Looking for 2.3 owners input

[xtreme_exploder]

For my own understanding, are you saying that the computer starts with 87 timing tables and ramps up, as opposed to starting with 91 octane tables and pulls back? When I say "expects", I mean the computer tries to run 91 octane unless it can't. I don't know where the starting point is since I've not datalogged these vehicles.

Sponsored

 

[userdude]

For my own understanding, are you saying that the computer starts with 87 timing tables and ramps up, as opposed to starting with 91 octane tables and pulls back? When I say "expects", I mean the computer tries to run 91 octane unless it can't. I don't know where the starting point is since I've not datalogged these vehicles.

That kinda gets to what I'm trying to work out. If stock starts at 87, starts means doesn't stay still. If it doesn't know better (because it can detect octane instead of hear knocks), then it'll go

"87 88 89 90 KNOCK! 89 89 89 90 KNOCK! 89 89 90 91 92 KNOCK! 91 KNOCK! 90 KNOCK! 89 89 89 90 91" etc.

(I don't know this for a fact, this is just what I imagine.) So whether the engine sees it's base as 87, 91 or 93, it's still looking for knock and will continue to go up until it knows better? Otherwise, why wouldn't it knock and drop to 87 and stay there (for good)?

Then to Bryan's point, the knock will be harder if the engine is timing for 93 but suddenly gets 87, then if timing 87 creeps to 91 and suddenly gets 87, UNLESS it hadn't knocked and crept up to 89/90/etc. Because the tune has increased the power curve of the timing or something to that effect, which can magnify the ramifications.

 

[Mjtermini]

2.3 has plenty of power, probably the more ‘proven’ engine as far as reliability goes. I also get 21 mpgs combined and pull about 24mpg on the freeway with 33” KO2s (about same weight as the sas 35s). Most annoying thing I’ve found about the 2.3 is the oil filter location for basic maintenance but not really that big of a deal. If Ford would have offered the 3.5 liter or Coyote v8 those would have been tough choices for me, but I’ll take the 2.3 with manual all day over the 2.7. I’ve driven every Bronco trim/powertrain combination at this point…having the stick increases the fun factor of the vehicle much more than which engine you pick IMO.

Agree. My first 6G was a 2.3 with manual trans, 2 door. Put over 23,000 miles on it with not one issue. Really fun to drive on mountain roads and great highway driver as well. Averaged 22-23 mpg. Plenty of power in all types of driving.

 

[Ducati1098]

Yeah no, you NEED to run 93

I fully agree that it would be dumb to use the FRPP tune and not run 93 most of the time, but to say it's required for vehicle safety is incorrect.

This discussion would be a great topic for @ZFGracing to chime in and answer, if he has time.

I would imagine the Ford Performance tune is extremely soft to begin with. So even though it would be stupid to buy the FP tune only to run 87, I highly doubt it would ever cause any issue if you needed to or even wanted to instead of 93.

 

[userdude]

This discussion would be a great topic for @ZFGracing to chime in and answer, if he has time.

I would imagine the Ford Performance tune is extremely soft to begin with. So even though it would be stupid to buy the FP tune only to run 87, I highly doubt it would ever cause any issue if you needed to or even wanted to instead of 93.

Not if you want to defeat ASS, rev match and install an upgraded steering rack.

Oh right. Yeah, I guess you still got wheel revolutions and something something...

So far my original comment was very similar, where as far as I can see it, tuning the engine to want 91/93 means the knocking might be a little worse, which could be bad over time. I still think the point of why have the tune and not regularly use higher octane gas is the real point, though. And not to lose your old tune.

 

[crenca]

I still think the point of why have the tune and not regularly use higher octane gas is the real point, though.

This is the takeaway

where as far as I can see it, tuning the engine to want 91/93 means the knocking might be a little worse, which could be bad over time.

Unless the Ford anti-knock/computer controlled timing system is substantially different from the rest of the industry's, probably not. Heck, you could probably fill your tank (FP tune or stock tune) with 80 octane from WWII and the system would adjust - quickly enough - not to cause any long term damage to your engine. It might go into limp mode however. These modern ignition systems are really robust and do their job well.

 

[userdude]

Unless the Ford anti-knock/computer controlled timing system is substantially different from the rest of the industry's, probably not. Heck, you could probably fill your tank (FP tune or stock tune) with 80 octane from WWII and the system would adjust - quickly enough - not to cause any long term damage to your engine. It might go into limp mode however. These modern ignition systems are really robust and do their job well.

I dunno. I've heard both sides of this argument. It seems prudent to limit it and use what's recommended, but at the same nobody knows that it will be a problem over time. FP tune with 4a must be HORRENDOUS... for your nerves, that is. Lawd help ya if you flat tow, too.

 

[crenca]

FP tune with 4a must be HORRENDOUS... for your nerves, that is.

