5Star Tuning installed on 2.0L EcoBoost Bronco Sport Badlands

[Mark S.]

Understand the octane reasoning, as the tune is written with octane requirements. It's the catch can/oil separator requirements that I question, as the 1.5 and 2.0 already have one. As other threads here have mentioned, as long as you change your oil at 5K intervals (which I assume you would with the tune's ability to "enjoy" the engines capabilities more), you would not have issues with the OEM's ability to perform what the aftermarket catch can/oil separator does.

The OEM air/oil separator is just that: It separates liquid oil from the PCV vapors going back into the intake. It won't do much to pull out finer aerosolize particles, or mist. This is fine for an engine running the stock tune, which is programmed to allow for it.

A well-designed catch can is capable of pulling out much finer aerosolized particles from the PCV vapors. This is important for two reasons:

1. A "tuned" engine will increase boost pressure on the turbocharger, which will in turn increase the amount of piston blow by--that is the amount of pressurized gases getting by the piston rings into the crankcase. This means an increase in crankcase oil vapors in the crankcase which are then routed back to the intake to be burned off.

2. Crankcase vapors are mixed with the pressurized air going to the cylinders to burn off the oil. Oil is much lower octane than premium gasoline. The more oil in the vapors the lower the ultimate octane of the mixture going to the cylinders. If you're running a tune that is highly sensitive to fuel octane you should absolutely run a quality catch can to prevent octane dilution, which can result in catastrophic engine failure.

Sponsored

 

[Bucko]

The OEM air/oil separator is just that: It separates liquid oil from the PCV vapors going back into the intake. It won't do much to pull out finer aerosolize particles, or mist. This is fine for an engine running the stock tune, which is programmed to allow for it.

A well-designed catch can is capable of pulling out much finer aerosolized particles from the PCV vapors. This is important for two reasons:

1. A "tuned" engine will increase boost pressure on the turbocharger, which will in turn increase the amount of piston blow by--that is the amount of pressurized gases getting by the piston rings into the crankcase. This means an increase in crankcase oil vapors in the crankcase which are then routed back to the intake to be burned off.

2. Crankcase vapors are mixed with the pressurized air going to the cylinders to burn off the oil. Oil is much lower octane than premium gasoline. The more oil in the vapors the lower the ultimate octane of the mixture going to the cylinders. If you're running a tune that is highly sensitive to fuel octane you should absolutely run a quality catch can to prevent octane dilution, which can result in catastrophic engine failure.

Good explanation Mark.
Since I'm more than satisfied with the stock configuration of the BS running on 87 octane, I leave it be. If I wanted more out of the BS, my wife would be ticked, as I already have a money pit (as she calls the '67) for purposes of a power rush that I might need.

 

[Bucko]

Sorry. I'm not getting into a 'catchcans aren't necessary' back -and-forth wit ya! ? If you don't like 'em.....God speed. I was just trying to answer your question.

But I will say, I think you're putting too much faith in the OEM "separator". Have you ever taken off the manifold and inspected the valves on an Ecoboost engine? Have you ever inspected your pcv lines for oil? If so, I would hope that you would understand that the OEM separator is not doing that great a job.

I'll disagree with you on the OEM separator; it does fine with the stock arrangement, and you are correct, I have not taken one of these recent ecoboost engines apart, nor inspected its valves or PCV lines for oil. I can agree that if this engine is pushed past it's current engineered limits, then perhaps yes, the existing oil separator may not keep up with the modifications done. Many members here think they have to have an oil separator/oil can on their stock OEM setup. It's not true.

I owned a 5.0 Mustang Boss, and it never had an external oil separator. I worked that engine silly. Never failed me in its stock arrangement. Granted, we are talking another beast, but the engineers got that one right too for a stock engine setup.

IMO, the engineers have the 1.5 and 2.0 in good form. As long as its limits are not pushed, it will be just fine they way they built it.

Keep us informed on your build. I enjoy the read on anyone who wants to have fun playing and pushing the limits.

I already have another car for that, and the wife says hands off the BS!

 

[BroSpo]

*I have a PCV oil catch can on my 3.5EB F150 (model specific application) and would consider one here, but that is specifically called out as needing a revised tune and that surprises me. That might be a clue on differences with this implementation.

Why would a tune require a catch can? I'd be asking that to the tuner for an explanation. For the record both engines already have an oil separator (a catch can plus routes oil back to crankcase).

