Ford Adjusts F-150 Lightning Prices by Up to $9,979 for Customers

DrezKill said:
Oh shiiiiiiiat, I haven't seen something use both a turbocharger and a supercharger since the Lancia Delta S4 in WRC Group B!!!
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a race car. it's a large family sedan :p

That said, this engine drives very nice.

I've owned a bunch of 2.3L turbo Saabs in the past and they always had that turbo lag followed by an ungodly amount of midrange torque.

In the SAAB's it was fun to downshift to second, engine break going into a corner and then blast the accelerator at 3500rpm coming out of the corner.

On this car there is none of that 4 banger turbo peakiness. It really just feels like a V8, but with that supercharger noise and a rough idle/different engine note. The torque curve is surprisingly flat.

It's one of those where you hit the accelerator and look down and realize you are going 100mph, and don't know how you got there so fast, because you never got that kick in the back.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
2.3L. My Ecoboost is putting down 350 to the wheels. I could push it to 400 on an E30 tune, but I'm not doing that considering the limited availability of E85 around me. The only issue is the turbo lag is real. With my wastegate actuator it doesn't hit until 2500 RPM, but when it does it's a kick in the pants.
Click to expand...
This is how the 2.3 acts in my Bronco as well. I think mine is tuned so it gets 270hp on reg 87, and something like 300 on 91. There's a performance tune kit for it that gets it up around 330 (pretty much matching the V6), but you have to run 93, and I don't have that readily available around here.

So long as you keep it over 2500 RPM the thing is a beast. You let it drop below that and ... you wish you hadn't. But, it's also a manual, so you get some level of control over that. It's like Jekyll and Hyde.

I have a F150 with a 5.0 V8 in it - the V8 has a lot more low end grunt - it feels smooth through the entire tach range. Great for towing. But if you can keep that little 2.3 4cyl in the turbo it will wipe the smile off the V8 every single time.

The F150 V8 doesn't really have a lot of noise to it - it's all stock, if you put a cat back or something on it you could get some growl out of it, I'm sure - it's no Raptor or anything. The 2.3 certainly doesn't mimic the sound - the turbo whistles and it doesn't have any grunt to it at all, it sounds very much like a 4 cylinder - not Honda riceburner bad, but nothing like the old Bronco image. But it will surprise you with how it drives, it loves going over hills and the passing lane, and can spin out 35's with no problem if you aren't careful.

My wife has the Bronco Sport with the tiny little turbo 3 cylinder - even that, if you put it in Sport mode, will want to run away on you if you don't pay attention to it. Today's turbos, combined with the way lower street weight, are a big equalizer. I still agree there's no replacement for displacement though.
 
I guess my thought when it comes to the F-150 Lightning is that they've pretty much admitted that it is just for posturing, what with the crew cab and useless little tiny bed. Why there isn't a standard cab version with a longer bed is beyond me.

If you actually want to use your truck for hauling or work, it looks like you are actually better off with an E-transit, but they gimped that giving it a tiny battery and only 108-126 mile range depending on roof height.

Looking around, most manufacturers seem to have relegated the standard cab to mostly obscurity. This means in 2023 trucks are primarily sold as poseur mobiles for those who want to look tough and like they do tough worky things, but then just use them as a mini-van with a little trunk-sized bed.
 
Last edited:
Brian_B said:
This is how the 2.3 acts in my Bronco as well. I think mine is tuned so it gets 270hp on reg 87, and something like 300 on 91. There's a performance tune kit for it that gets it up around 330 (pretty much matching the V6), but you have to run 93, and I don't have that readily available around here.

So long as you keep it over 2500 RPM the thing is a beast. You let it drop below that and ... you wish you hadn't. But, it's also a manual, so you get some level of control over that. It's like Jekyll and Hyde.

I have a F150 with a 5.0 V8 in it - the V8 has a lot more low end grunt - it feels smooth through the entire tach range. Great for towing. But if you can keep that little 2.3 4cyl in the turbo it will wipe the smile off the V8 every single time.

The F150 V8 doesn't really have a lot of noise to it - it's all stock, if you put a cat back or something on it you could get some growl out of it, I'm sure - it's no Raptor or anything. The 2.3 certainly doesn't mimic the sound - the turbo whistles and it doesn't have any grunt to it at all, it sounds very much like a 4 cylinder - not Honda riceburner bad, but nothing like the old Bronco image. But it will surprise you with how it drives, it loves going over hills and the passing lane, and can spin out 35's with no problem if you aren't careful.

My wife has the Bronco Sport with the tiny little turbo 3 cylinder - even that, if you put it in Sport mode, will want to run away on you if you don't pay attention to it. Today's turbos, combined with the way lower street weight, are a big equalizer. I still agree there's no replacement for displacement though.
Click to expand...
My new Ranger has the 2.3L of course (only option on the 2023's), and coming from a 2.7L in my F150 it performs pretty well. I have the Tremor package with the LT tires so it may work a little harder, but nothing noticeable. I have owned all F150's up to this point, but the new house doesn't allow for both the F150 and my wifes SUV to fit so hence why I went with the Ranger. I remember on my 2015 F150 with the Coyote V8 motor. I put the Roush exhaust on it and man that was fun, and it got louder and louder the more Imiles I put on it which I enjoyed, but the neighbors not so much..:)
 
Brian_B said:
CA, where we have to run the special retard gas
Click to expand...

That stinks. I wonder why that is.

There is nothing worse emissions wise about 93, which is usually what California seems to care about...

Maybe it is just due to the cost? With the higher gas tax, maybe not enough people are willing to pay the extra to get 93?
 
Zarathustra said:
I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
That is a good question. I went to look. There is no legal reason. The prevailing theory was that CA uses more premium fuel than most states, but we have our own state gas standards so refineries in TX and other places don’t sent us refined gas - we refine it all in state. There just isn’t enough 93 to really go around so it only makes it to a select few gas stations (with the select few extreme markup) - similar as with the higher blends for racing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top