What's "all new" about the 2024 2.3L EcoBoost?

Count Desmondo

Well-Known Member
First Name
Desmondo
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
150
Reaction score
443
Location
British Columbia
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger Supercab
Dynos that show that for a ranger and not the bronco?

I see people who say that

Then

Others say it limits overall power (ref. My posts about how well it does in hot temps)


Seems like it Ford actually certified it higher on high octane they would have bragged about it somewhere. I can't find that somewhere other than the obvious statement it will run better with high octane under stress in the manual.


Subjective note: I just drained a low octane tank to nothing to replace it with 93, prepping for my tuner. There was not a 30 hp difference between those tanks. Even after it had time to adjust. I like to think my ass dyno tuned enough to notice that big of a jump.
Some takeoffs it's hard to detect, but I swear that the 93 or 94 does make a difference. At least near sea level.
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Dgc333

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Threads
13
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
3,507
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
21 Ranger Lariat
Occupation
Engineer
Dynos that show that for a ranger and not the bronco?

I see people who say that

Then

Others say it limits overall power (ref. My posts about how well it does in hot temps)


Seems like it Ford actually certified it higher on high octane they would have bragged about it somewhere. I can't find that somewhere other than the obvious statement it will run better with high octane under stress in the manual.


Subjective note: I just drained a low octane tank to nothing to replace it with 93, prepping for my tuner. There was not a 30 hp difference between those tanks. Even after it had time to adjust. I like to think my ass dyno tuned enough to notice that big of a jump.
After 6 years on the Ecoboost Mustang forum there is overwhelming evidence that there is about a 30HP difference between 87 octane and 93 octane with the 2.3 Ecoboost. Ford is even advertising that difference with the Bronco. There have been dyno tests on the Ranger that show that kind of difference. Having owned both an Ecoboost Mustang and a Ranger my butt dyno confirms that there is a very significant difference in top end power between 87 and 93 octane.

Why Ford advertises the difference with the 2.3 Bronco and not the Ranger is likely based on the market that they expect to sell the Ranger to verse the Bronco. I would venture a guess that the typical Ranger buyer would be scared off if Ford said you need to use 93 octane to get the rated power. Typical Bronco and Mustang buyers are more performance oriented and look at getting more power with 93 as and advantage.
 

GTGallop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
Threads
49
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Anthem, AZ
Website
www.qrz.com
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT 4X4 SOLD - Now 2023 TRD Offroad
Occupation
Program Manager
I heard that Ford is claiming an "all new" 2.3L EcoBoost engine for 2024...
Any details??
Don't forget there are two 2.2L Ecoboost engines.

There is the one that goes in the Mustang and then there is the one that went in the Focus. Focus was slightly different to make room for the trans axle in the transverse mounted configuration.

Because we have a 4x4 option in the Ranger they needed the Focus Ecoboost with it's transaxle room. Now that there is no more Focus, Does Ford need Two Ecoboosts? I'd imagine they just redesigned the 2.3 to accommodate all platforms: Mav, Ranger, Mustang, Escape, Explorer, Transit Connect, etc...

For me...
I hear a lot of talk about the 2.3 Eco and the 5.0 Coyote. But the 6 doesn't seem to get a lot of airplay - the one that goes in the Raptor. I'm thinking that V6 needs to be in the Mustang and Ranger instead of the 2.3L.
 

Wytchdctr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Doug P.
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Threads
54
Messages
1,539
Reaction score
4,220
Location
Westside Htown, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2021 XLT
Occupation
Retired Military/HR Manager
After 6 years on the Ecoboost Mustang forum there is overwhelming evidence that there is about a 30HP difference between 87 octane and 93 octane with the 2.3 Ecoboost. Ford is even advertising that difference with the Bronco. There have been dyno tests on the Ranger that show that kind of difference. Having owned both an Ecoboost Mustang and a Ranger my butt dyno confirms that there is a very significant difference in top end power between 87 and 93 octane.

Why Ford advertises the difference with the 2.3 Bronco and not the Ranger is likely based on the market that they expect to sell the Ranger to verse the Bronco. I would venture a guess that the typical Ranger buyer would be scared off if Ford said you need to use 93 octane to get the rated power. Typical Bronco and Mustang buyers are more performance oriented and look at getting more power with 93 as and advantage.
Thanks. I am also upping what I am going to program anyway so gains will be had. About two week out per my last feedback from Livernosis
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
 



Top