Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[metalhead79]

I wonder if its more because the engine can't safely handle it. There have been a bunch of ecoboooms!

Doubtful. The FRPP tune boosts the car to 335hp/390lb-ft torque. We know the car can safely handle at least that much.

Sponsored

 

[Juben]

I wonder if its more because the engine can't safely handle it. There have been a bunch of ecoboooms!

The engine can safely handle around 400 wtq. I seriously doubt it was anything like that but probably something more along the lines of keeping it somewhat neutered while giving it some kind of power upgrade (considering the GT got a decent bump).

 

[Glenn G]

The engine can safely handle around 400 wtq. I seriously doubt it was anything like that but probably something more along the lines of keeping it somewhat neutered while giving it some kind of power upgrade (considering the GT got a decent bump).

 

[TheLion]

ATM Inter Cooler and -CJB revision of the FP Calibration. Huge improvement over the Levels Gen 3 inter cooler. The car just responds so much better and pulls hard all the way across the power band. 315 HP to the wheels is about 350~360 HP at the crank when factoring in a 12~15% drive train loss. Cooling capability of the ATM is on par with the levels, however I'm holding 22 PSI all the way out to 6500 RPM where with the Levels the car couldn't hold more than about 19.5 psi past 6000 RPM.


This was with the Levels Gen 3 FMIC and -CJA (glitched) FP Calibration. The power drop out in the mid band is due to the glitch in the Revision A of the FP calibration, however the top end drop is due to the turbo being unable to pressurize the inter cooler at the upper RPM range. The stock turbo just can't flow enough air through the Levels to keep that size of an inter cooler pressurized.


These two dyno's were both on my car, same dyno, fuel from the same station. Only changes being that I switched to the ATM inter cooler and updated the FP calibration to Revision B (then drove it 250 miles before getting it dyno'd to insure octane was fully learned). Top one is the ATM, bottom dyno is the Levels Gen 3 for reference.

 

[stevnoof]

Nice gotta love ATM

 

[ypena02]

The Levels had to be tested with the revised tune in order for this comparison to be valid.

 

[TheLion]

I wonder if its more because the engine can't safely handle it. There have been a bunch of ecoboooms!

Most of the gains of the FP Calibration come from not having to run 87 octane or meet EPA fuel economy requirements. The fact that they could get the factory tune to make what it does and not blow up on 87 in a turbo engine is impressive to me. Low octane does not play well with FI engines and it severely limits the efficiency on higher octane fuels as you have to be much more conservative with timing to be able to back down when 87 goes back into the tank.

Add in next the crappy factory inter cooler as well and we can see how much power these cars can safely make on pump gas. Just the inter cooler and FP cal and the EB's blow away their competitors and are competing or even edging out higher tier cars like the WRX Sti or Focus RS at 7k~10k less. I'm making 10hp more to the wheels than the STi makes at the crank and the wight difference between the STi (3480ish lbs) and my base EB is less than 75lbs.

 

[TheLion]

The Levels had to be tested with the revised tune in order for this comparison to be valid.

Not necessarily. The only difference according to FP is the mid range power drop out. Peak numbers may be 2~3hp higher without the drop out, but it doesn't change the top end or throttle response.

 

[ypena02]

Not necessarily. The only difference according to FP is the mid range power drop out. Peak numbers may be 2~3hp higher without the drop out, but it doesn't change the top end or throttle response.

That original dyno graph looks pretty ugly and peak hp is achieved shortly after that dip. You also lost torque with the intercooler which is interesting.

 

[Juben]

Given that Revision A was "glitchy", I'd like to have seen a dyno sheet on Revision B with the Levels intercooler. A 10 hp difference is within the margin of error between the tunes, environmental conditions, etc. For this to be what I'd feel is an accurate comparison, you'd need to dyno both intercoolers on Revision B on the same day (or in close to the same conditions), although, I do understand that it would be a giant pain to try to accomplish that. And while talking about the numbers, did you notice that the Levels dyno pulls made roughly 10 lb. ft. more than the ATM dyno while the ATM dyno did roughly the same with horsepower?

 

[TheLion]

Given that Revision A was "glitchy", I'd like to have seen a dyno sheet on Revision B with the Levels intercooler. A 10 hp difference is within the margin of error between the tunes, environmental conditions, etc. For this to be what I'd feel is an accurate comparison, you'd need to dyno both intercoolers on Revision B on the same day (or in close to the same conditions), although, I do understand that it would be a giant pain to try to accomplish that. And while talking about the numbers, did you notice that the Levels dyno pulls made roughly 10 lb. ft. more than the ATM dyno while the ATM dyno did roughly the same with horsepower?

Yes I did notice the torque at the low end was higher with the Levels but the power was better with the ATM. However the overall power with the ATM is better as it's hold power throughout the upper range much better due to lower pressure drop.

