Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[TheLion]

My only point of contention is simply that people aren't willing to accept the results as they are and crying "foul play" because the Levels was run with the glitched version as if that will some how change it's characteristics. Sorry guys, but running the -CJB revision of the calibration isn't going to alter the fundamental characteristics of that inter cooler. I think I've provided more data than anyone else has. I also have all the temp logs as well, temp differences between the two were only 2F~3F peak during the runs, almost no differences in temps.

1 degree F ambient difference and 54% vs. 38% humidity makes almost NO measurable difference in power. SAE correction factors are nearly identical 1.06 vs. 1.05. The correction factors compensate for minor differences in ambient to equalize there results which is why I used them.

It is the same fuel from the same station and the literal same pump lol. It's not going to change the results. Doesn't matter if I refilled once in between, only difference might of been if I switched from Speedway to say Shell or something like that. The dynos were 1 week apart.

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

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

No, I was referring to people who are arguing the "glitched" version of the calibration used for the Levels some how invalidated the results. Had I known about the glitch and had time to use the -CJB revision and let it learn octane I would have, but I wasn't aware until right before the run. People are straining at a gnat in a vein effort to justify in their own mind why the Levels didn't perform as well.

Your mileage may vary, different setups may yield different results, but on my car with my fuel in my area the Levels was markedly worse in terms of both power output and response.

Others have also noted the lag issue as well so not only do I have mountains of evidence to corroborate, but we have others who have used the same inter cooler and changed it also verify that issue. I think I'm the only one who has actually compared these two inter coolers on the dyno though.

The results don't mean it's garbage, just not as good for this application as the ATM which many of us thought might be true anyway so not sure why the hubub about the data. What ever the case I did what I could and I would recommend the ATM over the Levels having spent a year with the Levels in my car and now having switched to the ATM.

The difference is night and day from a driver's experience, if it wasn't and the only difference was 1 or 2 HP I'd be sending it back to Dave at ATM. However it was worth the cost for me as it's the only engine mod besides the tune that I can do to make more power without encroaching into warranty issues.

The rest of the mods are focused on reliability / handling / keeping weight down or making the most of the power that's available (like gearing). What ever the case my current setup seems to work pretty darn well and the car really moves for a 4 cylinder mustang on pump gas. I"m happy with it, last two pieces of the puzzle for me are the oil cooler (already on the way) and GT brakes next year for the track.

Hopefully I have helped anyone getting into modding their Mustang Ecoboost that want's to keep it reliable as a daily driver and keep their power train warranty. There's really only one choice with the calibration and that's Ford Performance, so I've focused on making the most of it.

Other inter coolers MAY be more suitable to big turbo or E30 setups, but not with the FP Calibration and stock turbo / down pipe. I think the stage 1 units will probably make similar power to the ATM and have similar response, but heat soak quicker due to having lower mass and less surface area for cooling.

The ATM represents probably the best balance of maximum cooling for track or heavy continuous on throttle applications and low pressure drop / good flow at the top end where the stock turbo needs the most help. While it doesn't make the stock turbo into a big turbo setup, it really opens up the top end and response without sacrificing cooling capacity over something like the Levels. That's my recommendation based on testing and results.

 

[lizardrko]

My only point of contention is simply that people aren't willing to accept the results as they are and crying "foul play" because the Levels was run with the glitched version as if that will some how change it's characteristics. Sorry guys, but running the -CJB revision of the calibration isn't going to alter the fundamental characteristics of that inter cooler. I think I've provided more data than anyone else has. I also have all the temp logs as well, temp differences between the two were only 2F~3F peak during the runs, almost no differences in temps.

1 degree F ambient difference and 54% vs. 38% humidity makes almost NO measurable difference in power. SAE correction factors are nearly identical 1.06 vs. 1.05. The correction factors compensate for minor differences in ambient to equalize there results which is why I used them.

It is the same fuel from the same station and the literal same pump lol. It's not going to change the results. Doesn't matter if I refilled once in between, only difference might of been if I switched from Speedway to say Shell or something like that. The dynos were 1 week apart.

