5Star Tuning installed on 2.0L EcoBoost Bronco Sport Badlands

[Tossty]

Impressive, good info.

Sponsored

 

[SgtT11B]

Where did you get this bit of info from? I have never heard that.

When you get the Ford ProCal tool, the calibration says right on the tool that its from Livernois. I have the 2018+ Ford Power Pack on my 2020 Mustang and the ProCal tool says Livernois Motorsports. Also the ProCal tool that Ford uses is the same as Livernois with just a rubber Ford Performance cover on it.

 

[gatornek]

When you get the Ford ProCal tool, the calibration says right on the tool that its from Livernois. I have the 2018+ Ford Power Pack on my 2020 Mustang and the ProCal tool says Livernois Motorsports.

I was confused off what you said earlier then. They aren't "doing the tunes for FP". That makes it sound to me like Livernois was actually writing the tune. FP is using the Livernois tuning device to deliver the tune that FP engineers write. I get it now. It wasn't always like that. I think this started just a few years back. I knew procal had new tuning devices, but didn't realize they were the LIvernois tuner. I imagine it was in response to the HORRIBLE procal app that you would have to run on your laptop, that would take upwards of 30 MINUTES! to load your tune.

And further to your thought, yes.... while they're not writing the FP tune, putting them to work hand in hand with FP on this particular endeavor, puts them much closer to the platform than your typical third party tune writer.

I'm going to have to give them serious consideration along with the Cobb tuner.

 

[sajohnson]

If they do they risk voiding their car's warranty. In the section on fuel quality, my owner's manual says:


"Regular" is a label, not an octane rating. 87 octane is the minimum you should use for your Bronco Sport.

Regarding power curves, the main reason horsepower drops off at higher RPM on these EcoBoost engines is because the turbocharger is sized to minimize turbo lag. Reduced turbo lag equals improved driveability. That's how Ford made a lowly 2.0L 4 cyl engine feel like a larger 6 cyl engine. To get that better driveability requires a smaller diameter turbine wheel to reduce weight and spool-up time. But the tradeoff is reduced airflow at higher RPM.

You can get more ultimate power at higher RPMs with these engines, but you'll have to swap to a larger turbocharger and be willing to live with the consequent turbo lag.

I completely agree WRT 87 being the minimum. While 87 is fine, we use 93. If we drove a lot (like we used to) we might switch to 87.

My point was that the stock 2.0L engine can handle a wide range of octane. I'm not suggesting that people can safely use 85 octane -- especially at lower elevations under a heavy load. I was just making the observation that some owners of vehicles with the 2.0L EcoBoost (as well as other makes and models) have undoubtedly filled up with 85 octane and then driven to a lower elevation with that 85 octane still in the tank. Definitely not advisable, but we know it happens.

I'm not aware of engines self-destructing under those circumstances (but it may have happened).

What I was getting at is that with a reasonable 93 octane tune the knock sensor(s) and ECU should be able to save the engine if the owner inadvertently uses lower octane fuel.

Thanks for the explanation of the power curves. I'm used to seeing hp increase with rpm -- until close to redline, where it usually begins to decrease. That's true for all naturally aspirated engines that I've seen dyno charts for, and even my (2.0L turbo) WRX.

That expectation, along with the lack of a key/legend had me scratching my head a bit.

The smaller turbo = less turbo lag makes perfect sense. IDK about the newer WRX models, but the early ones used a relatively large turbo, and even stock the hp curve was upward to ~5,700 rpm. With Cobb Stage 2 hp was increasing to 5,500 rpm and then almost flat to the 7,000 rpm redline:

https://www.cobbtuning.com/maps/2002-2003-subaru-impreza-wrx-stage-1-map

That's what I expected to see from the tuned 2.0L EcoBoost (without taking into consideration the lower mass turbo).

There is a lot to be said for a lower rpm spool-up. It makes the vehicle more drivable under routine conditions. I mentioned above the fact that Cobb Stage 2 lowered the rpm at which the turbo comes on line from ~3K rpm to around 2,250 rpm. That can be seen in the chart above. IMO, lower rpm spool-up is more important than peak hp for a street driven car.

 

[SgtT11B]

Just noticed. The 5Star tune isn't CARB approved. That alone right there is a disqualifier for me.

 

[BroSpo]

Just noticed. The 5Star tune isn't CARB approved. That alone right there is a disqualifier for me.

I lived in CA a long time and can appreciate that completely…

I think it is getting much harder to get CARB EOs as a smaller business.

 

[SgtT11B]

I lived in CA a long time and can appreciate that completely…

I think it is getting much harder to get CARB EOs as a smaller business.

Agreed, also with the new S650 Mustang coming out. The amount of tuners will be extremely narrow, as you will probably have to partner with Ford as the new ECUs are locked and Ford has the ability to access any modifications done to the car, talk about big brother.

 

[Mark S.]

Ford as the new ECUs are locked and Ford has the ability to access any modifications done to the car, talk about big brother.

In a way, I understand. If you modify the software and blow up the engine I think it's scummy to ask Ford to pay for it. Spend some time on enthusiast forums and you'll hear much discussion about how to remove all traces of a modification before taking your car in for service.

I'm all for folks modifying their cars if they want to. I just don't think Ford should pay when someone's "engineering" efforts end in catastrophe.

