2015-17 Mustang GT Ford Performance Power Packs

[TheLion]

I went from PP2 to PP3 about a month ago. PP2 had a very punchy, torquey, midrange. PP3 has more of a top end rush. Pulls harder to the redline than PP2. I notice slightly better gas mileage with PP3. With PP3 I just hold my gears longer usually second and third. I have 3.31 years and manual trans. My car seems to drive more smoothly with PP3 than PP2. Recently I tried driving around in track mode. Throttle response is a little more like PP2. With a manual trans you can keep your car in the powerband so I don't feel like I gave up anything going from the 2 to the 3. I'm going to focus on chassis mods now; subframe connectors, vertical links and cradle lockout. I drive 24 miles one way to work and I enjoy driving my car every day. I've had all three power packs and the driveability has been good with all three of them.

From a performance standpoint, if you look back at my Excel plots of MotoIQ's dyno's (also compared to the 5th Gen LT1 6.2L in the latest Camaro SS / 2014+ Corvette), PP2 delivers a nice broad power band that is more useful for 3.73 / 3.55 and especially 3.31 gearing on road courses / auto x.

I consider Road Course / Auto x different than Track / HDPE, which have higher average speeds. That's where PP3 would shine is on high speed tracks with the majority of it's corners higher speed sweepers, at least with the stock gearing.

PP3's gains are almost entirely in the top end past 6,400 RPM. There's good and bad about that. PP3 gives you more power than PP2 or a stock LT1 6.2L, which to me is pretty impressive considering, but there's also more heat / friction at higher RPM's that you have to deal with as well. The gen 2's rods, crank, valves, valve lift, heads and cams were set up to rev out to 7,500 RPM, but it's intake manifold was NOT as it's a modified carry over from the gen 1 coyote, they just added in those adjustable runners for low RPM fuel efficiency / better idle / emissions. So the intake manifold isn't 100% matched to the Road Runner esque guts of the 2nd gen 5.0. More or less they purposefully built in a lot of potential that isn't used in it's stock configuration. PP2 and PP3 both take advantage of that potential, but are biased for different applications.

The down side to big power top end is that to tap into that you need to keep the car higher up in the RPM range. On a road coarse, daily driving, especially auto cross, that's just not always possible. It can make the car difficult to drive in terms of tapping into all of it's potential.

That broad and stout mid-range is often more useful than a big top end but flat mid-range. PP2 is better suited for daily, auto x / road race with the stock gearing. PP3 is better suited for high speed track and roll racing.

OR if your running smaller diameter ultra light weight forged 18" wheels with low profile tires, PP3 would be better. Stock tire diameter is 27.7". But a low profile tire on a forged 18" wheel is around 25.5~26". Supposed for arguments sake it's 26" for a 18" wheel with lower profile 35 series tire.


PP2 Gearing / Speed Range chart with stock 3.73 Torsen + 27.7" Tire:

Rear Axel Ratio 3.73 Final Ratio Speed
1st Gear Ratio 3.657 13.641 43.21 MPH
2nd Gear Ratio 2.430 9.064 65.03 MPH
3rd Gear Ratio 1.686 6.289 93.73 MPH
4th Gear Ratio 1.315 4.905 120.17 MPH
5th Gear Ratio 1.000 3.730 158.03 MPH
6th Gear Ratio 0.651 2.428 242.75 MPH

PP3 Gearing / Speed Range chart with stock 3.73 Torsen + 26" Tire:

Rear Axel Ratio 3.73 Final Ratio Speed
1st Gear Ratio 3.657 13.641 42.26 MPH
2nd Gear Ratio 2.430 9.064 63.60 MPH
3rd Gear Ratio 1.686 6.289 91.67 MPH
4th Gear Ratio 1.315 4.905 117.53 MPH
5th Gear Ratio 1.000 3.730 154.55 MPH
6th Gear Ratio 0.651 2.428 237.41 MPH

PP3 with a smaller diameter tire would be one fast setup for auto x / track. Less unsprung weight, lower side wall profile promotes better handling feedback, higher corner speeds, faster transitions etc. Corner after corner those hundredths and thousandths of a second add up into tens or even seconds. That's the whole concept between the R Spec GT350's carbon fiber wheels.

