Bronco 2.3L PandaTuning is HERE! 🚨🔥

[BlueWaffle]

That is the million dollar question right there. That's gonna be different for every transmission, gear ratio, tire and wheel combo out there.

General rule of thumb I've always heard was 15% for manuals, and 20% for ATs. But I dunno how close the Bronco is to those.

Slightly different yeah.. FWDs have the least amount of parasitic loss largely thanks to not needing to change the direction of drivetrain rotation 90° before power reaches the wheels.. widely accepted that a FWD will sap 10-12%.. rwd will steal 15-18% and awd/4wd systems especially while IN 4wd can be up to 25%

Very rough generalized figures though as you said.. the weight of various rotating parts will have an affect as well as if it's a manual or auto.. but.. with a little digging on the interwebs concerning dynosheets and stuff and then doing a little bit of math will get a guy reeeeal close to figuring out actual CHP figures.

Sponsored

 

[ericwmedic]

It shouldn't be that difficult (or as you say.. a lot of extra steps) to deduce what CHP would be after you know what WHP is.. or is it?

Presumably you'd just have to take the WHP figure and then simply add whatever the percentage of power that's lost through the driverrain and end up being close enough..

I'm slightly under the influence right now though so... I could very well be way off base lol.

You can likely make a good guess, especially if you get a "before" dyno without any other power-adding mods. If, for example, you know you made 260hp at the wheels on 93 octane, Ford rates the 2.3L at 300hp on 93 octane. That would mean you're losing 40hp via the drivetrain, so call it 15% (for fudge factor/ dyno differences). Now, with all of the bolt ons and a tune, you're at 360hp at the wheels. Add back in your 15%, and you're making ~414hp at the crank.

What I mean by the "extra steps" would be removing the engine from the Bronco, taking it to someone with an engine dyno, and running it. That would be the truly reliable way to get a crank hp number for your particular engine. It sounds fun, but I'll let someone with deeper pockets tackle that project.

 

[EvilJim1971]

What I mean by the "extra steps" would be removing the engine from the Bronco, taking it to someone with an engine dyno, and running it. That would be the truly reliable way to get a crank hp number for your particular engine. It sounds fun, but I'll let someone with deeper pockets tackle that project.

And running it with the full factory exhaust and air box.

 

[BlueWaffle]

You can likely make a good guess, especially if you get a "before" dyno without any other power-adding mods. If, for example, you know you made 260hp at the wheels on 93 octane, Ford rates the 2.3L at 300hp on 93 octane. That would mean you're losing 40hp via the drivetrain, so call it 15% (for fudge factor/ dyno differences). Now, with all of the bolt ons and a tune, you're at 360hp at the wheels. Add back in your 15%, and you're making ~414hp at the crank.

What I mean by the "extra steps" would be removing the engine from the Bronco, taking it to someone with an engine dyno, and running it. That would be the truly reliable way to get a crank hp number for your particular engine. It sounds fun, but I'll let someone with deeper pockets tackle that project.

Yeap... Thats definitely a level of fun I'll let someone else have. I don't wanna get greedy after all.. gotta leave some fun for the rest of you guys

 

[Q1svt]

Dyno Results:
Stock, Ford Performance, PandaTune
93 Octane. Mods: Intake, Exhaust, Intercooler

Nice information…
Can you verify the base run configuration?
Was it in ‘normal’
What if any Bronco modifications? Your pictures show over sized tires.. other changes?

Interesting that your base at wheel is same(ish) as this 2024 2.3l MPC…

Thanks for anything you can share.

 

[chu996c4]

Does this work on the 2026 (2025+ revised) 2.3L engine?

 

[Panda Motorworks]

The Panda Bronco was back on the dyno, this time testing an E50 fuel blend. OUr 2.3L Bronco produced 331 HP and 382 TQ, gaining +99 HP and +77 TQ over stock, and +26 HP and +17 TQ over our 93 octane tune. Best of all, no additional fueling upgrades or hardware modifications were required to achieve these results!

 

[jwhisl]

Does this work on the 2026 (2025+ revised) 2.3L engine?

Also waiting for a definitive answer on this

 

[Panda Motorworks]

As of right now, we can only tune up to the 2024 models, as we are waiting on Cobb to come out with support for the updated models. Once they have that out, this will certainly be something we will offer for the 25+!

 

[Tonka Bronka]

TBD, but unlikely as we have not seen that as an option on any other Fords. So not sure the Bronco would just randomly have that available.

So if I'm correct, the original Ford Performance tune for the 2.3L did have rev match for the manual trans. Then it was changed to not have it. FWIW.

 

[Brian_B]

So if I'm correct, the original Ford Performance tune for the 2.3L did have rev match for the manual trans. Then it was changed to not have it. FWIW.

Yup. They had it up through MY23 - then removed it for MY23 with a software update - and it was never there for MY24+

I think MY21-22 may have got to keep it, but not 100% certain. MY23 could keep it if they had it pre-patch so long as they never do ProCal update.

 

[Mrplowjr73]

Excuse my ignorance, tuning and particularly gas engines haven't been my area of focus over the years.

Are there limitations on the bronco tuning that would prevent a higher hp build taking ideas from the mustang world?

Turbo+Port injection+h2o etc for a 500+hp build?

Another dumb question, can the ecu in a g1 2.3 bronco drive a g2 2.3l?

Long story short, I've got a higher mileage manual 2.3 which idles ALOT (50+%). With the ford tune struggles especially towing in the mountains which only happens in the winter so heat really isn't a concern. I'd like to not have to worry quite so much valve fouling. Sure I could trade in for a 3.0l next year but I really do like the manual and its otherwise been great.

Lag is more of a safety issue than a performance issue in my use case. Winding roads and steep climbs on ice and snow van get dicy when you need the power and have to guess as to when you're going to go from blahhhhh to wahhhhhh!

 

[jwhisl]

The previous gen 2.3 to my understanding is an open deck and the limitation is the block itself. Gen 2 from what I read is a closed deck and has stronger internals (although I haven't seen proof of the stronger internals yet). Theoretically 2nd gen should be capable of surpassing the 4-500whp the previous gen fails at.

Since 2nd gen has dual injection the software and factory tune is completely different. 1st gen ECU won't be compatible.

 

[CarmeloS]

Drove 15hrs to Nashville, it was fun, but cant wait to do a big turbo, Throttle body, intake manifold and a proper tune, even if I lose rev matching (plus a vented hood)

wonder what I could make with all that

 

[Ducati1098]

The previous gen 2.3 to my understanding is an open deck and the limitation is the block itself. Gen 2 from what I read is a closed deck and has stronger internals (although I haven't seen proof of the stronger internals yet). Theoretically 2nd gen should be capable of surpassing the 4-500whp the previous gen fails at.

Since 2nd gen has dual injection the software and factory tune is completely different. 1st gen ECU won't be compatible.

They’re both open deck. The new one may be able to hold a little more power, but probably not a significant amount.

Sponsored