2015-17 Mustang GT Ford Performance Power Packs

[Moostang83]

The car would run terrible on a stock tune due to that throttle body. Id say you're fine.

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

Good point – and the max revs go from something like 6750 to 7250: so hopefully quite visible on the dial

Factory 2nd Gen 5.0 Rev Limit: 6,800 RPM
Power Pack 2 for 2nd Gen 5.0 Rev Limit: 7,150 RPM
Power Pack 3 for 2nd Gen 5.0 Rev Limit: 7,450 RPM
Factory 3rd Gen 5.0 Rev Limit: 7,400 RPM
2013-2014 Road Runner 5.0 Rev Limit in Boss 302 (S197 chassis): 7,450 RPM

2nd Gen 5.0 uses the powder forged rods, 300 lb valve springs and 13mm valve lift from the Boss 302's "Road Runner" 5.0. That's why you can safely increase the rev limit without running into issues like valve float, because the rotating assembly was designed from the ground up to rev out to just shy of 7,500 RPM. The only reason Power Pack 3 replaces the intake manifold is because the standard 5.0 intake manifold's flow efficiency drops off very rapidly past 7,000 RPM.

Power Pack 2 more or less capitalizes on as much of the factory "over engineering" as possible.

 

[TheLion]

Help!

I had the Power Pack 2 installed by Ford on my 2016 Mustang GT last June - brilliant and well worth it.
I’ve just got one problem/question: is it possible to use the ProCal3 software (connected to the OBD port) that comes with it to check if the PP2 tune is still on the car or if it has been wiped off (re-flashed)? I ask because, when I later had my car serviced at a different Ford dealer in August, the power does not seem to be as obvious. Now this may be just because I’ve got used to the extra power, but I’d like to make sure.

I told the Ford dealer before the service that the PP2 was installed, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t re-flash the car anyway (by accident). I could ask them now, of course, but I doubt if I could trust their answer (not because they are lying but just because they wouldn’t know for sure).

So, how do I check if it is still on there? Does the ProCal3 software only install the tune? Or should I buy a little OBD2 Scan Tool (they work with your IPhone) – and that might be able to tell me?


Any help appreciated

John (based in UK)

It is very unlikely that the dealer would mess with an ECU flash unless there is an issue and a TSB addressing it. Otherwise they leave it alone to avoid possible problems (including a comm error that can brick your ECU, unlikely but it does happen).

Here's the thing, the 5.0 is a somewhat inefficient engine regarding friction losses when compared to it's cam in block rivals from Chevy and Dodge. It has slightly more than 2x the valve train and operates at a higher average RPM. 45% of wasted energy in your engine is from resistance in the pistons / rings / cylinders and rod bearings / wrist pins alone. 16% from valve train and the rest is broken up between the remaining various components and auxiliary systems like water pumps, drive train losses etc.

Stock or modified, high revving engines with DOHC valve trains are inherently hard on oil and tend to cause higher oil vaporization than lower revving cam in block designs with OHV. There's greater friction in the pistons the higher the RPM. Same with the valve train. So rev range alone adds substantially more heat. On top of that you have more than double the bearing surface area in DOHC vs OHV push rod designs like the LT1 or 392. There's 4 timing chains, 32 valve guides, 32 cam lobes, 32 rocker arm pins, 32 rollers on the rocker arms. OHV cam in block designs have only 16 valve guides, 16 rocker arm pins, 1 timing chain and 16 cam lobes.

There's two ways to get power, a really big but short torque band like in the 5th gen LT1 6.2L or the Dodge 392 (aka 6.4L) or a stretched out torque band that occurs over a broader RPM range like in the 5.0L Coyote, Honda's S2000 motor (both variants), Voodoo 5.2L, most motor cycle engines and many high end super cars (although more and more super cars are turning to FI for extreme power output, but we're talking NA to NA architectures here).

It is likely that over time your getting oil vaporization that's diluting the fuel octane. This occurs even in normal driving. Add in the extra 350 RPM of rev range to your 2nd gen 5.0 and your friction losses have gone UP by an additional 5% over stock JUST due to the higher rev range increase alone. The stock 5.0 ALREADY suffers from "Power Fade" during any sort of performance driving, Power Pack 2 only exacerbates that. It's not a Ford Performance issue, it's a Ford 5.0 issue. The Voodoo suffers the same problem. Even the LT1 and 392 Hemi can loose timing due to oil vaporization, however they are less prone due to their designs and lower average RPM.