Sponsored

 

[Aurum]

It can all be taken care of with a cheap fuel line connector found here.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1861692&postcount=50

Before I pick up the connector, do you need 1x or 2x of them to re-route? Do you need to pair it with a special vacuum hose or do the existing parts work?

 

[blown302]

you just need one, it replaces the straight connector and existing hose slips on it.

 

[arfabe16]

you just need one, it replaces the straight connector and existing hose slips on it.

Is this an issue on *all* 5.0s with PP2? I looked in my engine bay and didn't see a problem, but I'm admittedly a mod n00b so I'll take a couple of pics and post them here for you smarter folks to tell me if I need to fix something.

I did add an oil separator to my car and felt super accomplished for it (even if it took 3 minutes!) :clap2:

 

[Rambl3r]

Is this an issue on *all* 5.0s with PP2? I looked in my engine bay and didn't see a problem, but I'm admittedly a mod n00b so I'll take a couple of pics and post them here for you smarter folks to tell me if I need to fix something.

I did add an oil separator to my car and felt super accomplished for it (even if it took 3 minutes!) :clap2:

If the hose below is touching the valve cover, I would get it. Mine was just barely touching so I changed the connector.

Photo credit belongs to: [MENTION=19793]2morrow[/MENTION]

 

[2morrow]

Before I pick up the connector, do you need 1x or 2x of them to re-route? Do you need to pair it with a special vacuum hose or do the existing parts work?

Just 1

you just need one, it replaces the straight connector and existing hose slips on it.

The kit should have come with this IMO.

If the hose below is touching the valve cover, I would get it. Mine was just barely touching so I changed the connector.

Agreed.

 

[arfabe16]

It can all be taken care of with a cheap fuel line connector found here.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1861692&postcount=50

Ok, so I love the look of what you did (looks MUCH better than the notched covers, IMHO).

That said, I'm a total n00b -- the Mustang is the first car I've owned that I've ever wanted to learn to work on... so please bear with me for a couple of probably dumb questions:

- How did you get the straight fitting off? Those look pretty stuck there.

- In the pics you posted, what exactly am I looking at? I'm assuming the top piece (black) is the new fuel line connector (correct?), but I've no idea what the second piece (gray) is.

- Did you only disconnect the fitting from the end that's attached to the intake tube, or did you disconnect the hose from both ends?

Thanks so much for the help!

 

[blown302]

Also, if you loosen the air box hose clamp on the throttle body and rotate the hose down a little bit it will lower the hose hitting the engine cover that some people are notching. The accordion portion of the hose will allow you to twist it at the t-body.

 

[2morrow]

Ok, so I love the look of what you did (looks MUCH better than the notched covers, IMHO).

That said, I'm a total n00b -- the Mustang is the first car I've owned that I've ever wanted to learn to work on... so please bear with me for a couple of probably dumb questions:

- How did you get the straight fitting off? Those look pretty stuck there.

- In the pics you posted, what exactly am I looking at? I'm assuming the top piece (black) is the new fuel line connector (correct?), but I've no idea what the second piece (gray) is.

- Did you only disconnect the fitting from the end that's attached to the intake tube, or did you disconnect the hose from both ends?

Thanks so much for the help!

No probs bud, we all start somewhere

- As for getting the fitting off, I just cut a slit down the tube to release the fitting.

- in my post the first pic it the dorman fitting with 3/8" fuel hose. The second picture are those two things fitted together. I included the link for the connectors in the post.

- I disconnected the hose from both ends and cut the right a mount of hose needed with the connector.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1861692&postcount=50

NOTE: if you have a '17 this process is slightly different. All the installs I've done on 17's has a modified install process.

 

[arfabe16]

No probs bud, we all start somewhere

- As for getting the fitting off, I just cut a slit down the tube to release the fitting.