It can be, particularly in Sport mode...I start driving like I am Batman but then I go to turn or stop and I realize I'm not in a real Batmobile

Seriously, there is a lot of "old wives tales" around cars and mechanical things in general. How many of these folks, who are generally just repeating what they heard (maybe from their favorite uncle) or going with "intuition", can even explain the basic mechanics/physics the of an internal combustion engine, or a drive-line, or fill_in_the_blank? It is difficult but cutting through the 'I believes' to the facts can be done...

 

[userdude]

It can be, particularly in Sport mode...I start driving like I am Batman but then I go to turn or stop and I realize I'm not in a real Batmobile

Seriously, there is a lot of "old wives tales" around cars and mechanical things in general. How many of these folks, who are generally just repeating what they heard (maybe from their favorite uncle) or going with "intuition", can even explain the basic mechanics/physics the of an internal combustion engine, or a drive-line, or fill_in_the_blank? It is difficult but cutting through the 'I believes' to the facts can be done...

Well, I try not to be a fool but there are known lapses. The person who told me to be careful also said he's got experience with other engines, including engines that suffer from detonation. I've seen enough of his comments over time I tend to take his word for it.

Now, if you're looking for a lift, I can get some portals CHEAP compared to the alternative...

 

[SHANUT]

I've owned two F150's with the 2.7 (first gen), excellent engine! My 24 Big Bend 2 door auto non sas Bronco has the 2.3 and I really like it as well. Especially with all of the mods done, that little sucker is impressive! The only issue that I have with the 2nd gen 2.7 is the wet belt driven oil pump (1st gen was chain). I don't trust that setup at all. 2.3 has a proper vane style pump that's reliable and proven to last. Now before people start telling me that they'll last 100k+, I've seen too many tear down videos of these things cracking and wearing prematurely well before 100k miles. That's an extremely costly belt replacement; half of the engine has to be torn down for replacement. No thanks! Terrible idea Ford! It's too bad because otherwise the engine design, robustness and power are phenomenal. Just my 2 cents.

We have multiple 2.7’s in F150s for work from all generations and they run for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles when properly broken in and maintained. We haven’t spent a penny on any of them. I have a 2.7 in a Badlands Sasquatch and it will almost lift the front tires off the ground when traction is available. I also have a 2.3 with the seven speed and it is fantastic as well. My wife had a 2.3 in her previous explorer and now has the 3.0 and they have been fantastic and trouble free as well.

 

[Mustbeheresomewhere]

Torque multiplication is done through gearing.

Also auto transmission > fluid connection
Manual transmission > mechanical connection

 

[Mustbeheresomewhere]

Love my 2.3 manual the 2/3 shift is the funnesestttt

The way that 3rd gear grabs and pulls

 

[crenca]

https://www.motorsport-developments.co.uk/Understanding-Ford-Ecoboost-OAR-Systems.html
This article might be of some interest.

Thanks for posting this. I assume the Ford performance gauge "octane adjust" on the ProCal is the OAR reading discussed (can anyone confirm or deny?). He describes a driving procedure to try to get it to activate and adjust to your good fuel:


"The ECU is configured to actively try to adapt up under conditions as follows.

Find a long road, ideally one that is slightly uphill.
Select a quite high gear. (4th, 5th or 6th)
Accelerate quite gently from 2000rpm at part throttle and around 3psi of boost"

I actually have driven in such a way multiple times, and mine never moves off zero, usually I am running about 92.5 octane's in my tank (91 pump premium spiked with 2 or 3 gallons of E85). At some point I probably need to try 5 or 6 gallons of E85 and see if I can't get that to move. My concern is going much over E30 due to stress on the injectors, not sure what they're design limits are.

I have yet to look into the aftermarket octane boosters - that market is full of snake oil so I've been reluctant...

 

[Scott R Nelson]

I am looking for 2.3 owners input that have the Sasquatch package and 10 speed automatic. I am trying to decide on the 2.3 vs 2.7 and would like to hear what owners have to say about the power of the 2.3 using 87 octane. I am looking at a 4dr Badlands and wonder how the 2.3 performs as a daily driver and light off road use.

I have not read all of the responses here.

I have a 2.3 Sasquatch and Ford would not let me order the manual transmission for it for a 2021, so I got the automatic. I believe it actually works better off road with the 10 speed automatic than it would with a manual, and I like manual transmissions. I have never once wanted more power than the 2.3 has.

Probably 1/3 of the miles that I 've put on mine have been off road and again, it has plenty of power for everything that I've encountered so far.

A couple of gratuitous photos to show the kinds of places that I take it:

 

[Brian_B]

https://www.motorsport-developments.co.uk/Understanding-Ford-Ecoboost-OAR-Systems.html
This article might be of some interest.

That's a really good article. It does say the computer doesn't start from "default" each time, it does retain some past information assuming you are running the same grade fuel between starts.

Sponsored