5Star Tuning installed on 2.0L EcoBoost Bronco Sport Badlands

[BroSpo]

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.

I appreciate that, and I made a decision to get away from the "big city" and don't regret it. I'm about 30" from the nearest store of any kind. Semi-remote I suppose.

Since my most recent experience was daily driving a JL Wrangler and F150, the BS BL feels incredibly car like to me. I laugh when journos talk about how rough it is, or how poor the on-road manners are. I often tell people the BL is a "perfect compromise" for me. I still believe that. It is easily one of my favorite daily drivers of all time. I also think it might take the WRX in a low-speed drag race.

Even with my much bigger KO2s, I don't think the perceived acceleration dropped off much. So yeah, I'm just restoring the loss from my bigger tires and skid plate/armor is all. Yeah, that's it...

Sponsored

 

[sajohnson]

I appreciate that, and I made a decision to get away from the "big city" and don't regret it. I'm about 30" from the nearest store of any kind. Semi-remote I suppose.

Since my most recent experience was daily driving a JL Wrangler and F150, the BS BL feels incredibly car like to me. I laugh when journos talk about how rough it is, or how poor the on-road manners are. I often tell people the BL is a "perfect compromise" for me. I still believe that. It is easily one of my favorite daily drivers of all time. I also think it might take the WRX in a low-speed drag race.

Even with my much bigger KO2s, I don't think the perceived acceleration dropped off much. So yeah, I'm just restoring the loss from my bigger tires and skid plate/armor is all. Yeah, that's it...

One of the main reasons we spent so much time out there in AZ (and NM) years ago was because we were considering moving there. We really liked/like both states, but I had a good job (as a tech at Metrorail in D.C.) and as you know there is (or was) nothing comparable out there, unless you lived in or close to an urban area, and even then? Where you live sounds similar to what we had in mind -- an inholding, or at least land bordered by public land. The job options seemed to be primarily logging, ranching, and mining.

Back on topic...

I used to read all of the car magazines and keep up on all of the 0>60 and 1/4 mile times, etc., but not anymore. I assume the stock WRX is still pretty quick, hopefully faster. Stock, mine was a dog off the line if driven normally (i.e. no 5K rpm clutch dumps). It didn't get going until about 3,000 rpm. I think a lot of the numbers for the 5MT WRX were obtained by abusing it.

I like the BS BL, and I think it has a good combination of features, but I was surprised by the amount of front end lift. It wasn't ridiculous, just more than I'm used to. It's to be expected with a powerful engine and a relatively soft suspension that's designed for on/off road use.

I think a lot of the reviews are subjective, they come down to what the journalist is using as a reference. Needless to say, for the BS they should be looking at other off-road capable small/mid-size SUVs -- not luxury sedans or sports cars.

 

[BroSpo]

One of the main reasons we spent so much time out there in AZ (and NM) years ago was because we were considering moving there. We really liked/like both states, but I had a good job (as a tech at Metrorail in D.C.) and as you know there is (or was) nothing comparable out there, unless you lived in or close to an urban area, and even then? Where you live sounds similar to what we had in mind -- an inholding, or at least land bordered by public land. The job options seemed to be primarily logging, ranching, and mining.

Back on topic...

I used to read all of the car magazines and keep up on all of the 0>60 and 1/4 mile times, etc., but not anymore. I assume the stock WRX is still pretty quick, hopefully faster. Stock, mine was a dog off the line if driven normally (i.e. no 5K rpm clutch dumps). It didn't get going until about 3,000 rpm. I think a lot of the numbers for the 5MT WRX were obtained by abusing it.

I like the BS BL, and I think it has a good combination of features, but I was surprised by the amount of front end lift. It wasn't ridiculous, just more than I'm used to. It's to be expected with a powerful engine and a relatively soft suspension that's designed for on/off road use.

I think a lot of the reviews are subjective, they come down to what the journalist is using as a reference. Needless to say, for the BS they should be looking at other off-road capable small/mid-size SUVs -- not luxury sedans or sports cars.

Re: Life in AZ/rural America...I really feel you on that. I am fortunate it worked out for me here, and I love having land that borders the national forest boundaries and a huge green belt. I also live off-grid from a utilities perspective. Big life milestone for me and I recommend it for anyone that is considering it!

Oh yeah, cars...

Both of my WRX cars felt fast, and it was for the time. I also know that if you are not willing to commit to a stinky clutch dump, you don't get anywhere near the best posted times. The BS BL is easy to drive fast, maybe more than anything in memory for me -- especially in the dirt. I'd maintain it is better on rutted dirt roads and sand that most very built off-road rigs. The only show stopper here is clearance.

