2015-17 Mustang GT Ford Performance Power Packs

[TheLion70x77]

Sorry, no.

Torque is not "one pound raised one foot". Torque is "one pound applied about an axis at a distance of one foot." There is a fundamental difference. Work involves movement, torque does not.

One way to tell (which very few non-technical folks seem to care about) is that torque has a unit of lb-ft while work has a unit of ft-lb... sure there's no difference mathematically, but there is in text.

Now don't forget you can measure angular work... you just need angular displacement... or 2pi * number of revolutions.
Then just like work = force x displacement... angular work = torque x angular displacement.

Agreed. That's why I said what I said. Power matters. Not torque. Torqe and RPM just determine where the greatest power is made and consequently the most work is done. A engine making only 1 ft-lb of torque but that revs out to 100,000 RPM is making 19 HP while an engine producing 10 ft-lbs of torque but only revs out to 5,000 RPM makes only 9.5 HP, half despite making 10x the torque. Then you just need to use gearing to compact the power band to the optimal travel distance. Obviously the low torque motor needs very short gearing to do all of it's work in the same distance as the low RPM torqy motor that will use taller gearing. But the acceleration of the low torque motor will be much higher in the same distance traveled because of it's power advantage. All the fastest cars are spinners.

Top Fuel = 8 liter, 10,000 RPM, 59 PSI boost. 6,000 to 8,000 HP est (no dyno can measure that much)
Fomula = 1.5 L NA, 20,000 RPM or newer 12,000 RPM TT V6
NASCAR = 9,000 RPM small blocks...750 ~ 800 hp.

All of them are high revvers. Formula is the extreme example of low torque, high RPM engines. NASCAR is in the middle. Top fuel is crazy high in both, but wouldn't be making the power it does without revving out crazy high.

Work done is what we are after. Formula car engines are the perfect example. They now went to twin turbo V6's, but previously they were running 1.5~1.6L NA engines with fixed valve train. Yes fixed. 20,000 RPM. Only 300 ft-lbs of torque, but over 650 HP.

Why go that route? Weight. Small engines that rev to the moon can generate as much power as much heavier engines that operate at much lower RPMs. Formula cars are about maximizing power to weight ratios and applying it through extreme chassis designed for maximum grip. I illustrated the fact that power to weight ratios are a far better indicator of acceleration than torque to weight ratios.

I like to think of it was PWM signals. You can take a wave form with a higher amplitude (taller wave form), but at a lower frequency and you'll produce less average power than a lower wave form at a much higher frequency. It's a good visual to represent each stoke of the pistons. Even though at higher RPM's the thrust at the crank is less per a revolution, the number of strokes applying torque are far more, so the actual work being done is greater.

Sponsored

 

[Eritas]

I do not have any power pack, but sounds like for you pp3 would be better option.

Myself - I'm only having occasional autocross once a year or so, just stock tune is fine. If anythind I'd appreciate higher red line as I hit rev limiter a couple of times

Agreed. I got the PP3 for my DD, but i rev it out and it makes a big difference. JohnD - how long ago did you install the PP2? There was a change to the no lift shift and other stuff a while back. Based off the changes to my car, I'd be surprised if you couldn't feel a difference. How many times have you been to the track with the PP2? Was the track conditions the same? Tires the same, or many track days old?

 

[TheLion70x77]

Take a look at this. This is a real time cycle by cycle analysis from E3 plugs. See the peaks? That's when toque is made, but notice how it fades as the piston travels down and the flame front burns out (consequently pressure drops). Those pressure curves of the combustion chamber closely correlate with the torque pulses made by each piston on the crank. But unlike the dynograph you see, there isn't a constant toque actually applied to the crank, but only pulses of torque. That's why RPM matters so much.

Let's assume the torque pulses are rather constant throughout the RPM range (like an electric motor). At 2,000 RPM, you make 300 ft-lbs. That's 114 hp. But now you make the same torque but at 7,000 RPM. Now your making 399 HP. What if you launch the car at 2,000 RPM WOT where it's making 114 HP? Your probably NOT going to roast your tires unless maybe you have 235 all seasons. What if you launch the same car on the same tires, same gearing but at 7,000 RPM? The torque to the wheels is the same. Yet your lite up those tires like the 4th of july! Why? Because the power, the work being done, is far greater.