There will always be those who go against facts because they just dont want to accept that mods actually do something. A few pages back there was someone who says the factory IC is plenty good. Well I just installed my MAP street IC and could feel an immediate difference. I feel like the throttle response went up ever so slightly, I saw maybe 1-2 psi more boost up top, it pulls harder up top, and this was all done in the fabulous 93 degree California temperature. And I did 2-3 pulls and no heat soak, or nothing noticeable, unlike stock where it was heatsoaked as soon as i stepped on the gas. Normally the car feels boggy in this heat but the IC makes the car perform like it was 20 degrees cooler outside. Those are just my initial thoughts. I could only imagine what the ATM feels like. But the MAP is perfectly fine for my casual street pulls and daily driving.

 

[Spykexx]

There will always be those who go against facts because they just dont want to accept that mods actually do something. A few pages back there was someone who says the factory IC is plenty good. Well I just installed my MAP street IC and could feel an immediate difference. I feel like the throttle response went up ever so slightly, I saw maybe 1-2 psi more boost up top, it pulls harder up top, and this was all done in the fabulous 93 degree California temperature. And I did 2-3 pulls and no heat soak, or nothing noticeable, unlike stock where it was heatsoaked as soon as i stepped on the gas. Normally the car feels boggy in this heat but the IC makes the car perform like it was 20 degrees cooler outside. Those are just my initial thoughts. I could only imagine what the ATM feels like. But the MAP is perfectly fine for my casual street pulls and daily driving.

That's the best part. I got so tired of the car feeling crappier the more I drove it throughout a trip. First get in? Peppy as all f***. 20 minutes later? It was sad that it was still running. You could seriously feel the responsiveness die minute by minute until it dipped so low that it was saddening.

With the ATM, I can drive a solid 30+ minutes and it feels just as good as the first few minutes of the drive! Anyone who says the stock IC is just fine seriously pays no attention to how their car runs and feels.

 

[Regs]

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 inter cooler.

I think over 10 lb-tq and HP consistent on several runs is pretty conclusive. Obviously, you have to give some credit when he does not own a tune shop to run his own dynos anytime he wants to.

I agree with all of you that Intercooler is a MUST to upgrade on this car. My FP tune is just nasty now. Yesterday was the first time I heard my wheels kick out or "chirp" on 2nd or 3rd gear. And with the stock unit, ambient temps passed 80+ degrees made the car feel like it was carrying 300 extra pounds of weight.

 

[TheLion]

There will always be those who go against facts because they just dont want to accept that mods actually do something. A few pages back there was someone who says the factory IC is plenty good. Well I just installed my MAP street IC and could feel an immediate difference. I feel like the throttle response went up ever so slightly, I saw maybe 1-2 psi more boost up top, it pulls harder up top, and this was all done in the fabulous 93 degree California temperature. And I did 2-3 pulls and no heat soak, or nothing noticeable, unlike stock where it was heatsoaked as soon as i stepped on the gas. Normally the car feels boggy in this heat but the IC makes the car perform like it was 20 degrees cooler outside. Those are just my initial thoughts. I could only imagine what the ATM feels like. But the MAP is perfectly fine for my casual street pulls and daily driving.

The MAP unit should be fine even for drag strip / auto cross. I think the only time it's going to heat soak is repeated pulls in 3rd, 4th or 5th for 20~30 minutes continuously like you would see on an actual track or if your on empty back roads (which I have a lot of where I live thankfully ) constantly going on / off throttle. But to keep that up you also need an oil cooler.

I've gotten mine up to about 3/4 to the yellow and it was still slowly climbing on the idiot gauge, so that's why I'm putting in an oil cooler which I've wanted to do for some time (just waiting til I found a deal, got a brand new MM thermostatic one for $250 shipped). The inter cooler and oil cooler are the two biggest issues with the car stock, I understand why the factory tune is so conservative, so they can run 87. Yah the top end isn't exciting stock even with a good FMIC, BUT the car is still as fast if not faster than it's competitors with just an inter cooler alone on the factory tune. Adding in an Oil cooler, at least if they included it with PP versions, would have truly made the PP cars track ready and base model guys could just buy the factory PP parts if they wanted to upgrade.

