NEW HORSEPOWER / TORQUE SPECS for 2021 Bronco 2.3L and 2.7L

[Razorback]

Hey, I said I had no problem whatsoever with tuning to increase power. But I draw a hard line when your tune increases emissions. America is a free country, but you have absolutely no right to harm the health of your fellow citizens.

The issue is raiding every shop as a fishing expedition. Even when they don't mod diesels. It's why there's attempted legislation to reign in the EPA. Going after nitrous? Come on man. Countless examples of the EPA overreaching. Removing farmers' water rights because they claimed plowed fields classified as mini mountain ranges... You can support the EPA "100%" but you do so at your own peril. In a few years your stock Bronco will be out of compliance. It's a direction we're heading unfortunately. And it's picking up steam just in the last year. There's been a bill to try and limit what the EPA is doing, but the current congressional makeup is anything but friendly to combustion engines.
Side bar--- nothing we do is going to balance out China and India even if you feel cars are responsible for your friend's daughter...

Sponsored

 

[Rick Astley]

I remember when everyone got mad when I mentioned premium fuel. Lol enjoy that regular fuel.

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/2021-ford-bronco-full-tech-specs.16411/

But..... But..... Um..... I know there's something in here about needing premium fuel only.

FWIW: 87 octane is "regular" here in WA. 91, 89 and 87 are all we get. Plus the nations second highest state gasoline tax.

 

[guzie]

I remember when you used to denounce that the Bronco could be run on regular. Wait, Pepperidge Farm remembers. That is everyday, including today!

Having split figures based on the RON of fuel is nothing new and there's nothing wrong with running 85/87 RON fuels in your rig.

90% of the Jeeps (and soon to be Bronco's!) in Moab run the monkey-piss 85 RON that Utah serves up so cheaply. And that's AT ELEVATION......

Modern vehicles use a sensor to detect the RON of fuel in the tank (or blend), and re-map the ECU to run safely.

Here's a great article from 2012 about the topic.... Nearly a decade old, and still holding true and working fantastically as a methodology! By my rough count this would make your "theory" incorrect for at least the last 3,300 days. Cool.

Octane number determination of gasoline with a phononic crystal sensor


Having kept a chemist lab in the trunk of my Mitsubishi Evo and mixing up every tank of E85, the resulting effective RON of 105 made for some spirited 6-mpg fun!

The vehicles don’t use sensor to detect the fuel RON. They detect the knock event that is a result of a lower RON and adjust from there.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

Sounds like you all need to do your homework. 87 is the minimum requirement, 91+ is recommended.

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/2021-ford-bronco-full-tech-specs.16411/

But..... But..... Um..... I know there's something in here about needing premium fuel only.

FWIW: 87 octane is "regular" here in WA. 91, 89 and 87 are all we get. Plus the nations second highest state gasoline tax.

Bu bu bu I said that in my very next post forever ago after everyone took ‘need to run premium anyways” out of context and I had to add the caveat that “need” was for MPG and peak performance.

 

[nminus1]

Regardless of fuel price I'm just glad to hear the stock power rating went up period. A lot of people in the know here and elsewhere have been saying both engines, especially the 2.7, have plenty of room in tuning for more power. This is proof towards that point.
If Ford will offer a warrantied factory tune that is not stupid expensive I will surely get it.
Its curious I started this journey back almost a year ago wanting a 2.3/manual trans but after seeing there the SAS would not be available with that combo I easily "gave in" to the 2.7/auto, especially after seeing all the off road goodies you get with the auto and good it appears to be. Its only money!!
And I don't want that "I should have got the" feeling after I lay down 50k and waiting all this time.

 

[XirallicBolts]

Wonder what happens with e85... asking for a friend.

Wonder if it'll even take it. From what I understand, the 3.5EB can't do E85 because the lower energy density means the fuel injectors can't inject enough at WOT.

I've been happily running 91 (93 if I can find a Costco) with a performance tune on my Flex 3.5EB. Even without the tune, there's a noticeable difference between 87 and 93.

 

[Bronconheimer]

The issue is raiding every shop as a fishing expedition. Even when they don't mod diesels. It's why there's attempted legislation to reign in the EPA. Going after nitrous? Come on man. Countless examples of the EPA overreaching. Removing farmers' water rights because they claimed plowed fields classified as mini mountain ranges... You can support the EPA "100%" but you do so at your own peril. In a few years your stock Bronco will be out of compliance. It's a direction we're heading unfortunately. And it's picking up steam just in the last year. There's been a bill to try and limit what the EPA is doing, but the current congressional makeup is anything but friendly to combustion engines.
Side bar--- nothing we do is going to balance out China and India even if you feel cars are responsible for your friend's daughter...

The issue is you exaggerating and obfuscating. Not every shop is being raided and this thread has nothing to do with farmers or China.

 

[Ryuk]

As is blaming tuners for some girls health.
Turbo cars run very clean. The muffler on a turbo car is for noise, not emissions
and an example
My Alfa Romeo did not come with a muffler from the factory, yet it is 50 state emissions compliant.

 

[Razorback]

The issue is you exaggerating and obfuscating. Not every shop is being raided and this thread has nothing to do with farmers or China.

Apologize if you became confused by my exaggeration to illustrate a point. Perhaps you should read back to see how we got on this topic because it's also not about tuning... Sometimes things take a turn during a discussion. You must have caught the end of it.

 

[Razorback]

LOL, so how much of that "tune" horsepower is the required Premium?

NoX.

 

[bdub2you]

Is this really new to people? These numbers were published last summer.

 

[Wyo]

Love it! Combine that with ethanol free premium and you have the best of both worlds! More power and better mpg!

 

[emulous74]

I'm impressed by the 240 amp alternator.

 

[PartyMarty]

How about Top Tier premium...does that matter for hp/torque? Probably just good for keeping things clean...

Hp/torque will be the same with top tier or non-top tier, there’s only extra amounts of detergent in top tier. If you’re getting the 2.3L, I’d only put top tier in it since there isn’t the extra port injection to wash out the valves (2.3L is direct injection only and the 2.7L is direct and port injection). Id think the 2.7L would get by fine without much carbon build up with every other tank being non-top tier. Im getting a 2.7L and plan on putting mostly 87 top tier in it, but occasional 93 Sam’s club for spirited driving tanks ($2.29 for 87 Sam’s club, $2.45 for 87 top tier, $2.59 for 93 Sam’s club, but $3.05 for 93 top tier currently in my area). Sam’s club is non-top tier just FYI.

 

[Norm A.]

Living in California I'm gonna go out on a limb and say as soon as the Broncos start hitting the streets here the price of premium gas is going to go way up p.s. glad it doesn't have a 36 gallon tank like my F-150

Sponsored