Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[marjen]

As someone who builds software for a living and works with testing teams, unfortunately you have 2 variables. Because of that you can not be 100% sure the software only introduced the intended fix and no other changes, intended or not. While you could very well be correct and provide data that shows you very well may be, without testing the Levels with revision B you can not be 100% certain.

Sounds like you are happy with the ATM, and think it was a worthwhile update which is great. Honestly they both look really good and will provide much better cooling than stock. I have the cp-e but will probably look at the ATM when I get an 18.

Sponsored

 

[TheD-List]

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.

I've claimed nothing, and speculated nothing. Type less, read more. It's abundantly clear that the only thing I've said is that you can't take two variables, and claim one is a constant based on a complete assumption.

That takes no data to claim. Again, I don't need data to say the statement you're making is unfounded for the simple fact that your testing is actually testing TWO VARIABLES. You've decided to pick the one that aligns with your own claims.

I never said what you're saying is false. What I said is you're not presenting the data that shows you're correct, which is the claim that you're making. In ALL of your extensive (that's sarcasm btw) datalogging not a single parameter points to a change in pressure differential. There is zero evidence at all to show that the target boost has not changed, or that the WGDC has changed to compensate for the pressure drop.

I've made no claims, drawn no conclusions. no idea what you're so defensive about, this is testing 101 and what you're offering is currently an opinion presented as fact, once again.

 

[lizardrko]

I've claimed nothing, and speculated nothing. Type less, read more. It's abundantly clear that the only thing I've said is that you can't take two variables, and claim one is a constant based on a complete assumption.

That takes no data to claim. Again, I don't need data to say the statement you're making is unfounded for the simple fact that your testing is actually testing TWO VARIABLES. You've decided to pick the one that aligns with your own claims.

I never said what you're saying is false. What I said is you're not presenting the data that shows you're correct, which is the claim that you're making. In ALL of your extensive (that's sarcasm btw) datalogging not a single parameter points to a change in pressure differential. There is zero evidence at all to show that the target boost has not changed, or that the WGDC has changed to compensate for the pressure drop.

I've made no claims, drawn no conclusions. no idea what you're so defensive about, this is testing 101 and what you're offering is currently an opinion presented as fact, once again.

Then how about you guys all go out and do the testing instead and post your results? Go get both ICs and do a dyno before and after. Lion is the only one here who actually posted some numbers before and after. So he had the old revision of the tune. FP said that only affects the mid range. Why would they need to hide anything. Take Lions numbers with a grain of salt and base your mods accordingly.

 

[yomamma219]

Ok getting email notifications that is just people bickering is annoying me so I shall chime in.

I think everyone should take everything anyone on this site says with a grain of salt, this is the internet after all people. Don't get so argumentative about someones statements/claims, especially if you don't have "evidence" to support a counter claim. Its fine to show doubt about someones claim and the people making the claim shouldn't get so upset when this happens. Obviously if you have put all your evidence on display and someone doubts you still then you most likely won't convince them otherwise. Bottom line is people need to take what they see an my an intelligent conclusion themselves. Two people going back and forth saying "I'm right. ; No you're wrong...etc" isn't beneficial to the conversation as a whole.

Also if this FMIC debate is going to continue can we move it to the respective thread? I keep hoping someone will add something useful about the FP tune when I get the email notification only to see its further banter about FMIC. It feels like the tune has been discussed to death and the fundamental info should be posted on the first page. IE revision information, power gains, links to dyno graphs, warranty information, install information etc. A good bit is there but it seems like it hasn't been touched in a while and isn't very nicely organized.

 

[yomamma219]

[MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] Thanks for posting those graphs I think its always nice to have data. Would you be able/willing to upload data logs to datazap.me? I have been having fun playing with that site and seems like an easy way for people see details for themselves. I will say my take away from the graphs are that yes I see a difference and the overall trends follow your line of thinking. I don't know why everyone was hating on your "testing methods" regardless if ford did change the tune a lot or a little the bottom line is that you saw differences. The bigger thing to me is that the differences are pretty minuscule (about 10% in places?) and I am pretty sure -personally- I would not be able to tell much difference in real live driving. You definitely seem more in tune with your car's behavior than myself so I am glad the upgrades got you to where you wanted to be.



I am strongly leaning towards the tune as of lately, just need to get some time. Is that random PA ford dealership still the best priced source?

 

[Spykexx]

[MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] Thanks for posting those graphs I think its always nice to have data. Would you be able/willing to upload data logs to datazap.me? I have been having fun playing with that site and seems like an easy way for people see details for themselves. I will say my take away from the graphs are that yes I see a difference and the overall trends follow your line of thinking. I don't know why everyone was hating on your "testing methods" regardless if ford did change the tune a lot or a little the bottom line is that you saw differences. The bigger thing to me is that the differences are pretty minuscule (about 10% in places?) and I am pretty sure -personally- I would not be able to tell much difference in real live driving. You definitely seem more in tune with your car's behavior than myself so I am glad the upgrades got you to where you wanted to be.



I am strongly leaning towards the tune as of lately, just need to get some time. Is that random PA ford dealership still the best priced source?

I love datazap! works wonders for sharing logs without having to share zip files

 

[TheLion]

As someone who builds software for a living and works with testing teams, unfortunately you have 2 variables. Because of that you can not be 100% sure the software only introduced the intended fix and no other changes, intended or not. While you could very well be correct and provide data that shows you very well may be, without testing the Levels with revision B you can not be 100% certain.

Sounds like you are happy with the ATM, and think it was a worthwhile update which is great. Honestly they both look really good and will provide much better cooling than stock. I have the cp-e but will probably look at the ATM when I get an 18.

Yes, the ATM performs very well. I didn't test and validate revision B. Ford Performance did. That would be how we know there are no unintended consequences.

