Ford Racing ProCal Tune

[TheLion]

This is just a guess. I believe OAR is pretty aggressive in how it backs off the timing and probably robs a lot of the performance FP gained with this tune and that's why they turned it off. The timing recovery after backoff is probably not quick.

Just my opinion, don't hold me to anything but I would imagine they left it as an option for a reason. My guess would be if you live in an area where higher octane fuel isn't readily available or there are just known issues the ASE tech could enable it to avoid issues. I'm still certain they would want you to run at least 91. There would be no reason to do this if you weren't going to run high octane I think.

I think FP must be very confident in the safety of their tune being able to shut OAR off. It did take them 2.5 years to get this released. I'm sure they focused on reliability since they are warranting about 10 times as much as they are selling the product for. Even worse than that if you take just their profit after materials, design/engineering, manufacturing and delivery. Then how much they would be liable for if an engine blew, probably $6k.

I have to agree regarding reliability, which is another reason I wanted the FP tune as a go to for comparing / trouble shooting etc. Their testing is about as in depth and thorough as OE development testing, I would wager its even more thorough than LMS, which uses similar testing, however LMS is a smaller entity and with fewer resources than FP, I would put my money on the FP tune regarding reliability in the worst possible conditions. Whenever you push performance, you inherently encroach upon the safety margin. The real trick is to balance performance and reliability and I think LMS and FP do that very well.

But I did finally find some dirt on LMS. I found a thread from a decade ago (yah that sounds odd saying that 2006 was an entire decade ago...lol). I throw into question their claim of never having failed a client car, because on that thread there were multiple first hand accounts of failed customer engines, however they were NOT with their "canned" tunes, these were customers doing custom tunes on built hot rod engines and they seemed to be linked to a particular employee who was then fired within about a year after these failures occured (as you can imagine, the customers were irate, as would any of us be). I still have never found a single reported failure of an ecoboost engine of any type using LMS tunes. While their claim is misleading, if you look at the context in which they are marketing that claim it's true (which is their "canned" tunes), but in a sense of absolute it is not. I told you guys I would share anything I found or any issues I've had and that is what I found.

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

29k miles on the most recent failure of a tuned car (Tune+ this time). There was another post I found (not much info on it) on a youtube response to K-Roll's Livernois tuned ecoboost video saying he had a blue 2015 that failed at 21k miles that was tuned and pushing a little over 300 whp. Have no idea what tune, bolt-ons, conditions etc. as there wasn't much info in the post, but I see no reason why anyone would lie about that.

The failed engine running the Cobb Stage 3 93 tune that sheared a cam bolt has lower miles as well, I think 18k miles. Then there was the Unleashed tuned car which I also think was under 30k miles.

These are cases of what I would consider infant mortality, under the 36k bumper to bumper warranty (or what FP covers with their tune). I wonder how many of these are tune related despite the assumptions otherwise...the cam bolt issue seems to be the most likely that's a Ford manufacturing issue.

In some cases the tune caused an immediate failure due to weather as the tune was not set up for all season such as the Unleashed incident, but I wonder if that car would have failed eventually anyway within this 36k infant mortality window. If it's that sensitive to weather, it's clearly pushing the ragged edge of reliability, while that's fine for a dedicated race car, that's not something one would wand to do on a DD...at least I would not, too much risk.

We cannot assume that just because a car runs fine for 20k or 30k miles and then fails it's "not related" to the tune. The tune may be causing damage, but a a slower rate. Engines can run for thousands of miles or tens of thousands of miles while knocking or having periodic detonation. Data logging through OBDII has limited resolution, the report rate is 200mS to 300mS, the ECU refreshes and makes decisions every 8mS or at 125Hz. Cycle by cycle at 7000 RPM would be 116.6Hz so the ECU reads engine data cycle by cycle even at the highest possible RPM.

If you rely on OBDII data your aliasing the data by a factor of 25! LMS was criticized heavily for saying this a while back, a bunch of people jumped in with claims about this "is safe or that is safe" because there's "lots of cars doing it with 10k, 20k and they are fine bla bla bla". Yet those are not long term tests and the sample size is very small compared to the number of EB's in existence, there are several Livernois tuned SHO's out there with over 120k miles now, F-1150's as well, but that is still a somewhat small sample size.

The longest running tuned EB I know of is Juben, who's a little over 50k miles now.

There's a reason actual data loggers exist which data log data at the same rate the PCM does and read right from the sensors as the PCM does, however those systems require significant setup and wiring interface and usually cost a couple thousand, but that's how FP or Ford or perhaps even LMS may tune and provides that real time information for development. They are not using the OBDII ports, which were only intended for general diagnostics for service technicians and for programming updates. There's inherent risk you simply CANNOT get around by relying on that data.