Once you start operating at 4,000 RPM and above your generating a lot more heat. And cooling systems thermal transfer capabilities is the lowest in stop and go traffic as the majority of air flow is only from the fans even if your not revving the engine a lot in stop and go. It's still a V8 with a crap ton of surface contact area = lots of waste heat.

A catch can on the passenger side will do wonders for consistency. Also a good quality synthetic with a relatively low NOACK rating (resistance to boil off) will also reduce vaporization. Combine those two together and you will achieve some fairly consistent performance.

I'd NOT recommend using UPR's catch cans. They trap a lot of moisture which doesn't affect fuel octane, not the normal amounts the crank case sees that gets into the intake. So they tend to fill up rather fast and 70% of it is water which we don't care about. JLT's 3.0 catch can is a good option as is the Ford Performance offering. They both do a good job at trapping oil vapors without trapping lots of moisture. Mishimoto's is also promising and has an anti-slosh baffle.

I made my own anti-slosh baffle by drilling and tapping two holes in the JLT 3.0 can and using a 1.75" aluminum blank stamping disk (with a bunch of holes drilled into it) to make my own anti-slosh baffle. It's just added protection for HPDE applications if you can starts to build up a decent amount of oil to keep it from entering the vacuum tube on the intake side of the can. I paired that with Mobil 1 Advanced Synthetic 5W-20 motor oil which has a NOACK rating of about 10%ish compared to MC's 15% loss. AMSOIL Signature Series is even better at about 7% evaporation loss, but it's pricey.

 

[TheLion]

All, I wanted to add something to this thread. I've been spending some time with a few others figuring out the "BBQ Tick", which we believe is due to bottom end side to side clearances, some 5.0's may be closer to the max clearance or a little over due to manufacturing issues. At least that's the prevailing theory as we do have one car with the tick that we were actually able to get measurements off the bottom end. It's a common "quirk" in the 5.0 in the GT's, the 6.2L gas engine in the F-350's and the 6.7L Turbo diesel in the F-350's. Also know as the "Type Writer Tick". It's in 95% of cases harmless but annoying.

We've been searching for solutions in cases where the OP can't get the dealer to replace the short block. Why? Because many know it's not a functional issue, it's an annoyance and that's not worth $7k of a new short block plus the labor. In a few severe cases OP's do get an new short block. In even fewer cases even the new short block starts ticking (one had a Boss 302 back when they came out, replaced the entire engine due to the "BBQ Tick", the new engine started ticking just 400 miles into driving it!). Ford Field engineers recommended "carbon powder" additives to resolve the noise issue, either that or a new short block or you just ignore it as the engines run fine.

In our R&D process we came across Cera Tec and Archoil nano ceramic additives. Generally I consider all engine oil additives "snake oil" and Bell Performance actually tested the majority of the well known ones like Rislone, Slick 50 etc. and proved they are indeed snake oil. However I'm always cautious to avoid "every this is always bad" because in reality, your oil REQUIRES additives, they are just chosen by the oil supplier and we know for a fact there's a wide range of performance variations from motor oil to motor oil. They simply do NOT all perform the same and their additive packages vary quite a bit.

This lead me to start digging into Cera Tec at first, trying to figure out weather it was legitimate or now, how it worked and what was in it. What I found in my reasearch is something I never really understood well and that is the fact that motor oils SUCK at something called Boundary Layer Lubrication. There are generally two methods by which engine components are lubricated and it depends on their function and design. Rod bearings, main bearings, wrist pins and cam shaft bearings are typically lubricated in the Hydrodynamic region. Two opposing fluid films sliding against one another actually generate a hydraulic film. Hydrodynamic films require enough velocity and a constant oil supply to function, otherwise the fluid bearing collapses. There is NO metal on metal contact during hydrodynamic operation.