Thanks, Bucko -- that is what caught my eye as well. I think I read it more as a new catch can should be accommodated in your tune. Maybe it is nothing, maybe there is something unique going on. It is hard to say, right? In reviewing their catalog, you can see they sell hardware to include things like catch cans. Maybe it is marketing, or a broader statement about how they will give you free tune updates when you buy their stuff.

As for the idea that the absence of a catch can (or oil separator) or a poor implementation can affect fuel quality is pretty well established. Fuel quality variability is accounted for in their tunes, of course. Common strategies include retarding timing, reducing boost, etc. On my F150, I have it chime the loud startup chime when it yanks out timing (can't miss it). Despite making pretty good power, it is a very conservative tune. I expect the same here for the BL and even asked about that. They have done "1000s" of cars and with very few issues. The loose nut behind the wheel is probably a bigger factor -- just like we see with driver induced issues on completely stock vehicles. We have all seen that happen.

While I am not a fan of third-party warranties, this might be worth a look. I have no experience with it/them on this matter.

https://5startuning.com/product-category/2021-bronco-sport-2-0l-ecoboost/2021-bronco-2-0l-ecoboost-powertrain-warranty/

All: No argument about dilution of fuel quality or the broader merits of having a good/improved catch can from me...but don't hijack my thread, ya'll! This reminds me a bit of how we'd passionately debate the use of lemon pledge in some motorcycle forums!

 

[Bucko]

Thanks, Bucko -- that is what caught my eye as well. I think I read it more as a new catch can should be accommodated in your tune. Maybe it is nothing, maybe there is something unique going on. It is hard to say, right? In reviewing their catalog, you can see they sell hardware to include things like catch cans. Maybe it is marketing, or a broader statement about how they will give you free tune updates when you buy their stuff.

As for the idea that the absence of a catch can (or oil separator) or a poor implementation can affect fuel quality is pretty well established. Fuel quality variability is accounted for in their tunes, of course. Common strategies include retarding timing, reducing boost, etc. On my F150, I have it chime the loud startup chime when it yanks out timing (can't miss it). Despite making pretty good power, it is a very conservative tune. I expect the same here for the BL and even asked about that. They have done "1000s" of cars and with very few issues. The loose nut behind the wheel is probably a bigger factor -- just like we see with driver induced issues on completely stock vehicles. We have all seen that happen.

While I am not a fan of third-party warranties, this might be worth a look. I have no experience with it/them on this matter.

https://5startuning.com/product-category/2021-bronco-sport-2-0l-ecoboost/2021-bronco-2-0l-ecoboost-powertrain-warranty/

All: No argument about dilution of fuel quality or the broader merits of having a good/improved catch can from me...but don't hijack my thread, ya'll! This reminds me a bit of how we'd passionately debate the use of lemon pledge in some motorcycle forums!

Now you have me looking up the use of Lemon Pledge for motorcycles!

 

[BroSpo]

Now you have me looking up the use of Lemon Pledge for motorcycles!

Oh it is a thing. Maybe more in the Honda VFR or BMW "clubs" but it is out there. I don't wanna hijack my own thread, but there is all kinds of funny trends/quirks with certain makes/models of cars and bikes. It is a fun reflection on the owner demographics.

 

[Bucko]

Back on track, member gatornek did explain (and I'll agree) that modified engines (I.E. tuned) may need the capacity of an improved catch can/oil separator over OEM due to higher octane requirements that can be diluted from oil mist not being completely trapped by a stock OEM catch can/oil separator.

I just don't want folks to think their stock tuned engine is in need of an aftermarket catch can/oil separator.

Now to apply some Lemon Pledge on the F-150 to see if I can get some shine back.

 

[sajohnson]

I had many great experiences with Cobb! They tuned a couple of my Subaru WRX cars, my VW R32/R36, and others. Their technical work was excellent. Several friends with GTRs had great things to say about them too! That was many years ago...

I'm afraid they seem to be a very different company now, and I'm not sure how much is public news with their various issues (all political and related to CARB and such). They do great work, and one of my close friends used to work in management...

If Cobb offers a tune, I'm certain it will be good. I only have good things to say, but I don't know much about their current circumstances. I think all of their CA based operations are closed, and you'd be working with their Texas office (I could be wrong).

As for Livernois, I had similar feelings. It was also surreal to cruise YouTube and not see a ton of options! I was spoiled with the F150. Anyhow, Livernois could be fine, I just don't have any knowledge of them beyond seeing their online content. I don't personally know anyone with their tunes. If you get it, please share your results.