So yes, toque matters, yet it doesn't at the same time. I say it doesn't because ultimately we are after power and if we need to rev out the engine, we simply gear it down to achieve better over all acceleration. That's why cars like the Honda S2000 exist. Depending on the generation, the earlier 2.0L's revved out to 9,000 RPM and made 240 HP, weighs about 2,800 lbs. They run a low 14 ish 1/4 mile stock (14.0 to 14.2). Not bad for a NA 2.0L running on 91 pump gas. Yet Subaru can only make 200 HP in their 2.0L FA20 in the BRZ. It runs a 14.8 1/4 mile at best. Also 2,800 lbs. Both engines make about the same torque at the wheels, around 130 to 150 ft-lbs. Yet the S2000 is NEARLY a second quicker...why? Because it's POWER to WEIGHT ratio is much higher despite producing similar torque at the crank. It's simply applying more torque pulses (higher revs = more times per minute), there fore it's doing more work. Honda understood this fact and the best was to get there without FI on a small NA engine is high revs.

It's a lot harder to make big power on a NA engine without revving it out. FI is a little different, you can produce big toque at lower RPM's to make more power over a shorter rev range without drastically increasing the engine's size and weight. That's why Power Pack 3 produces higher average power than either Power Pack 2 or an LT1 even though it produces less torque (by quite a bit) than either. But if you don't compact the distance over which that work is done, you won't achieve any better acceleration.

A power pack 3 car running a 3.91 rear end will shift at the exact same points as a Power Pack 2 car running a 3.73 rear end, well within about 1 mph. But the Power Pack 3 car will achieve better acceleration assuming traction is available. Obviously there are other factors when road racing. Some times average acceleration is better by avoiding a shift and suffering worse acceleration in that particular gear. That' all depends on the engine, track and gearing. That's why race cars change trans ratios and final drive ratios. It's also why some street cars are faster on certain tracks than a competitor, yet slower on another track.

Typically engines that make lots of low end torque are faster on shorter tracks than higher revving cars (think SS vs. GT) when gearing is similar. Because the torque at lower RPM means more POWER at lower RPMs which means more work is being done in the lower RPM range. Diesels generate big low end torque which means they make much more POWER at lower RPM's where friction losses are low and economy is greatest. But ever watch truck pulling competitions? They are pulling massive weights, far more than most of their street going counterparts, yet those performance pulling engines rev out much higher than their street counter parts would normally, they try to keep them right in the power band, not down low at 2,000 RPM etc. Because to pull big weight, you need big power. Downside is fuel economy.

Competition pulling trucks or tractors don't care about fuel efficiency, only who can pull the weight the greatest distance on the sled. Work trucks are optimized to pull a lot of weight AND use as little gas as possible while doing it. That means big power down low which requires big torque. A low torque high revving engine could pull just as much if not more, just gear it down. But the fuel economy while pulling will be lower and it will wear out faster. That's why trucks don't really use high revving engines. Most of them only make 250 to 350 hp and are slow as molasses despite making 500 to 800+ ft-lbs. Same with all these 1.5L and 1.6L TDI engines. They make big torque down low where fuel economy is best because that's where they spend 99% of their time. But their acceleration is just ok because their torque falls off fast at higher RPM's, consequently they don't make that much power.

 

[JohnD]

I do not have any power pack, but sounds like for you pp3 would be better option.

Myself - I'm only having occasional autocross once a year or so, just stock tune is fine. If anythind I'd appreciate higher red line as I hit rev limiter a couple of times

I don't think so, PP3 makes more power though higher in the RPM range and that is the opposite of what I want. The fatter torque curve of PP2 appealed to me because 2 of the 4 tracks I regularly run on are relatively technical courses where the torque helps more than added HP. PP3 is the GT350 manifold and that was meant to flow all the way to 8250 rpm and there's no way I will go anywhere near that. Ideally I like to keep revs below 6500, I see no point in revving the crap out of the engine when it's just lapping.

 

[CrashOverride]

Personally, I'm not thrilled with this PP2 kit at all. [...snip...]

PP2 + HP Tuners will give you exactly what you want. You can adjust the rev band as high as you want (You could easily go to PP3 levels even though the torque falls off pretty bad). You could adjust the throttle mapping to make it linear, and if you want to play around with different tire sizes or rear-end gear ratios, you can adjust that to keep the speedo happy.

Of course you could also dial in a hotter tune if you are willing to run race fuel on the track. If you run a "race" exhaust setup (No cats) you can turn off COT protection, which will eliminate an over-rich correction when the computer thinks the cats are too hot. Another thing you could do - if you want to adjust the throttle hang (If you have a manual - I can't remember) so you can keep the revs up between gears...But if you like the faster drop in RPM, then you can adjust that as well.

