New Bronco Seems To Confirm What We Suspected

[Rviator]

here's a post from another thread comparing stock 93 to tuned 93, that previous article was 87 to 87.

Until I see dyno runs of a stock truck on regular and one on premium fuel, both runs without a tune, that show there is a performance gain with premium fuel alone I'll remain skeptical.

Sponsored

 

[VAMike]

Until I see dyno runs of a stock truck on regular and one on premium fuel, both runs without a tune, that show there is a performance gain with premium fuel alone I'll remain skeptical.

That's been done, dig around. One of the tuner companies posted it as an interesting finding while they were in development.

 

[Langwilliams]

Until I see dyno runs of a stock truck on regular and one on premium fuel, both runs without a tune, that show there is a performance gain with premium fuel alone I'll remain skeptical.

There are out there....I just showed you a stock 87 an a stock 93. Google my friend.

The links I shared show 237.2 HP an 264.7 TQ stock on 87 an 253.58 HP an 278.78 TQ. so roughly 15/15 improvement. Granted this wasn't the same truck on the same dyno but I wasn't digging that deep. help yourself to if you question it.

 

[Shadowranger1989]

thanks for the help
i guess since im a dickhead alot of times, when i try and learn something, i'll get the easy target dickhead responses back.

some guys are stepping up and helping me, and i appreciate it.

Octane itself offers no power increase, the changes that take place to use the benefit of octane do. that includes timing if necessary. If i am running 87 and have no knock events, no reason for the computers to change any parameter. then tell me running 94 suddenly gives me 30hp??? how, if you're so smart, explain it to me....i'll wait

OCTANE ADJUSTMENT RATIO like stated before. Lmao

 

[VAMike]

yeah....so, no tune involved....just high/low octane fuels....the OAR adjusts to prevent knocking.
continue....I'll listen

Seriously, what do you not understand?

 

[FloggingBishop]

The engine will only do what it’s programmed. I doubt that Ford installed a tune on stock vehicles to make metric tones more hp on fuel alone. That’s bad business. Also, is 270 not enough for 90% of us??? You might see some gains on fuel only but not an extra 30-45. All those stats are on dyno under perfect conditions. The biggest gains for hp using only fuel will be between 87 and 94. Then again I am wrong a lot of the time. I wouldn’t personally pay more at the pump for minimal gains unless I was going to use it. I mean there is a reason cars don’t run 100LL (besides lead) unless it’s built too

 

[Langwilliams]

The engine will only do what it’s programmed. I doubt that Ford installed a tune on stock vehicles to make metric tones more hp on fuel alone. That’s bad business. Also, is 270 not enough for 90% of us??? You might see some gains on fuel only but not an extra 30-45. All those stats are on dyno under perfect conditions. The biggest gains for hp using only fuel will be between 87 and 94. Then again I am wrong a lot of the time. I wouldn’t personally pay more at the pump for minimal gains unless I was going to use it. I mean there is a reason cars don’t run 100LL (besides lead) unless it’s built too

From the dyno's I saw where people got a baseline on a stock ranger with both reg an premium you have run run premium to get the 270 an the difference I saw was roughly 15 hp 15 tq...which is about a 5% difference.

I never saw a real increase in MPG with premium...if you get one it helps offset the added cost.

 

[FloggingBishop]

From the dyno's I saw where people got a baseline on a stock ranger with both reg an premium you have run run premium to get the 270 an the difference I saw was roughly 15 hp 15 tq...which is about a 5% difference.

I never saw a real increase in MPG with premium...if you get one it helps offset the added cost.

Yeah I agree with those numbers. I more mean we aren’t going to get the 30-45 increase that I guess the 2.3 has in other vehicles. I’m sure if you run 93+ octane you will get 270 or maybe a little passed it, but it’s not going to do it all.

 

[wetidlerjr]

The "2021 FORD RANGER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS" say the HP is 270 and the recommended fuel is 87 octane. It doesn't menton having to use 93 octane fuel to achieve 270 HP.

 

[AzScorpion]

The "2021 FORD RANGER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS" say the HP is 270 and the recommended fuel is 87 octane. It doesn't menton having to use 93 octane fuel to achieve 270 HP.

No but the new Bronco does and it shares the same 2.3 and 10A so that's what the controversy is about.

