Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[TheLion]

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

-CJB fixes the torque drop out in the mid range (5000 to 5300 RPM). You can see it in the first dyno I did above with the Levels Gen 3 FMIC (the lower picture was the first time I had the car dnyo'd) which was done with their intial release (-CJA revision).

The last 3 letters of your "software ID" tell you which revision you have. If you have -CJA I suggest updating to -CJB. Simply plug in the programmer, start ProCal 3 on your laptop and hit the power button on your car. Then you can log into the Ford Performance website through ProCal 3 software and it will download the newest revision.

If you have -CJB revision ProCal 3 will show you at the top where it says Software ID. I had mine done some time around Feb - March and I had the "glitched" -CJA revision.

The mid-band will feel flat then you get a surge of power instead of making smooth power all the way across the peak of the power band from 5k to 6k. I definitely noticed it but never realized it wasn't supposed to be that way, I just figured it was just normal for their calibration until I found out it was bug. It doesn't hurt anything from a reliability standpoint, but you have a lost chunk of power and it makes the power band feel flat for a bit then surgey.

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

Good reason to start with the Performance Pack!

Not for me it wouldn't have. Cost would have gone up about $2500~3000 with the options I could find at the time. I still would have ended up changing out the diff to get the 3.73 Torsen from a GT, putting in FP lowering springs etc.

Since I do my own work and I have all the tools the cost of the parts is quite a bit cheaper and I would have changed 50% of what I paid extra for.

I can buy a pair of used GT calipers for $275 on e-bay, throw on some nice slotted after market rotors and pads. PP doesn't come with an oil cooler either.

If your not going to do much more to the car from a handling or gearing standpoint then drop in some lowering springs then the PP would make more sense as it will definitely out handle a base model. But if your going to do more to tweak the car base model makes more sense since your paying extra for factory upgraded parts your going to replace.

Just depends on what you want to do with the car. I knew that I wanted to set it up for actual circuit track and I wanted a reasonably low car payment so I figured buy the base and do my own upgrades over a years time. Almost done now .

 

[Glenn G]

Not for me it wouldn't have. Cost would have gone up about $2500~3000 with the options I could find at the time. I still would have ended up changing out the diff to get the 3.73 Torsen from a GT, putting in FP lowering springs etc.

Since I do my own work and I have all the tools the cost of the parts is quite a bit cheaper and I would have changed 50% of what I paid extra for.

I can buy a pair of used GT calipers for $275 on e-bay, throw on some nice slotted after market rotors and pads. PP doesn't come with an oil cooler either.

If your not going to do much more to the car from a handling or gearing standpoint then drop in some lowering springs then the PP would make more sense as it will definitely out handle a base model. But if your going to do more to tweak the car base model makes more sense since your paying extra for factory upgraded parts your going to replace.

Just depends on what you want to do with the car. I knew that I wanted to set it up for actual circuit track and I wanted a reasonably low car payment so I figured buy the base and do my own upgrades over a years time. Almost done now .

Agreed here. The only thing I wanted from the PP was the brakes, The Ford racing strut bar comes with the k brace and the PP wheels are heavy as hell. I've would have swapped the suspension and wheels anyways so it would have been a waste of money.
Where My build differs from most is that my build is an Autobahn machine, what we used to Call a "Wangan" car in the import world. I wanted the 3.31 gears but they wouldn't let me order a PP with them. My VS2+ turbo is here now, so once I build the engine I may consider the 3.15 gears from the auto.

 

[jtmat]

Thought I would report in the mpg on the tune... recent trip, over 1200 miles, got 31.2 mpg... used car for hwy driving... took uber when in cities.

Nothing that interesting, did run with a GT for a while, although, we were simply running out of Canada early in the morning. Some foreign car passed us like we were standing still... sounded mean as hell... had to be going 120+. It was ridiculous.

The 2018 info is out... looks like I'm sticking with mine until at least 2020/21. Might put 10k to 12k in this one to upgrade the engine/turbo/tune next year to "hold me over". I would go that route vs. getting into a new car. Mine is paid off....

Hit a hawk on my trip... very sad event. Never been so sad to see a dead bird: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1951694&postcount=22824

Still enjoying the FP tune...

 

[TheLion]

 

[TheLion]

If you look at the graphs it's clear to see the levels does better at the low end of the spectrum but chokes off the top end torque curve. Both inter coolers are about the same right in the mid band from 4500 to 5500 RPM, going toe to toe. Things begin to change once he pass 5500 RPM and I believe the reason for the flip flop is due primarily to where's the Turbo's efficiency island is located, centered more on the low end / mid band than the high end RPM range. The ATM's rounded bar design acts like a velocity stack at high flow rates and that is where it really shines and allows us to make the most of the stock turbo which is known to running out of steam in the last 1000 RPM.