My experience with Cobb Engineering is also several years old (16-17?), but very positive. I have a 2002 WRX at Cobb 'Stage 2' -- using their exhaust mods in addition to the tune. I installed it when the WRX had about 100,000 miles on it, and it has over 200,000 now -- still runs great, burns very little oil. I rarely drive it any more, but it was my daily driver, and I did not exactly baby it. It got a workout every day.

I liked the fact that Cobb and Subaru worked together, and Cobb did not make outrageous claims for hp and torque gains. Their downpipe is extremely well made. Definitely not a fly-by-night operation.

IDK anything about their relationship with Ford, or if they have changed as a company, but they were very good when I did business with them.

 

[BroSpo]

Well put...

Speaking of Cobb, turns out 5Star partners with them. A quick glance suggests it might only be their branded hardware and maybe some canned tunes, but I don't know. It represents another handheld programmer where applicable. I am not seeing anything for the BS/BL and the covered model years are curiously older. So that could just be a nice niche for them with a big addressable market, but this plays into the earlier comments about Cobb's current operations...

https://5startuning.com/product-category/brands/cobb/

 

[sajohnson]

I have to say that coming from the Cobb Stage 2 WRX (285 hp / 285 lb-ft) the Badlands seems plenty fast. It is really my wife's SUV, but if it were mine I would not be anxious to modify it.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of getting a tune, but the 2.0L turbo already makes very healthy numbers stock. I have to wonder how much room there is for a reliable increase in output.

That said, hp and torque aside, one major benefit of Cobb Stage 2 was a significant improvement in drivability, by lowering the rpm required to spool up the turbo. Stock, I had to downshift to 4th to maintain (legal) speed up some of the hills around us, because 5th was just too tall a ratio. With the Cobb tune, spool up dropped from ~3,000 rpm to 2,250 -- enough that I can use 5th gear on those hills, and the engine has a broader 'fun' rpm range. That decrease was due almost exclusively to the design of the Cobb downpipe

Turbo spool-up may not be as much of a factor with the BS BL though.

 

[BroSpo]

Can anyone share some basic data logging details on their stock BS BL? I'll go back to stock at some point, but I'm curious about different vehicles, areas, and conditions.

Maybe max recorded boost pressure, related air intake temps, and fuel trim details to start, please. Also it would be interesting to know elevation/humidity if available.

Last night, in cooler conditions to my original post, I saw very similar results. I have several recorded sets now, so feeling pretty consistent for current conditions.

If this holds, it registers as a good seat-of-the-pants improvement, a life hack with disabling the first tier of traction control (confirmed in my testing), and maybe some better fuel efficiency when not WOT!

Like many here, I don't want a LOT more power and have other vehicles for that (including a full-race Fiesta ST that I never drive). Still, a little help is nice. Throttle response and overall better drivability improves the experience for me without pushing it too hard. I know from past experiences that this is a VERY slippery slope for me. Right now, I don't feel the need for a new FMIC, exhaust system, manifold/turbo, or anything else. Saying that "aloud" helps me!

Note on traction control: I live in the sticks off a dirt road, so it is very easy to induce wheel spin...it is clear that the first level is off. But, I noticed I'd get the flashing traction control "lamp" when sliding through a turn under power...sure enough, holding the TC button and disabling the second tier made that go away. I'm perfectly happy with basic TC being disabled -- since it does not seem like I have a way to put it back with a button toggle. Keep that in mind if you go this route...

 

[BroSpo]

I have to say that coming from the Cobb Stage 2 WRX (285 hp / 285 lb-ft) the Badlands seems plenty fast. It is really my wife's SUV, but if it were mine I would not be anxious to modify it.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of getting a tune, but the 2.0L turbo already makes very healthy numbers stock. I have to wonder how much room there is for a reliable increase in output.

That said, hp and torque aside, one major benefit of Cobb Stage 2 was a significant improvement in drivability, by lowering the rpm required to spool up the turbo. Stock, I had to downshift to 4th to maintain (legal) speed up some of the hills around us, because 5th was just too tall a ratio. With the Cobb tune, spool up dropped from ~3,000 rpm to 2,250 -- enough that I can use 5th gear on those hills, and the engine has a broader 'fun' rpm range. That decrease was due almost exclusively to the design of the Cobb downpipe

Turbo spool-up may not be as much of a factor with the BS BL though.