But I have wanted to get the car running like I envisioned it and that wasn't happening with the Levels FMIC on the FP Calibration / Stock turbo plus I'm super anal retentive and don't give up until I achieve my goal, so if I'm going to modify my car I assume worst case use (circuit track) AND want to make the most of it, I don't like leaving power on the table that can be safely made. That's just me. I think for most people using it primarily as a daily driver (which is what I do with mine) the stage 1 units (stock location) should work quite well compared to the factory unit. If you think your going to push it more and want the highest efficiency you can get with the stock turbo / FP Cal then step up the ATM for $200 more.

The Levels didn't have any issues with heat soak, at least not that was out of the ordinary (like sitting in traffic for extended time periods), it performed very well at cooling, but the results clearly show there's a decent amount of power left on the table by using the Levels with the stock turbo and FP Calibration because it isn't as optimally sized for the stock turbo. And there were plenty of times where I would step on the gas and the partial throttle response was far less than I expected, almost as if I had to run it WOT for it to really pick up power. It just wasn't flowing well with the stock turbo and the dyno graphs illustrate this pretty clearly.

That becomes most apparent at the higher end of the mid range (5500 to 6000) and the top end (6000 to 6700 RPM). The car just pulls much better and power much more gradually tapers in that last 900 RPM (5800 to 6700) compared to when I was running the Levels where it just hit a wall at 5800 in both real world driving conditions and on the dyno. The car felt lethargic until I hammered it, anything in between was not what I expected.

Now the Levels is still making more power to the wheels even at the very top end (where it suffers the most) than the peak power of a stock 2016 Camaro V6 with the A8, which runs a 13.4~13.6 quarter mile for comparison, but there's room for improvement. Why not tap into more power that's just waiting and gain back that partial throttle response a good stage 1 inter cooler provides?

I superimposed a dynojet graph of a stock Camaro V6 (scaled to the same size) just for kicks and giggles and it's hilarious at how much MORE power is under the curve of the FP Calibrated Ecoboost Mustang. Yes, two different cars on two different dyno's and ambient, but it gives you a general idea of how much power was left on the table of the mustang ecoboost by getting rid of 87 octane, EPA fuel economy requirements (whcih even FP tuned it still gets far better gas mileage than the Camaro V6) and an inter cooler. Even with the Inter Cooler and FP Calibration kit, base model to base model the Mustang is still cheaper . Glad I got the 2016 EB Stang instead of the 2016 Camaro V6 which was the better car bone stock, but didn't have nearly as much potential to improve being an already highly tuned NA engine (and it was markedly more expensive to boot).

 

[TheD-List]

As far as "proof" goes there isn't any. You're simply claiming that the tune is exactly the same because Ford says so, besides the "glitch fix." But I sincerely doubt that as this isn't my first rodeo and there are all kinds of speculation about why you think the two intercoolers have different power outputs.

You simply CAN NOT compare the two pieces of hardware when using two different pieces of software simply because you believe them to be identical. What you're doing is actually damaging because some of these people believe you.

It's erroneous, and many many of the conclusions you're drawing sound good in theory but are flat out wrong. For example you tout that the ATM has less pressure drop than the levels because of the entrances to the channels inside the intercooler. Have you seen the pressure drop for both intercoolers? Did you test it yourself? How come there is not boost or AFR data on these dyno charts? Did you log the boost and wastegate? That would tell you an actual story, something that is currently missing. The truth is you don't care about a smooth entrance into the channels inside the intercooler because they are immediately turbulent when hitting the fins inside. They HAVE to be, the turbulence helps drive the cooling. Its one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but is marketing at best. Also comparing volume of heat exchangers by using the exterior dimensions of the core? Not accurate. Thinking the small internal difference in volume is the reason why the turbo can't keep up on a turbo that flows nearly 40lbs/min? The difference in actual internal area is so minute in comparison. Either the difference is from the calibration (most likely) or it's from the pressure drop of the core (could be a contributor).

There is just far too much opinion presented as fact.