If you went back to the stock tune with the big throttle body, the car would run exceptionally bad because all of your ECT tables would be off by quite a bit (e.g. flow/second at 10 degree throttle angle with a 80mm blade vs 87mm blade. There are also constants that are different (There is a gear ratio table for the motor on the butterfly shaft, and it is different).

 

[Jaybob]

johnD.....I agree with you about the ford performance pack 2. I can't tell much of a difference either and I don't even track my car. I'm just a weekend joy driver who likes to do pulls from 0-80mph occasionally. I have the Steeda clutch spring installed on my 17GT and I get a "stuttering" feel when I do that "no lift shift". I'm going to keep it because it's married to my car and can't get my money back...If I had to do it over again, probably would just of kept my $800 in my pocket,

 

[TheLion70x77]

johnD.....I agree with you about the ford performance pack 2. I can't tell much of a difference either and I don't even track my car. I'm just a weekend joy driver who likes to do pulls from 0-80mph occasionally. I have the Steeda clutch spring installed on my 17GT and I get a "stuttering" feel when I do that "no lift shift". I'm going to keep it because it's married to my car and can't get my money back...If I had to do it over again, probably would just of kept my $800 in my pocket,

You may be suffering the effects of oil vaporization and friction losses. Even a bone stock 2nd gen 5.0 has notable issues with power fade due to oil vaporization. Car and Driver stated it was their only test car that day on their 2.7 mile track that experienced power fade despite "nothing being over temperature". Why? The 5.0 is a high revving DOHC V8, it is the worst engine design possible for friction losses. Big V8 at high RPMs with lots of cams, chains etc.

Try the following:
1. Passenger side catch can. Run it for at least a 1,000 miles to get all the oil coating the intake manifold to pull through and stop diluting your fuel octane.
2. Run 93 octane. The Power Packs can scale timing based on fuel octane, there's an average of about 10 hp between 91 and 93. It takes about a tank of gas for the fuel octane learn function to determine the safe timing.
3. Run Penzoil Ultra Platium 5W-20 or 5W-30 oil. GTL base stocks perform on par with PAO's like AMSOIL and other expensive boutique oils but at "wal-mart off the shelf prices". Also contains MoDTC, which is an organic molybdenum compound that works extremely well with Hydrogenated DLC coatings like TriboTEX (make sure to use the Diesel concentrate). This is a golden combination. TriboTEX will not need to be re-applied for another 40k.
4. Use either a dose of TriboTEX DLC coating with your fresh oil change or something similar like CeraTek / Archoil (budget option) to reduce friction losses.

I think the difference in performance if you apply all 4 of the above will be notable. But any one of them by itself isn't terribly noticeable. If you drove my 5.0 compared to yours, even being the same engine, same power pack, you'd think I'm running E85 or something entirely different from the Power Packs. I experienced all the same issues. Power Pack 2 as great when I first got it, I noticed quite a bit of difference. But after I started driving it hard, the power seemed to fade a lot and there wasn't much difference over stock other than throttle mapping and it revved higher. That's when I decided to see how much power I could extract from the Power Pack 2 by eliminating the power robbing issues inherent with the 5.0.

The Power Packs have a lot of performance to offer, but they also have a lot of built in safety and won't run the more aggressive timing maps if the conditions don't allow for it. You need to give that engine the cleanest and most ideal operating environment. No engine is perfect in it's design. They all have pros and cons and all of these V8's (Hemi 392's, 5th Gen LT1's, Coyote 5.0's) suffer from oil vaporization, but the 5.0 is notably worse because it has 2x the valve train and operates anywhere from 550 up to 850 RPM higher than it's big bore push rod counterparts.

But you can leverage the benefits of DOHC and higher operating RPM's by substantially reducing the negative effects of such architectures. Case in point, Engine labs tested the 5th gen LT1 6.2L in the 2014+ Corvettes and 2016+ Camaro SS's. They are based in Arizona which only has 91 and poor quality 91 at that. The 6.2L is rated for 455 HP a the crank. They were testing the actual engine on an engine dyno when research LSPI issues (high compression NA engines served as a test bed because they can suffer heavy knock at low RPMs).

Their LT1 was only putting out 370 HP because of the fuel! 370 HP from an engine rated for 455....bone stock on the stock tune and this is the raw engine on an engine dyno, so there's no drive train losses, tire resistance etc. to skew results. They had to use octane boosters to get the rated power output because of the fuel quality. It's just an example of how much these high compression NA engines can suffer from fuel octane dilution or quality issues. The higher the compression ratio, the more sensitive it becomes.