 

[Blue oval fan]

In a way, I understand. If you modify the software and blow up the engine I think it's scummy to ask Ford to pay for it. Spend some time on enthusiast forums and you'll hear much discussion about how to remove all traces of a modification before taking your car in for service.

I'm all for folks modifying their cars if they want to. I just don't think Ford should pay when someone's "engineering" efforts end in catastrophe.

The day I tune either of my cars is the day I assume 100% responsibility if I send a rod through my block. I have a vehicle service contract till 2027 or 125k miles on my RS, she is staying bone stock. I will also get one for the BS when I get closer to the end of the factory 3/36.

 

[Mark S.]

I want the one for the 1.5 so bad but I know that the way I drive I'd blow something up and end up regretting it. I probably need the computer limiting my insanity from time to time.

I was gonna suggest you trade for a Badlands, but that kind of disease is not cured by more power...

 

[sajohnson]

I want the one for the 1.5 so bad but I know that the way I drive I'd blow something up and end up regretting it. I probably need the computer limiting my insanity from time to time.

Needless to say, the safest thing is to leave it stock. That said, if the tune is conservative, and proven -- many owners have used it over a long period of time without trouble -- it should be fine.

See post #64 above. Cobb Stage 2 was a significant increase in both hp and torque. The WRX was my commuter car and it got a serious workout 5 days a week. No abuse (clutch dumps) but a lot of full throttle acceleration and shifting close to the 7,000 rpm redline. It has over 100,000 miles on the tune and 200,000 miles total and still runs fine.

Of course auto mfrs build their engines differently. Some have more of a margin than others. IDK how Subaru compares to Ford, but from what I've read the EcoBoost can tolerate modest tuning.

Again, the safest thing is to leave it stock. Any tune is likely to shorten the life of the engine somewhat. At the more conservative end of the scale, any reduction in longevity will likely not be noticed because the doors will fall off before the engine blows. At the extreme other end of the scale the engine might blow up the first time the throttle is floored.

The key is to do the research first and pick a reputable tuner.

 

[sajohnson]

I've been watching this thread closely. It's peaked my interest to say the least. Mark does make some good points though. Maybe once it's closer to paid off or closer to my warranty expiring

I waited until the powertrain warranty expired on the WRX. In hindsight I wish I'd gone to Stage 2 immediately, because it was/is such a big improvement. At the time however, I didn't feel that the tune was sufficiently 'proven' -- but I'm not a gambler. Many people did it while under warranty.

Of course, there's no way to know if I would still have the car had I done the tune earlier. It currently has 100K miles on the tune (200K+ total), maybe it would have blown up at 130K.

I haven't looked into tunes for the EcoBoost (1.5 or 2.0L) because I rarely drive the Badlands (it replaced my wife's '97 RAV4) and because IMO, it has plenty of power stock. 250/277 is a healthy engine for a 3,700 lb. vehicle. For reference, the 2008 Sprinter cab-chassis our RV is built on has a 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6 making just 154 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. It has a GVWR of 11,000 pounds -- and the frontal area of a couple sheets of plywood!

Maybe if I was still commuting to work and it was my daily driver I'd look into a modest tune, but I think it runs well as-is.

If you're looking for more power and there is a tune(s) for the EcoBoost that has been available for years and has proven reliable (thousands of users, few if any related problems), I'd say go for it -- but you didn't hear that from me.

 

[sajohnson]

I know this 1.5 isn't "fast". But I love driving it and I have fun. I was telling my buddy the other day the only races I win are the ones where the other guy didn't know we were racing and didn't try.

The 1.5L is more than adequate. A possible exception might be towing the full GCWR (incl. 2,000 lb. trailer) up steep grades. Even then, see the info I posted about our RV -- even at over 11,000 lbs. it still manages to climb 6-7% grades on interstates at 50+ mph (in 3rd gear, floored...).

It sounds like you're happy with your BS as-is, which is great. A large part of happiness is being satisfied with what you have, not constantly comparing oneself with others and striving for "more".

When it comes to vehicles, there is always something that's quicker to 60; has a higher top speed; handles better; is more luxurious; can go over rougher terrain; gets better mileage, etc. Some BS BL owners might look at the "big" Bronco and fixate on the ways in which it's more capable. They typically do not *need* the additional off-road ability, but knowing it exists bugs them. They could not afford the Bronco so they got the BS BL. I'd suggest they might try being happy with what they have. The BS/BS BL is a very nice SUV and has advantages over the Bronco -- they should focus on those.

Keep on having those races. I do the same with the RV -- it's amazing how many I win.

 

[Mark S.]

I know this 1.5 isn't "fast". But I love driving it and I have fun. I was telling my buddy the other day the only races I win are the ones where the other guy didn't know we were racing and didn't try.

"It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got."

~ Sheryl Crow

 

[SgtT11B]

In a way, I understand. If you modify the software and blow up the engine I think it's scummy to ask Ford to pay for it. Spend some time on enthusiast forums and you'll hear much discussion about how to remove all traces of a modification before taking your car in for service.

I'm all for folks modifying their cars if they want to. I just don't think Ford should pay when someone's "engineering" efforts end in catastrophe.

I agree with you 100%. My Ford Performance tune on my Mustang has been on the car for 3 years without hiccup.

Sponsored