, and/or the fuel system. However with some relatively modest changes externally, power may be able to rise with a simple tune substantially (larger compressor impeller, turbine, and/or increased housing A/R's alone) could make for significantly more power with no other changes.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the aftermarket does. Personally, I am pretty satisfied with the advertised 330 HP in the 2 door, but more is always better.

The first part I think of is fuel injectors. Can only get so far with a computer recalibration.

I think the limit is TQ. I'm looking at the Raptor 3.0 with 440 lbs ft and the 2.7 FP tune with 433 lbs ft.
I'm wondering if those are hitting the upper limits Ford is willing to go and maintain reliability with the rest of the drive train.

Really need to open the 2.7 up. First thought was cam to move the power up rpm range, which lead me to think about the heads' airflow. I wonder if the 3.0 Raptor heads will bolt on the 2.7? But then, the 2.7 is a turbo motor, so it probably mostly needs a slightly larger turbo. I'm pretty sure I recall the Raptor has larger turbos, now that I think about it.

 

[BCFDLtE13]

Rev matching is part of the calibration for 7MT owners. Obviously restricted to the 2.3L Broncos as they are the only ones with the manual transmission. Let us know if you have any other questions.

• Down-shift rev matching for manual transmission equipped vehicles (2.3L 7MT Only)

Can you confirm if the rev-matching feature can be turned off, preferably permanently? Or at least not default back to "on" everytime the engine is started. I prefer to match my own revs downshifting. I'm all in...but without the rev-match.

 

[LethalPerformance]

Having done some tuning, anything more than incremental (say 20%) is going to require upgrading other parts too. Which is why Ford is being cautious, if we already have a suspect rear end... However these numbers border on the "why?" kind of levels. I'd be really interested at 50 HP, not at this point. Stage II Ford?

Meanwhile Lethal Performance, 3 questions outstanding:
1. Is the "3 years for parts effected by the tune" weasel words for "we're not going to replace your rear end if you break it after this install'?
2. We'll have to wait for delivery to see what effect this has on mileage?
3. PLEASE dyno this with 91 (and maybe 87). Since I can almost never find 93, it means nothing to me if the gains on this are great on 93 and absent on 91!

We typically interpret it for the ignition onwards... so think the motor, injectors, etc. On previous cars that utilize the FP tuning, we've yet to see any sort of Warranty problems, period.
I'd imagine it would only interfere with MPG if someone has a heavy foot - aka turbo is spooling. We're not going to see much of an increase in fuel usage without the turbos being spooled.
We plan to dyno with 87 and 93 - 91 is unlikely for us as its typically just ethanol free near us.

 

[drbob1]

Well, suppose having 87 and 93 will allow us to extrapolate 91.

 

[mpeugeot]

The first part I think of is fuel injectors. Can only get so far with a computer recalibration.

I think the limit is TQ. I'm looking at the Raptor 3.0 with 440 lbs ft and the 2.7 FP tune with 433 lbs ft.
I'm wondering if those are hitting the upper limits Ford is willing to go and maintain reliability with the rest of the drive train.

Really need to open the 2.7 up. First thought was cam to move the power up rpm range, which lead me to think about the heads' airflow. I wonder if the 3.0 Raptor heads will bolt on the 2.7? But then, the 2.7 is a turbo motor, so it probably mostly needs a slightly larger turbo. I'm pretty sure I recall the Raptor has larger turbos, now that I think about it.

Torque can certainly be a driveline limit, but 400 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 rpm is 228 HP. At 6,000 rpm, 400 ft/lbs of torque is over 450 HP. That is not much harder on the driveline due to the maximum torque being the same.

HP, as you correctly note isn't typically the limit of the driveline, torque is, and if a driveline will tolerate 400 ft/lbs of torque at 3,000 rpm, it will generally tolerate at least 400 ft/lbs of torque at 6,000 rpm. At some point the g-forces and acceleration force on the piston skirts and as well as other forces on the bearing surfaces at higher rpm start. limiting the short block. Cylinder heads are limited by spring forces and valve float. There are a mess of factors to consider.

Decreasing flow restrictions (as you also correctly note) by increasing turbo size, addressing other intake and exhaust restrictions, and possibly changing cam overlap (adjustable pulleys are cheaper than new cams) are all reasonable possibilities to help increase the overall power of the motor - each with varying sacrifices to a variety of other factors. Boost does not determine power, boost only tells you how much restriction exists in the system. CFM and BSFC determine HP.

Damn, I am getting in the weeds. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not an engineer... LOL.

 

[LethalPerformance]

Ok guys. I’ve got a few more answers for some of the questions you had regarding the calibrations. These answers came straight from the engineer who built these calibrations.


Rev Match Feature: you’re able to turn this on and off so you can use the feature when you want and disable it when you don’t want to use it.

Octane: as I’ve discussed briefly before the calibrations from Ford Performance are recommended to be used with premium fuel. The higher the octane used the better the results. For those who are concerned about octane ratings just in case you’re unable to get premium fuel the calibration will still work with 87 octane. With that being the case if you can only get 87 we recommend not beating on the vehicle until higher grade fuel is avaiable. However the same logic used in the factory calibration which adapts to octane and either adds or takes timing away is still used on the Ford Performance cal. Once you put higher grade fuel in the cal will adjust to have higher timing which leads to better performance.

When I brought these questions up my scenario regarding octane was based on the question “What if someone gets a bad tank of fuel”. Meaning you thought you were putting 91 or 93 in but in fact it had a lower rating like 87. The vehicle will not have issues running the lower grade fuel but it won’t benefit from the cal if the knock sensors detect knock and the timing table is pulled back.

If you guys have any other questions or concerns that you’d like me to address please let me know.
Thanks!

 

[mpeugeot]

The vehicle will not have issues running the lower grade fuel but it won’t benefit from the cal if the knock sensors detect knock and the timing table is pulled back.

If you guys have any other questions or concerns that you’d like me to address please let me know.
Thanks!

Yep, that's exactly how it works... and if there is no knock on 87 fuel (for whatever magic reason) you will get all the power as the timing table will allow full advance in absence of knock.

 

[BCFDLtE13]

Rev Match Feature: you’re able to turn this on and off so you can use the feature when you want and disable it when you don’t want to use it.

Nice! Thanks for the clarification.

 

[drbob1]

Interestingly, Road and Track’s discussion of the 2.3l tune did mention 91, suggesting about 1/2 the gain of 93.

 

[JBlanco]

Other than a cash grab, why is this tune not the OEM factory tune? If the Bronco can detect octane, why Ford doesn't have this table set for 93?
It reminds me of the Screaming Eagle packages from Harley Davidson, instead of selling the best bike they could manufacture, they would leave some performance on the table for extra cash. Other bike manufacturers stepped over them. We all know how well HD is doing now...

Sponsored