Tuning of 2.7L Looks to be Limited

[broadicustomworks]

Once again the same story as before. How about people compare current engines. What's the current hp for a vette now? Aren't Mustangs in the low 400's? What's baby Godzilla put out?

And secondly, 18 MPG? Seriously? My 2012 Mustang V6, hooked up to a 6 speed with 305 hp, gets 25+ MPG and NO turbo lag. It also has 221k miles on it, which I've only replaced tie rods and a thermostat. Will your turbos last that long? I sure hope so.

Yes we all know the aerodynamics and whatnot, but where are the benefits of your little turbo?

On a side note, I'm going to guess the current vette must be using a little 4 banger turbo now huh?

As I respect both of ya and very much enjoy reading what you both post, I'll take your V8 and turbo-twisty 4cyl debate to a whole 'nother world.
I had a 76 T/A.
Looked cool.
Sounded cool.
Here are the specs on that road beast:
1976 Pontiac Firebird 2gen Trans Am Coupe full range specs (automobile-catalog.com)

Yes, that does say 185hp from a 400ci. 0-60 in 9.1, 1/4 mi time of a jaw dropping 17.1. And a very frugal 13.1mpg.
Granted, mine was not stock, made about 450hp, and got maybe 8-10mpg.
But it cost me nearly 6k to get it there just in engine stuff. The monoleaf suspension and goodies were another several thousand.

Let's all rejoice in the fact this isn't '76-era restrictions and specs.

And FWIW I'd love to see a Bronc with the new 'Zilla, a SC Z06 setup, or even some insane all-electric 1000hp setup.

There's merit to be had in many different configs, and with newer tech since even the 90's...these little turbo small displacement engines are nothing to sneeze at.

But neither are the v8's that have been coming out in these "sporty" cars since about 2015 or so, either.

Not sure if I added anything of value here, just wanted someone to join in with my laughter at what the awe-inspiring '76 T/A brought to the table in stock form compared to what we see offered today.

Sponsored

 

[Brochacho]

Sounds like we just need to have the transmission built as well. I was looking to have Pure Drivetrain Solutions build my 10R80 so might as well have them start beefing up the 10R60 as well.

 

[DrewBronc21]

I would wait until some tuners actually get their hands on these and push them. We may all be pleasantly surprised with the results and how they hold up.

 

[L8apex]

On a side note, I'm going to guess the current vette must be using a little 4 banger turbo now huh?

Nope - the 'Vette uses a little 4 banger that is naturally aspirated for a good portion of the emissions / fuel economy cycle.

 

[EvlNvrDys]

Nope - the 'Vette uses a little 4 banger that is naturally aspirated for a good portion of the emissions / fuel economy cycle.

Chevy still using that, let's turn OFF cylinders when we can?

Edit: and the key factor, naturally aspirated! I'd take that all day long. Even if it were a Ford 351 pumping out 250hp with 325 lb ft of torque. Mated to a 3 speed + O.D.

 

[L8apex]

Chevy still using that, let's turn OFF cylinders when we can?

Yup - Cylinder deactivation, Active Fuel Management (GM) or Variable Displacement Engines (Ford), is great for fuel economy and emissions - however from a driveability standpoint it can be intrusive.

And the way I drive with my foot in the pedal I'd never see the benefits of the technology, so I'd just carrying around a potential failure mode w/o the benefit of improved fuel economy.

 

[Bronc-itis]

I have a buddy that works for a performance transmission shop. They are already digging into the 10R60 to see what they can do to make it handle more torque

 

[VelocityBronco]

Yup. Many people have tried to warn about this in the past, but they got dismissed each time. Now it’s even been officially confirmed, but people still don’t want to believe it.

“Bronco Brand Manager Esteban Plaza-Jennings told BN that the 10R60 is more than capable of handling the Bronco’s power output, as the trans is rated at 406lb-ft with the 2.3L engine and 424lb-ft with the 2.7L engine. For reference, the 2.3L engine is projected to produce 310lb-ft of torque, while the 2.7L will produce 400lb-ft.”

Source

I am really suprised that Ford chose a transmission that has a max torque rating that close to the engine output, 94% of its rated torque. I just hope that 424lb-ft is underrated and there is a good factor of safety built in. I would never engineer anything to be that close to the max spec...

 

[Spooled]

Does 5 star not tune the Explorer ST? They should already know the capabilities of the 10R60 if they do.