With the Levels Gen 3 inter cooler, at lower RPM range where the turbo can flow enough air to keep it pressurized we make more power and substantially more torque because it's simply a bigger unit, but as the turbo runs to the outer edge of it's efficiency island the slightly smaller internal volume of the ATM inter cooler combined with the higher efficiency rounded internal bars of the ATM become the dominating factor and we see the complete opposite. The torque difference is about 15 to 20 ft-lbs from 3000 RPM to about 4500 RPM with the Levels making more torque. But once we move to about 5300 RPM the opposite occurs and the ATM is able to hold about 10 to 15 ft-lbs more torque until about 6100 RPM. Both inter coolers converge at about 6500 RPM to 6700 RPM.

The total power output from 2500 RPM to 6700 RPM is about the same between the two (area under the curve), however the ATM balances the torque band much better than the levels. With the Levels it's all low end and no top end, upper end of the mid range suffers a bit as well.

The biggest difference between any of the higher end inter coolers is going to be just where the bulk of the power is made and having more of it in the upper mid and top end is going to result in faster 1/4 mile and track times because that's where the engine spends most of it's time when drag racing or on a circuit track. Typically we don't go much below 4000 RPM so the levels looses a big chunk of it's low end torque advantage. I can tell you after spending a decent amount of time with each, I DEFINITELY prefer the ATM. The power is much more usable than with the Levels. The response is far more predictable and there's no perceptible lag where with the Levels there was a noticeable lag.

This is especially true with partial throttle response. While both make about the same total power, because the ATM keeps torque up in the upper RPM range where we all run the engine (especially for speed runs) for actual performance driving, the car will simply be faster with the ATM than with the Levels. It's also more enjoyable for daily driving because the partial throttle response at the low end is lag free even if it makes a little less torque (lets face it, this car doesn't NEED more torque, it's already torque crazy at the low end). What it needs is top end power.

I think if the 2.3L were in a truck, say a Ford Ranger, the Levels would hands down be the better option because you need that low end torque for towing, but in a performance car you want a nice balance of power across the RPM range as RPM varies quite a bit, especially on a circuit track / road coarse. Response is also important, especially predictable and precise response. Note the only other difference between the two days of the dyno runs were the -CJA and -CJB revision of the FP Calibration. So that torque drop out from 4800 to 5300 RPM is NOT due to the inter cooler but a glitch in the intial release of the Ford Performance Calibration. I confirmed with them that is the ONLY difference between the -CJA and -CJB revisions of the calibration, nothing else was changed.

 

[Marvinmadman]

I wondering it's just the calibration. Seems to drop and never quite recover after.

 

[sharp21]

Not for me it wouldn't have. Cost would have gone up about $2500~3000 with the options I could find at the time. I still would have ended up changing out the diff to get the 3.73 Torsen from a GT, putting in FP lowering springs etc.

Since I do my own work and I have all the tools the cost of the parts is quite a bit cheaper and I would have changed 50% of what I paid extra for.

I can buy a pair of used GT calipers for $275 on e-bay, throw on some nice slotted after market rotors and pads. PP doesn't come with an oil cooler either.

If your not going to do much more to the car from a handling or gearing standpoint then drop in some lowering springs then the PP would make more sense as it will definitely out handle a base model. But if your going to do more to tweak the car base model makes more sense since your paying extra for factory upgraded parts your going to replace.

Just depends on what you want to do with the car. I knew that I wanted to set it up for actual circuit track and I wanted a reasonably low car payment so I figured buy the base and do my own upgrades over a years time. Almost done now .

Don't forget about the larger radiator! And the nice dash setup.

Plus, I'll bet you'd like the 3.55s if you tried it.

 

[Spykexx]

[MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] Yea, I'd say it depends on what you want from it. If you never take your car past 4500, then I feel like the levels would do you a bit more good with the extra torque down low. Or as you said a truck. But if you do frequent lengthier pulls, or some tracking I would tend to side with the atm with the flatter curve where you aren't going to stay in the 2000-3500 range for long, and you could use the bumped upper end power. Have to remember, while most on the forum push their cars, I'd be willing to bet most owners (as the majority aren't on forums) don't push their car that hard. Or hell even get an IC either.

On a second note I'm curious about the two with a pro tune. Most tuners tend to flatten out the curve to a pretty decent amount. I'm sure the ATM would still hold upper end better, but I wonder if the levels could top it with a custom tune that flattens out the curve some.

