Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Ford Ranger Discussions' started by Nate4x4, Jan 3, 2019.
I wonder if they used 91/93 octane or regular for the race. I've heard a few reviewers say that the Ranger goes up to 300 hp on 93.
Keep in mind the F150 3.5 eco with the 10 speed is arguabley the fastest truck on the market right now. I'd say the ranger kept up nicely
I would agree. It did a lot better than I thought it would. The f150 has almost 100 more hp and about a hundred more foot lbs of torque and is only 600 lbs or so heavier. I thought it was a very respectable performance.
Well to be fair if they did use 93 in the Ranger, they would also use it in the F-150 which would also see increased performance. Either way, it's cool to see but really apples to oranges. I think a 2.3L Ranger vs. 2.7L F-150 match up would be a more fair comparison.
The 2.7L seems to have more pull in the low end compared to the 3.5L, although the 3.5L has so much torque through the mid and high. I came close to buying a blue ST sport with the 2.7L and the 3.73 rear.
Im just ready to see some custom tunes come out for the ranger. Most tuners are adding adaptive octane tunes to the list along with e50 tunes so its going to be interesting to see how this engine reacts to more boost and timing with the different turbo. The focus RS gains 100tq and 85hp on a 91 octane tune.
I'm not sure about getting a tune that will 1--Void my warranty and 2--Push the little 4-banger to it's limit. I'm hoping for a dealer installed/Ford approved tune like they have for the Mustang.
Considering the forged internals and how well the 2.3L supports tunes now, I have no doubt that a 93 octane tune is well within what the motor can handle.
Engine cylinder count and displacement bare no restrictions to the reliability and tuning potential of an engine. Engine architecture, materials, and construction do. This “ little 4-banger” makes 350 Hp/Tq in stock design on the focus RS. That engine is all but the same in the ranger. Mechanical changes made to the engine are for low end tourque on 87 octane rather than the premium fuel requirement on the focus RS engine. This engine is far from its limits making 270 Hp and 310 Tq. Adding 100 Hp/Tq from a tune would barely get into the same numbers of the RS trim is capable of. Tuning an engine is indeed a warranty voiding process which everyone who does so knows. However, in my experience and opinion it is a minimal risk because of what these engines are capable of. A risk I will take every time and have on ever EcoBoost I’ve owned including a 2014 Taurus SHO making 412hp to the wheels, a 2013 f150 3.5 eco making 430hp, and a 2015 f150 3.5 eco making 445hp on meth injection. A collective mileage while tuned of 177,500 miles. All with zero mechanical issues.
The difference was clearly just the air dam on the front of the F-150. All that added aerodynamics.
Does the 2.3L still suffer from danger of the block cracking between cylinder #2 and #3? Mustang owners were having that issue when they pushed the engine hard.
Personally, I still don't fully trust the EcoBoost engine program. The laws of physics dictate that it takes a certain amount of air flowing through an engine to make a certain amount of power, and therefore it takes a matching amount of fuel, so there will never be a fuel savings to the EcoBoost. And the reliability and longevity issues owners have had with them for the last 8 years means that it's not worth the hassle. I'd be much happier with a strong naturally aspirated V6 or better yet a small V8 like the Dakota used to offer.
I have yet to see ANYTHING definitive on the "reliability and longevity issues" with the EcoBoost line. All I have seen are posts about individual, sporadic issues, or known issues that have long been resolved (head gasket issues with the 2.3 due to assembly line mixup). Do you have some definitive proof (something other than just anecdotal evidence) that there is some key flaw in the EcoBoost engines?
Conversely, I've seen MANY reports of long lived EcoBoost engines with no failures - I also have anecdotal evidence from 2 or 3 people who have had GREAT experiences with their EcoBoost engines. One of them being a guy who used to tow his travel trailer with an old 98 Suburban with a bib block in it. He has a 3.5 EcoBoost and says it tows better than the big block does and he has had zero issues with it.
Can anyone tell the group what the speed was at the finish line? and was it 1/4 mile?
You’re correct about air mass (“air flowing”) has a direct relationship to power output in an internal combustion engine. What turbocharging is about is EFFICIENCY.
Take away fuel and ignition systems on any engine and what you have left is a big air compressor. It takes energy to drive that air compressor, composed of the crankshaft, rods, pistons, valvetrain, etc. All internal combustion engines with the addition of fuel/ignition to that compressed air are are efficient enough to drive themselves, plus have excess power output.
So let’s take a NA 3.5L V-6 and compare it to the efficiency of a TC 2.3L I-4. The NA V-6 has to rely on compressing ambient air to provide an air mass to match with atomized fuel. But it takes 2 additional cylinders to accomplish it’s compressed air task, which means 2 extra for many moving parts (rods, pistons, valves).
The 2.3L I-4 takes far less energy to compress air but the small displacement of the 2.3L I-4 would be very challenged to compress the same amount of air as the 3.5L V-6, but that’s where the turbocharger comes in. Both engines use rapidly expanding gasses (from the ignition of the compressed air/fuel charge) to drive themselves and produce excess power. But only one recovers the exhaust gasses and recycles that energy. The exhaust gases on the NA V-6 go out the tailpipe and are wasted. The TC I-4 uses those exhaust gasses to spin a turbine that compresses ambient air and allows the I-4 to compress the same amount of air mass as the NA V-6.
So which air compressor works less (i.e. is more efficient) at compressing the same air mass, the NA V-6, or the TC I-4?