 

[TheLion]

As far as "proof" goes there isn't any. You're simply claiming that the tune is exactly the same because Ford says so, besides the "glitch fix." But I sincerely doubt that as this isn't my first rodeo and there are all kinds of speculation about why you think the two intercoolers have different power outputs.

You simply CAN NOT compare the two pieces of hardware when using two different pieces of software simply because you believe them to be identical. What you're doing is actually damaging because some of these people believe you.

It's erroneous, and many many of the conclusions you're drawing sound good in theory but are flat out wrong. For example you tout that the ATM has less pressure drop than the levels because of the entrances to the channels inside the intercooler. Have you seen the pressure drop for both intercoolers? Did you test it yourself? How come there is not boost or AFR data on these dyno charts? Did you log the boost and wastegate? That would tell you an actual story, something that is currently missing. The truth is you don't care about a smooth entrance into the channels inside the intercooler because they are immediately turbulent when hitting the fins inside. They HAVE to be, the turbulence helps drive the cooling. Its one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but is marketing at best. Also comparing volume of heat exchangers by using the exterior dimensions of the core? Not accurate. Thinking the small internal difference in volume is the reason why the turbo can't keep up on a turbo that flows nearly 40lbs/min? The difference in actual internal area is so minute in comparison. Either the difference is from the calibration (most likely) or it's from the pressure drop of the core (could be a contributor).

There is just far too much opinion presented as fact.

As I said, there will always be nay sayers who can't accept what's before them. I have spread sheets with tons of graphs and data logs from the dyno runs which I can't really post all of it in this thread, car typically holds between 1 and 2 PSI more boost in the top end where it's also making more power.

Data columns are Time, Pedal Position, IAT2, Ambient, RPM, Intake Temp, Speed, Boost and temp differential.

Levels Run 2 (where it made the most power)
47:36.4 100 93.2 82.4 5943 86 102.53 22.77 10.8
47:36.7 100 93.2 82.4 6081 86 104.39 22.34 10.8
47:37.0 100 95 82.4 6170.5 86 106.25 20.89 12.6
47:37.2 100 95 82.4 6242.25 86 107.5 18.85 12.6
47:37.5 100 95 82.4 6357.25 86 109.36 19.14 12.6
47:37.8 100 96.8 82.4 6425.75 91.4 110.6 18.13 14.4
47:38.1 100 96.8 82.4 6527.5 91.4 112.47 17.4 14.4

ATM Run 3 (where it made the most power)
39:20.5 100 95 82.4 5984.5 91.4 103.15 22.48 12.6
39:20.8 100 95 82.4 6105.75 91.4 105.01 20.16 12.6
39:21.2 100 96.8 82.4 6217.5 104 106.88 22.63 14.4
39:21.5 100 96.8 82.4 6358.5 104 109.36 22.34 14.4
39:21.8 100 96.8 82.4 6459.5 104 111.23 22.05 14.4
39:22.0 100 96.8 82.4 6539.5 104 112.47 21.03 14.4

Not sure why this is so hard to accept. Same car, same gas station, same dyno, 1F difference temp according to the dyno records or 0F by the car's sensor. Same calibration except the bug fix in the mid band.

I suppose Ford Performance is lying to us, the dyno is lying, the data is lying, the inter cooler is lying and defying physics and it's not really flowing better...:frusty:

There's most speculation in your post than anything I have presented here, buy the Levels if you want, lol. But your going to make less power than I will with the same calibration and your throttle response will be sub-par, you have fun with that...I really can't fathom why this is so hard to accept for some people but I give up. The data is what the data is, I'll be sticking with the ATM. BTW anyone want to buy my Levels Gen 3 FMIC on the cheap?

 

[War-Machine]

BTW anyone want to buy my Levels Gen 3 FMIC on the cheap?

How much? Might still be worthwhile going from stock :headbonk:

 

[TheD-List]

As I said, there will always be nay sayers who can't accept what's before them. I have spread sheets with tons of graphs and data logs from the dyno runs which I can't really post all of it in this thread, car typically holds between 1 and 2 PSI more boost in the top end where it's also making more power.