If you want the performance of the Power Packs, you have to give the Coyote the conditions it needs to run the most aggressive timing tables. Otherwise the performance capabilities will be buried under non-ideal conditions that force the less aggressive tables to be used and there's very little difference in actual performance between bone stock and the Power Packs. Building a performance car is NOT like legos. You can't just bolt crap on and extract maximum potential without doing anything else. Even with the Power Packs, you need to do some work to get the most out of them.

 

[TheLion70x77]

johnD.....I agree with you about the ford performance pack 2. I can't tell much of a difference either and I don't even track my car. I'm just a weekend joy driver who likes to do pulls from 0-80mph occasionally. I have the Steeda clutch spring installed on my 17GT and I get a "stuttering" feel when I do that "no lift shift". I'm going to keep it because it's married to my car and can't get my money back...If I had to do it over again, probably would just of kept my $800 in my pocket,

Also you might have issues with you POS evap hose clutch line. Ford literally used the polymer evap hose with aluminum fittings on the ends for the clutch line that passes through the fire wall, into the engine bay close to the driver side header, then over the drivers side catalytic converter and across the bell housing. Polymer line with hydraulic pressure exposed to high heat...what could go wrong?

Your sig says Performance Package so I'm assuming it's a 6M because I don't believe Ford offered PP for Autos. That means you have a 2nd gen MT-82 but the same clutch that has been used from 2011 to 2017. Mine recently let go at 30k. A 1/4 of one of the friction pads literally broke off (and oddly enough NOT at the rivet holes where I'd expect it to be the weakest).

I've had issues with my pedal not returning all the way or even getting stuck to the floor, spongy pedal etc. since it was bone stock. I just drove it like that, but since the clutch recently failed and I got a defective $1600 Mantic 9000 that I had to pull out and return, I got stuck putting in a new OE clutch. But I had the line upgrade this time to the Steeda Stainless braided line and so far the pedal operation is vastly better. I also don't seem to have issues tripping NLS and it doesn't get stuck any longer. I use the stock pedal spring as it does help draw a vacuum to pull the slave all the way back out. The assist spring is dual function, it's not just for making a "lighter pedal feel". It also is a hydraulic vacuum assist spring on the last 50% of return travel. Softer assist springs will draw less vacuum, especially with the crappy stock clutch line, many people with pedal travel issues see even worse problems with the steeda spring than stock.

This also affects NLS. Why? Because the pedal wouldn't always return fully or would return very slowly, thus activating NLS (which is activated whenever you above 5,000 RPM, 50% throttle AND the ECU gets a signal from the pedal sensor while the gas pedal is still being pressed).

So I'd go to press the gas and the clutch is still pressing the sensor plunger enough it's making contact and telling the ECU "clutch in" even if my foot wasn't on it. So NLS would activate unintentionally and i'd get the stutter. I've not had a single stutter since the clutch line upgrade. The pedal returns 100% and quickly every time now. Obviously if you press the clutch pedal before letting off the throttle you'll still initiate NLS as intended.

But timing the gas and clutch with the crappy stock line is much more trouble some and often unintentionally initiates NLS. I'd highly recommend upgrading the clutch line for anyone who drives there car hard or lives in a hot climate like Texas, Florida etc. Not sure why Ford didn't do that from the factory given how many of the S197's and S550's suffer clutch pedal issues on the track or in hot states....that's why Ford Performance offers a stainless steel clutch line yet they don't offer a performance clutch.

 

[pacomicro]

3. Run Penzoil Ultra Platium 5W-20 or 5W-30 oil. GTL base stocks perform on par with PAO's like AMSOIL and other expensive boutique oils but at "wal-mart off the shelf prices". Also contains MoDTC, which is an organic molybdenum compound that works extremely well with Hydrogenated DLC coatings like TriboTEX (make sure to use the Diesel concentrate). This is a golden combination. TriboTEX will not need to be re-applied for another 40k

You mean it's better to use Tribotex for diesel engines in our gasoline engines?

 

[TexasRebel]

Also you might have issues with you POS evap hose clutch line. Ford literally used the polymer evap hose with aluminum fittings on the ends for the clutch line that passes through the fire wall, into the engine bay close to the driver side header, then over the drivers side catalytic converter and across the bell housing. Polymer line with hydraulic pressure exposed to high heat...what could go wrong?

