Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner
61 - 73 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
Here's a couple screen shots of what I have to work with far as the AWD system goes in HP Tuners
 

Attachments

·
Registered
2018
Joined
·
399 Posts
There has to be a physical limit to how much torque the diffs can send to the rear...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
If you have even seen how the PTU works, its not like you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkArkAngel

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,063 Posts
The Focus RS's 2.3L turbo has limits to how much it can flow with respect to fuel but the turbo itself should max out around 52 lb/min... That being said if you look at the Ranger 2.3L's turbo compressor map, it's actually quite a big turbo (43 lb/min) and would when fully tuned it would be competitive against the 2.7's turbos maxed out. That is why I have always said the 2.7 EcoBoost is an underpowered engine and I have no clue how F-150 owners are satisfied with this engine in such a heavy vehicle.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
374 Posts
The Focus RS's 2.3L turbo has limits to how much it can flow... That being said if you look at the Ranger 2.3L's turbo compressor map, it's actually quite a big turbo and would when fully tuned it would be competitive against the 2.7's turbos maxed out. That is why I have always said the 2.7 EcoBoost is an underpowered engine and I have no clue how F-150 owners are satisfied with this engine in such a heavy vehicle.
In what world is 325HP and 380 Ft Lbs underpowered? Even for 6000 pounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
He doesn't understand trucks, LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkArkAngel

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
****, a 14.3 in the 1/4 miles use to be a fast car 30 years ago. Times have changed, I can still remember the 5.0 Mustangs being all the rage with their paltry 225 horse power, LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,063 Posts
In what world is 325HP and 380 Ft Lbs underpowered? Even for 6000 pounds.
You don't seem to understand how Ford has really messed up its engine choices. The Ranger's 2.3 maxes out at 43 lb/min with its single turbo. The 2.7 EcoBoost V6 maxes out around the same (40-44 lb/min). The Ranger is a lot lighter and even gets the 10R80. The Bronco gets the 2.7 with the 10R60, not even the 3.0 from the Explorer ST but has the same crappy transmission, doesn't even get the 10R80 from the F-150s.

The Focus RS turbo maxes around 50+ lb/min but I recall the fueling being a limitation. Kind of the same issue as the EcoBoost Mustangs, where the turbo can flow more air mass than the fueling can accommodate.

In a world when 400+ hp engines are available for trucks with 400-500+ ft-lb and 380 ft-lb is a cute little engine for a truck like a Ranger. The new Rivian is expected to do 0-60 in 3 seconds and gets 300 miles of electric range. That's the future. So 325-335 hp isn't anything in a modern truck. The brakes on the F-150s are also terrible. Again, I don't understand how truck drivers would be satisfied with the 2.7 and the stock brakes. Yuck.

12 seconds in the 1/4 mile used to be fast but now it isn't anything. 8 seconds in the 1/4 mile is where its at. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Hi gang. Yes, as mentioned, if cruising along on the highway, the system will go to full FWD. But get on the gas going straight or in turns (at any speed), and the system will send power/torque to the rear wheels. How much is determined by the system algorithms.

Good luck.
You are correct. It alaways starts out in AWD, At a certain speed if you are under 20% throttle it will switch to FWD. Then If you give it more then 20% throttle AWD kicks back in . This happens at any speed even over 100 mph. You notice it alot more though if you have your AWD display up and your cruising at 65 and kick it down to pass. As soon as you get into the throttle the rear drive kicks back in.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
374 Posts
You don't seem to understand how Ford has really messed up its engine choices. The Ranger's 2.3 maxes out at 43 lb/min with its single turbo. The 2.7 EcoBoost V6 maxes out around the same (40-44 lb/min). The Ranger is a lot lighter and even gets the 10R80. The Bronco gets the 2.7 with the 10R60, not even the 3.0 from the Explorer ST but has the same crappy transmission, doesn't even get the 10R80 from the F-150s.

The Focus RS turbo maxes around 50+ lb/min but I recall the fueling being a limitation. Kind of the same issue as the EcoBoost Mustangs, where the turbo can flow more air mass than the fueling can accommodate.

In a world when 400+ hp engines are available for trucks with 400-500+ ft-lb and 380 ft-lb is a cute little engine for a truck like a Ranger. The new Rivian is expected to do 0-60 in 3 seconds and gets 300 miles of electric range. That's the future. So 325-335 hp isn't anything in a modern truck. The brakes on the F-150s are also terrible. Again, I don't understand how truck drivers would be satisfied with the 2.7 and the stock brakes. Yuck.

12 seconds in the 1/4 mile used to be fast but now it isn't anything. 8 seconds in the 1/4 mile is where its at. LOL
I think if we compare any electric drivetrain the torque numbers are gonna get crazy. But besides that, even if the 2.3 can make comparable power to the 2.7 when tuned to the max, the 2.7 still has a litany of advantages.

More displacement, which means with bigger turbos you can edge out the 2.3, then having smaller twin turbos decreases spool time I think, not to mention it being a V6 which means mechanical stresses aren't quite as pronounced in the 2.7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
The Bronco gets the 2.7 with the 10R60, not even the 3.0 from the Explorer ST but has the same crappy transmission, doesn't even get the 10R80 from the F-150s.
I’d be willing to bet the transmission choice had something to do with optimal gear ratios and their affect on fuel economy, off-road, and tire size factors. The Bronco has an off-road focus whereas the Ranger is a much broader spectrum of uses that have to be accounted for. I remember building my ‘94 F250HD for crawling and although I chose the Ford close ratio four speed manual, the next best option to mate with my drivetrain and tire combo was a basically obsolete C6 automatic!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Was just looking at this older post and thought of something else. The stories of "ecoboom" on the 2.3L are pretty easy to find, although I've not personally heard of any of them involving stock motors. But you hear about a lot of 2.3L Mustangs doing that after getting a tune, for instance. So I get the impression maybe the safety margin on the 2.3 isn't as much as on our 2.7 (which is kind of what we were discussing earlier), or else maybe tuners for 2.3 are overly aggressive. Not sure. But all I can think is the 2.7 seems a little easier to tune maybe.

I still think both are really good motors, but my impression is the 2.3 is probably closer to the edge from factory.
 
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Top