Ford official tune?

jeepwranger

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
10
Reaction score
4
Location
pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
'16 wrangler
T
This is the same reason a Corvette engine, geared appropriately (never mind issues of getting it moving due to transmission issues), could pull a semi down the road just fine...again, never mind durability or fuel consumption.
I know I wouldn't want to be sitting behind it when the light turned green.
 

ben8jam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
155
Reaction score
225
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
Just filled up third time. First two 87, now did 91. Been getting 16.7 MPG with a relatively light foot, and 70/30 city/highway driving. I have the sub 2k RMP rumble, and sometimes it feels like it doesn't have ooomph on the freeway/not engaging turbo boost. My expectation for 91 is a 911 killer, 30mpg, smooth as silk ride. IT BETTER BE FOR ALMOST $5/GALLON!
 

Mobius97

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
252
Reaction score
515
Location
Seattle
Vehicle(s)
Ranger Lariat Fx4-Lotus Evora-Lotus Elise-BMW X7 M
Just filled up third time. First two 87, now did 91. Been getting 16.7 MPG with a relatively light foot, and 70/30 city/highway driving. I have the sub 2k RMP rumble, and sometimes it feels like it doesn't have ooomph on the freeway/not engaging turbo boost. My expectation for 91 is a 911 killer, 30mpg, smooth as silk ride. IT BETTER BE FOR ALMOST $5/GALLON!
Ouch $5 a gallon!!! I thought we were high. My area is is Reg $3.17 Mid $3.57 Prem $3.60.
 


Psykostevo

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
215
Reaction score
335
Location
Queen Creek, AZ
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger
Vehicle Showcase
1
Just filled up third time. First two 87, now did 91. Been getting 16.7 MPG with a relatively light foot, and 70/30 city/highway driving. I have the sub 2k RMP rumble, and sometimes it feels like it doesn't have ooomph on the freeway/not engaging turbo boost. My expectation for 91 is a 911 killer, 30mpg, smooth as silk ride. IT BETTER BE FOR ALMOST $5/GALLON!
I can tell you that the stock tune is programmed for much more power than the advertised output if you use high octane fuel and allow the ECU to adjust over some driving (or by pulling the battery, etc).
 

Hounddog409

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tod
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
1,164
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
F150
Vehicle Showcase
1
All those silly saying don't mean much, HP is what ultimately makes a rig move and what creates work. 800 ft lbs and 200 hp vs 400 ft lbs and 400 hp, the latter is going to be able to do more work.
you are completely backwards. torque is that gets the job done. HP is simply torque ( the work) over time.

The formula for HP is TORQUE x RPM. with a constant thrown in. HP does not create the work. its the result of the work.

Torque is real. Torque can be measured.

HP is calculated.

See the difference?
 

ben8jam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
155
Reaction score
225
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
I can tell you that the stock tune is programmed for much more power than the advertised output if you use high octane fuel and allow the ECU to adjust over some driving (or by pulling the battery, etc).
Well I did not experience Ferrari like acceleration in the first 10 miles of driving on 91, BUT I'm willing to give it a few tanks to see ;)
 

Oregon Comrade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
113
Reaction score
89
Location
Portland, OR
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4
you are completely backwards. torque is that gets the job done. HP is simply torque ( the work) over time.

The formula for HP is TORQUE x RPM. with a constant thrown in. HP does not create the work. its the result of the work.

Torque is real. Torque can be measured.

HP is calculated.

See the difference?
It's not intuitive, but torque doesn't do any "work" that's why HP is king. You can put a big breaker bar on a bolt, you can apply lots of torque to that bolt but if it doesn't move, no work is being done....aka you don't actually do anything.

Again, we can use a more extreme example....which one would you pick to power a large vehicle, lets go more extreme than even a F1 car engine?

Option A) 1500 HP @ 30,000 RPM; 400 FT/LB max
Option B) 600 HP @ 2,000 RPM; 1950 FT/LB max

Which would you pick and why?

@weasel1 @Psykostevo @P. A. Schilke feel free to jump in with your opinions....
 
Last edited:

Psykostevo

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
215
Reaction score
335
Location
Queen Creek, AZ
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger
Vehicle Showcase
1
Well I did not experience Ferrari like acceleration in the first 10 miles of driving on 91, BUT I'm willing to give it a few tanks to see ;)
From my experience 91 alone won’t hit the fully advanced Octane Adaptive Ratio, but it will give you a higher value than 87 would after it adapts. Be sure you floor it aggressively here and there to let it see that it can explore more range safely.
 

jeepwranger

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
10
Reaction score
4
Location
pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
'16 wrangler
The formula 1 engine won't be able to move a semi trailer. Not with any kind of transmission that you could actually buy.
 

Oregon Comrade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
113
Reaction score
89
Location
Portland, OR
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4
The formula 1 engine won't be able to move a semi trailer. Not with any kind of transmission that you could actually buy.
Of course not with current transmission - it's conceptual, and we need to ignore durability, but a transmission could certainly be designed and the physics are still valid, it could easily power a semi.
 

Cape Cruiser

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bret
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
2,955
Location
Southern Delaware
Vehicle(s)
31 Ford-20 Ranger Lariat FX4- 19 Ranger Lariat 4x2
Occupation
retired mechanic
It's not intuitive, but torque doesn't do any "work" that's why HP is king. You can put a big breaker bar on a bolt, you can apply lots of torque to that bolt but if it doesn't move, no work is being done....aka you don't actually do anything.

Again, we can use a more extreme example....which one would you pick to power a large vehicle, lets go more extreme than even a F1 car engine?

Option A) 1500 HP @ 30,000 RPM; 400 FT/LB max
Option B) 600 HP @ 2,000 RPM; 1950 FT/LB max

Which would you pick and why?

@weasel1 @Psykostevo @P. A. Schilke feel free to jump in with your opinions....
Easy option B time to end this one. There are enough auto engineers to put this to rest!
 

Oregon Comrade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
113
Reaction score
89
Location
Portland, OR
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4
Easy option B time to end this one. There are enough auto engineers to put this to rest!
Not that easy.

I guess all the engineers that designed the Abrams tank and it's corresponding turbine engine could learn a thing or two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

It's important to note, the engine has a 10:1 reduction unit bolted to it, crankshaft spins at 20,000+ RPM, it is reduced down (through GEARING) and has 2x the torque as option B. That's exactly why HP matters and torque is largely meaningless....gearing.
Sponsored

 
 



Top