Since the Badlands is so heavy, would it be smart to get a tune?

[KH_59]

2.7 is not available with a stick.

Imagine a comma had been used......

This: ....... with the 2.7L, and stick with the stock 33" KO2s.....
Not this: ...... with the 2.7L and stick, with the stock 33" KO2s.......

Sponsored

 

[Mattwings]

This has been discussed a lot. I think everyone will have different expectations of power and what they will trade for fuel economy. Personally, I love my 2.7 in my F150 4x4 Supercrew w3.55 gears. I rarely fill with 93 Octane to get the max power out of that motor. I consistently get just over 20mpg in combined driving. The Bronco BL weighs about the same, has larger ties and higher gearing. It is unlikely to hit 20mpg based on my experience. To compare it to a Jeep is kind of hard. The only motor they have that is comparable in power is the soon to be released 392 Hemi. It will likely be better than the Hemi economy wise, but would need the tune to be similar performance wise (with the 10sp, 4.46 gearing and 33” tires compared to the Jeep 3.73, same tires and 8sp). So the tune will be based on your expectations. By the way the 2.3 stock puts out more than the Jeep V6 and is about in line with the optional Jeep 2.0. With the Ford tune it will likely exceed the Jeep performance 2.0 performance from an instrument test perspective. But final HP/Torque to weight will be a factor we just don’t know enough about yet.

 

[395N]

I'd be happy with 17-18 MPG rolling on 37's with a 2-2.5 inch lift.. 2DR/2.7 motor.
Many from the Jeep forums have the 2.0 turbo with 37's and 2-3.5 inch lift are getting decent MPG.

 

[jdogi]

This has been discussed a lot. I think everyone will have different expectations of power and what they will trade for fuel economy. Personally, I love my 2.7 in my F150 4x4 Supercrew w3.55 gears. I rarely fill with 93 Octane to get the max power out of that motor. I consistently get just over 20mpg in combined driving. The Bronco BL weighs about the same, has larger ties and higher gearing. It is unlikely to hit 20mpg based on my experience. To compare it to a Jeep is kind of hard. The only motor they have that is comparable in power is the soon to be released 392 Hemi. It will likely be better than the Hemi economy wise, but would need the tune to be similar performance wise (with the 10sp, 4.46 gearing and 33” tires compared to the Jeep 3.73, same tires and 8sp). So the tune will be based on your expectations. By the way the 2.3 stock puts out more than the Jeep V6 and is about in line with the optional Jeep 2.0. With the Ford tune it will likely exceed the Jeep performance 2.0 performance from an instrument test perspective. But final HP/Torque to weight will be a factor we just don’t know enough about yet.

After I get my BL, I'll make it a mission to run a couple tanks driving grandma style just so that I can be right about 20+ being possible That'll be with 4.7s, 33 M/Ts, and the 7-speed.

But real world, normal driving, I'm expecting 16-17ish

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Hate to tell you, but a Badlands on Squatch will likely not reach 21mpg at all. More like 17-18mpg if we're lucky. If the turbo is a dual scroll (think it's a single) lurching from a stop will burn some serious gas down low in the power band. That's where your passing ability, and torque to get moving on obstacles live, so you'll burn quite a bit.

This will not be a very efficient vehicle. Did I mention it's boxy?......

Why do they call it Eco +Boost again??? LOL

OP, if you were not aware, either motor will be ECOnomy or BOOST, pick one and one only.
In the F150, the 2.7 gets damn good mileage for a pick up (unloaded) ....until you tow or drive it hard, then it plummets into towing mileage similar to a Superduty(gas).

Also., to the original question, the 2.7 will NOT require a tune to make it move out, the 2.3 most likely will not either. That little turbo 4 makes way more power than any stock v8 Ford ever put in a Bronco.

Daily driving and off road, that flat torque curve is the King, but it doesn't always pay off at the track.... in the case of the 2.7, it certainly does.
The 2.3L crew cab Ranger I test drove seemed OK...it was a short drive though.


per zeroto60times.com...................0 to 60 ........... 1/4 mile
Jeep Wrangler unlmtd.....v6... 6.5 sec ..... 15.2 1/4 mile
F150 crew 2.7 4x4 .............................5.9 sec .... 14.4 1/4 mile
Ranger 2.3 FX4 crew 4x4 ........... 6.5 sec .........15.0 1/4 mile

2018 Ford F-150 SuperCrew 2.7L EcoBoost
0-60: 5.9
Quarter Mile: 14.4
More Info
Remove

1970 Ford Mustang Boss 302
0-60: 6.1
Quarter Mile: 14.6
More Info
Remove

2019 Ford Ranger XLT FX4 SuperCrew 4X4
0-60: 6.5
Quarter Mile: 15.0
More Info

 

[HoosierDaddy]

LMAO, I didn't mean YOU!