Outstanding, more boost in the top end, and its making more power. We totally agree.

All you have proved with your data is that one run has more boost up top than the other run.

However, you had a calibration AND a hardware change between these dyno runs. TWO variables.

Why is it fair to assume that the change in boost was because of the intercooler, and not the calibration?

 

[TheLion]

Outstanding, more boost in the top end, and its making more power. We totally agree.

All you have proved with your data is that one run has more boost up top than the other run.

However, you had a calibration AND a hardware change between these dyno runs. TWO variables.

Why is it fair to assume that the change in boost was because of the inter cooler, and not the calibration?

Because Ford Performance didn't change anything other than fixing the torque dropout between 5000 and 53000. Because I have had other members on this forum approach me about the same thing regarding switching from the Levels to a smaller unit (one member switched down to a MAP stage 1 and noted the lag difference however he did not have his car dyno'ed so I can't comment on power over the RPM range.).

Your acting like I switched from a Cobb Stage 1 to a Tune + E30 tune....it's Ford Performance to Ford Performance ;). Nothing misleading, nothing remarkable, the only reason they released a -CJB is to fix the glitch, otherwise they would have to re-certify and re-do all of their testing. Your forgetting their calibration is emissions and CARB legal in all 50 states! That's NOT easy to achieve and it can't be changed without a great deal of scrutiny.

There's nothing WRONG with the Levels, it's a huge improvement over stock, but it's NOT as good as the ATM in this application. What ever the case, I made the most power with the ATM inter cooler, period. Weather I had the -CJA or -CJB revision of the FP calibration is irrelevant. I didn't switch it because of some secret modifications they made in a grand conspiracy to sell ATM inter coolers :frusty:

The conditions were nearly identical, so close in fact it mine as well have been the same darn day! Same 93 speedway gas from the same station, for cryin' out loud that's not going to make a 15 hp difference from 5000 RPM to 6500 RPM. Your welcome to use what ever inter cooler you want for what ever justification you come up with, I don't care, but my results are my results and I think it's pretty well document and under fairly well controlled conditions. More so than ANYONE else has given thus far. If you don't like my methods, then simply don't look at my data or read my posts :headbonk:

 

[TheLion]

How much? Might still be worthwhile going from stock :headbonk:

PM sent.

 

[TheLion]

Here are the data logs for the upper RPM range of the two graphs I showed on the previous page (max power for each and max torque for each): data order is as follows - Time, Pedal Position, IAT2, Ambient, RPM, Intake Air Temp, Speed, Boost and Temperature Differential (difference between IAT2 and Ambient which shows cooling capability relative to ambient).

ATM Run 3 (where it made the most power)
39:20.5 100 95 82.4 5984.5 91.4 103.15 22.48 12.6
39:20.8 100 95 82.4 6105.75 91.4 105.01 20.16 12.6
39:21.2 100 96.8 82.4 6217.5 104 106.88 22.63 14.4
39:21.5 100 96.8 82.4 6358.5 104 109.36 22.34 14.4
39:21.8 100 96.8 82.4 6459.5 104 111.23 22.05 14.4
39:22.0 100 96.8 82.4 6539.5 104 112.47 21.03 14.4

Levels Run 2 (where it made the most power)
47:36.4 100 93.2 82.4 5943 86 102.53 22.77 10.8
47:36.7 100 93.2 82.4 6081 86 104.39 22.34 10.8
47:37.0 100 95 82.4 6170.5 86 106.25 20.89 12.6
47:37.2 100 95 82.4 6242.25 86 107.5 18.85 12.6
47:37.5 100 95 82.4 6357.25 86 109.36 19.14 12.6
47:37.8 100 96.8 82.4 6425.75 91.4 110.6 18.13 14.4
47:38.1 100 96.8 82.4 6527.5 91.4 112.47 17.4 14.4

ATM Run 2 (where it made the most torque)
34:45.5 100 93.2 82.4 5978.25 98.6 102.53 20.89 10.8
34:45.8 100 93.2 82.4 6080.5 98.6 104.39 20.89 10.8
34:46.2 100 95 82.4 6193.75 102.2 106.88 20.31 12.6
34:46.6 100 95 82.4 6317.5 102.2 108.74 21.61 12.6
34:47.1 100 95 82.4 6449.5 102.2 111.85 21.47 12.6