Piston rings and side skirts, cam lobes, valve guides and timing chains generally operate in either boundary layer lubrication mode or mixed mode (some of both depending on RPM). In boundary layer lubrication modes there IS metal on metal contact. Base oil sucks at boundary layer lubrication. Additives like ZDDP are the primary anti-ware additive in motor oils. ZDDP IS a type of DLC (Diamond Like Coating) that forms a Tribo-film due to the combination of heat and pressure. It's a self-repairing solid lubricant. However friction and anti-wear are separate quantities, an anti-wear additive like ZDDP (aka Zink) can have good anti-wear properties but also have a high coefficient of friction.

So ZDDP is often paired with chemical friction modifiers in motor oil to give it reasonable anti-wear and friction reducing properties. It's been around for 50+ years. It's also toxic to catalytic converters and can actually increase friction if too much is used. So it has some issues. When paired with friction modifiers it can achieve a best of 0.05 to 0.06 coefficient of friction. Base oil is around 0.10 to 0.12 with no additives (we're talking strickly friction here, not anti-wear, which ZDDP is FAR superior to base oil in boundary layer lubrication regimes).

So in the search to reduce energy losses and extend the service life of engines, gearboxes, turbine bearings and all manner of machines we use and depend on to combat the growing energy crisis, there has been a substantial amount of R&D over the last 10 to 15 years being poured into Solid Lubricant technologies that are superior to the existing ones. MoS2 has been around for some time and is extremely good at boundary layer lubrication. It is a type of DLC coating or commonly known as a ceramic solid lubricant or EP (extreme pressure) anti-wear additive. However MoS2 is prone to oxidizing which makes it abrasive once it oxidizes, it's also toxic to catalysts like ZDDP. So MoS2 is generally only used in CV joints, which is why they last for 100k miles. It's coefficient of friction is around 0.03 to 0.02, very good compared to ZDDP, but those two issues keep it from being adopted for use in motor oil.

Recently technology has allowed the creation of hBN (Hexagonal Boron Nitride) and MSH (Magnesium Silicon Hydroxide) which are two competing self-repairing DLC coatings to address the deficiencies of boundary layer lubrication in motor oils. hBN, which is used in Cera Tec and Archoil, has two primary draw backs. hBN can absorb water before it decays into a tribo-film, in that case it will actually increase friction (but not wear). It also requires substantially more material to achieve the same anti-wear AND friction reducing properties as MSH. However hBN has been aroung longer where MSH is fairly new.

The only existing MSH friction modifier I know of is TriboTEX. All three of them address the "BBQ Ticking" noises by creating a EP Tribo-film on wear areas within the engine. They both have a coefficient of friction of about 0.02 to 0.01 or 5x lower than ZDDP. They also last for 30,000 to 40,000 miles before the film breaks down and needs to be replenished. These are NOT snake oil chemical additives. TirboTEX R&D was funded by NASA, DOE, US Military and NSF. Cera Tech was developed by a fairly big name oil producer Liqui Moly in Germany and is quite popular there.

Cera Tech is a 2 in 1 containing both hBN solid lubricants which remain after the oil change and chemical friction reducers. It will not affect oil viscosity. It is suspended in a Group III base oil. Archoil is a slightly higher quality variant that is also hBN based solid lubricant and is suspended in a Group V Ester base oil with their own chemical friction reducers. Both are compatible with all known existing oil additive packages. Both provide an estimated maximum service life of 30,000 miles before needing replenished. However you do loose the benefits of the chemical friction modifiers when you change your oil even though the hBN tribo-film remains.

TriboTEX is the most unique as it is MSH based and is ONLY a solid lubricant additive. There are no chemical friction modifiers present. It is suspended in a small amount of Group V Ester base oil in a gel form along with it's catalysts and has a slightly longer service life of 40,000 miles. More strenuous engine operation will require shorter re-application intervals like with any lubricant.

TriboTEX takes about 500 miles to decompose bond and decompose into a tribo-film on the bearing surfaces. Cera Tec and Archoil suggest leaving it in for the full oil change, which suggests it takes several thousand miles for hBN to decompose and form a tribo-film. Due to hBN's susceptibility to water absorption, that is likely why it's suspended in a substantial amount of base oil, to prevent water contact until it decomposes into a tribo film when exposed to heat and pressure, that and for hBN to be effective you simply need more of it than MSH and that is the most effective delivery mechanism.