I honestly think we might be seeing some of the fall out from the quality of data and the effects of Aliasing. I cannot tell you how many time's I've seen this very issue in electrical circuit design when using an Oscilloscope to gather high frequency data during bench testing, often new engineers will use a time base much too low and see aliased data, but appears to be the whole signal...then they can't figure out what's wrong because the real issues remain hidden in the aliased portions of data.

Once the time base is properly scaled and the sample rate exceeds the base frequency by at least 2, then the whole picture becomes clear. I'm sure this will get a host of people criticizing and citing all kinds of proof about how this couldn't be yad yad yad and I"m wrong as usual...doesn't change the reality of working with aliased data. Denying it doesn't some how make the OBDII port report at a higher sampling rate or the data any more current...it's just a reality and limitation of the port and it's purpose.

Case in point, go on the focus ST forums and look at how many Focust ST's have blown engines with nothing wrong showing on their "data logs". The information can be useful for general diagnostics, but it has a lot of limitations and is not reliable for actual tuning related issues due to the very limited report rate which results in massive aliasing. It is what it is and I think those who decided to wait for the FP tune to insure reliability were very wise and generally will be rewarded with cars that don't go boom or in the rare like likelihood they do, the will still be covered.

This doesn't mean you can't change parameters to make the car go faster via OBDII data, clearly you can, but can you really do it with enough integrity that 90% of vehicles tuned using that dad will last 150k miles? Doesn't seem to be panning out with those odds of success from what I have been able to gather.

 

[klineka]

Great post, Lion! quick question then, in your opinion, for a DD Ecoboost, with the Cleveland built engine, already outside of the warranty window, (42k miles, I purchased certified preowned, so that preowned warranty will expire in the spring) it appears that you would recommend either the LMS or the FP tunes then if I am looking for a HP boost but still want to keep the reliability relatively safe?

Obviously with the appropriate upgrades, FMIC, spark plugs, etc.

 

[metalhead79]

Knowing I have a Spanish motor absolutely reinforced my plan to do the Ford tune and then the LMS tune after the warranty is up. If the motor is still alive by then....

 

[TheLion]

I will probably "downgrade" to the FP tune until the warranty is up now that they are available and I have one, given the low mileage, until I pass 36k. I was originally going to wait for the FP tune, however I was concerned it would be delayed another year or canceled all togeather as they literally told people it would be released next month each month for over a year...not a good track record in terms of release dates, but I understand they wanted to very thoroughly test it and were also working on the GT at the same time. I'm still paranoid about a Ford manufacturing defect which could manifest in that time frame and that was a caveot I saw before I even considered LMS.

Many of these blown engines we are seeing "showed no signs' including on data logs, part of that may be due to the quality of the information in the logs , skill / diligence of the user or a one time aberrant condition as I pointed about above (as well as LMS and FP) or it could be related Ford factory defects which manifest during the infant mortality phase of the engine's service life.

Factory defects happen and even unforeseen OE design issues such as the smoking exhaust issue related to the oil separators, under-body heat issues, susceptability of rod bolt failures in some 2015 Spanish engine builds Or take the LSPI issues Mazda and Hyundai had when they first got into TDI's or the F-150's intercooler problems that took 2 years to resolve or even factory defects which resulted in low mileage engines failing even bone stock. Tunes would only exacerbate those issues even if they had no actual part in the cause and would certainly be the reason warranty replacement is denied.

The risk I still see is that even if Livernoise wasn't the cause of a major problem, a factory defect would be blamed on their software hands down, we know this because Livernois can't guarantee your car is defect free from Ford and they don't have the resources to get into legal battles with Ford to prove a factory defect was the cause, unlike FP which is a larger entity. It's a somewhat low risk I think, but it's still there and if you don't have the cash on hand to replace the engine, I think it wiser not to play the odds.

As far as I am aware, other than FP, Livernoise one of the only companies out there with a bunch of tuned EB's of all flavors with over 100k miles and still running well. Most of the "tuners" haven't been into EB"s long enough or have enough customer volume to have that kind of record even if they provided software that was that reliable.