Levels Gen 3 Run 4 (where it made the most torque)
52:09.9 100 102.2 86 5908.25 82.4 101.9 21.76 16.2
52:10.2 100 102.2 86 6020.5 82.4 103.15 21.03 16.2
52:10.4 100 102.2 86 6092.75 82.4 105.01 22.19 16.2
52:10.7 100 102.2 86 6196.75 82.4 106.88 21.76 16.2
52:11.0 100 104 86 6299.75 82.4 108.12 19.29 18
52:11.3 100 104 86 6387.25 84.2 109.98 19.29 18
52:11.6 100 104 86 6499 84.2 111.85 19 18

I think I can put this to rest and say there's a mountain of evidence here. Anyone arguing the difference between -CJA and -CJB is solely responsible or biased the results in the power band and top end is doing the exact thing they are accusing me of, SPECULATING without ANY proof what so ever. It is pure speculation to suggest Ford Performance is hiding changes in the -CJB revision of their calibration other than the bug fix in the mid band which they were very open about.

It is pure speculation to suggest the glitch in -CJA some how affects the entire mid-range and top end when it occurs well before and the troque clearly recovers quickly, which is the same thing Ford Performance also told me when I asked them if it affected performance at all other than showing up as a little dip for about 200~300 RPM at the start of the mid-range.

I have lots more data as well which I'm not going to bother posting, if your REALLY interested, PM me and I can send you spread sheets with data and graphs galore to illustrate consistent difference between the two inter coolers.

Both are a big improvement over stock, but my testing has shown that the ATM unit performs better over all and provides the best cooling possible and power on the stock turbo in conjunction with the Ford Performance Calibration, regardless of revision. I see no reason why the same benefits wouldn't be seen on the stock tune.

This also likely why Stage 1 units respond better than the bigger units which Glenn G. noted in his testing of the MAP Stage 1 and then the MAP Race inter coolers. Bigger is NOT always better, I think there's an optimal size based on the particular turbo, going below or above a size range can hurt performance either by either inadequate cooling capacity and high pressure drop (as in too small like the stock unit) or too big of volume which affects the turbo's ability to hold boost, especially at the top end where the 2.3L Ecoboost is known to be weak and adds lag / hesitation. Like many other similar twin scroll turbo engine designs from Subaru and BMW for example, which have similar torque curve characteristics, the top end needs the most power increases for optimal performance as they all exhibit like power curves with a weak top end. The ATM delivers very well on the mid-band and top end.

I'm not suggesting the Levels Gen 3 is a bad inter cooler, it's just no optimal for the stock turbo. Even a tuner masking this isn't going to fix that inefficiency because the turbo can only generate so much boost, while a tuner may be able to increase boost to compensate, the pressure drop is lost power regardless. So if they were able to generate the same boost on two different cars, but one compensating by running the turbo harder, the car with the lower pressure drop will be making more power at the same boost, plain and simple.

You can't get around the energy loss, it's still there even if your masking the loss by driving the turbo harder to compensate, which you cannot even do with the Ford Performance Calibration anyway so it's ultimately irrelevant to the scope this thread. Nothing is free when it comes to energy and you can't defy conservation of energy no matter how much one argues on a forum to make themselves feel better about their purchase of an after market inter cooler....it is what it is and unless FP is hiding changes in their calibration beyond what they have said and were certified with in all 50 states and took two years to develop, the inter coolers design and characteristics are responsible for the power and torque differences.

 

[TheD-List]

I don't know why you're getting as defensive as you are. Clearly you are 100% positive you're right (based on your very limited experience in this field) and are not willing to take a step back and learn. I know you're an expert on intercoolers now, having owned 2 or 3 of them, but what you need to do is stop being defensive and admit you're making an assumption.

You simply do not know that the "fixed" calibration only changed the glitch. You're assuming, and you've provided no evidence otherwise.

