Truck vs. Car application

[Chuck_Ruck]

The 2.3L has gone into the Bronco, Ranger, Mustang, and Focus. Much like in the past, each application get a different power yield. Cars get high HP, trucks get high TQ. But it would seem the Bronco/Ranger doesnt get as high a TQ rating as its siblings. Its almost left caged.
Bronco: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Ranger: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Mustang: 310HP-350Ft/Lbs
Focus RS: 350HP-350Ft/Lbs
I'm sure tuning will be an option, but with it dumbed down from the go, its not funny.

Sponsored

 

[Erock]

Hp is torque x RPM / 5252... in my experience, trucks generally have a more stable torque curve based on intake runner length and size along with other things like valve size, cam profile, throttle diameter and so forth that limit the RPM potential. It’s the difference found between an old school single versus dual plane intake. However, I’m old and realize I don’t usually know what I’m talking about with this modern stuff, so I’ll leave it at that

Edit: as a reference, my 429 shows over 530 ft/lbs of torque from 0-6000 RPM but only 525 HP. It can easily go to 600 HP with a single plane intake and the next size carburetor, but the torque curve just turns into a hump that falls off drastically at 5500 RPM. hope this made some sort of sense

 

[GToddC5]

Damn. Did they do something similar with the 2.7? Obviously they need to have figures for the 2.3 less than the 2.7, but are they crippling BOTH engines for the Bronco? Shit, even just the Mustang level tune would be awesome. I'd be surprised if the Focus RS didn't have more to it, but if it's just bolt-ons this could be fun!

 

[Chuck_Ruck]

trucks generally have a more stable torque curve based on intake runner length and size along with other things like valve size, cam profile, throttle diameter and so forth that limit the RPM potential. It’s the difference found between an old school single versus dual plane intake.

This is absolutely true, and like the title said Car Vs. Truck application.
For example, my F150 has a 4.6L with nearly 8" of intake runner from the main plenum. Less HP, more TQ.
But the 4.6L mustangs had the main plenum dump right into the head ports. More HP, less TQ.
That being said, the torque ratings of the truck applications fall way short of maintaining this trend. The truck 2.3s seem to be getting strangled in performance. Let the performance cars have the high HP, but give us all that torque back.

 

[Deleted member 3063]

A bunch of numbers on a chart tell half a story. Those numbers with dyno charts tell the whole story.

 

[GToddC5]

A bunch of numbers on a chart tell half a story. Those numbers with dyno charts tell the whole story.

You think the Bronco will end up on this list some day?!?

https://www.hotcars.com/15-cars-that-are-way-more-powerful-than-advertised/

 

[Erock]

My point was the trucks likely have a longer useable torque curve. 350 lbs of torque at 4800 RPM isn’t as effective as 310 across the full RPM range. Just my thinking, and I don’t claim to be smart

 

[Erock]

You think the Bronco will end up on this list some day?!?

https://www.hotcars.com/15-cars-that-are-way-more-powerful-than-advertised/

Not likely... those were either intentionally rated low, or the test equipment was limited at the time. Today’s engines are rated as high as they can squeeze the numbers to make them look dramatic. Just my opinion though

 

[GToddC5]

Not likely... those were either intentionally rated low, or the test equipment was limited at the time. Today’s engines are rated as high as they can squeeze the numbers to make them look dramatic. Just my opinion though

Yeah, I was kidding about the Bronco getting on that list

 

[Escape Hatch]

The 2.3L has gone into the Bronco, Ranger, Mustang, and Focus. Much like in the past, each application get a different power yield. Cars get high HP, trucks get high TQ. But it would seem the Bronco/Ranger doesnt get as high a TQ rating as its siblings. Its almost left caged.
Bronco: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Ranger: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Mustang: 310HP-350Ft/Lbs
Focus RS: 350HP-350Ft/Lbs
I'm sure tuning will be an option, but with it dumbed down from the go, its not funny.

I would venture to guess the largest difference is turbo size and tune, at least in comparison to the RS.

 

[Fly by Nite]

....
Bronco: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Ranger: 270HP-310Ft/Lbs
Mustang: 310HP-350Ft/Lbs
....

Some good comments already concerning intake/exhaust manifolds, cam timing, and tune.
I took a look at the specs on the Ford page. I was expecting to see the Ranger/Bronco rated at a lower RPM but that was not the case. The trucks do have higher compression which should give some more low rpm grunt at the expense of being able to use less boost at high rpms..... but the specs don't reflect that.

I did see the Mustang is rated using premium fuel, so that is a major contributor to the higher hp ratings. It likely uses a different tune utilizing more boost.

Exhaust systems and even air filters can also effect power ratings.

Ranger is 10:1 compression,
270 hp @ 5500 rpm
310 ft/lbs @ 3100 rpm
87 octane fuel

Mustang is 9.5: compression
310*hp @ 5500 rpm*
350 ft/lbs @ 3000 rpm
* follow the asterisk and it's with premium fuel.

 

[DrewBronc21]

A 30-40 hp and TQ difference on a turbo engine is nothing but a tune away

 

[DeltaBravo]

My guess is they set the HQ/TQ for gas Mileage and motor longevity

 

[jaiuppa]

It is public knowledge that these engines are detuned for emissions, warranty, etc. They probably kept the same truck tuning as the ranger to streamline production for now with the 2.3, it will likely change and could be an easy spot for them to improve the model down the road. Its nice that we have evidence the platform can reliably put down more power (mustang/rs #s), and can see how it looks in these cars the past few years, I am ready to start the bolt ons and tuning thats for sure!

Sponsored