2.3L really needs to be tuned better

[HoosierDaddy]

My bone stock baseBase rarely sees boost at 78mph on the interstates.
30" tires, 4.46 gears, manual


At 3k miles, I am either getting tuned into how to drive this thing or the motor has really woken up.
This thing is FUN to drive!!! The motor feels like it wants to SHRED!!!

Sponsored

 

[dingle87]

According to your "tribal knowledge", you would think the 2.3 was only capable of moving a Geo Metro or lighter.

This won't count as "tribal", but instead real world experience, but as the owner of a 2019 Ford Ranger (Lariat, Super Cab, FX4 & towing package), and having done multiple trips which were each over 2,000 miles, and across the rocky mountains (and back) and all through Montana, while towing a 3,500 lb trailer with over 1,000 lbs in the bed and another 600 lbs in the cab, the 2.3 is perfectly suited for towing. (That's 9,541 total lbs for those playing along at home)-

Still has acceleration up hills, in the mountains or on flats at 70 mph, isn't overly burdened by the weight and returns decent fuel economy while doing so (we averaged about 12-15 mpg which is quite good under load and with a trailer)

I'm going to challenge you to come up with any type of hypothetical real-world situation where Bronco is required to move MORE weight than the Ranger is capable of.

Ranger:

• 2019 Ford Ranger curb weight: 4,441#
• Max towing capacity: 7,500#
• Max cabin and bed capacity with full trailer is 1,860#

Ranger Maximum weight being moved: 13,801

Source: https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

Bronco

• Curb weight: 4,997#
• Max towing capacity: 3,500#
• Max cabin load: 1,163#

Bronco maximum weight being moved: 9,660


Now, I might not be ivy league educated, but as your average accountant I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty, bordering on complete confidence, that 13,801 is in fact more than 9,660.

So much so, that it's nearly 30% greater. But hey, it's not like every guy has an extra 30% of length or girth for just such an occasion.

Long story short, lets lay the dick measuring to rest when it comes to the 2.3 ecoboost not being sufficient to motivate a Bronco with the minimal trailer that the suspension will allow. I will admit that i've only had a total vehicle weight of Ranger which is 119 lbs less than Bronco's maximum load. I'm willing to make a reasonable bet that the 119 lbs difference between what i've already driven with the 2.3 doesn't suddenly turn Ranger into what you've proclaimed as vastly overwhelming to the Bronco.

Well, thanks…. Then i went and drove the 2.3 ranger. I realized more from that experience, checking out the ranger forum and it’s tow ratings, than you supplied in your response to me.

Enjoy your evening.

 

[Draykas]

I am looking forward to towing with my 2.3 auto badlands with 35(non Squatch) and am not worried. will be towing travel trailer weighed(scaled) 3185 last run we did camping. I hope to have it soon and once break in after first 1000 miles will be hooking up.

 

[navi]

According to your "tribal knowledge", you would think the 2.3 was only capable of moving a Geo Metro or lighter.

This won't count as "tribal", but instead real world experience, but as the owner of a 2019 Ford Ranger (Lariat, Super Cab, FX4 & towing package), and having done multiple trips which were each over 2,000 miles, and across the rocky mountains (and back) and all through Montana, while towing a 3,500 lb trailer with over 1,000 lbs in the bed and another 600 lbs in the cab, the 2.3 is perfectly suited for towing. (That's 9,541 total lbs for those playing along at home)-

Still has acceleration up hills, in the mountains or on flats at 70 mph, isn't overly burdened by the weight and returns decent fuel economy while doing so (we averaged about 12-15 mpg which is quite good under load and with a trailer)

I'm going to challenge you to come up with any type of hypothetical real-world situation where Bronco is required to move MORE weight than the Ranger is capable of.

Ranger:

• 2019 Ford Ranger curb weight: 4,441#
• Max towing capacity: 7,500#
• Max cabin and bed capacity with full trailer is 1,860#

Ranger Maximum weight being moved: 13,801

Source: https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

Bronco

• Curb weight: 4,997#
• Max towing capacity: 3,500#
• Max cabin load: 1,163#

Bronco maximum weight being moved: 9,660


Now, I might not be ivy league educated, but as your average accountant I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty, bordering on complete confidence, that 13,801 is in fact more than 9,660.

So much so, that it's nearly 30% greater. But hey, it's not like every guy has an extra 30% of length or girth for just such an occasion.

Long story short, lets lay the dick measuring to rest when it comes to the 2.3 ecoboost not being sufficient to motivate a Bronco with the minimal trailer that the suspension will allow. I will admit that i've only had a total vehicle weight of Ranger which is 119 lbs less than Bronco's maximum load. I'm willing to make a reasonable bet that the 119 lbs difference between what i've already driven with the 2.3 doesn't suddenly turn Ranger into what you've proclaimed as vastly overwhelming to the Bronco.