From post #7:

ENGINES	2.3L ECOBOOST	2.7L ECOBOOST
SAE horsepower	300* (275 regular fuel)	330* (315 regular fuel)
SAE torque	325* (315 regular fuel)	415* (410 regular fuel)

* figure using premium fuel

 

[wetidlerjr]

No but the new Bronco does and it shares the same 2.3 and 10A so that's what the controversy is about.

From post #7:

ENGINES	2.3L ECOBOOST	2.7L ECOBOOST
SAE horsepower	300* (275 regular fuel)	330* (315 regular fuel)
SAE torque	325* (315 regular fuel)	415* (410 regular fuel)

* figure using premium fuel

Yes, I am aware of what the controversy is and the Bronco HP ratings. I was referring to the comment that the 270 HP could only be achieved using 93 octane fuel in the Ranger. Some replies here are not exactly clear (at least to me) and has anyone confirmed that the engines are identical in ALL aspects? For instance, the Bronco 2.3 has larger intake and exhaust valves according to the spec sheets. Also, the 2.3 has a range of HP ratings over different years and models.

 

[Langwilliams]

The "2021 FORD RANGER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS" say the HP is 270 and the recommended fuel is 87 octane. It doesn't menton having to use 93 octane fuel to achieve 270 HP.

Looking at the stock dyno's I saw that are rear wheel HP numbers.....if you add 15% to account for driveline loss you would get about 255 crank HP on 87 an 272 on 93. So IMO if you run regular you're only losing 15 hp an saving just over $500 a year. I come up with the $500 amount based on buying one tank a week, which is pretty much what I do.

seems Ford gave the ranger the tamest 2.3 factory tune. I saw a video comparing the stock tune to a few of the aftermarket tunes....breaking into the fuel tables an boost levels an they said there's a lot of low hanging fruit for the tuners to make easy gains. I wonder if this is to keep longevity up for a truck that might go into fleet service, do a lot of towing an keep warranty claims down.

Any ford inside guys in here know if they all use the same cam? Is the difference all tuning? I can see having different cams for the truck to keep TQ down low for hauling an towing an the RS having a higher RPM cam to put HP up high to keep it in the powerband when doing high RPM shifts.

 

[wetidlerjr]

Looking at the stock dyno's I saw that are rear wheel HP numbers.....if you add 15% to account for driveline loss you would get about 255 crank HP on 87 an 272 on 93. So IMO if you run regular you're only losing 15 hp an saving just over $500 a year. I come up with the $500 amount based on buying one tank a week, which is pretty much what I do.
seems Ford gave the ranger the tamest 2.3 factory tune. I saw a video comparing the stock tune to a few of the aftermarket tunes....breaking into the fuel tables an boost levels an they said there's a lot of low hanging fruit for the tuners to make easy gains. I wonder if this is to keep longevity up for a truck that might go into fleet service, do a lot of towing an keep warranty claims down.
Any ford inside guys in here know if they all use the same cam? Is the difference all tuning? I can see having different cams for the truck to keep TQ down low for hauling an towing an the RS having a higher RPM cam to put HP up high to keep it in the powerband when doing high RPM shifts.

That makes sense. If we want to get a major power upgrade in a Ranger 2.3, it seems it will have to be with a tune (and 93).

 

[Nick Barber]

I ran premium for a few tanks and all I could notice was that I was spending more on gas

 

[VAMike]

probably alot, which is why i am asking.

i tend to read as much as possible when i dont know a subject.
what i find in this topic, is that theres a wide variance in the answer.
wanna know who makes the claims the most that 93 gives you more power??? tuners. the tuner sites who are pushing a tune.
thats biased

and when I call out someone for parroting a tuners claim, and they are caught in a corner...all you get are the responses of, are you dumb? how can you not understand this??

so i continue to poke the bees nest....

Well, instead of juvenile trolling you could actually do some research. The effect of octane on spontaneous/preignition, and the timing adjustments to compensate, and the effect that has on engine power output are all fairly well documented in peer reviewed literature. Will more octane automatically give you more power? No. Will more octane give you more power if your engine has retarded timing due to preignition of lower octane fuel (particularly in a turbocharged gasoline engine)? Yes. (That is, in fact, why octane is added to fuel: to make it harder to ignite.) Will the amount of power you gain be noticeable? Maybe, maybe not.

If you want to be more than just a ridiculous troll, try presenting a respectable contrary source, which indicates that octane does not have an effect on engine power in a GTDI engine. Given some credible contrary data we could discuss the particulars in more detail.

Sponsored