 

[R11]

I didn’t pay much attention to the 10R60 whining, I don’t really care I trust Ford will build a capable SUV and have no plans to tune it to a race car. But after driving a 2.7 I suspected they may be limiting the trans on take off. It’s kind of a dog off the line, I know the 2.7 is capable of more. Interested to see how this turns out once tuners get them on the dyno and let us know what’s going on.

I definitely tend to agree with this sentiment, and would summarize it as 'guys it's a multi-faceted off-road Jeep killer truck, not a race car - calm down '. Also trust Ford to configure a solid application here. And I'm with you on being curious to see what tuners can do.

I'll only quibble with you on the "dog" line. I drove a Wildtrak yesterday (4 door soft top). While there's an unsurprising turbo-lag, calling it a "dog off the line" strikes me as at least a little exaggertory, or at least maybe needs context as to what your comp is for that description . After seeing most reviews say the 2.7 has great pull, and one review somewhere in which the reviewer complained the 2.7 was slow, I was not sure what to expect. I was not disappointed at all. Turbo hits, thing goes. Some dude in an ok sedan pulled out into the lane next to me at a red light, clearly assuming he'd jump in front when the lanes merged into one. Let's just say he severely miscalculated and was quite surprised.

For my own perspective - I typically get 0-60 in just about 6 seconds in my '14 mustang v6, which has always felt decently quick, slightly better than the base-base, since it's got some OEM performance pack lower gearing. It's not amazing, and that 3.7 probably make more noise than it should for only 6 seconds. But I actually felt like the Bronco was roughly as quick as that Mustang. (Though I will grant I was pretty pumped, and wary of driving a dealer mannequin around an area I don't know like the back of my hand, so I wasn't on a stopwatch at all.) I've also been lucky enough to do a good bit of driving in other people's M3's, particularly the F80, a twin turbo 6 with insane pull. Bronco is not that lol. But I thought it was pretty quick, especially for what it is.

 

[DrewBronc21]

Chevy still using that, let's turn OFF cylinders when we can?

Edit: and the key factor, naturally aspirated! I'd take that all day long. Even if it were a Ford 351 pumping out 250hp with 325 lb ft of torque. Mated to a 3 speed + O.D.

I had a 351 in my 77 TBird which I had as a teen in the early 90s. Sure it was a big beast of a boat at the time and when you put your foot down, that passing gear felt fast as shit but it was in fact an extremely slow car with less than 200 hp and 0-60 in like 12 seconds.

I like Turbo and SC cars just because they are easy to mod for another 100 Hp or more if that’s your thing. NA cars are harder to add power. The 2.3 or 2.7 with a tune will be great in the Bronco. I would probably choose a Coyote over both if it were available but maybe not over a 3.5 EB if that were available.

many of the new high power cars are V8 + FI anyway so they have displacement and an added power maker which is ideal.

 

[Ksjrb03]

I definitely tend to agree with this sentiment, and would summarize it as 'guys it's a multi-faceted off-road Jeep killer truck, not a race car - calm down '. Also trust Ford to configure a solid application here. And I'm with you on being curious to see what tuners can do.

I'll only quibble with you on the "dog" line. I drove a Wildtrak yesterday (4 door soft top). While there's an unsurprising turbo-lag, calling it a "dog off the line" strikes me as at least a little exaggertory, or at least maybe needs context as to what your comp is for that description . After seeing most reviews say the 2.7 has great pull, and one review somewhere in which the reviewer complained the 2.7 was slow, I was not sure what to expect. I was not disappointed at all. Turbo hits, thing goes. Some dude in an ok sedan pulled out into the lane next to me at a red light, clearly assuming he'd jump in front when the lanes merged into one. Let's just say he severely miscalculated and was quite surprised.

For my own perspective - I typically get 0-60 in just about 6 seconds in my '14 mustang v6, which has always felt decently quick, slightly better than the base-base, since it's got some OEM performance pack lower gearing. It's not amazing, and that 3.7 probably make more noise than it should for only 6 seconds. But I actually felt like the Bronco was roughly as quick as that Mustang. (Though I will grant I was pretty pumped, and wary of driving a dealer mannequin around an area I don't know like the back of my hand, so I wasn't on a stopwatch at all.) I've also been lucky enough to do a good bit of driving in other people's M3's, particularly the F80, a twin turbo 6 with insane pull. Bronco is not that lol. But I thought it was pretty quick, especially for what it is.

Ok, dog might be a little too strong, I'll change that to a bit sluggish off the line. We've owned three 3.5 EBs in Expeditions and F150. Always loved the engine and it will throw you back in your seat if you want. A couple months ago I finally found a crew cab F150 with a 2.7 to test. I was excited to drive that and have it feel very similar to the 3.5 in power and off the line speed. I expected great things from the Bronco 2.7. I was a bit disappointed to find the Bronco sluggish compared to my expectations. I am not a speed demon, never owned a sports car, but I drive my trucks with a heavy foot and like speed when I want it. It felt lacking off the line and at lower speeds, but it will move in the higher gears.