The Ranger with the added towing package can do all that, yeah sure...the Bronco not so much.

 

[Rick Astley]

The Ranger with the added towing package can do all that, yeah sure...the Bronco not so much.

That the Bronco chassis can't due to it's off-road focused design is not the engines fault.

The 2.3 is perfectly capable of towing and hauling drastically more than Bronco can throw at it. There just is not a valid argument that the 2.3 isn't enough motor for Bronco.

 

[navi]

That the Bronco chassis can't due to it's off-road focused design is not the engines fault.

The 2.3 is perfectly capable of towing and hauling drastically more than Bronco can throw at it. There just is not a valid argument that the 2.3 isn't enough motor for Bronco.

There are plenty of arguments, threads even, that the 2.3 isn't enough motor for a Bronco.

That said, the towing capacity of the beefed up Ranger isn't relevant to those arguments.

 

[Rick Astley]

There are plenty of arguments, threads even, that the 2.3 isn't enough motor for a Bronco.

That said, the towing capacity of the beefed up Ranger isn't relevant to those arguments.

Hey, if you think directly showing what the motor is capable of is not applicable to an argument if Bronco can adequately operate on public roads at 60% capacity then more power to ya!

No need to try and make logical sense when somebody chooses to ignore logic.

 

[navi]

Hey, if you think directly showing what the motor is capable of is not applicable to an argument if Bronco can adequately operate on public roads at 60% capacity then more power to ya!

No need to try and make logical sense when somebody chooses to ignore logic.

You latched onto one 2.3 capability, somehow thinking that alone settles an ongoing complicated debate.
There are many other logical points that carry way more weight than the towing capacity of a Ranger.

 

[AlexFNYC]

I know its an old thread but for anyone researching.... 2.3 BD with AT and Ford Performance tune - mostly city driving and I am heavy footed - I get between 17.6 to 18.6 as average

 

[The Driving Viking]

All factory engines are tuned to meet government emission regulations. If it wasn't for that they would all run better straight from the factory.

 

[BigBendBW]

I know its an old thread but for anyone researching.... 2.3 BD with AT and Ford Performance tune - mostly city driving and I am heavy footed - I get between 17.6 to 18.6 as average

Squatch or no? I have a FP tune on the way and curious what to expect. Transmission wise seeing any changes in timing of shifts?

 

[lapazleo]

For all the fact-slingers in here, nobody has even referenced the Pinto, where the 2.3 motor originated.

This is some shameffull S-talking from the millennials and I expected better from all of you.

@MaverickMan and I are so very disappointed in you all.

but I get it, all learning was created when Wikipedia was invented and not a minute before. Bet you kids don't even keep a few pieces of Hubba Bubba bubblegum and a jar of table pepper in your toolboxes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine

Not the same 2.3 not even close the 2.3 lima engine from pintos and rangers is quite different.

 

[l88m22vette]

I've owned 3 turbo-4s in my life - 1.8T Audi TT, 2.5T 2005 Outback, which was swapped to an EJ20Y when the EJ255 ate it. For those of you who don't know Subarus, I should have bought a second engine the day I got the car, since the 255 is a complete pile. The 2003 TTq has been a reliable, powerful sewing machine since I bought it (until I parked it) and it loved the full set of bolt-ons. The 1.8T is a glorious engine and I'll always go to bat for it, and I'll eventually build the 2.1L with the parts I have.

The 2.3 embarrasses all of those, at least with non-boost normal driving. This is 275/300hp with a 6.5mm more bore and 11mm more stroke, a far more sophisticated turbo, DI, electronic boost management system, etc., and it moves a truck thats a ton more than either of those very well. I am disappointed they used cast pistons with forged rods and crank, seems kind of counter-intuitive, I assume its because of DI's precision and heat dissipation but that's ultimately a weak point.

Does it do 60 in under 6? No, and sure it'd be nice, but I have no doubt a bar-and-plate intercooler, intake, downpipe, tune, and some other small stuff would be awesome. I'm at 800 miles, plan an oil change at 1000, so I will start pushing boost pretty soon.

As a follow-up to boost comments, is there any way to have a combination vac/boost gauge on the display? I want Ford to release a tuned version of the display for non-Raptor normies, I'll keep everything else if I have to but come on Ford, the tachometer blows fierce goats. I need a dial, a different color scheme, something.

 

[JerryC]

On mine during a road trip weeks back, 2.3 manual SAS, at 80mph it was using a couple pounds of boost in sixth gear. Shifting down to fifth it was not in the boost.

I basically traded rpm for boost. The instant mpg on the dash seemed to indicate fifth gear was getting very slightly better mpg.

For the rest of the trip I put in sixth.

Sponsored