Temperature differentials (difference in temperature between Ambient and the cold side temps) with the ATM are actually a bit better than with the levels, but not much, about 2~3 F on average higher, after looking at the data from the dyno. We used the same 3 squirrel cage fans as last time. I don't think it's enough to say the ATM cools much better than the Levels, but what's impressive is that it has 100 in^3 less volume than the Levels and does so, but with a lower pressure drop as well. The Levels is simply a larger inter cooler. However the levels doesn't utilize higher efficiency rounded bar design (that's one advantage of tube and fin, the tubes are rounded and produce a better flow, the ATM combines the advantage of the rounded extruded tube design with the benefits of Bar and Plate designs sans weight as it's still a heavy pig).

I think the Levels would perform better on big turbo cars, the ATM would perform good on BOTH big turbo cars and stock turbo cars. Temperature drop is only part of the story however. As I said before pressure drop also equals lost power, that's pressure the turbo is generating but the intake manifold isn't seeing, so it's wasted energy. That's where the ATM really shines, it matches the Levels in cooling capacity, but does so with measurably less pressure drop, consequently the engine also responds much better due to the very good flow (a benefit usually found in Tube and Fin).

The peak power difference between the two isn't huge, but it's definitely there. The Levels inter cooler if it was done on the -CJB revision would not have pushed a whole lot higher than it did with the -CJA revision where power drops out. Peak power on both revisions was right around 5600~5700 RPM, not back at 5000~5300 where the "glitch" occurs on the -CJA revision of the FP Calibration. That's also consistent with where other's are seeing peak power numbers on this calibration. While the drop does force the engine to catch up, it seems to do so pretty quickly if you look at the graphs. Mostly it results in a flat feeling response in that range and probably a 1/10th of a second or just a bit more loss on the quarter mile time due to the missing area under the power curve.

But the levels really kills the top end unfortunately, which was already a big weakness of the stock tune and inter cooler. The car had no top end power at all stock. Even with the FP calibration, the inter cooler significantly affects the top end and that suffers more than any other part of the power band from an inter cooler that isn't optimal for the stock turbo. Unless of course there's another bug in the -CJA FP calibration that was causing the funky behavior at the top end, however the guys at the shop concluded the same thing, that the turbo wasn't able to flow enough to keep the levels pressurized at the higher RPM range. That's going to increase back pressure to the exhaust and result in lower boost, consequently your loosing power and generating a lot more heat, which may have been causing the nannies to safe the poor cattie from heat stroke.

The ATM's efficiency really helps the car to breathe while keeping intake temps nice and cool. The levels unfortunately choked out the top end even though temps were very good and the car made good power. Now don't get me wrong, the Levels is still a big improvement over stock even if the top end suffers. Also note the values are SAE corrected so the slight temperature and humidity differences between the two days (which wasn't much, 2F), while small, are accounted for reasonably well.

But the golden combination for many of us is going to be either a smaller Stage 1 (stock location) inter cooler and the FP Cal or the ATM and the FP Cal if you intend to track the car or push it like I do or you just want to make maximum power on the FP Cal. Last two pieces of the puzzle for me now is an oil cooler (working on that now) and GT brakes . Then the car will be reliable for casual track driving and should perform very well and also very consistently without burning up or cutting power.

Regardless of any slight variants in the results, what we do know is that the ATM inter cooler and the FP Calibration is a really good combination for the car that's warranty friendly.

 

[Regs]

That original dyno graph looks pretty ugly and peak hp is achieved shortly after that dip. You also lost torque with the intercooler which is interesting.

Some after market intercoolers have lower pressure delivery due to funneling and channeling all that extra capacity through the outlet. This is one of the reasons why I picked cp-e over misho for a stage 1.

It is not as apparent with costume tuning however because a tuner can compensate for the lower delivery pressure unlike a canned tune like FP that assumes you're only running on their intake. This is also why I find ford performance missing out packaging a stage 2 tune with a inter cooler. Not sure if it makes profit though if people are not willing to buy a 1200-1500 dollar kit for 40 or more HP (I Know I would).

After driving around with my new intercooler, I can attest that the stock intercooler did suffer at upper RPM and I feel a huge surge of power between 4500-5800RPM with a more tapper feeling between 5800-6500 than before. I was once doubtful and cynical that a upgraded inter cooler would amount to much with just a canned tune, but I do feel a lot of difference.

 

[kart3l]

What is this CJB revisions you guys talk of? I had my car flashed by the dealer in May.. Which revision am I?

 

[War-Machine]

What is this CJB revisions you guys talk of? I had my car flashed by the dealer in May.. Which revision am I?

I was wondering the same thing myself :cheers:

 

[sharp21]

Last two pieces of the puzzle for me now is an oil cooler (working on that now) and GT brakes .

Good reason to start with the Performance Pack!

Sponsored