@Mattwings got smoked by a 2.3 Ranger in his 2.7 Bronco, in boosted launches and every drive mode. He finds the RPMs limited off the line and he cant spin the tires if he tries. This kind of verified my uneducated seat of the pants feeling that Ford is limiting the 2.7 somehow, Im not smart enough to guess how but I think the 2.7 is capable of alot more.

And just to clarify, I am not complaining or cancelling my order. The Bronco has plenty of power and is a beast off road, loved every second of driving it at off rodeo. The tuners will let us know whats going on when they get these on the dyno soon, and I suspect they will find that Ford is neutering them a bit for whatever reason.

 

[vrtical]

During my stellar college years, I owned a 3 cyl that made like 50 hp. Other then that I dont plan to tune the 2.7 I am getting its not like my race car lol

 

[mpeugeot]

And just to clarify, I am not complaining or cancelling my order. The Bronco has plenty of power and is a beast off road, loved every second of driving it at off rodeo. The tuners will let us know whats going on when they get these on the dyno soon, and I suspect they will find that Ford is neutering them a bit for whatever reason.

Everything that I have seen reported suggests that the engine strategy is setup to limit driveline shock at low speeds. What would really be interesting is to dyno the motor locked in each gear from 1000-6000 RPM and see if the HP curve changes.

It would also be interesting to see if you can make it launch in second gear using the shifter override, if it's a first gear "limitation" on timing/valve timing/boost... then launching in second gear might be better.

1st gear at 1500-2000 RPM would 7-9 MPH vs 2nd gear at 11-14 MPH for a Non-SAS OBX 2.7 10 Speed(4.27/32"). Peak torque in 1st occurs at 15 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 23 MPH. Peak Horsepower in 1st occurs at 24 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 38 MPH.

1st gear at 1500-2000 RPM would 7-9 MPH vs 2nd gear at 11-14 MPH for a SAS OBX 2.7 10 Speed (4.70/35"). Peak torque in 1st occurs at 15 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 23 MPH. Peak Horsepower in 1st occurs at 24 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 37 MPH.

It would also be fun to see if using 4L on a SAS with 32" OBX rims/tires would run a quick time. It would need all 10 gears and would require it to shift really fast to not lose time.

I said earlier, it reminds me of my Suzuki SV1000s, which intentionally retarded the timing in 1st gear to make it more "user friendly".... I eliminated that "feature" rather quickly and found the motorcycle much more entertaining after that.

This would be easiest with a manual transmission, but we can't have nice things like a manual transmission 2.7!

 

[Ksjrb03]

Everything that I have seen reported suggests that the engine strategy is setup to limit driveline shock at low speeds. What would really be interesting is to dyno the motor locked in each gear from 1000-6000 RPM and see if the HP curve changes.

It would also be interesting to see if you can make it launch in second gear using the shifter override, if it's a first gear "limitation" on timing/valve timing/boost... then launching in second gear might be better.

1st gear at 1500-2000 RPM would 7-9 MPH vs 2nd gear at 11-14 MPH for a Non-SAS OBX 2.7 10 Speed(4.27/32"). Peak torque in 1st occurs at 15 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 23 MPH. Peak Horsepower in 1st occurs at 24 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 38 MPH.

1st gear at 1500-2000 RPM would 7-9 MPH vs 2nd gear at 11-14 MPH for a SAS OBX 2.7 10 Speed (4.70/35"). Peak torque in 1st occurs at 15 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 23 MPH. Peak Horsepower in 1st occurs at 24 MPH and in 2nd occurs at 37 MPH.

It would also be fun to see if using 4L on a SAS with 32" OBX rims/tires would run a quick time. It would need all 10 gears and would require it to shift really fast to not lose time.

I said earlier, it reminds me of my Suzuki SV1000s, which intentionally retarded the timing in 1st gear to make it more "user friendly".... I eliminated that "feature" rather quickly and found the motorcycle much more entertaining after that.

This would be easiest with a manual transmission, but we can't have nice things like a manual transmission 2.7!

The only vehicles Ive had tuned are my superduties, and that is mainly because of deleting the emissions crap, but why not get more power while your at it . I will be following the tuning threads closely, I'm genuinely interested in learning more about how all this works and maybe getting a bit more power back if things turn out that way.

Sponsored