 

[TheLion]

Now, there are four key elements to making good power SAFELY that I've found which I'll enumerate below and am currently using:

1. Fuel Octane Dilution Prevention - I run a modified (added an anti-slosh baffle) JLT 3.0 oil catch can. Even the stock 5.0 suffers from fuel dilution due to oil vaporization. This undesirable trait was even documented by Motor Trend when they tested the 2015 Mustang GT PP. They noted that they experienced "Power Fade" during their track testing session despite the fact that nothing was "over temp". This is due to oil vapor particulates entering the combustion chamber and diluting the fuel octane which causes increased volatility and consequently knock. In order to keep the engine from damage, the ECU will pull timing until knock severity and frequency of occurrence is at an acceptable level. So your 435 HP V8 may only be making 400 HP due to knock.

Ford Performance backed this claim up by personally telling me that even the stock 5.0 suffers this issue when I asked them about my experiences with power fade when I first got my Power Pack 2 and started really pushing the car hard. Further evidence of how power can be lost due to fuel quality is the testing done by Engine Labs in their R&D of LSPI issues in TDI engines. They started out by actually testing a high compression NA engine, in particular the 5th Gen LT1 6.2L V8 found in the latest Camaro SS and 2014+ Corvetts. Their 91 octane fuel in Arizona was so poor of quality that the LT1 was making 70 HP less at the crank than it's SAE rated output of 455 HP! You heard that right, 70 HP less due to fuel quality. Oil vapor dilution of fuel octane has a similar effect to poor quality fuel, it increases volatility and hence you get secondary detonations, aka knock.

2. Power Adder -the Power Pack 2 is my sole power adder. Obviously the factory tuning has to be conservative enough to allow safe operation on 87 octane which I NEVER run. That means the timing that is safe to run if 91 or higher fuel octane cannot be realized as the ECU cannot scale back fast enough when fuel octane is switched. So that limits the potential gains on higher octane fuels. Additionally some flow restrictions are reduced by the addition of the 87mm throttle body and GT350 CAI. I chose the Power Pack because of it's high reliability, warranty coverage, power gains across the rev range, higher rev limit, seamless drive ability attributes and cost. It's simply hard to beat. 45hp+ in the mid-range at 4,000 and 5,000 RPM and 21hp+ peak gains. What's not to like?

3. Flow Restriction, Weight Reduction and Acoustics - Corsa Sport cat back exhaust. It was already on the car when I bought it used with only 5,600 miles on the clock. It was actually the "Extreme" version and was too loud so I swapped my extreme mufflers with a local that had the Corsa "touring" mufflers and combined that with the Corsa Double X-pipe already on the car for their "Sport" configuration. It's 11 lbs lighter than stock, gives me a somewhat exotic and nice tone with a reasonable but not face melting volume. It has NO drone either. The Double X-pipe (or any after market x-pipe) also flows a little better than the stock "briefcase" resonator, so you get about 5-7 hp more across the mid to upper rev range.

4. Pumping Losses and Temperature Stability - while MC 5W-20 motor oil does a good job at anti-wear and is relatively temperature stable (decent viscosity index) it's not the best by any means. It also suffers from a high Noack of over 15% boil off. So it's a big contributor to oil vapor induced knock. You don't have to run AMSOIL per say, but you should run a good quality snythetic, I chose Mobile 1 Advanced Synthetic 5W-20 due to it's good NOACK volatility, excellent viscosity index which also happens to be fairly close to MC 5W-20's viscosity index and it's price / availability. It also meets both Ford's and GM's latest specifications.

5. Friction Modifier - this is an area that is usually only looked at by exotic car builders. They have been using DLC coatings for years now to make more power. Friction turns chemical energy into thermal energy (heat) and abrasive wear in your engine instead of torque on the crank. There's quite a bit of loss due to friction alone. A very substantial amount of energy loss occurs due to the poor friction reducing performance of ZDDP despite the fact that it excels as an anti-wear additive in modern motor oils. That's where TriboTEX comes in. After extensive research (the R part) of hBN and MSH DLC coatings I settled on TriboTEX and have been running it for the last 1,000 miles with absolutely stellar results.

