Tuning the Ford Ranger 2.3 Ecoboost

[Psykostevo]

Post #1:

+THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, YOU MODIFY YOUR OWN VEHICLE AT YOUR OWN RISK USING YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT+

In stock form the Ranger has a higher Driver Demanded Torque value than the 2.3L Mustang Ecoboost, which I found interesting since on paper the Ranger is rated at a substantially lower HP and Torque output. This may be due to the 270/310 rating being established at 87 Octane instead of 91+ Octane. If there are factors such as knock/pinging present due to lower quality gasoline being used, the value for Driver Demanded Torque will be reduced.

Values represented on both tables are in lb/ft, but the column and axis values are different between the two. The Mustang show the 90+ Throttle position to be on the far right of the table, whereas the Ranger shows the 90+ Throttle position to be on the bottom.

The 2017 Ford Mustang is rated at 310hp and 320tq at the crank, and the Driver Demand table very closely dictates that (as it should since it is used in calculations to establish the ECU's desire to increase or decrease load on the engine to moderate power production).

The Ranger on the other hand has it's values set to establish that in absence of an prohibitors, it should be able to produce 340 lb/ft of Torque (30 more than it's advertised rating), and if we look at the torque output demanded at or near peak power level (5,500rpm) we see a torque value of 317 which would mean that in a PERFECT world with no detractors that would equate to (317*5500)/5252 = 331hp.

Stock Ranger Driver Demand table:

Stock 2017 Mustang Ecoboost Driver Demand Table:

Sponsored

 

[Psykostevo]

POST #2

One thing to understand about Torque-based ECU strategies, like what we have in the Ecoboost engine (as well as many others like the newer GM EcoTec, Subaru FA20DIT, and so many more) is that they commonly employ Driver Demanded Torque values to determine boost command (IF they are turbocharged).

There will be limiting factors in place though, which I will cover later as I expand on this thread. Some of the limiting factors that will tell the ECU to stop making more boost when it has not yet hit the target value can be Exhaust Gas Temperature, Throttle Inlet Pressure, MAP Pressure, Manifold Temperature, Knock, Fuel Enrichment, Ambient Temperature, Barometric Pressure, LOAD limits, and many many more.

The Ecoboost ECU has a plethora of "nanny" controls in place the frequently intervene to reduce the actual output of the engine below the Driver Demanded value, so you can only actually hit the Torque target if all conditions present allow it to do so. If any one of the safety measures in place are triggered you will experience a part-throttle closure which will command less torque (look at the values in place for lower throttle position values). This part-throttle closure is usually indetectible to the driver, so it happens very frequently when you are at full throttle on the stock ECU settings.

 

[Lunchbox88]

Love this kind of content, looking forward to more posts about how the ECUs are setup and the steps in tuning.

 

[Rviator]

So if I'm reading this correctly the software theoretically could allow the Ranger motor to make up to 339.28 lb/ft of torque at the crank in the range from 700 rpm to 4700 rpm. That is an extraordinarily flat curve. The output is negatively affected only by the limiting nanny factors. There is also the actual physical mechanical limitations of getting a 2.3 liter engine to produce 339 lb/ft at 700 rpm, but that is a different discussion. My point being is the 339 factor never reached and the only way to get that power is to remove/reduce the limiting nanny factors? Just adding more fuel and air flow won't get you there as any fuel flow additions will be over ridden by the nanny factors. Am I reading this correctly? If so that is quite a revelation you've added to this forum Steve. Please continue and thanks for the info.

 

[Psykostevo]

So if I'm reading this correctly the software theoretically could allow the Ranger motor to make up to 339.28 lb/ft of torque at the crank in the range from 700 rpm to 4700 rpm. That is an extraordinarily flat curve. The output is negatively affected only by the limiting nanny factors. There is also the actual physical mechanical limitations of getting a 2.3 liter engine to produce 339 lb/ft at 700 rpm, but that is a different discussion. My point being is the 339 factor never reached and the only way to get that power is to remove/reduce the limiting nanny factors? Just adding more fuel and air flow won't get you there as any fuel flow additions will be over ridden by the nanny factors. Am I reading this correctly? If so that is quite a revelation you've added to this forum Steve. Please continue and thanks for the info.

You are correct that there are mechanical limitations in hitting the prescribed torque output at 700rpm. Ford typically makes the torque demand flat leading up to the peak torque to give it a smoother turbo spool. On the Focus RS they put stupid high numbers that low to get even faster spool, and they allow temporary overboost in that tune as a result of it.