 

[Rogues Gambit]

i heard its one of the best engines ford has. 200k+ miles

Even if ya leave it relatively bone stock, Intercooler/Charge pipes and Catch Can

No dealer will mind, and its worth the peace of mind

 

[JohnMcClane]

LMAO, I didn't mean YOU!

WOW, what a thirsty bunch we are!!!! So hard up for Bronco pics etc ( @618TRVLWILD ) we took this simple question to three pages in an hour!

OUTSTANDING!!!

Now, if you could just accept that you are all wrong .... LOL

Am I being profiled?!?

Grammar police jump at my missed comma, but now, no where to be found, sheesh

 

[Raptor911]

simple ... to hit a lower price point and give it a manual (since the manual with the V6 is not a possibility.)

If the BL was too heavy for the 2.3 then Ford wouldn't have put it there.

 

[Burndog]

I have a 2016 Expedition with the 3.5 and I can get 22 mpg highway, 18 city, 12 towing 6k lbs. I drive like my grandpa though. FYI, that motor is a beast. 365/425 I think and she's heavy. All that for reference.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

Honestly, I think 20-21 will be achievable if you drive a good chunk on 55mph country roads. No traffic, minimal stops. It really depends on how you drive. Like all turbos, these EcoBoosts will guzzle if you're getting into it , If you're disciplined, and make it a mission to drive like grandma (no overstating it), I think 20-21 will be doable. I guess we'll see.

That may be true, but I have no discipline; haven't you seen my posts at all?

The rolling resistance from the 35s on my rig, 2.7, and a few other items, but regular wheeling and camping will definitely lower my MPG and I know I'm not the only knucklehead driver on Bronco6G.

 

[Brownie]

Looks like my Flex!

 

[ryansbronco]

Im kinda a tune noob. However more power doesnt sound like a bad thing. The badlands has a bunch of heavy stuff bolted on and maybe more power would help the car get around better

so some questions

1. Does it void the warranty?

2. Does it long term hurt the car?

3. Will increase performance increase safety issues (rollover) and complicate automated safety systems?

4. Would it hurt MPG (this i think is a dumb question i think)


EDIT

since this thread blew up here is a 2.7 f150 doing 0-60 in like 4 seconds

I just looked at ford performance site, the have a 45hp tune with extra 60 ft lbs to, im sure its gonna be the same ish for the bronco, and warranted by ford aswell, wich is nice. It was 825 bucks for tune. If thsts the case im gonna do it aswell.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

Why do they call it Eco +Boost again??? LOL

OP, if you were not aware, either motor will be ECOnomy or BOOST, pick one and one only.
In the F150, the 2.7 gets damn good mileage for a pick up (unloaded) ....until you tow or drive it hard, then it plummets into towing mileage similar to a Superduty(gas).

Also., to the original question, the 2.7 will NOT require a tune to make it move out, the 2.3 most likely will not either. That little turbo 4 makes way more power than any stock v8 Ford ever put in a Bronco.

Ecoboost, cute!

Since 2012, BMW has used a turbo i4 twin scroll turbo; it easily produces more power than the previous natural aspirated i6 it replaced which is still considered one of the best performance engines ever designed.

I know BMW and my home has only had them in the garage since 2004; that's 7 vehicles, cars and SUVs. That little spunky i4 turbo was in my wife's old X3. My cars have all had the turbo i6 since 2007 and her current X3 has the i6 and is a BEAST!

I bring all of this up because although the stated mpg these "more efficient" engines are supposed to be capable of, was absolutely BS. Real people just don't drive under those conditions. my current turbo i6 is supposed to get 21 city. It averages 15 city on 93 octane. My wife's old X3 with the i4 only could muster 17 city.

And this Bronco, ain't that X3. Bronco will be heavier, have off road tires, higher rolling resistance, and carry more unsprung weight. Most guys don't have gear hanging off their pickups like many of us will on our Bronco. But for the men who use their F-150s for actual work, tend to. They get far less than 20mpg.

Ford engines are not BMW class of engines. They're a bit more raw, which is not an insult. Ford has been impressive with the EcoBoost engineering; I know that and respect it. However, reality in the Mustang, F-150, Ranger, whatever shows that real world driving tanks the mpg. The big upside is that you can run regular 89 octane which will save me over 38 cents per gallon here in Atlanta.

A 5000 lb rig getting 20mpg combined would be outstanding, but I'm thinking closer to 18mpg. I would love to be wrong, so I hope you're right about the efficiency.

 

[Razorbak86]

ya it looks like we are heading for higher gas prices so im worried i picked the wrong car with all the armor lol

Sponsored