COBB Accessport Confirmed for 2.3L Bronco + PandaTuned Custom Tunes Coming SOON!

[SHANUT]

Who gets a $40-50k Offroader with a turbo engine and runs 87??

Anyone with enough sense and mechanical knowledge to know that there is no noticeable difference running anything higher than 87 octane fuel in a factory vehicle.

Sponsored

 

[Leafy]

Anyone with enough sense and mechanical knowledge to know that there is no noticeable difference running anything higher than 87 octane fuel in a factory vehicle.

except you know, ford explicitly stating different hp and torque numbers for 87 and 91+. And the sound difference at low rpm and high load that even Hellen Keller could hear. And the different numbers on the factory boost gauge. Need I go on?

 

[BeansN8R]

TBD on which ECU codes will be at initial release

Hopefully this is one of them !

 

[CarmeloS]

Anyone with enough sense and mechanical knowledge to know that there is no noticeable difference running anything higher than 87 octane fuel in a factory vehicle.

I'm a Speed Devil, I use the extra power 93 provides

 

[BeansN8R]

We will not offer an 87 octane tune, as we do not see a meaningful benefit in doing so. After working with these engines for more than ten years, we have consistently seen that they perform better and enjoy longer reliability on higher-octane fuel.


Offering a tune that could reduce reliability goes against our standards, so it is not something we are willing to pursue. Ford requiring premium fuel for certain calibrations aligns with our own findings. All of the testing we have seen shows that these engines carry far less risk when running premium compared to 87

 

[BeansN8R]

We will not offer an 87 octane tune, as we do not see a meaningful benefit in doing so. After working with these engines for more than ten years, we have consistently seen that they perform better and enjoy longer reliability on higher-octane fuel.


Offering a tune that could reduce reliability goes against our standards, so it is not something we are willing to pursue. Ford requiring premium fuel for certain calibrations aligns with our own findings. All of the testing we have seen shows that these engines carry far less risk when running premium compared to 87

Could you please tell me EXACTLY how the OE (Ford) ecu would "know" what octane is being used? Many make statements but i want reality.
Since there's no such thing as an octane sensor on these and since the upstream O2 can't detect octane, only the lack of O2 in the exhaust stream.
I have a theory on the only way it could know/tell there's a different octane but, i want to hear it from a pro that actually works in the performance field.
Thank you !

 

[Leafy]

Could you please tell me EXACTLY how the OE (Ford) ecu would "know" what octane is being used? Many make statements but i want reality.
Since there's no such thing as an octane sensor on these and since the upstream O2 can't detect octane, only the lack of O2 in the exhaust stream.
I have a theory on the only way it could know/tell there's a different octane but, i want to hear it from a pro that actually works in the performance field.
Thank you !

The same way every ecu has done it since the 90s. Monitor the knock sensor. Different brands will use different triggers to attempt to run more ignition advance and may have different strategies for what they do with their estimate octane value. Maybe panda can tell you what ford do, I can only tell you what late 90s and early 2000s GM, mid 2000s Subaru and Audi did.

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

Could you please tell me EXACTLY how the OE (Ford) ecu would "know" what octane is being used? Many make statements but i want reality.
Since there's no such thing as an octane sensor on these and since the upstream O2 can't detect octane, only the lack of O2 in the exhaust stream.
I have a theory on the only way it could know/tell there's a different octane but, i want to hear it from a pro that actually works in the performance field.
Thank you !

It is using a few things. One is the knock sensors, and another is the fuel trims, which help create your OAR. The OAR is an octane-adjust ratio the ECU uses to apply more or less timing based on what it is seeing. It is all calculated behavior.


What most people do not realize is that, for example, if you try to run 91 and E30 on one map, as some tuners offer, the ECU is only reacting to what is already happening. That is exactly why we do not offer those types of tunes. We create separate calibrations so the car knows what fuel it should have and has an appropriate adjustment range based on that known fuel.


Yes, the ECU can adjust roughly 20 percent, but again, it is adjusting after it detects that the fuel is not providing what the timing tables expect. It continues trying to compensate. That is not great for long term reliability and goes against what we professionally believe is best for the customer’s vehicle.


With that said, no, it does not know the specific octane in the tank the way people imagine. What it knows is what timing curve should match a given octane based on testing, and it adjusts timing up or down depending on the knock sensor activity and OAR behavior.


I hope this helps answer your question and clarify why we do not recommend 87 octane or multi-octane style tuning. The tradeoff in reliability is simply not worth it for the investment you have in your Bronco.

 

[Leafy]

It is using a few things. One is the knock sensors, and another is the fuel trims, which help create your OAR. The OAR is an octane-adjust ratio the ECU uses to apply more or less timing based on what it is seeing. It is all calculated behavior.


What most people do not realize is that, for example, if you try to run 91 and E30 on one map, as some tuners offer, the ECU is only reacting to what is already happening. That is exactly why we do not offer those types of tunes. We create separate calibrations so the car knows what fuel it should have and has an appropriate adjustment range based on that known fuel.


Yes, the ECU can adjust roughly 20 percent, but again, it is adjusting after it detects that the fuel is not providing what the timing tables expect. It continues trying to compensate. That is not great for long term reliability and goes against what we professionally believe is best for the customer’s vehicle.


