Why tune an automatic 2.3?

[Drex]

Do you, live like you want, ETC. Makes no never mind to me what you do. I never judge (I may point and laugh, but I never judge...)

I am seeing a lot of chatter about tuning the 2.3 and am thinking I am missing something. (it does not apply to those of us with 7-speeds coming, we have no choice). Can anyone explain the rational for going with Ford tuning on the automatic 2.3 rather than popping the estimated $1600 for the 2.7?

Math trigger warning for people who worry about such things...

As I understand it, Ford gets you a physical tuner and emissions compliant tune for about $850.

It requires 91/93 Octane over the goat-pee 87 stuff. For my area, that is about $0.75 a gallon extra. (we shall use the current, per AAA, nationwide average of $0.60 a gallon difference for example purposes, all numbers are ballpark only obviously)

Male demographic for the Bronco (ages 25-54) average about 19000 miles a year. Assuming the average combined fuel economy will be about the same for both the 2.7 and a tuned 2.3 of... say 19MPG (for ease of calculation and probably about right anyway) that is 1000 gallons a year.

Every year you will be forced to spend an extra $0.60 for each of those 1000 gallons ($600)

V6 delta cost of $1600 - tuner/tune of $850 - (yearly fuel cost delta $600 x 1.25 years (and 23750 miles)) equals zero.

So if you tune, after a year and three months, you are at the same cost as running 87 Octane and ordering the 2.7 from the git go. The you are behind the curve on running costs forever after that. I would expect that the resale value of the smaller engine would be considerably less and should be factored in as well. For the added expense (as outlined above) and occasional difficulty in finding higher Octane fuel in parts of the Midwest anyway, you get less torque and about equal power compared to the 2.7.

Am I missing something, or is a factory tune on the 2.3 (auto) a loser economically and performance-wise in the ownership period of the truck with average use? (again, 7-speeds are not part of this as we have no choice and the automatic costs would be the same regardless of the engine)

Sponsored

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Why not tune?

Gotta go fast, and gotta make all those new parts work properly

 

[jdogi]

Do you, live like you want, ETC. Makes no never mind to me what you do. I never judge (I may point and laugh, but I never judge...)

I am seeing a lot of chatter about tuning the 2.3 and am thinking I am missing something. (it does not apply to those of us with 7-speeds coming, we have no choice). Can anyone explain the rational for going with Ford tuning on the automatic 2.3 rather than popping the estimated $1600 for the 2.7?

Math trigger warning for people who worry about such things...

As I understand it, Ford gets you a physical tuner and emissions compliant tune for about $850.

It requires 91/93 Octane over the goat-pee 87 stuff. For my area, that is about $0.75 a gallon extra. (we shall use the current, per AAA, nationwide average of $0.60 a gallon difference for example purposes, all numbers are ballpark only obviously)

Male demographic for the Bronco (ages 25-54) average about 19000 miles a year. Assuming the average combined fuel economy will be about the same for both the 2.7 and a tuned 2.3 of... say 19MPG (for ease of calculation and probably about right anyway) that is 1000 gallons a year.

Every year you will be forced to spend an extra $0.60 for each of those 1000 gallons ($600)

V6 delta cost of $1600 - tuner/tune of $850 - (yearly fuel cost delta $600 x 1.25 years (and 23750 miles)) equals zero.

So if you tune, after a year and three months, you are at the same cost as running 87 Octane and ordering the 2.7 from the git go. The you are behind the curve on running costs forever after that. I would expect that the resale value of the smaller engine would be considerably less and should be factored in as well. For the added expense (as outlined above) and occasional difficulty in finding higher Octane fuel in parts of the Midwest anyway, you get less torque and about equal power compared to the 2.7.

Am I missing something, or is a factory tune on the 2.3 (auto) a loser economically and performance-wise in the ownership period of the truck with average use? (again, 7-speeds are not part of this as we have no choice and the automatic costs would be the same regardless of the engine)

I suspect that nearly everyone interested in the 2.3 tune IS going for the manual. Otherwise, I agree. I don't see a good case for it. The only other reason I could imagine would be to slightly reduce the upfront purchase cost and add the tune later when they have more available funds??.