Only a dyno run will confirm any power gains due to the MSH additive, but I can tell you car pulls substantially harder than it did with #1,2,3 and 4 above which I've been running for the past 3,000 miles. It's almost like getting another Power Pack on top of the power pack. I'd estimate a good 20 ft-lbs if not more across the entire rev range. My fuel economy has gone up by 2-3 mpg. I'm managing 28-30 mpg on flat ground at 60 mph when I used to average about 25-27. That's with a full passenger load and a trunk full of luggage. The engine is substantially quieter as well, it's almost got a sewing machine rhythm to it. In fact, the car's throttle response is almost "touchy" now due to being so eager to go. You can absolutely feel the torque in the "butt dyno" just like with the Power Pack 2.

I would not hesitate to recommend running TriboTEX MSH additive with your 5.0 It's pricey, but there's an immense amount of R&D behind it and it actually does work. I'm not the only one running it now either with stellar results. For more budget oriented owners Cera Tech and Archoil have similar benefits and also show power gains, fuel economy gains, noise suppression and anti-war properties. Cera Tec is particular popular with the Prius owners over on the Prius forums to help combat excessive oil consumption that is common to start around 150k to 200k in the 1.5L Atkins cycle motors due to the constant start / stop cycles that are hard on piston rungs and skirt coatings. At some point these types of additives will become a ZDDP replacement. But why not take advantage of them now and enjoy the benefits? It's all about efficiency and the 5.0 is a poster child for the need to reduce friction as it incurs the highest losses compared to it's cam in block rivals from Chevy and Dodge. It may flow better, but that is some degree offset by losses that are turned into heat and resistance. What if you could get the benefits of a broader rev range and DOHC flow efficiency without the substantial friction losses? Just think about that for a minute. Your Mustang GT looses nearly 50 HP just because of the drive train resistance alone...50 HP! That's half a Prius engine .

 

[TheLion]

Here is some of the R&D of TriboTEX, which has been in development for over a decade now. It's been though multiple ASTM wear and friction tests, Weaveden test (the go to test all auto makers use for testing drive train lubrication), multiple real world tests, R&D testing with the UNL Baja Team who was actually researching Cryo Treatments at the time etc.:

 

[TheLion]

Here is some more info including NSF funding for Phase II of R&D process. So no this is not snake oil. It's legitimate nano coating technology and that's where solid lubricants are moving towards to replace ZDDP as an anti-wear additive. ZDDP is good at anti-wear, but it performs poorly as a friction reducer and needs to be replenished frequently, as in with every oil change. It is a form of DLC coating just like MSH and hBN, but it's properties are not ideal. It's an old technology that has been in use for over 50 years well before boundary layer lubrication mechanism were very well understood.

And yah, I post a lot, but you have to admit, I bring you guys some good sh** . Real solutions that actually work and provide some benefit. More timing, more fuel and more air is NOT always the best solution nor the most reliable. You can only add so much fuel, timing and air before other issues become the dominating factor (I'm pointing fingers to after market tuners here).

What if we could make similar power but with far greater reliability and efficiency? The Ford Performance Power Packs are a key part, but only one piece of the puzzle. Each modification on my list above serves a very specific purpose in makes clean, safe and consistent power. Now I'm not suggest you have to use a JLT catch can or Corsa exhaust because I used one, but the concept of reducing weight, reducing flow restrictions with the exhaust or eliminated oil vapor inhalation into the combustion chamber can be applied with your brand of choice so long as you know it's been tested and works as advertised. But the best results are as always in engineering, the sum total of all of them combined.

 

[TexasRebel]

well yeah engine oil is bad at boundary lubrication... it's supposed to be. The last thing you want is oil between your rings and cylinder walls.

The only other stop/start areas are the valve stems which are polished and under negligible radial loading.

All of the rotating components take the initial hydrostatic lubrication from the oil pump before they get to turning and build up their hydrodynamic layer during operation. At this point you're looking at nothing more than the shear forces within the fluid (oil) itself (viscosity) and how that will change with temperature. That's why 5w-20 is not an absolute depending on your environment. If your oil is thinning out too much at operating temp, you may consider a 5w-30 to keep the viscosity a little higher in the heat...

