Sponsored

The Bronze

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kelly
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
402
Reaction score
1,485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1967 Ford Bronco, 1993 Turbo Notchback, 2006 Sierra K1500, 2013 Sierra K1500, 2014 Sienna Mini-Van
Your Bronco Model
First Edition
Clubs
 
You can run a leaner mixture with higher octane and achieve a better mpg. If Ford's tuning table can handle 87-93 octane spread, it's possible it can run a leaner part throttle map for better efficiency at 93 than 87.
It's been a long time since I've been near tuning tables (GM L98); I'm sure there's been a lot of advances since then.
It seems to me the eco boost motors are really 'premium only' engines that support low octane fuel via comparably expanded tuning tables. Therefore highest power and efficiency is available with 93 octane, running less octane decreases power and efficiency, but will not damage the engine.

Generating 300hp will require the same amount of fuel no matter the octane rating. The additional hp from higher octane is achieved by burning more fuel by stuffing more air, increasing the effective compression ratio, for which higher octane is needed.
The additional power is almost exclusively a result of additional timing, provided by look-up tables, that can be ADDED to the final timing advance if the OAR sees no instances of detonation. The tables don’t really provide additional boost (more airflow) due to higher octane. I could throw some ECU tables uphelp illustrate it, but it’s way more involved than “hey, no detonation, let’s add timing”.
Sponsored

 

MaverickMan

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Threads
41
Messages
3,432
Reaction score
7,050
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
In my dads old 84 Econoline 302 2bbl AOD we traveled the country and religiously monitered fuel consumption in. 93 octane gas was always good for another 1.5 to 2 mpg. It could achieve 20mpg at 50 on super in the flatlands. At 6000lbs. 0 to 60 times probably picked up a second or 2 over 87 octane no tuning needed. It took alot of seconds though. It would be better off the line and actually spin a tire if I advanced the timing.

Anyway glad that ford is giving us some room to work with. Cant wait to see the tuner numbers if 300 is the baseline.
 

The Bronze

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kelly
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
402
Reaction score
1,485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1967 Ford Bronco, 1993 Turbo Notchback, 2006 Sierra K1500, 2013 Sierra K1500, 2014 Sienna Mini-Van
Your Bronco Model
First Edition
Clubs
 
You still don't understand what you are talking about.
I do. I tune lots of different platforms, and certainly believe we collectively make a small detriment to ambient air in some locations/conditions. I agree with keeping the emissions from the tailpipe clean, or as-certified in most driving modes, minus heavy acceleration and WOT (where additional fuel is typically faster/safer). Nothing wrong with that. At lower engine speeds/loads, dumping a bunch of extra fuel is usually just a waste of money. In the end, we have a responsibility to our sport to do what we can to keep negative publicity from harming our form of recreation. Spewing black smoke isn’t helping our cause (much like street-racing, burnouts at the car meet and diesels rolling coal).
Just in case you think I don’t know what I “am talking about”, I ran an vehicle emissions program, was an ambient air monitoring technician and did cold weather emissions testing for EPA and other entities. Greenhouse gases aside, CO, NOx and PM2.5 are pollutants that are more harmful to some groups (young, old and asthmatics).
 

The Bronze

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kelly
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
402
Reaction score
1,485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1967 Ford Bronco, 1993 Turbo Notchback, 2006 Sierra K1500, 2013 Sierra K1500, 2014 Sienna Mini-Van
Your Bronco Model
First Edition
Clubs
 
One of the most ridiculous things I’ve read on here. That or the post claiming someone else’s daughter’s asthma is affected by someone adding a tune...anyway, the net result of every tune that’s ever been done in the history of the US has ZERO effect on anyone’s health. None. So small an effect that it’s not measurable in any way whatsoever.
So an asthmatic kid, in a car behind a diesel “rolling coal” is getting “zero effect” (Affected) That’s the most ridiculous thing I have heard (today). Now if you want to say that the small number of vehicles don’t contribute to global (non-local or “point source”) air quality issues, I would agree that the contributions is very, very, very small in comparison to all mobil and point source emitters and even Mother Nature itself. Localized is another matter altogether.
 

Efthreeoh

Banned
Black Diamond
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
3,090
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Hummer H3T
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
You can run a leaner mixture with higher octane and achieve a better mpg. If Ford's tuning table can handle 87-93 octane spread, it's possible it can run a leaner part throttle map for better efficiency at 93 than 87.
It's been a long time since I've been near tuning tables (GM L98); I'm sure there's been a lot of advances since then.
It seems to me the eco boost motors are really 'premium only' engines that support low octane fuel via comparably expanded tuning tables. Therefore highest power and efficiency is available with 93 octane, running less octane decreases power and efficiency, but will not damage the engine.

Generating 300hp will require the same amount of fuel no matter the octane rating. The additional hp from higher octane is achieved by burning more fuel by stuffing more air, increasing the effective compression ratio, for which higher octane is needed.
I agree. High octane fuel dictates a higher compression piston and proper top end cylinder shaping to take advantage of the higher knock limit, so I think the ECU detunes the engine to use a lower octane rated fuel. Being both engines are turbos, the compression ratio is a bit lower in the cylinder due to the forced induction as compared if the engine was normally aspirated.

Being I've been driving mostly BMWs for the last 20 years, I'm used to buying premium fuel anyway, so Ford just gave me a 25 HP tune for free. Muscle memory causes me to sometimes buy premium for the two vehicles I own that use regular fuel - LOL.