 

[TheLion]

[MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] Yea, I'd say it depends on what you want from it. If you never take your car past 4500, then I feel like the levels would do you a bit more good with the extra torque down low. Or as you said a truck. But if you do frequent lengthier pulls, or some tracking I would tend to side with the atm with the flatter curve where you aren't going to stay in the 2000-3500 range for long, and you could use the bumped upper end power. Have to remember, while most on the forum push their cars, I'd be willing to bet most owners (as the majority aren't on forums) don't push their car that hard. Or hell even get an IC either.

On a second note I'm curious about the two with a pro tune. Most tuners tend to flatten out the curve to a pretty decent amount. I'm sure the ATM would still hold upper end better, but I wonder if the levels could top it with a custom tune that flattens out the curve some.

Possibly, but SB1 Racing was using just the ATM inter cooler and Tune + E30 tune and they were in the top of the 11's pretty quick on a stock turbo. Most people weren't able to get into the 11's as easily with the same tuner on E30 with more bolt ons, none of them but SB1 was running the ATM inter cooler as they went out of production shortly after until just recently.

I think the ATM's design is simply more suitable to the stock turbo characteristics. I'm sure the tuners could flatten out the torque curve more, but you would see even more top end with the ATM than with the levels.

I still think the ATM would be a bit faster as the bias is more in the RPM range the car runs at when racing / spirited driving. Low end torque is nice for towing, but i'ts not useful for racing applications, it's all about the power band and the fact that it holds torque better is very advantageous with the stock turbo.

Remember though even for daily the driving I can say the ATM is better, it may produce a 15-20 ft-lbs less at the low end, but it comes with lag and somewhat unpredictable throttle response (as in you don't get as much power as you'd expect with partial throttle). So the ATM is much more enjoyable for me to drive the car even when not pushing it. I think the Levels would best be suited to a truck application or big turbo setups where you simple need to deal with more heat. Then again, ATM could design a full face cooler like the Levels but with their rounded bar design and it would out flow the levels, however their inter cooler is optimized for the stock turbo application which is what most of us are running.

 

[TheLion]

I wondering it's just the calibration. Seems to drop and never quite recover after.

Not really, it recovers just fine, you can see the power band pick right back up and flatten out. I have dyno's where the dip occured at different RPM ranges, for half the time and it recovers and just tops around 300 hp to the wheels.

That limits of the turbo and inter cooler combination, not the glitch. Take a look at Run 2 with the Levels and tell me where you see it "not recovering". If you drew a short line from 5150 RPM to 5300 RPM it's just the power characteristic of the combination of the Levels Gen 3 FMIC and the stock turbo. In run 2 with the Levels where we made the most power, we didn't torque load the engine (where the levels really shined and did it's best was when we torque loaded it down low):

Peak power on that run occurs in the same spot, right at about 5700~5800 RPM, which is the same area it occurred with the ATM, but the ATM holds torque at the top end better while sacrificing some in the 3000 - 4500 RPM range. Also note that the best run with the Levels where it made the most power, torque topped out at 353.60 ft-lbs...very similar to the ATM. We got the torque up on the ATM a few times when the tuner was experimenting with torque loading, but the power band was lower as well. However we COULDN't get the power band past about 300 now matter what we did with the Levels, however on the ATM we consistently were getting about 314~315. The top end would also crap hit a wall even faster on the Levels when we didn't torque load it. There's no getting around the fact that the ATM is better suited for the stock turbo application, especially with the Ford Performance Calibration. I know some of you may NOT want to hear that if you have already invested in a Levels, it's not a bad inter cooler as it still makes a significant improvement over stock, but the ATM is a whole step up in terms of the power band and how the car responds with the stock turbo.

 

[Marvinmadman]

It's just speculation

 

[TheLion]

No matter how much proof one provides, there are always nay sayers...

Levels Vs. ATM Max Power Runs

Levels Vs. ATM Max Torque Runs

Peak power with the Levels or ATM is always around the 5500~5700 RPM range. The "glitch" in the -CJA revision of the Ford Performance Calibration used with the Levels does not affect the top end range at all. The levels just isn't working as well in that range with the stock turbo. If we torque load the ATM like we did with the Levels, the torque difference isn't nearly as big either, but the top end still remains notably stronger with the ATM, peak power occurs a bit sooner however. But when we don't torque load the engine and go for max power we really begin to see the difference between the two.

Believe what ever you want, but I think the results are pretty darn clear. Ford Performance agrees with me as well as they have also said the same thing, the glitch is simply a small torque drop out in the mid range and doesn't affect peak power output of the car. We can see it recover just fine and the max power graphs show this the most as the glitch is very short and quite far back from the peak power point.

 

[Marvinmadman]

I'm not a naysayer, just wish you did the comparison on the same day with the same tune and fuel. That's all. I have neither intercooler.

 

[Spykexx]

No matter how much proof one provides, there are always nay sayers...

I hope you didn't mean me. I have the ATM and love it!

Sponsored