I suppose that is the magic here...an "SUV" with those kind of numbers or comparisons. I also think the BS BL is more of high clearance rally car than anything else -- at least how I drive it. The fact that I can drive it at relatively low speeds and access so much of its power makes it fun. That's also part of how I personally calculate value and satisfaction.

Like the oft quoted expression "It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow"!

 

[BroSpo]

Adam of 5Star explained that power in this tune is only made by adjusting fuel and timing and does not change boost targets. I think that's interesting and have asked some follow-up questions. I asked about a dyno chart and related performance details and hope to have more to share soon.

Finally, he also explained they have a technique to make traction control "less sensitive" but not fully defeated, which is what my driving experiences have confirmed.

 

[sajohnson]

Re: Life in AZ/rural America...I really feel you on that. I am fortunate it worked out for me here, and I love having land that borders the national forest boundaries and a huge green belt. I also live off-grid from a utilities perspective. Big life milestone for me and I recommend it for anyone that is considering it!

Oh yeah, cars...

Both of my WRX cars felt fast, and it was for the time. I also know that if you are not willing to commit to a stinky clutch dump, you don't get anywhere near the best posted times. The BS BL is easy to drive fast, maybe more than anything in memory for me -- especially in the dirt. I'd maintain it is better on rutted dirt roads and sand that most very built off-road rigs. The only show stopper here is clearance.

I suppose that is the magic here...an "SUV" with those kind of numbers or comparisons. I also think the BS BL is more of high clearance rally car than anything else -- at least how I drive it. The fact that I can drive it at relatively low speeds and access so much of its power makes it fun. That's also part of how I personally calculate value and satisfaction.

Like the oft quoted expression "It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow"!

I forgot to mention 'off-grid'. We have utility power here, but we do have a UPS -- 2 Trace inverters and 16 golf cart batteries. In addition to being a fun hobby, as you know, having renewable energy means you can buy land far from the grid, where it is less expensive and there are fewer people.

Back to the subject at hand -- from everything I've seen (YouTube demos) the BS BL is very capable off-road. As you said, it could use more clearance for the really rough stuff, but that would hurt on-road handling, an it has close to 9" as it is -- which should be plenty for what most owners do with it.

I'm including my wife and I. We live on what passes for a mountain here in Maryland, but we really only have one tricky hill (20%+ slope, 90 degree right at the bottom, 90 degree left half way up). Our road turns into rough dirt 2-track further up the mountain, but we have no reason to go that way (unless the road is blocked, which is rare). Point being that we generally do not need the full capability of the Badlands, or the full 9" clearance.

I'm sure there will be times we'll be glad we have the additional capabilities of the BS BL. In addition, IMO, it was a relative bargain. We don't care much about the extra features on the OBX (although I can understand why many people do) -- and the Badlands was only about $700 more than the OBX. That's not entirely accurate, because the 'base' BS BL does not have the same features, but from our perspective $700 more was a deal.

 

[BroSpo]

Dyno charts!

Adam provided me both a 93 octane and an 87 octane chart.

This is backed up by my seat-of-the-pants impressions. You feel the increased surge of torque and HP after 3K in a very noticeable way.

He also shared the 1.5 EB dyno charts, so I'll share those soon as well.


93 Octane

87 Octane

 

[gatornek]

FWIW, my preference would be to run a 91 tune on 93 fuel, if available. That type of setup would give me the best warm and fuzzy that I'm not going overboard.

Keep us posted!

 

[BroSpo]

FWIW, my preference would be to run a 91 tune on 93 fuel, if available. That type of setup would give me the best warm and fuzzy that I'm not going overboard.

Keep us posted!

I like that logic. By extension, you could also run their 87 octane map on 93 octane fuel for even more safety margin.

That's one of the reasons I have the 87 octane map. It gives me options and you can see that even the 87 map gives very nice gains.

Overall, I really like their tuning philosophy and I'm relieved the power doesn't come from a big boost numbers. It feels like a sustainable way to approach this...

 

[BroSpo]

Adam of 5Star explained that power in this tune is only made by adjusting fuel and timing and does not change boost targets. I think that's interesting and have asked some follow-up questions. I asked about a dyno chart and related performance details and hope to have more to share soon.

Finally, he also explained they have a technique to make traction control "less sensitive" but not fully defeated, which is what my driving experiences have confirmed.