Do you have any evidence that a bunch of automatic shoppers are talking about or are interested in tuning the 2.3? Otherwise, your post is pretty pointless.

I would certainly be going for the 2.7 if Ford would let me (manual only - I don't know how to drive an automatic)

 

[Mopar2Bronco2021]

Do you, live like you want, ETC. Makes no never mind to me what you do. I never judge (I may point and laugh, but I never judge...)

I am seeing a lot of chatter about tuning the 2.3 and am thinking I am missing something. (it does not apply to those of us with 7-speeds coming, we have no choice). Can anyone explain the rational for going with Ford tuning on the automatic 2.3 rather than popping the estimated $1600 for the 2.7?

Math trigger warning for people who worry about such things...

As I understand it, Ford gets you a physical tuner and emissions compliant tune for about $850.

It requires 91/93 Octane over the goat-pee 87 stuff. For my area, that is about $0.75 a gallon extra. (we shall use the current, per AAA, nationwide average of $0.60 a gallon difference for example purposes, all numbers are ballpark only obviously)

Male demographic for the Bronco (ages 25-54) average about 19000 miles a year. Assuming the average combined fuel economy will be about the same for both the 2.7 and a tuned 2.3 of... say 19MPG (for ease of calculation and probably about right anyway) that is 1000 gallons a year.

Every year you will be forced to spend an extra $0.60 for each of those 1000 gallons ($600)

V6 delta cost of $1600 - tuner/tune of $850 - (yearly fuel cost delta $600 x 1.25 years (and 23750 miles)) equals zero.

So if you tune, after a year and three months, you are at the same cost as running 87 Octane and ordering the 2.7 from the git go. The you are behind the curve on running costs forever after that. I would expect that the resale value of the smaller engine would be considerably less and should be factored in as well. For the added expense (as outlined above) and occasional difficulty in finding higher Octane fuel in parts of the Midwest anyway, you get less torque and about equal power compared to the 2.7.

Am I missing something, or is a factory tune on the 2.3 (auto) a loser economically and performance-wise in the ownership period of the truck with average use? (again, 7-speeds are not part of this as we have no choice and the automatic costs would be the same regardless of the engine)

I completely agree with you. I did some similar math on the forum a while back. You’re wasting money on the 2.3L if you plan to tune versus just getting the 2.7L. 93 octane is gonna hurt you over time and the Ford performance tune itself is almost half the price of the 2.7L. Just doesn’t make much sense to go that route in my opinion unless you want the manual.

Everyone has their reasons though.

 

[Drex]

I guess I should have put up four disclaimers instead of two and a title saying it does not apply to the manual. As to the number of posts advocating it, I have no idea what transmission they are looking to get, as manuals will be relatively rare, it is a reasonable assumption to believe many are in the auto camp. If people are making payments, unless they are paying it off in 16 months, they are still ahead of the game with the 2.7 if you include running costs in your monthly budget. If you are not including running costs (fuel, insurance, and the like), you might want to take a look at that. Would be cheaper per month to amortize the cost of the 2.7 than to tune and run the 2.3

<Chuckling> If my post is mostly pointless, that still makes it more worthwhile than a large portion of the forum postings as they are totally pointless, thanks!

 

[BroncBro]

Why? because the is MURICA, land of the free!!
s/

 

[jdogi]

I guess I should have put up four disclaimers instead of two and a title saying it does not apply to the manual. As to the number of posts advocating it, I have no idea what transmission they are looking to get, as manuals will be relatively rare, it is a reasonable assumption to believe many are in the auto camp. If people are making payments, unless they are paying it off in 16 months, they are still ahead of the game with the 2.7 if you include running costs in your monthly budget. If you are not including running costs (fuel, insurance, and the like), you might want to take a look at that. Would be cheaper per month to amortize the cost of the 2.7 than to tune and run the 2.3

<Chuckling> If my post is mostly pointless, that still makes it more worthwhile than a large portion of the forum postings as they are totally pointless, thanks!