All this "data" you're posting only goes to further show you do not know how to interpret it. Yes there is more boost. But you can not show why there is more boost. You didn't show a single parameter that indicates why the boost is at the level it is. If you could show that they were making the same boost, but at a different WGDC then maybe you'd be on to something, but no where in your data does it show any indicator of the target boost that the ecu is trying to hit.

The person who writes the most isn't the most right. Just because you believe you've provided the most data doesnt mean the conclusion you're drawing from it is correct. Take a step back, settle down, and open your mind to the possibility that you have two variables, and are assuming one to be a constant. That assumption is invalid until proven otherwise. It's that simple.

 

[TheLion]

I don't know why you're getting as defensive as you are. Clearly you are 100% positive you're right (based on your very limited experience in this field) and are not willing to take a step back and learn. I know you're an expert on intercoolers now, having owned 2 or 3 of them, but what you need to do is stop being defensive and admit you're making an assumption.

You simply do not know that the "fixed" calibration only changed the glitch. You're assuming, and you've provided no evidence otherwise.

All this "data" you're posting only goes to further show you do not know how to interpret it. Yes there is more boost. But you can not show why there is more boost. You didn't show a single parameter that indicates why the boost is at the level it is. If you could show that they were making the same boost, but at a different WGDC then maybe you'd be on to something, but no where in your data does it show any indicator of the target boost that the ecu is trying to hit.

The person who writes the most is the most right. Just because you believe you've provided the most data doesnt mean the conclusion you're drawing from it is correct. Take a step back, settle down, and open your mind to the possibility that you have two variables, and are assuming one to be a constant. That assumption is invalid until proven otherwise. It's that simple.

And what data have you provided period that shows that I'm wrong? Until you can find data to prove that there is an issue with my testing and reasoning the only thing you've done is the very exact thing your accusing me of, speculating and jumping to conclusions without proof.

You have not provided a single reason with any actual evidence to explain away the results, only speculation on some unknown and hidden difference between software revisions. Contact Ford Performance and ask them if there are any power gains between the two revisions and they will literally tell you the same thing I am, the just fixed the bug in the mid range that only shows up on a dyno graph. You do realize how big of an impact inter cooler design has on these TDI engines don't you? There are tons of graphs showing power gains, in particular at the top end where heat output from the compressor is the highest, on bone stock and tuned cars picking up anywhere from 15 to up 30 HP. Why is it so hard to believe that different inter cooler designs will not also have a similar impact and that some might perform better than others?

On top of that your claim is contrary to the statements from Ford Performance which has 20+ years of experience in development, took 2 years to develop and test their software and had it certified in all 50 states as is, including California, which requires it to be CARB certified for emissions, their requirements are very strict and highly regulated. Once can't even install a CAI without it being CARB legal...

With certifications agencies there are provisions for minor updates that fix bugs that don't change the fundamental operation, bugs sometimes happen and get past testing. That's the only reason they released revision B. That's my point of frustration are the claims that I'm making all these assumptions about this or that when that is not the case.

I'm just do not see any merits to your argument or anything to back it up. Why do you think that Ford Performance is lying about the software revision updates? Do you not realize that because they are CARB certified and emissions legal in all 50 states they would have to re-submit for testing with due to any updates to the power output of the engine which affect emissions?

Provide me some data or prove to us all that there is a difference in the software revision and that Ford Performance is hiding something then I'll listen to you, until then your just...speculating. There are multiple dyno graphs from other members who recently had the FP calibration installed (meaning they will have -CJB revision and their dyno proves it) and depending on the inter cooler they are using they all have varying power and torque curves to a degree.

That proves right there how much the same engines with the same calibration can vary just based on the pressure drop and cooling characteristics. You seem to be stuck on this idea that the difference in power and torque couldn't possibly be related to the inter cooler despite the mountains of evidence right here in this thread from both myself and others to the contrary.

I don't think any amount of reasoning or data will convince some people otherwise :(. I give up lol. Believe what you want, I'm sticking with the ATM inter cooler and if anyone asks, I will provide them with the data I have as my reasoning. Yup, I type a lot, get over it. We've done this song and dance before.

Sponsored