The 2.3L turbo engine in our 2021 XLT Let's dyno that bad boy

[bedwards]

Actually my XLT has the paddle shifters, but I have never used them.

 

[Explorer75]

To answer a few more questions, our XLT is 2 wheel drive and doesn't have paddle shifters. Which means there's no way to lock it into 7th gear which is the 1:1 ratio where it needs to be dynoed in. Oh well. But I will say it's fast. I've been using 87 Octane because we are just burning through it on our road trip. But I can tell a difference between 87 and 93. With 93 it's a monster. With 87 it's quick, but not a monster.

Too bad you can´t get it to run on 7th gear. On the other hand it´s really interesting that with 93 the motor wakes up. I read all the time that most of the people that buys ecoboost fills them with 87 stating that´s what the manual says and ignore that the manual also says to run premium for better performance. Like you say, if you are just burning fuel 87 is ok, be sure to use top tier gas thou.

 

[Bluesnake01]

I remember back in the early 90s when Ford had the SVO mustang with a turbo 2.3 in it. I had the 5.0 in mine and my buddy had the SVO. I'm telling you even back than my 5.0 had a hard time keeping up with that 2.3. Amazing memories.

Must've been modded, I remember SVO's were running mid-low 15's. They were only a couple of lbs lighter than the 5.0's, My brother had an 88 LX Notchback, was running mid-high 14's all day with just a flowmaster and filter lol

Good ol' times tho. I remember there was a nice modified SVO running low 13's, everyone was drooling over it haha If you ran 13's back then, you were practically 98% faster than anyone in the street. This was back in 99-00.

 

[Jettech498]

Too bad you can´t get it to run on 7th gear. On the other hand it´s really interesting that with 93 the motor wakes up. I read all the time that most of the people that buys ecoboost fills them with 87 stating that´s what the manual says and ignore that the manual also says to run premium for better performance. Like you say, if you are just burning fuel 87 is ok, be sure to use top tier gas thou.

Always sir. We finally landed in Salem, NH today. Averaged 27 mph according to the computer but in reality averaged 25.5 using a calculator. Still amazing

 

[peterk9]

Always sir. We finally landed in Salem, NH today. Averaged 27 mph according to the computer but in reality averaged 25.5 using a calculator. Still amazing

Averaged 27 mph? Must have taken a looong time.

Peter

 

[Explorer75]

Averaged 27 mph? Must have taken a looong time.

Peter

JAJAJAJAJA

 

[DoraAExplorer]

We averaged 27-28 mpg on a long 800+ mile trip recently so on the interstate constant speed it will get great mpg.

 

[MNgopher]

...

Also, it is pretty widely known Ford underrates the EcoBoost engines but the rated horsepower is always on 91 octane for Ford EcoBoost engines in ANY application. Check your user manual for confirmation. They also recommend premium fuel when towing - even for F-150, etc.

...

Careful. On the F150, the rated hp is on 87 octane, except for the Raptor/ High Output 3.5 engines that were rated on 93 octane premium. Don't believe me? Go look again at the ratings on the F150's. (They do this so its clear their engines do not require premium to be competitive with other manufacturer offerings that only require 87 octane.

And Ford typically rates all other ecoboost engines on 93 octane premium - not 91.

That being said, my 2.7 F150 does wake up (more) on premium and can be confirmed through monitoring. No doubt the 2.3 in our explorer is the same, but its not my daily driver so I have not played with it that much...

 

[slow3v]

Careful. On the F150, the rated hp is on 87 octane, except for the Raptor/ High Output 3.5 engines that were rated on 93 octane premium. Don't believe me? Go look again at the ratings on the F150's. (They do this so its clear their engines do not require premium to be competitive with other manufacturer offerings that only require 87 octane.

And Ford typically rates all other ecoboost engines on 93 octane premium - not 91.

That being said, my 2.7 F150 does wake up (more) on premium and can be confirmed through monitoring. No doubt the 2.3 in our explorer is the same, but its not my daily driver so I have not played with it that much...