I'm an Electrical Engineer and I work in the Industrial field, particularly designing safety systems for the Gas and Oil industry (even more specifically off shore drilling rig applications). We design fluid (as in air or nitrogen) purge systems that monitor positive flow to sealed electrical cabinets that operate in hazardous environments.

So I do both software and hard AND deal with fluid flow dynamics. No engineer knows everything, but we have a pretty good assurance we didn't screw anything up by validating any changes and you CAN know by proper testing, at least to within the bounds of your testing.

So are we now assuming Ford Performance, who has to deal with legal implications due to emissions certification in 50 states and warranty claims if they cause a failure, didn't bother to test and validate their bug fix and just released it?

I'm sorry, but not giving this one up because so far, the same argument has been presented, that is my data and conclusions are invalid or questionable because of a letter revision on program code that denotes a minor bug fix that has been tested and validated by a well known OE partner whose software also surely goes to great scrutiny for emissions and engine safety. Not one person on this forum (including myself) even knows or understands half of what goes into that software and testing, other than it's very well tested and vetted. One simply can't just assume their bug fix is making more power accidentally because they didn't bother to test it...and on top of that it would mean they are lying to anyone who asks if their are any power gains in the new revision and they say no....:doh:

I just need to stop arguing and leave it alone lol. I have the data, I've considered the arguments against my data, methods and reasoning and I can't find a legitimate reason to question my data or conclusions presented by any of the nay sayers thus far. I'll enjoy the ATM inter cooler and how the car performs with it. Hopefully anyone looking for an upgraded solution will see the benefits of this particular design. Don't forget, I ran the Levels FMIC on the stock tune, on the Livernois 91 and 93 tunes and the Ford Performance tune AND had it dyno'ed on the same car on the same gas from the same station with the same Ford Performance calibration as the ATM sans the bug fix, I'm pretty darn familiar with how the car performs on each and with the specific hardware that's in it and now I have data to confirm what I've suspected for a while. Simply that the flow characteristics of the Levels inter cooler were not optimal for my application and there may be a better solution.

For anyone reading this crazy long thread and through all the bickering, bottom line is I would recommend a Stage 1 type such as CP-e / MAP / Mishimoto or the ATM inter cooler in concert with the Ford Performance Calibration as optimal and advise against going with full sized race cores or similar sized cores that are more suited to big turbo / high flow setups to avoid inducing lag and pushing the turbo out of it's efficiency island too far at the top end which will in my apparently flawed opinion hurt performance.

Yes my conclusions all depend on there being no difference in the Ford Performance calibration revisions beyond the bug fix which they state is the only change. So you can either trust Ford Performance who actually developed the calibration is telling you the truth or you can listen to some yahoos on the internet saying they don't know what they are doing and didn't test it thus creating unintended consequences resulting in more power across the entire mid-range and top end...or they are outright lying to us. You, the audience and prospective inter cooler buyers, decide for yourselves. I rest my case!

 

[Rcmchicago]

This arguement reminded me of this

 

[TheLion]

[MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] Thanks for posting those graphs I think its always nice to have data. Would you be able/willing to upload data logs to datazap.me? I have been having fun playing with that site and seems like an easy way for people see details for themselves. I will say my take away from the graphs are that yes I see a difference and the overall trends follow your line of thinking. I don't know why everyone was hating on your "testing methods" regardless if ford did change the tune a lot or a little the bottom line is that you saw differences. The bigger thing to me is that the differences are pretty minuscule (about 10% in places?) and I am pretty sure -personally- I would not be able to tell much difference in real live driving. You definitely seem more in tune with your car's behavior than myself so I am glad the upgrades got you to where you wanted to be.

I am strongly leaning towards the tune as of lately, just need to get some time. Is that random PA ford dealership still the best priced source?

I think your referring to Levittown?

http://www.levittownfordparts.com/ford-performance-mustang-ecoboost-performance-calibration-p-3260.html

 

[Spykexx]

I think your referring to Levittown?

http://www.levittownfordparts.com/ford-performance-mustang-ecoboost-performance-calibration-p-3260.html

I believe Tasca Ford is still best priced

https://www.tascaparts.com/power-packs-2015-2017-mustang-2.3l-ecoboost-performance-calibration-kit-m-9603-m4?parent=1062

 

[yomamma219]

Thanks guys [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] that was who I was thinking. Thanks [MENTION=26348]Spykexx[/MENTION] for the follow up, I will definitely shop it around when the time comes. If I'm still feeling as impulsive/excited about the tune in about 2 weeks I think it will be time to start shopping it around. Just am too busy with life at the moment.

 

[TheLion]

Thanks guys [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] that was who I was thinking. Thanks [MENTION=26348]Spykexx[/MENTION] for the follow up, I will definitely shop it around when the time comes. If I'm still feeling as impulsive/excited about the tune in about 2 weeks I think it will be time to start shopping it around. Just am too busy with life at the moment.

It's a worthwhile upgrade. The combination of the FP Calibration AND a good inter cooler that's appropriately sized will make a world of difference. Any of the Stage 1 units are good choices as well as the ATM if you want that added cooling for really pushing the car.

 

[TheLion]

Here you go:

http://datazap.me/u/thelion/dyno-run-22-july-2017?log=0&data=4-7

and

http://datazap.me/u/thelion/dyno-run-28-july-2017-atm-cjb-fp-cal?log=0&data=4-7

 

[mrasdf]

Does everyone's Software Part Number say CJA or CJB?
Mine says CBB for the last three digits.

 

[StangNoc]

Does everyone's Software Part Number say CJA or CJB?
Mine says CBB for the last three digits.

Mine says BYB, and when I check for an update it says "no bin found for 26808 and GR3A-SEMM2A-BYB combination".

Sponsored