The ECU will hit 339 crank torque as a max as long as your temperatures are alright and as long as you have a maximum Octane Adaptive Ratio (OAR) Usually needing 91-93 fuel to hit that and no engine knocking for a while of driving.

 

[IdahoRanger]

Love this kind of content, looking forward to more posts about how the ECUs are setup and the steps in tuning.

Totally agree. Looking forward to learning more. Had tunes on my Forester and last F150 so may go that route again.

 

[Doc]

You are correct that there are mechanical limitations in hitting the prescribed torque output at 700rpm. Ford typically makes the torque demand flat leading up to the peak torque to give it a smoother turbo spool. On the Focus RS they put stupid high numbers that low to get even faster spool, and they allow temporary overboost in that tune as a result of it.

The ECU will hit 339 crank torque as a max as long as your temperatures are alright and as long as you have a maximum Octane Adaptive Ratio (OAR) Usually needing 91-93 fuel to hit that and no engine knocking for a while of driving.

Around 3000 rpms here..2019 Ranger..Unleashed Tune..110 degrees F in Dyno room..388 Lb/Ft Torque..93 Octane..Stock, no bolt ons..93 octane.
Regards (You’re up next Captain)...

 

[Psykostevo]

Around 3000 rpms here..2019 Ranger..Unleashed Tune..110 degrees F in Dyno room..388 Lb/Ft Torque..93 Octane..Stock, no bolt ons..
Regards (You’re up next Captain)...

Did you happen to get stock numbers on the dyno before the tune was applied?

 

[Doc]

View attachment 26706 View attachment 26706

Did you happen to get stock numbers on the dyno before the tune was applied?

Yes, 40 hp increase (110 Degrees in the Dyno room) and 100 Lb/Ft Torque 93 octane.
Here’s the stock results on 93 Octane...

 

[Doc]

View attachment 26706
Yes, 40 hp increase (110 Degrees in the Dyno room) and 100 Lb/Ft Torque

You are the Cobalt Guy Right?
Regards

 

[Psykostevo]

You are the Cobalt Guy Right?
Regards

Yes, Cobalts and many other types of cars too.

 

[Doc]

Yes, Cobalts and many other types of cars too.

Good deal..you got the stock 93 octane Dyno right there so take a look ! ( remember on the hp rating the temp in the Dyno room) I will re tune and repeat after Jan 5th drag races...)
Regards

 

[Psykostevo]

Good deal..you got the stock 93 octane Dyno right there so take a look ! ( remember on the hp rating the temp in the Dyno room) I will re tune and repeat after Jan 5th drag races...)
Regards

I know all too well about heat on the dyno. I tune on an outside dyno in Arizona, the awning only shades it part of the day so we often have ambient air temps in the 130's from the asphalt around us. The 100* had to have made it a little harder to hit higher HP numbers, because there had to be some signals holding the ECU back from demanding the full engine load with that much heat.

 

[Doc]

I know all too well about heat on the dyno. I tune on an outside dyno in Arizona, the awning only shades it part of the day so we often have ambient air temps in the 130's from the asphalt around us. The 100* had to have made it a little harder to hit higher HP numbers, because there had to be some signals holding the ECU back from demanding the full engine load with that much heat.

Roger That... Here in January the temp will be down and we will be able to get a more accurate hp reading...we Dyno’ d at 1000 miles after a moderate break in and oil change , this is a conservative tune predominantly on the sport mode side..
Now over 3000 miles, we should be able to see better results.
Regards

 

[Psykostevo]

POST #3

Within the tune there are multiple Maps for determining Demanded Throttle position versus Pedal position. You may experience the difference in feel between the Drive mode and Sport modes in the way that the Accelerator Pedal feels and how the engine responds. There are other pedal tables in there for Sand, Snow, Towing, etc that can all be customized to your liking.

RANGER DRIVE PEDAL MAP VERUS SPORT PEDAL MAP:

You can see that it takes less pedal % after 19.2% pedal travel to get the ECU to open the throttle beyond that. The DRIVE mode is perfectly linear, with a 1:1 ratio of input to demand, whereas the SPORT mode begins to incrementally increase the demanded percentage with the higher pedal percentage input. This is akin to the type of increased signal output that you can get from Pedal Commanders or those other plug and play pedal "tuners". Changing these numbers up or down will not change the potential output of the engine, but they will just change the % of commanded torque requested in the Driver Demand table relative to your foot position to the floor. You can think of changing these tables, or using a pedal commander as just adjusting the sensitivity up or down for different throttle control.

Sponsored