Dyno run - 2.7L completed

[BadmansSAS]

but you did say that "But you should be running 93 on a 2.7 no matter what. 91+ at least"

Define "no matter what".

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/dyno-run-octane-booster.113588/post-2515732

After this reply, you're going to join a select few of going on my ignore list. You're just too stupid to try and reason with.

Sponsored

 

[BadmansSAS]

Wasn't this thread originally about how to boost octane to get a high number on the dyno? I mean I'm all for free speech but...

But what? This is all topical.

 

[adam1991]

OEM Recommendation: Ford specifies 91 octane minimum for best performance on this engine, with 87 octane being acceptable only under light-load conditions.

Oh? Do tell:

Your AI is hallucinating.

 

[adam1991]

Maybe you dont read so well. Circle back and read my last post.

I read, and responded to, your first post. Are you saying you misspoke in your first post, and that we should only pay attention to your last post?

 

[crenca]

At the end of the day, modern turbo motors - ones that boost about 15psi or higher - "want", I would say even "need", more knock retardant then 87 provides. Running 87 in them is just leaving too much thermodynamic efficiency (which is to say power) on the table and your better off with a NA solution. Manufactures are really only building them/tuning them to game the EPA ratings system, and to run 87 because that is what is the standard so that is what everyone is going to use.

Also @adam1991 & @BadmansSAS you both are spamming the thread - try to keep it at less than 3 posts per minute please

 

[BadmansSAS]

Oh? Do tell:

Your AI is hallucinating.

Ouch. Directly from your image. Maybe keep reading past the giant 87.

 

[B22-2023]

Dynojet 224 test results at MTI Racing:
Rear wheel 275 hp at 4800 rpm & 335 ft-lbs torque at 3980 rpm
(Factory flywheel numbers are 330 hp/415 torque.)

Comments from MTI:
Is hard to get consistent runs on the 2.7L due to the nanny functions in the ECU
5th gear runs
3rd run was low because of heat soak
Results were close to a Raptor dyno
Including my Method wheels and heavier tires figure on a 23 - 24 pct drive train loss adjustment against factory power numbers at the flywheel, which would imply a 10% bump for me over stock if that multiplier is correct.

 

[Ducati1098]

Dynojet 224 test results at MTI Racing:
Rear wheel 275 hp at 4800 rpm & 335 ft-lbs torque at 3980 rpm
(Factory flywheel numbers are 330 hp/415 torque.)

Comments from MTI:
Is hard to get consistent runs on the 2.7L due to the nanny functions in the ECU
5th gear runs
3rd run was low because of heat soak
Results were close to a Raptor dyno
Including my Method wheels and heavier tires figure on a 23 - 24 pct drive train loss adjustment against factory power numbers at the flywheel, which would imply a 10% bump for me over stock if that multiplier is correct.

Seems somewhat normal.
Mine with bolt ons and the factory stock tune made 274/354

 

[userdude]

Thread has that cat urine smell all over it... Sorry @B22-2023, I thought it was interesting if over my head.

On the other hand, it's Friday beetches and it's raining so random spin out time!!! Too bad I got those sticky M/Ts... Oh wait, my pickup's got those slick KO2's. Going to go do some drifting donuts pulling out into traffic...

 

[B22-2023]

Thread has that cat urine smell all over it

Haha - I don't disagree, sorry - I almost started a new thread to leave this one behind.

 

[B22-2023]

Seems somewhat normal.
Mine with bolt ons and the factory stock tune made 274/354

Yeah, though I guess I should have had it tested in 6th gear - I didn't pick up on that til after the test, and they really don't know the Bronco to understand the ratios.

Anyway it was a fun day out, and the rig was ready to haul a$$ once it go off the test stand and on to the highway!!

 

[FXanimator]

OK....what part of Ford powertrain engineering do you work for again?



That's WAY different than saying that I need to run 93. As for your comment "cheap out," how is that "cheapening out"? There's no damage being done; the truck has plenty of power and torque with 87, so why should I pay for more (assuming there's more to be had in the first place) if I don't need it??

Or did I "cheap out" by not buying a Braptor, for example? By your logic, I "cheapened out" and left power on the table by buying a 2.7. What do you say to those who bought the 2.3?



Ummm....no, it doesn't "want" 93. Not by any stretch.



"Should be"??? I'll follow the manufacturer's documented lead, if you don't mind. No E20 or E30, thank you very much.



I somehow doubt that.



Right back at ya.

Anger issues?

 

[adam1991]

Anger issues?

Yes, he does, doesn't he.

Sponsored