Thanks for the correction! Agree - my 2.7 F-150 is definitely more "alive" especially in summer months on 93. You can tell it pulls timing a bit on 87 in the heat, and it tends to shudder a little under high load/high boost/low RPM scenarios on low octane fuel in the heat.

 

[Jost]

I'll add my 2 cents: I bought a 21 XLT with the 2.3. I was concerned that it would lack but it does not. It is smooth, and always has more then adequate power. The 10 spd. is great, it rarely hunts, when it does I have select shift and can kick it down easily. I really could not be happier with the 2.3 and I am sure that with regular maint. it will last me a long time. Its performance is better then the 2.0 EB in our Escape which was highly rated and better then my previous 2.0 EB Fusion. I am not "foreign" to performance cars. I've been a shade tree mechanic my whole life.. I was a hot-rodder /drag racer when I was young and I also currently own a Mustang GT ( 4.6 3valve) so yes, I"ve driven cars faster then my 2.3 Explorer. I do use only 93 octane in my 2.3 ( also in my 2.0 Escape). Mustang has a 93 tune as well.

 

[Jettech498]

I'll add my 2 cents: I bought a 21 XLT with the 2.3. I was concerned that it would lack but it does not. It is smooth, and always has more then adequate power. The 10 spd. is great, it rarely hunts, when it does I have select shift and can kick it down easily. I really could not be happier with the 2.3 and I am sure that with regular maint. it will last me a long time. Its performance is better then the 2.0 EB in our Escape which was highly rated and better then my previous 2.0 EB Fusion. I am not "foreign" to performance cars. I've been a shade tree mechanic my whole life.. I was a hot-rodder /drag racer when I was young and I also currently own a Mustang GT ( 4.6 3valve) so yes, I"ve driven cars faster then my 2.3 Explorer. I do use only 93 octane in my 2.3 ( also in my 2.0 Escape). Mustang has a 93 tune as well.

My son had the 4.6l 3 valve with a tuner and was able to get stupid numbers the dyno with it. He was able to keep up with my charger 392 until about 100. Then I was able to pass him quickly. Those 3 valve engines tuned are a monster. Getting back to the 2.3l explorer engine. It's amazing. Night and day between running 87 and 93 octane. My 2019 explorer Sport was the same way. 87 octane made it feel sluggish. 93 woke her up.

 

[Bluesnake01]

My son had the 4.6l 3 valve with a tuner and was able to get stupid numbers the dyno with it. He was able to keep up with my charger 392 until about 100. Then I was able to pass him quickly. Those 3 valve engines tuned are a monster. Getting back to the 2.3l explorer engine. It's amazing. Night and day between running 87 and 93 octane. My 2019 explorer Sport was the same way. 87 octane made it feel sluggish. 93 woke her up.

I wouldnt say they would get crazy power, my friend's 05 GT made around 20~whp with just a dyno tune. Made around 290whp with bolt on's and tune, not too far off from what my 01 Cobra was making at the time.

Interesting note tho, your 392 should be able to walk it easily. Sounds like a healthy GT and great driver.

 

[Jettech498]

I wouldnt say they would get crazy power, my friend's 05 GT made around 20~whp with just a dyno tune. Made around 290whp with bolt on's and tune, not too far off from what my 01 Cobra was making at the time.

Interesting note tho, your 392 should be able to walk it easily. Sounds like a healthy GT and great driver.

My sons car was putting down 365 on the d6no with no cats and a tune. I was amazed at how it kept up with our 392. Those 3 valves have a ton of potential.

 

[VCFP153]

The 10 speed makes a world of difference in using the power of the 2.3L. My 2019 Sport was strapped with the old 6 speed and was no where near as quick as this one is. Trust me.

The 10 spd makes enough of a difference that my 3.0EB gets better gas mileage than the 3.7 that preceded it. Not MUCH better, but better nonetheless.

