Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[ForYourOwnGood]

I'll take the laptop back out to the car tonight when I leave for work and check it again, but I do want it in the OFF state correct?

Sponsored

 

[Regs]

Correct.

 

[jbailer]

I'll take the laptop back out to the car tonight when I leave for work and check it again, but I do want it in the OFF state correct?

I leave them both set to off. I also only use 93 probably 99% of the time from the same station and monitor OAR and it has never moved off -1.0.

 

[WSUBUM]

Just got mine this week. Should be going in next week!

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

Well I did a pull to redline and the new calibration definitely fixed that dead spot.

 

[WSUBUM]

Was poking around, making sure I had everything in order be my install and noticed a new hp/tq chart on the FP page.

 

[jbailer]

Was poking around, making sure I had everything in order be my install and noticed a new hp/tq chart on the FP page.

Nice, hadn't seen that 1 yet. This is different from the original graph plus it is measured at the wheels and the last one was at the flywheel.

I gotta call BS on what they show for stock though. Look at it compared to the original I posted. Plus it looks like they're saying it's less now than when they first created it but maybe more on the top end?

 

[WSUBUM]

I think the scale is wrong on the grey chart. and I just noticed, if you look really close. It's the same plots on both, just about 50hp less on the grey one. Even all the dips and bumps are the same on both. Not sure what they were going for on the new one.

 

[solodogg]

this new chart also shows power continuing well past 7k RPM, and talks about gains between 5500-6800rpm. Unless they have seriously raised the rev limiter on a new revision, and made a lot of other tweaks to the tune, this is nothing more than a marketing made chart.

 

[jtmat]

I think the scale is wrong on the grey chart. and I just noticed, if you look really close. It's the same plots on both, just about 50hp less on the grey one. Even all the dips and bumps are the same on both. Not sure what they were going for on the new one.

It is interesting.... they have them for the GT power packs as well.... they don't have the old (white graph) on the GT power packs though (I'm not sure if they ever did).

I won't embarrass myself and pretend to have an opinion of the graphs.

 

[jbailer]

What I think they are doing is trying to show hp/tq to the wheels compared to the old graph was at the flywheel. If you look at the old (white) dyno, you can see what might have been the stock peak numbers of 310 hp 320 tq. From experience we've learned these cars have about a 13% drivetrain loss. that would put them at 270 whp and 278 wtq but looking at their graph it shows maybe 245 whp and 250 wtq. Even if you used the old numbers of a 17% drivetrain loss not taking advantage of this generation's efficiencies, it should still be showing at least 257 whp and 265 wtq.

Then if you compare the numbers on the FRPP tune, they look really bad. If you just look at the tq peak at about 2200 RPMs, their old graph shows about 395 tq at the flywheel and the new graph shows about 300 wtq, that would be about a 24% drivetrain loss which is way more than any Mustang ever IIRC unless they are saying they reduced the torque or exaggerated it initially.

 

[KV Racing]

After 104 pages, has anyone actually put their car on a chassis dyno to see what it makes with this tune?

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

After 104 pages, has anyone actually put their car on a chassis dyno to see what it makes with this tune?

I'm going to try and get in this week. Its been bugging me for a long time now, and I finally found a shop here that will let me get on a dyno when they have time instead of making me wait for a group dyno day.

 

[jcart953]

After 104 pages, has anyone actually put their car on a chassis dyno to see what it makes with this tune?

Lol I was thinking the same thing

 

[S7N]

To be honest everything should be advertised at the wheel why is it always advertised at the fly?

Sponsored