You did disclaimer... I just think that you are assuming that there are a bunch of folks wanting to foolishly tune their 2.3s autos. I believe it's really the small group of die hard manual drivers that are just looking to soften the blow from the bad hand we've been dealt by Ford. No manual + 2.7.

All good. Thanks for the insightful post. It probably will help someone who hasn't already thought this through.

 

[Draykas]

WOW good analysis. Might have to drop something else and just spring for 2.7 if cost is issue. less DIO and get those later which is probable good financial advice. Thanks for garage analogy with some common sense

 

[jdogi]

WOW good analysis. Might have to drop something else and just spring for 2.7 if cost is issue. less DIO and get those later which is probable good financial advice. Thanks for garage analogy with some common sense

On second thought. I strongly encourage everyone to consider getting the 2.3+auto and considering a tune.

If there's more demand in the market, that will mean better availability to those of us without a choice.

In all seriousness though the Ranger being 2.3 only should take care of us.

 

[AzScorpion]

Do you, live like you want, ETC. Makes no never mind to me what you do. I never judge (I may point and laugh, but I never judge...)

I am seeing a lot of chatter about tuning the 2.3 and am thinking I am missing something. (it does not apply to those of us with 7-speeds coming, we have no choice). Can anyone explain the rational for going with Ford tuning on the automatic 2.3 rather than popping the estimated $1600 for the 2.7?

Math trigger warning for people who worry about such things...

As I understand it, Ford gets you a physical tuner and emissions compliant tune for about $850.

It requires 91/93 Octane over the goat-pee 87 stuff. For my area, that is about $0.75 a gallon extra. (we shall use the current, per AAA, nationwide average of $0.60 a gallon difference for example purposes, all numbers are ballpark only obviously)

Male demographic for the Bronco (ages 25-54) average about 19000 miles a year. Assuming the average combined fuel economy will be about the same for both the 2.7 and a tuned 2.3 of... say 19MPG (for ease of calculation and probably about right anyway) that is 1000 gallons a year.

Every year you will be forced to spend an extra $0.60 for each of those 1000 gallons ($600)

V6 delta cost of $1600 - tuner/tune of $850 - (yearly fuel cost delta $600 x 1.25 years (and 23750 miles)) equals zero.

So if you tune, after a year and three months, you are at the same cost as running 87 Octane and ordering the 2.7 from the git go. The you are behind the curve on running costs forever after that. I would expect that the resale value of the smaller engine would be considerably less and should be factored in as well. For the added expense (as outlined above) and occasional difficulty in finding higher Octane fuel in parts of the Midwest anyway, you get less torque and about equal power compared to the 2.7.

Am I missing something, or is a factory tune on the 2.3 (auto) a loser economically and performance-wise in the ownership period of the truck with average use? (again, 7-speeds are not part of this as we have no choice and the automatic costs would be the same regardless of the engine)

I have a Livernois tune in my 2.3 Ranger which adds 80 hp and 100 lbs torque running the 91-93 performance tune. They also give you all 5 of their tunes which include their 87-89 performance & soft shift,91-93 performance & soft shift and tow tune for $500. If you're concerned with warrantee then go with the FP tune but I personally don't think it's worth it for the $. There are many of us on the Ranger 5G forum who've tuned ours and a lot who are dragging them with zero issues. This motor is capable of so much more and Livernois is a great tuner. Plus you don't get a tune to save gas/money you get a tune to have more fun.

 

[The Driving Viking]

I'm getting the 2.7 but reasons to get the 2.3 are. I may change my mind though.

Slightly better fuel economy.

A lighter front end.

Your getting a manual.

You don't care about a tune and want to save on the initial cost of the Bronco.

The 2.3 has a decent aftermarket of tunes and accessories.

You love the sound of a 4 cylinder turbo.

 

[Gamecock]

No one is buying the 2.3 auto at the price point for 2021. It doesn’t make any sense...2.3 is for the stick only.

 

[Raptor911]

OP you are too rational. It would be easy talking you out of buying a bronco or any vehicle.

 

[Axxlrod]

I want to tune the 2.7L!

Sponsored