This was a much bigger problem with old flat tappet cams. If the lifters didn't spin, the wedge of oil never formed between the cam and lifter which resulted in metal-to-metal contact. This all depended on cam lobe angles and lifter offsets. in some applications, the thrust from the distributor drive gear would push the cam too far as the timing chain/gears wore out and allowed more endplay. Once the cam lobe came too far into alignment with the lifter bore, the lifter wouldn't spin and you'd drop that lobe. That doesn't really happen with rollers as there is a constant stream of oil wedged between the cam lobe and roller surface.

Also, friction remains constant. Engine speed does not change the coefficients. The difference is how quickly heat is generated. In an engine turning 4,000 RPM the pistons will travel twice as far and have twice as many reversing events as in an engine turning 2,000 RPM.

As far as the "BBQ tick" ( as an aside, I've never known any BBQing equipment to tick) goes, how many complaintants are running oil that conforms to the Motorcraft spec? Even with excessive endplay in the connecting rods, what is the driving force that is causing them to move axially with sufficient velocity/force to be audible? Generally, excessive endplay in connecting rods just causes excessive leakage in the lubrication system. The path of least resistance for oil to flow back to the sump is no longer though the passages, but now out of the gap between the rods.

 

[TheLion]

Take a look at the attachments if anyone so feels the need to argue about the benefits of DLC coatings. There are mountains of evidence and standardized testing available in what I provided and the benefits are substantial. Its very well proven technology. The data will speak for itself, but it's by no means required. Just like there's no requirement to use the Ford Performance Power Pack 2 or a catch can. These are all legitimate ways to improve the performance of the Mustang and tap into latent potential. I'm just trying to share what I have discovered on my own journey and while I do not pretend to know everything, I'm very meticulous in my research and testing and generally only consider proven solutions.

 

[TheLion]

well yeah engine oil is bad at boundary lubrication... it's supposed to be. The last thing you want is oil between your rings and cylinder walls.

The only other stop/start areas are the valve stems which are polished and under negligible radial loading.

All of the rotating components take the initial hydrostatic lubrication from the oil pump before they get to turning and build up their hydrodynamic layer during operation. At this point you're looking at nothing more than the shear forces within the fluid (oil) itself (viscosity) and how that will change with temperature. That's why 5w-20 is not an absolute depending on your environment. If your oil is thinning out too much at operating temp, you may consider a 5w-30 to keep the viscosity a little higher in the heat...

This was a much bigger problem with old flat tappet cams. If the lifters didn't spin, the wedge of oil never formed between the cam and lifter which resulted in metal-to-metal contact. This all depended on cam lobe angles and lifter offsets. in some applications, the thrust from the distributor drive gear would push the cam too far as the timing chain/gears wore out and allowed more endplay. Once the cam lobe came too far into alignment with the lifter bore, the lifter wouldn't spin and you'd drop that lobe. That doesn't really happen with rollers as there is a constant stream of oil wedged between the cam lobe and roller surface.

Also, friction remains constant. Engine speed does not change the coefficients. The difference is how quickly heat is generated. In an engine turning 4,000 RPM the pistons will travel twice as far and have twice as many reversing events as in an engine turning 2,000 RPM.

As far as the "BBQ tick" ( as an aside, I've never known any BBQing equipment to tick) goes, how many complainants are running oil that conforms to the Motorcraft spec? Even with excessive endplay in the connecting rods, what is the driving force that is causing them to move axially with sufficient velocity/force to be audible? Generally, excessive endplay in connecting rods just causes excessive leakage in the lubrication system. The path of least resistance for oil to flow back to the sump is no longer though the passages, but now out of the gap between the rods.

There are many components in an engine that operate in boundary layer lubrication regime as well as mixed lubrication regime and even some in elasto-hydrodynamic regimes. For example, 45% of losses occur in the piston group / cylinder walls. Of that 45%, 4% is boundary layer, 18% is hydrodynamic, another 18% elasto-hydrodynamic and finally the remaining 5% is mixed lubrication regime. DLC coatings provide benefits in 3 of the 4 types of lubrication modes.