- in my post the first pic it the dorman fitting with 3/8" fuel hose. The second picture are those two things fitted together. I included the link for the connectors in the post.

- I disconnected the hose from both ends and cut the right a mount of hose needed with the connector.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1861692&postcount=50

NOTE: if you have a '17 this process is slightly different. All the installs I've done on 17's has a modified install process.

Well, crap. I have one of the last 2017s (came off the line late April 2017). Right now I’m just going without the cover, which doesn’t look good either.

 

[2morrow]

Well, crap. I have one of the last 2017s (came off the line late April 2017). Right now I’m just going without the cover, which doesn’t look good either.

Let me look through my files to see if I have a pic of how we routed the '17 cars. If I recall correctly, we didn't need the "T" fitting.

 

[arfabe16]

Let me look through my files to see if I have a pic of how we routed the '17 cars. If I recall correctly, we didn't need the "T" fitting.

I'd appreciate that! What T fitting are you talking about though -- is it in the pics you linked to?

The PP2 is already installed... just trying to figure out what modification I need to make so my manifold cover doesn't rub against the vacuum hose.

 

[blown302]

post 4357!

 

[gqllc007]

I'd appreciate that! What T fitting are you talking about though -- is it in the pics you linked to?

The PP2 is already installed... just trying to figure out what modification I need to make so my manifold cover doesn't rub against the vacuum hose.

Don't feel bad I have a 17 with PP2 and am totally lost as well what I am suppose to do

 

[TheLion]

Don't feel bad I have a 17 with PP2 and am totally lost as well what I am suppose to do

I do not believe the 2017's have that extra vacuum line that the 2015 and 2016's do that would cause the hose to rub against the engine cover.

So you will likely not have to do anything but install the kit unlike me who also purchased the 45 degree fitting as my 2016 does have the vacuum line right by the sound tube. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

BTW, I just ordered my Power Pack 2 from Summit (local to me, so it will get here in about a day). So we'll see if it's as good as everyone says it is. Thankfully I'll be starting off with the revised calibration which was released mid 2017? The first pass of the Ecoboost calibration also had a few bugs as well, torque dropped off suddenly at 5,300 RPM then came back at 5,600 and there was a small amount of rev hang even with the 2.3L TDI. It was a bit twitchy as well, once the revised tune came out it was 100% better than stock with no abnormal behavior.

If it's as good as their revised Ecoboost calibration, then it will really wake up the 2nd gen 5.0 and address the factory shortcomings. In a lighter weight car, I suppose these issues I have with the stock 5.0 tuning wouldn't really big as big of an issue. But in a 3,700 lb car, the engine tuning better be spot on or that weight will really rear it's ugly head in how it affects the cars response.

My biggest gripe about the stock 2nd generation 5.0 is the linear power band (meaning it's somewhat flat but not completely horrible mid-range) and completely dead bottom end / low RPM bog if you don't get a launch just right. I really liked the torqy pull down low of the 2.3L ecoboost, but power peaked early (even with the Ford Power Pack and ATM inter cooler) and the top end was still DEAD. The stock 2nd gen 5.0 pulls nicely up top and I could live with the flat mid range, but I really don't like how "boggy" and dead it is down low. It seems like the ECU is way overly sensitive to limiting torque down low and makes the car more finicky to get going that it needs to be and it's surprisingly easy to bog for a modern performance V8.

It's almost like the Ecoboost which had a VERY fine line between bog and smoking the tires which is typical of turbo engines and to be expected in those cases. In a 2wd car that makes it hard to launch, maybe it was AWD like the RS it wouldn't be as big of an issue as you can launch much higher up in the power band to prevent bog.

My overall summary of the stock 5.0 is that the power band just needs to be broader than it is to make the car easier and more fun to drive. That means more mid range punch and more bottom end which are very endearing characteristics of the Dodge 6.4 and Chevy LT1 6.2. I'll write up my review of the Power Pack 2 after a few weeks of driving (especially to ensure the ECU has fully completed octane learn).

Sponsored