Now the question is, is the 45HP 2.3L ECU flash from Ford Performance accounting for some of the claimed HP gain since the tune requires premium fuel (91 octane). So really the 2.3L tune is providing just 20HP. Maybe the torque curve is better; it seems so, the Ford Performance tune gives an extra 50 pound-foot.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

The Bronze

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kelly
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
402
Reaction score
1,485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1967 Ford Bronco, 1993 Turbo Notchback, 2006 Sierra K1500, 2013 Sierra K1500, 2014 Sienna Mini-Van
Your Bronco Model
First Edition
Clubs
 
the 2.3L tune is providing just 20HP. Maybe the torque curve is better; it seems so, the Ford Performance tune gives an extra 50 pound-foot.
I am excited to see what the 2.7 performance tune will bring. 380-400hp/450 torrque would keep me from fiddling with it (if/when the aftermarket “unlocks” the PCM) while it’s still under warranty
 

BlueOvalBandit

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kenneth
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
739
Reaction score
2,501
Location
Anaheim, CA
Vehicle(s)
Tacoma
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
In the county where I live there is no emissions inspection requirement. It would be illegal for a Federal Agency to "raid" a "tuning" shop in a State county locale that doesn't require emissions testing.
This is not true. Just because the state doesn't require it doesn't mean its legal. It's illegal in all 50 states because it's illegal at a federal level to tamper with or delete emissions systems and has been so since the 1970 clean air act. They've only recently started going after tuning shops cause they poked the bear and openly flaunted defeats ie Diesel Brothers.

Kind of like Polymer-80 with the ATF, they thought they were slick packaging complete kits, poked the bear and now the alphabet boys have the customer list.

But now we've gone way off topic.
 

The Bronze

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kelly
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
402
Reaction score
1,485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1967 Ford Bronco, 1993 Turbo Notchback, 2006 Sierra K1500, 2013 Sierra K1500, 2014 Sienna Mini-Van
Your Bronco Model
First Edition
Clubs
 
This is not true. Just because the state doesn't require it doesn't mean its legal. It's illegal in all 50 states because it's illegal at a federal level to tamper with or delete emissions systems and has been so since the 1970 clean air act. They've only recently started going after tuning shops cause they poked the bear and openly flaunted defeats ie Diesel Brothers.
Here is EPA’s stance:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/tamperinganddefeatdevices-enfalert.pdf
 

shdwblckRS

Member
First Name
Talbot
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
11
Reaction score
22
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2013 Jeep Wrangler 2 door on 40's, 2017 Focus RS
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
So this has turned out to be an interesting read. Lots of good information and some...weird...takes on information.

Anyways, owning a Ford with the 2.3L and knowing what it takes to make power on it, I would imagine it's going to be similar to the Bronco. My question is what turbo is it using? If it's the same twin scroll setup as the RS, then everyone is in for a treat with these! Tuning for RS's has gotten to safely 400awhp and 450awtq running and E30 blend. I'm assuming it's also using the same fueling system, which won't handle straight E85. I saw only one person mention the 2.7 uses port injection on top of direct injection, so the fueling limitations are drastically decreased leading to much more overhead. All in all, Ford has done an amazing job with the engine management on these motors to provide exceptional overhead (besides block strength on the 2.3).
 

RedHotFuzz

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Threads
26
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
3,621
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
2022 Bronco Black Diamond 4D
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
Oh, and don't forget to remind your salesman that you want your complimentary tank full of the good stuff or you'll leave the lot with low grade.
Good luck with that with the gas prices we'll have by the time actual deliveries roll around. I'm already back to crying at every fill-up and it's only May. 😭
 

Sponsored

BroncMe

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
167
Reaction score
411
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
BMWs
Your Bronco Model
Base
a few data points...

my long gone 1994 bronco (302 V8) 205 HP and 275 TQ
my recently donated 2004 expedition (5.4 V8) 260 HP and 350 TQ

next bronco (2.7) has 27% and 19% more HP and TQ respectively than the expedition, and a whopping 61% and 51% more than the old bronco. those never felt slow nor underpowered

nostalgic pining for our "beloved V8s" should have ended by now

and tuning?? please. this is a ton of power. any more and you'll just roll it over
 

Big L 65

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Oliver
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
315
Reaction score
437
Location
Northport NY
Vehicle(s)
Chevy
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
From full tech specs sheet. I ain’t mad at those figures!

Ford has released the technical specifications for the two- and four-door 2021 Ford horsepower and torque.

ENGINES2.3L ECOBOOST2.7L ECOBOOST
SAE horsepower300* (275 regular fuel)330* (315 regular fuel)
SAE torque325* (315 regular fuel)415* (410 regular fuel)

* figure using premium fuel
But the 10r60 transmission won’t be able to handle the extra horse 🤓
 

internationlriders

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Josh
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
319
Reaction score
547
Location
Alberta Canada
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco Badlands
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I'm glad gas is cheap here, premium all the way not to mention a cleaner burning engine is always a bonus; the little extra power from premium will be very welcome at any elevation above sea level. I've driven the 2.3L in other applications and while it's a stout engine the 2.7's torque is pretty great. If only we could get the 3.5 but then this thing would probably outrun the new 392 Wrangler especially above sea level! 🤪
 

mandrew

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
63
Reaction score
159
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
F350
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I'm so happy I ordered a 2.3.
Simple, not lacking power.
The bi-turbo V6 just seems over priced and complicated for little gain
While I agree the 2.3L will be fine for most I wouldn't call 30 hp & 90 lb-ft "little"....especially through 4.7 gears. We haven't seen the curves yet but if I were a betting man, I'd bet the 2.7 hp & torque come in at lower RPMs as well....time will tell.
Sponsored

 
 


Top