Valve train operates in mixed lubrication mode where both occurs depending on RPM and loads and the valve train constantly transitions in and out of the different modes. RPM alone is the not the defining characteristic, load, RPM and surface area all affect the operating regime.

If this were not the case any everything operated in hydrodynamic lubrication mode 99% of the time there would be no need for ZDDP anti-wear additives. Your cams, valve guides, timing chains and pistons won't last nearly as long without it however.

I would encourage you to read through some of the R&D papers as well as testing data, particularly the TriboTEX vehicle testing which provides some information of the lubrication regions of each of the common engine components. There are real and substantial benefits to be realized and I prove it every day I drive my GT. Others are now starting to use it as well with absolutely stellar results.

It pairs very well with the Ford Performance Power Packs and allows the 5.0 to make the absolute most out of each combustion event. It's not a golden egg that's going to transform your NA 5.0 into a 1,000 hp race engine, but it will provide substantial and noticeable gains in performance from increased response, more torque to the wheels, lower fuel consumption and dramatic increase in over all service life which is very good for a high revving V8 with a boat load of valve train.

The two negatives of DLC coatings such as TriboTEX, Cera Tec or Archoil are that DLC coatings are slow to form, the take hundreds or even thousands of miles of use before the coating fully form and some of them a bit pricey, but far from unobtainable and honestly dirt cheap compared to even a Power Pack cost.

I would highly recommend for the budget minded you pair your power pack with an oil catch can, a good off-the-shelf synthetic from Mobil 1, Valvoline, Penzoil etc. and TriboTEX as the golden trifecta of an engineered solution to make the most of the 2nd and 3rd gen 5.0's.

I think you will be quite impressed with how well your coyote runs, literally. The Power Pack is your warranty safe power adder, the catch can is your power loss preventer and the TriboTEX is your efficiency / durability enhancement to make the most of the other two. You can run any 5W-20 oil with that setup as long as it meets or exceeds Ford's spec, be it MC 5W-20 semi-syn, Mobil 1, AMSOIL, Penzoil, Valvoline tec. And no, oil isn't designed on purpose to suck at boundary layer, mixed mode and elasto-hydrodynamic lubrication regimes. It sucks at them because of technological and financial limitations, but is now being explored once again due to technological advances that make superior lubrication mechanisms financially viable.

I think the first person to try this trifecta with their power pack after the first 1,000 miles is going to back me up on how good it really is, it will be come the standard go to setup for anyone wanting a substantial over all refinement of their GT's 5.0L V8 without high risk and expensive modifications that often cause drive ability issues, reliability issues / risks and reduced fuel economy like E85, after market tunes, long tube headers etc. all while remaining emissions compliant, warranty covered and with better than stock fuel economy for those grand touring drives. It also provides substantially more wear protection for HPDE / track / auto x performance driving applications.

I use my GT for a variety of things, some times my wife and I just go out hot roding and cruising on new back country roads we've never driven on. Other times I use it for long trips to visit relatives. And other times still for HPDE driving (aka track). It's a multi-purpose street car that I can enjoy all year around and I'm very hesitant to sacrifice reliability and drive ability, but I will tolerate a little more NVH at times. My R efforts have been focused on a very well balanced car that's not miserable to drive but also performs extremely well when asked without breaking down.

 

[re-rx7]

There are many components in an engine that operate in boundary layer lubrication regime as well as mixed lubrication regime and even some in elasto-hydrodynamic regimes. For example, 45% of losses occur in the piston group / cylinder walls. Of that 45%, 4% is boundary layer, 18% is hydrodynamic, another 18% elasto-hydrodynamic and finally the remaining 5% is mixed lubrication regime. DLC coatings provide benefits in 3 of the 4 types of lubrication modes.

Valve train operates in mixed lubrication mode where both occurs depending on RPM and loads and the valve train constantly transitions in and out of the different modes. RPM alone is the not the defining characteristic, load, RPM and surface area all affect the operating regime.

If this were not the case any everything operated in hydrodynamic lubrication mode 99% of the time there would be no need for ZDDP anti-wear additives. Your cams, valve guides, timing chains and pistons won't last nearly as long without it however.