 

[Bluesnake01]

My sons car was putting down 365 on the d6no with no cats and a tune. I was amazed at how it kept up with our 392. Those 3 valves have a ton of potential.

Thats not a 3 valve at all... Thats a Coyote 5.0, 4 valve, a completely different engine.

Only way a 3 valve Mustang will make anywhere near that power is with boost or nitrous. Now it makes sense why he kept up haha A tuned 5.0 vs a Scat Pack will be a drivers race all day and night

 

[DoraAExplorer]

I wouldnt say they would get crazy power, my friend's 05 GT made around 20~whp with just a dyno tune. Made around 290whp with bolt on's and tune, not too far off from what my 01 Cobra was making at the time.

Interesting note tho, your 392 should be able to walk it easily. Sounds like a healthy GT and great driver.

Would it walk my STI though? I know I can walk regular RTs fairly easily not sure a 392. It would be close I guess and I am giving up roughly 3.8 liters, basically another v6.

 

[bcarlson]

One big factor you are ignoring is that in typical/normal driving it is the torque curve that makes an engine feel powerful, not the max horsepower it makes at a much higher rpm.
With a well tuned turbo engine/computer it is relatively easy to bring the torque curve up very quickly and have a flat curve from low to high rpm. When combined with a smooth shifting automatic, this provides a very satisfying feel of power in most driving situations.

My previous car was a BMW with their 2.0 liter turbo and 8 speed automatic. It was rated at 250 horsepower (not bad considering the vehicle weight), but they had tuned the torque curve to be flat from 1500 rpm to redline. In sport mode it also downshifted quickly to ensure you always had the the right rpm. It worked very well.

 

[Bluesnake01]

Would it walk my STI though? I know I can walk regular RTs fairly easily not sure a 392. It would be close I guess and I am giving up roughly 3.8 liters, basically another v6.

Not sure what you have done on your STI but unless its running on E85/Meth or different turbo, I would say yes. Scatpacks on avg are trapping 110+ stock in the 1/4 mile. You'll have better chances with a COBB tune but ill still give the 392 the edge.

Your strong launch will be the only time you'll keep up, anything past 60, he's gone. Sadly, Subaru hasnt done crap for the engine, its been practically the same engine since it first arrived in the US back in 04. Just has gotten heavier and heavier.

 

[Jettech498]

And we are finally back home in Atlanta after being gone for 2 weeks. 2804 miles round trip from Atlanta to Maine along with a bunch of other driving while up there. The computer says an overall average of 24.5mpg. I babied it up there (74mph tops) then beat it hard heading south(set the cruise on 83 most of the time and it saw 120 several times today on I-77 in NC). So who knows what the "real" mpg was because the computer was a bit optimistic at times going up using a calculator. Either way it is more comfortable on a trip than the Mercedes I used to own, rides like a dream, the seats are to die for, I love the pinched cloth they use, 500 miles per day was nothing, didn't hurt my back, the suspension is very compliant, the engine was always ready to pass everyone, smooth and quiet inside.....What more could anyone ask for? This trip just made me love it even more. All Hail the new Ford Explorer LOL!!!!

 

[Jettech498]

Here's a quick 87 octane to 93 octane experience during our trip. With 87 it would hesitate at times during part to full throttle acceleration. (Merging onto the highway, passing others). It was like the engine was trying to figure out what to do along with the transmission, if that makes any sense. It would hesitate at times like it didn't know how to react to the 87 octane which the 10 speed transmission was trying to keep up with the hesitation. So it made it surge at times. But I can tell you when I got closer to Atlanta and started feeding it 93 octane fuel. All hesitation went away. So I think the computer was trying to do it's best using the 87 octane fuel, with boost limits using 87 and the 93 degree heat, with a 10 speed transmission trying to make it as smooth as possible but it was kind of jerky at times, actually a lot. So using 87 octane on a trip I don't think is bad, because you're just burning through it, but it's noticeable when you step down on it and need to merge or do some passing.