Adam offered a little more detail on the traction control strategy this morning. He said they don't cut spark the way it does in stock form. Apparently this is how Ford already does it, and 5Star Tuning simply removes the speed threshold for it to turn back on (just inhibiting the re-enablement of the spark-cut mechanism at a certain speed). I think that is a smart way to handle it. Again. this explains why the traction control "lamp" isn't off. You can still toggle it "off" to illuminate the "lamp" if you want.

To be clear, my tuning maps always behave the way you'd expect if you had just tapped the TC button once. Again, this is not a default tune setting, rather something I specifically requested. You can then decide to further disable the second tier "advance trac" if you prefer. I am happy with this setup.

 

[gatornek]

Appreciate the posting of all the feedback from the tuner. Its always good to hear from someone who's dug into the PCM a bit. ?

 

[gatornek]

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.

The OEM tune was always designed with 87 octane in mind. If you commit to running PREMIUM fuel, these Ecoboost engines (at least the 2.0 and 2.3) have demonstrated over many years that they can safely squeeze a few more HP out of them.

There is a marked difference between 87 and 93 octane when it comes to knock resistance, and because of this, you can safely increase timing slightly for that better performance, without worrying about destroying your engine.

However....get bad gas or decide to be frugal on one fill-up....and then you definitely risk the dreaded eco-boom.

 

[gatornek]

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/

There's a bunch of guys on my Mustang forum that has tuned with them. All good things to say.

It used to be a 50/50 split between those on the 2.3 Mustang that either went with the Ford Performane tune or a Cobb handheld tune (either canned off the device or custom by someone else....however 'custom' is where people ALWYAS got themselves in trouble). But Ford Performance change some aspects about their tune that really p1ssed people off like having to go to the dealer to revert to stock...so by far, everyone tunes with Cobb on the 2.3 Mustang nowadays.

The Cobb handheld is well worth the money.

 

[Mark S.]

Dyno charts!

Adam provided me both a 93 octane and an 87 octane chart.

This is backed up by my seat-of-the-pants impressions. You feel the increased surge of torque and HP after 3K in a very noticeable way.

He also shared the 1.5 EB dyno charts, so I'll share those soon as well.


93 Octane

87 Octane

Were these generated using your vehicle?

 

[BroSpo]

Were these generated using your vehicle?

No, that's on their test mule. So far as I know, they haven't otherwise posted public dyno charts yet...

 

[sajohnson]

The OEM tune was always designed with 87 octane in mind. If you commit to running PREMIUM fuel, these Ecoboost engines (at least the 2.0 and 2.3) have demonstrated over many years that they can safely squeeze a few more HP out of them.

There is a marked difference between 87 and 93 octane when it comes to knock resistance, and because of this, you can safely increase timing slightly for that better performance, without worrying about destroying your engine.

However....get bad gas or decide to be frugal on one fill-up....and then you definitely risk the dreaded eco-boom.

The key there is "a few more HP."

I'm a tech and have been working on cars since the mid-1970s, so I'm familiar with the basics.

WRT differences in output between tunes based on the use of 87 and 93 octane, I was surprised to find that there was little if any difference in torque and only a modest (5-10 hp) drop in horsepower between Cobb's 93 and 87 octane tunes for my 2002 WRX.

I always ran/run 93 octane, but when the price difference went from 10-15 cents to 60-70 cents per gallon I was tempted to use 87 (and reprogram for it) -- knowing that the difference in performance was minimal. At least once or twice on road trips I had to use 91 octane because that was the highest available and there was zero discernable difference.

As for knock -- it's clearly not good to run a lower octane than the engine was designed for (or it has been tuned for), but knock sensors are there to prevent harm to the engine if there is knock, for any of several reasons.

We know that the stock 2.0L Ecoboost can handle 87-93 octane. A BS owner can run nothing but 93 octane, and then fill up with 87 octane and the ECU adjusts for the lower octane with no drama.

Actually, some western states have 86 and even *85* octane fuel:

"In most of the country, 87 is the lowest octane rating and is considered “regular” gasoline. That’s not the case in Colorado and other surrounding states, including Utah and Wyoming, where 85 octane gas is “regular” and 87 is considered “mid-grade.”:
https://www.cpr.org/2022/01/04/colorado-gasoline-unleaded-octane-environmental-impact/

It's a safe bet that there are people who fill their vehicle with 85 octane and then drive to a lower elevation.

Needless to say, it's better not to have any knock at all, but even stock engines will knock sometimes -- if there are carbon deposits in the combustion chambers; and/or the engine is hot and under a heavy load -- especially at low rpm. So assuming the knock sensor(s) is working, an engine tuned for a few more horsepower should be OK if lower octane fuel is inadvertently used (or must be used) -- especially if the driver does not drive it like they stole it.

Sponsored