With that said, no, it does not know the specific octane in the tank the way people imagine. What it knows is what timing curve should match a given octane based on testing, and it adjusts timing up or down depending on the knock sensor activity and OAR behavior.


I hope this helps answer your question and clarify why we do not recommend 87 octane or multi-octane style tuning. The tradeoff in reliability is simply not worth it for the investment you have in your Bronco.

Does ford use two timing and boost maps and linear interpolation? Or are they in the quadratic/multivariate equation camp for octane compensation?

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

There are hundreds of tables that all work together inside the Ford strategy. It is not as simple as two timing maps with interpolation, and it is not a single quadratic or multivariate equation either. It is a combination of multiple timing, load, airflow, knock response, and OAR-related tables that all blend depending on what the sensors are reporting.


There are no boost tables that change with octane. Boost is commanded based on load, torque limits, airflow limits, and temperature conditions, not the fuel’s octane rating. Timing changes with octane compensation, but boost does not.


If these were true flex-fuel vehicles with an ethanol content sensor, it would open the door for proper fuel-based strategies and much wider, safer dynamic adjustments. But they are not, which is why Ford relies on knock feedback and OAR instead of a direct octane or ethanol measurement.

 

[Leafy]

Interesting that they don’t have an obvious way that boost changes with octane. It’s observably different between 87 and 93 on the stock tune with it actually being lower on 93. In guessing they’re using driver requested torque in part of the calculation and with the extra timing on higher octane they’re able to command lower boost to achieve the same calculated torque.

 

[CarmeloS]

Time to invest in clutch makers, business will boom when the stock unit hits its limit when the mods are utilized

 

[crenca]

What most people do not realize is that, for example, if you try to run 91 and E30 on one map, as some tuners offer, the ECU is only reacting to what is already happening. That is exactly why we do not offer those types of tunes. We create separate calibrations so the car knows what fuel it should have and has an appropriate adjustment range based on that known fuel.

Yes, the ECU can adjust roughly 20 percent, but again, it is adjusting after it detects that the fuel is not providing what the timing tables expect. It continues trying to compensate. That is not great for long term reliability and goes against what we professionally believe is best for the customer’s vehicle.

I hope this helps answer your question and clarify why we do not recommend 87 octane or multi-octane style tuning. The tradeoff in reliability is simply not worth it for the investment you have in your Bronco

I understand your reasoning here, though it is not practical for myself and others. I live in an area of the country where E85 or even 93 is too far in between and inconsistent to not have the option of a tune that can be adjusted - either manually or by ECU - to varying anti-knock properties of the fuel (at least down to 91).

Heck, there is a stretch between here and San Antonio (a semi-regular trip for me) where you have to top off your tank even if it is 3/4 full as you might very well not make it to the next station if the wind is against you (and it very likely will be)...

Time to invest in clutch makers, business will boom when the stock unit hits its limit when the mods are utilized

Yea. I think it was @Ducati1098 who posted Ford's official torque limit for the clutch/transmission somewhere for a manual Bronco, I have something in the low 400ftb range in my head (going from memory). Even the relatively mild Ford Performance tune is approaching that. The 2.3 needs to breath better in the 4-6k range, not necessarily more torque in the 3-4 range, and a tune can not alter those dynamics I do not think - perhaps @Panda Motorworks will affirm or correct me.

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

I understand your reasoning here, though it is not practical for myself and others. I live in an area of the country where E85 or even 93 is too far in between and inconsistent to not have the option of a tune that can be adjusted - either manually or by ECU - to varying anti-knock properties of the fuel (at least down to 91).

Heck, there is a stretch between here and San Antonio (a semi-regular trip for me) where you have to top off your tank even if it is 3/4 full as you might very well not make it to the next station if the wind is against you (and it very likely will be)...



Yea. I think it was @Ducati1098 who posted Ford's official torque limit for the clutch/transmission somewhere for a manual Bronco, I have something in the low 400ftb range in my head (going from memory). Even the relatively mild Ford Performance tune is approaching that. The 2.3 needs to breath better in the 4-6k range, not necessarily more torque in the 3-4 range, and a tune can not alter those dynamics I do not think - perhaps @Panda Motorworks will affirm or correct me.

If you do not have 93 within a four hour radius, I would strongly recommend going with a 91 tune. That gives you a safe and consistent option you can run every day, and you will still see the timing benefits if running 93 on a 91 tune that come with properly calibrated 91 octane.


Running a 93 tune and putting 91 in the tank is not advised if you plan to drive the vehicle hard. For normal highway cruising it will not cause issues, but under load it is not worth the risk. The fuels themselves are very similar, with 93 simply allowing us to be slightly more aggressive with timing in certain areas.


A dedicated 91 tune gives you the ability to enjoy the performance gains while staying within the limits of the fuel available in your region, and it avoids the compromises and reliability concerns that come with multi-octane or reactive tunes.

For Ethanol mix it will always be a separate tune from us!

 

[zyglyrox]

@crenca , you’re probably better off looking at aftermarket turbos, as there’s not much they’ll be able to do once our factory turbo runs out. Possibly some HP to gain, but we’re limited by turbo flow.

Something like this is really the only way you’ll see those improvements.

Sponsored