Yes. I totally agree on better drivability and JUST wrote something along those lines...

I also agree the BL has surprisingly good power. The perception of that is largely due to the very short first gear, 4.69 I believe...in stock form, I have walked away from much more powerful rigs at a light (including a Jaguar F-Pace, tuned F250, Wrangler 4xe).

 

[BroSpo]

Can anyone share some basic data logging details on their stock BS BL? I'll go back to stock at some point, but I'm curious about different vehicles, areas, and conditions.

Maybe max recorded boost pressure, related air intake temps, and fuel trim details to start, please. Also it would be interesting to know elevation/humidity if available.

Last night, in cooler conditions to my original post, I saw very similar results. I have several recorded sets now, so feeling pretty consistent for current conditions.

If this holds, it registers as a good seat-of-the-pants improvement, a life hack with disabling the first tier of traction control (confirmed in my testing), and maybe some better fuel efficiency when not WOT!

Like many here, I don't want a LOT more power and have other vehicles for that (including a full-race Fiesta ST that I never drive). Still, a little help is nice. Throttle response and overall better drivability improves the experience for me without pushing it too hard. I know from past experiences that this is a VERY slippery slope for me. Right now, I don't feel the need for a new FMIC, exhaust system, manifold/turbo, or anything else. Saying that "aloud" helps me!

Note on traction control: I live in the sticks off a dirt road, so it is very easy to induce wheel spin...it is clear that the first level is off. But, I noticed I'd get the flashing traction control "lamp" when sliding through a turn under power...sure enough, holding the TC button and disabling the second tier made that go away. I'm perfectly happy with basic TC being disabled -- since it does not seem like I have a way to put it back with a button toggle. Keep that in mind if you go this route...

Oh yeah, my Fiesta ST was also tuned by Cobb when it was new...but that only lasted a few weeks before doing something very custom (I have the controller around somewhere still too). Speaking of that, I am a big fan of Church Automotive tuning in LA. They did amazing work on my F150 and Fiesta ST. If you happen to be in LA, worth investigating them...

 

[BroSpo]

I have to say that coming from the Cobb Stage 2 WRX (285 hp / 285 lb-ft) the Badlands seems plenty fast. It is really my wife's SUV, but if it were mine I would not be anxious to modify it.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of getting a tune, but the 2.0L turbo already makes very healthy numbers stock. I have to wonder how much room there is for a reliable increase in output.

That said, hp and torque aside, one major benefit of Cobb Stage 2 was a significant improvement in drivability, by lowering the rpm required to spool up the turbo. Stock, I had to downshift to 4th to maintain (legal) speed up some of the hills around us, because 5th was just too tall a ratio. With the Cobb tune, spool up dropped from ~3,000 rpm to 2,250 -- enough that I can use 5th gear on those hills, and the engine has a broader 'fun' rpm range. That decrease was due almost exclusively to the design of the Cobb downpipe

Turbo spool-up may not be as much of a factor with the BS BL though.

The factory twin scroll turbo is a wonderful pairing and surprisingly good. I was almost completely happy with it! We know a little power is left on the table, because Ford is conservative with their higher volume engine tuning. We can also see other power plant examples making more power in other vehicles.

I wonder what other drivetrain components dictated that in the design...figure the complexity of the AWD system over the Focus FWD and associated parts (from a power/durability perspective only). I've heard a couple journalists say "strengthened/reinforced rear-end from a Focus RS" enough times to believe Ford must be saying that on some level too...

 

[sajohnson]

Yes. I totally agree on better drivability and JUST wrote something along those lines...

I also agree the BL has surprisingly good power. The perception of that is largely due to the very short first gear, 4.69 I believe...in stock form, I have walked away from much more powerful rigs at a light (including a Jaguar F-Pace, tuned F250, Wrangler 4xe).

Yep, 1st is very low.

I really do not drive the BS BL that much -- of course I think it's a great vehicle, but we live in a cabin in the woods and to be honest I have little reason to go anywhere. Unlike large areas of AZ (where we've spent a lot of time exploring with 4WD vehicles), where we live is pretty developed, so it not much fun to drive.

So I don't have that much experience with it, but I've floored it in 3rd gear on Route 40, and while there was some hesitation, when it woke up it f'ing flew. It felt about as quick as my WRX.

To be honest, I wasn't crazy about the front end lift -- but the WRX is lowered and buttoned down so many people might not notice it.

Sponsored