Your sig says Performance Package so I'm assuming it's a 6M because I don't believe Ford offered PP for Autos. That means you have a 2nd gen MT-82 but the same clutch that has been used from 2011 to 2017. Mine recently let go at 30k. A 1/4 of one of the friction pads literally broke off (and oddly enough NOT at the rivet holes where I'd expect it to be the weakest).

I've had issues with my pedal not returning all the way or even getting stuck to the floor, spongy pedal etc. since it was bone stock. I just drove it like that, but since the clutch recently failed and I got a defective $1600 Mantic 9000 that I had to pull out and return, I got stuck putting in a new OE clutch. But I had the line upgrade this time to the Steeda Stainless braided line and so far the pedal operation is vastly better. I also don't seem to have issues tripping NLS and it doesn't get stuck any longer. I use the stock pedal spring as it does help draw a vacuum to pull the slave all the way back out. The assist spring is dual function, it's not just for making a "lighter pedal feel". It also is a hydraulic vacuum assist spring on the last 50% of return travel. Softer assist springs will draw less vacuum, especially with the crappy stock clutch line, many people with pedal travel issues see even worse problems with the steeda spring than stock.

This also affects NLS. Why? Because the pedal wouldn't always return fully or would return very slowly, thus activating NLS (which is activated whenever you above 5,000 RPM, 50% throttle AND the ECU gets a signal from the pedal sensor while the gas pedal is still being pressed).

So I'd go to press the gas and the clutch is still pressing the sensor plunger enough it's making contact and telling the ECU "clutch in" even if my foot wasn't on it. So NLS would activate unintentionally and i'd get the stutter. I've not had a single stutter since the clutch line upgrade. The pedal returns 100% and quickly every time now. Obviously if you press the clutch pedal before letting off the throttle you'll still initiate NLS as intended.

But timing the gas and clutch with the crappy stock line is much more trouble some and often unintentionally initiates NLS. I'd highly recommend upgrading the clutch line for anyone who drives there car hard or lives in a hot climate like Texas, Florida etc. Not sure why Ford didn't do that from the factory given how many of the S197's and S550's suffer clutch pedal issues on the track or in hot states....that's why Ford Performance offers a stainless steel clutch line yet they don't offer a performance clutch.

There are two clutch switches; top and bottom. The bottom one is for things that need the clutch fully disengaged (like starting). The top one is for things that need the clutch fully engaged (like cruise control, and NLS). If the pedal isn't detected at either switch the car knows it has partial engagement, but not how much.

 

[Braski]

I’ve been reading your past posts trying to digest what all you’re explaining and have determined I’m too dumb so allow me to ask: if I have a 2017 GT PP with stock wheels and tires, should I go PP2 if PP3 for everyday driving?

For everyday driving and the butt dyno the pp2 is the clear winner!

 

[Meatball]

I’ve been reading your past posts trying to digest what all you’re explaining and have determined I’m too dumb so allow me to ask: if I have a 2017 GT PP with stock wheels and tires, should I go PP2 if PP3 for everyday driving?

PP3 > PP2 if you like your power at high rpm and don’t mind revving the hell out of it.

PP2>PP3 if you don’t care how it feels over 6500rpm and like extra thrust in the mid-range (plus it’s significantly cheaper). The GT350IM in PP3 produces a much more linear, less exciting power curve. But it seriously hauls at (very) high rpm.

 

[tukn20s]

johnD.....I agree with you about the ford performance pack 2. I can't tell much of a difference either and I don't even track my car. I'm just a weekend joy driver who likes to do pulls from 0-80mph occasionally. I have the Steeda clutch spring installed on my 17GT and I get a "stuttering" feel when I do that "no lift shift". I'm going to keep it because it's married to my car and can't get my money back...If I had to do it over again, probably would just of kept my $800 in my pocket,

not sure what is wrong with your PP2, but i noticed right off the bat after install the difference. lots more power off the line. i go through the first 3 gears faster then before. i don't regret at all.

 

[J17GT]

not sure what is wrong with your PP2, but i noticed right off the bat after install the difference. lots more power off the line. i go through the first 3 gears faster then before. i don't regret at all.

Agree. Significant improvement over stock. Very noticeable. Not a placebo effect by any means. The car is very responsive now and the power seems to be instant on the demand.

 

[Monopoly]

My only gripe is not being able to disable NLS in the procal tuning tool options(Currently using PP2).

Really do not like this and the bucking you get between shifts when you try to lift your foot off the gas is getting real annoying.

Sponsored