TFL and 5 Star Tuning saying should be able to get 500+ HP out of the Bronco 2.7L

[OX1]

they'll just use the MAF

Bronco even have a MAF, my 2.7 fusion does not.

Sponsored

 

[johndeerefarmer]

Mike @ 5Star has tuned many of my trucks and I have never had issues. He leaves all of Ford's safeguards in place. As soon as I got my '17 I put a Wagner CAC on it and a 5star tune. Tuning without an aftermarket CAC is a waste of money as when IAT2 gets hot it pulls timing in stock form.

 

[timhood]

This is EXACTALLY why I am buying the 2.3
More simple - 1 turbo = more reliability
5 Star can make the 2.3 more powerful than I need + everything in between.

Conversely, one could say that buying the 2.7 is good because it either makes enough as-is or with a simple factory-warranted tune, no hardware changes needed.

 

[6G_Bronco]

I would first modify for reliability like larger radiator, intercooler, oil cooler, transmission cooler and quite possibly a differential cooler. Cat back exhaust and cold air intake with a mild 50HP tune would be nice.

 

[NotApplicable]

This is fine and dandy as long as tq is kept under 424

 

[VoltageDrop]

This is fine and dandy as long as tq is kept under 424

I find myself muttering "fucking Ford..." way too often... I'm going to see if I can find a Blazer on the lot.

I just want to tune out the garbage that makes this thing launch like a dump truck. Fucking Ford...

 

[gentlemanbronco]

Hopefully they'll beat the 80k hennessey is asking for....

 

[gentlemanbronco]

You can get 500 out of a 4cyl if you want to, look at all the Sti, Evo and even DSM back in the day. How much do you have and reliability, willing to give up?

Thanks for the anecdote captain obvious

 

[Bronc-itis]

@5star Can you guys comment yet on what you’ll be able to get away with now that we have a definite limit with the trans?

 

[mpeugeot]

It is going to be interesting to see what happens with the tuning and the transmission. Honestly, unless driven without much mechanical empathy, I think that the transmission will hold up. Where it's likely to fail is under conditions where large shock loads exist.

People who think that the motor can't handle additional airflow from a CAI system or more exhaust flow are high, especially if the Bronco has a MAF (and I would be shocked if it didn't). The fact is that airflow will be constrained more by ignition timing, valve timing, and boost pressure than anything else initially.

Also, In order to take advantage of a better intercooler, you don't need to change anything, charge air temps are fully compensated for by the MAF, intake air temp sensor, and exhaust O2 sensor. It's all protected by the knock sensor(s).

On the compressor side, there is only so much air that will flow through the compressor at a given pressure ratio, period. A cold air system might lower intake charge temps, increase flow marginally at a given RPM, and pretty much won't change much else.

On the turbine side, sure a good downpipe can reduce backpressure after the turbo, but is still limited by flow through the turbine at a given pressure ratio and possibly flow through the catalytic converter or the rest of the exhaust.

Power is directly proportional to airflow in CFM. If you can lower the restrictions in the system, yes, you will make more power at lower boost levels; however, the turbos act much like the limiter plates in a NASCAR motor, there is only so much flow available at a given pressure ratio through the compressor and the turbine (compressor and turbine maps would be useful).

The tune is the biggest gain for the least money, reducing restrictions is the second biggest gain but costs more money typically, and decreasing charge temperatures is probably the third area where gains will be made and is also not nearly as cheap as the tuning (and one of the greatest ways to increase safety margins related to detonation).

 

[dcg2]

People who think that the motor can't handle additional airflow from a CAI system or more exhaust flow are high, especially if the Bronco has a MAF (and I would be shocked if it didn't). The fact is that airflow will be constrained more by ignition timing, valve timing, and boost pressure than anything else initially.

Thank you!!!

 

[mpeugeot]

Thank you!!!

Once upon a time, I owned a dyno shop, we kinda specialized in forced induction and programmable engine management. I still remember a few things. LOL.

 

[OX1]

(and I would be shocked if it didn't).

Prepare to be shocked.............

 

[mpeugeot]

Prepare to be shocked.............

Yep, it's a MAP based strategy, which is a shocker, especially when you consider that CAFE rewards accuracy in the fuel strategy. I stand corrected on that, I really am surprised that Ford is using what is essentially the same strategy as was used on early 90's cars. There are some advantages to using a MAP only strategy, but fuel economy isn't one of them.

So ya, I am kinda shocked, because that does change the ease in which the ECU can adjust to flow changes. Instead of knowing how much air is going in and trimming based on that it has to rely on the O2 sensors for part throttle closed loop feedback and possibly goes open loop at full throttle (which would not be a good thing).

 

[OX1]

Yep, it's a MAP based strategy, which is a shocker, especially when you consider that CAFE rewards accuracy in the fuel strategy. I stand corrected on that, I really am surprised that Ford is using what is essentially the same strategy as was used on early 90's cars. There are some advantages to using a MAP only strategy, but fuel economy isn't one of them.

So ya, I am kinda shocked, because that does change the ease in which the ECU can adjust to flow changes. Instead of knowing how much air is going in and trimming based on that it has to rely on the O2 sensors for part throttle closed loop feedback and possibly goes open loop at full throttle (which would not be a good thing).

Can't do what Ford does with boost control with a MAF or at least you would still need the MAP and TIP, as Ford uses vac/boost comparison between "MAPS" to limit load (torque). Also uses throttle closures, even during WOT (initial WOT, I suspect), to get into boost quicker. They keep wastegates shut and use quick blips in throttle to get boost measured at TIP, to equal boost measured by MAP as quick as possible. Electronic throttle movement is way faster than even the latest wastegates.

Anyway, with widebands and DI, don't think they are missing much in the emission departments compared to 80-90's SD (and you get undersized engines now, that are easier to meet emissions, if you know the exact test procedure from the get-go).

Will be interesting to see really built up rigs on a 2.3 for fuel economy. Suspect they are going to be dismal, but I don't think a MAF would be helping that too much. Not even sure a MAF could keep up that well with FI DI (could be too "remote", unless maybe a blow-through).

Sponsored