I would encourage you to read through some of the R&D papers as well as testing data, particularly the TriboTEX vehicle testing which provides some information of the lubrication regions of each of the common engine components. There are real and substantial benefits to be realized and I prove it every day I drive my GT. Others are now starting to use it as well with absolutely stellar results.

It pairs very well with the Ford Performance Power Packs and allows the 5.0 to make the absolute most out of each combustion event. It's not a golden egg that's going to transform your NA 5.0 into a 1,000 hp race engine, but it will provide substantial and noticeable gains in performance from increased response, more torque to the wheels, lower fuel consumption and dramatic increase in over all service life which is very good for a high revving V8 with a boat load of valve train.

The two negatives of DLC coatings such as TriboTEX, Cera Tec or Archoil are that DLC coatings are slow to form, the take hundreds or even thousands of miles of use before the coating fully form and some of them a bit pricey, but far from unobtainable and honestly dirt cheap compared to even a Power Pack cost.

I would highly recommend for the budget minded you pair your power pack with an oil catch can, a good off-the-shelf synthetic from Mobil 1, Valvoline, Penzoil etc. and TriboTEX as the golden trifecta of an engineered solution to make the most of the 2nd and 3rd gen 5.0's.

I think you will be quite impressed with how well your coyote runs, literally. The Power Pack is your warranty safe power adder, the catch can is your power loss preventer and the TriboTEX is your efficiency / durability enhancement to make the most of the other two. You can run any 5W-20 oil with that setup as long as it meets or exceeds Ford's spec, be it MC 5W-20 semi-syn, Mobil 1, AMSOIL, Penzoil, Valvoline tec. And no, oil isn't designed on purpose to suck at boundary layer, mixed mode and elasto-hydrodynamic lubrication regimes. It sucks at them because of technological and financial limitations, but is now being explored once again due to technological advances that make superior lubrication mechanisms financially viable.

I think the first person to try this trifecta with their power pack after the first 1,000 miles is going to back me up on how good it really is, it will be come the standard go to setup for anyone wanting a substantial over all refinement of their GT's 5.0L V8 without high risk and expensive modifications that often cause drive ability issues, reliability issues / risks and reduced fuel economy like E85, after market tunes, long tube headers etc. all while remaining emissions compliant, warranty covered and with better than stock fuel economy for those grand touring drives. It also provides substantially more wear protection for HPDE / track / auto x performance driving applications.

I use my GT for a variety of things, some times my wife and I just go out hot roding and cruising on new back country roads we've never driven on. Other times I use it for long trips to visit relatives. And other times still for HPDE driving (aka track). It's a multi-purpose street car that I can enjoy all year around and I'm very hesitant to sacrifice reliability and drive ability, but I will tolerate a little more NVH at times. My R efforts have been focused on a very well balanced car that's not miserable to drive but also performs extremely well when asked without breaking down.

Ordered some today. I thought the Ford performance oil catch didnt work with PP2?

 

[TheLion]

I'm using JLT's 3.0. And the Ford Performance one does work, it's just that the brackets won't attach the container to the mounting location and it "floats" there due to the larger intake tube. However that doesn't seem to be an issue as the JLT floats there as well by design. I chose the JLT simply because it's functional performance is nearly identical for the Ford Performance solution but it's easier to empty by just unscrewing it instead of unscrewing 4 allen screws.

Although the Ford Performance one does have a larger tank capacity. Either will work. Mishimoto has a good design as well and I adapted their concept of using a slosh baffle to my JLT unit by attaching a 1.75" aluminum disk I drilled a bunch of holes in to act as an anti-slosh baffle for additional protection when the unit gets more full. Under hard cornering the fluids can ride up the sides if the reservoir has a decent amount of fluid in it. You may get a nasty puff of smoke and there goes your aggressive timing. Although the JLT is fairly well protected by hiding the intake side way up in the top, I figured the added slosh protection couldn't hurt!

 

[accel]

@TheLion, you should open a dedicated thread for oil additives. Might be useful info.

 

[BigBlue]

To clarify, the passenger Ford catch can works on 18+ GT, the drivers is nowhere close to right for lines/etc for an 18+ GT. You only need passenger's side anyways.

 

[TheLion]

@TheLion, you should open a dedicated thread for oil additives. Might be useful info.

And here I thought that I post too much

Sponsored