But going back to the post above, most of them, at least shops, utilize OBDII data, while you can get away with that in a bigger majority of instances depending on how careful you are, you cannot account for the danger of aliasing and without detailed knowledge of the software's architecture I fail to see how one could test to the degree Ford does for their OE software or Ford Performance and to a similar degree Livernois. Nor can most of these actually test for things like temperature shock (which an environmentally controlled engine dyno can), altitude etc. Those are all OE test criteria and I'd wager what FP does. I don't know if Livernoise tests their quasi canned tunes on an engine dyno first or if they do it in a car on a dyno, but I do know they use an actual data logger to tune like the AQ-1 forexample (http://www.aemelectronics.com/?q=products/data-loggers/aq-1-data-logger, http://aemelectronics.com/products/data-loggers/aq-1-data-logger-wiring-harnesses). Yes some OBDII data can be utilized reliably, like catalyst temp or coolant temp which are slow parameters, but anything that's high speed (cycle by cycle) requires a more direct logging. Stang TV even mentions in their article OBDII data is limited if you read through it: http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/electronics-efi/aq-1-installing-aems-entry-level-data-logger-on-our-15-mustang/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=aq-1-installing-aems-entry-level-data-logger-on-our-15-mustang

These types of developmental data loggers work with the same data the ECU receives and at the same rates, they pointed this out in past threads. They either directly interface or are a hybrid combined with some OBDII data, not something you would do on each customer car due to the time and difficulty and cost, but something you would do for development work on a test mule, just like I do as a development engineer on engineering test samples. They do all that on shop cars fairly extensively and armed with access to Ford's proprietary design information so they know where to start, what tables are safe to alter and which ones are higly sensitive (there's a tone of R&D testing in mapping out these engines and some parameters when altered would require remapping of these critical tables, which not many places could do safe the OE itself and maybe a large subsidary like FP). Here's some info on their facility, watch the promo video, yah it's propaganda, but it dose give them some credability:
http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/about

They also drive the piss out of their shop cars and live in a 4-season state, Michigan. Climate is similar to my home state, we see temps down to about 0 to just below on coldest days. Their tunes are tested year around on the shop cars after initial dyno development.

Yah, there's a lot here, but it's a very complex issue. The lowest risk modification path I can see is to run the FP tune during the warranty period then to switch to Livernois or other tune after that period, but I don't think there's any non-warranty friendly engine tuners with the resources, size, scope, experience and track record save maybe another close vendor like Roush or Montune. Those 3 have similar relationships with Ford / FP from what I understand I think both offer supplemental warranties but for additional cost, however they are only 36k miles like the FP, so if your out of warranty and want more power, LMS provides the most power hands down with a similar track record to the above.

Take a look at this dyno from K-Roll's 2016 EB, only upgrades are LMS 93 Octane Stage 3v7 tune (which is what I have) and a FMIC (that's one heck of a power curve, there is a huge area under it, peak values don't matter, it's all about the area under the curve):

T+ managed to push 399 peak wheel HP through a customers car on stock turbo and down pipe, that's quite a bit more power than LMS, however I wonder what the shape of the power curve was like (area under it) and if that car is even still running...we just saw one such car pop an engine. What's it worth? $6k for a new motor and bragging rights for 20k miles...? It's a balancing act between power, reliability and life span. More power you push, the shorter the life span even if things are working as intended.

People also don't consider mechanical failures, a mechanical failure due to normal wear and tear is more likely to cause serious damage on a high powered tune vs. a low powered one. Can't get around that fact that effects become amplified. We've seen even stock engines blow because of stuck injectors etc. (although rare).

Summary: FP tune is probably one of the safest bets on the market even out of warranty, however LMS is a fairly robust option to step up to after warranty or if your willing to assume the risk of a Ford factory defect related failure.

Now that my fingers are raw ;), lunch time!

 

[TheLion]

On a side note, even with the LMS software, I would highly recomend upgrading cooling systems. At the very least you should upgrade to their 160F thermostat which they also recomend, a good quality FMIC and if you have a base model a PP or Mishimoto radiator (currently the only two radiator upgrades on the market for EB stangs).

 

[marjen]

To anyone who has installed the software themselves, does it download a program to your computer? Or just run in the browser via a website? Trying to determine if I can do the upgrade via a Mac or not. I think i might be able to figure out how to install the CAI myself after watching a video online but trying to see how the software installs first. Otherwise will probably find a dealer. I am out of warranty so that is not a concern.

 

[lizardrko]

To anyone who has installed the software themselves, does it download a program to your computer? Or just run in the browser via a website? Trying to determine if I can do the upgrade via a Mac or not. I think i might be able to figure out how to install the CAI myself after watching a video online but trying to see how the software installs first. Otherwise will probably find a dealer. I am out of warranty so that is not a concern.

Yes, it downloads a program to your laptop after you use the code on your FP account u have to create. Cant remember if there was a mac option. I would ping the FP tech support on their website. U might want to use a buddy's PC if there is no mac option. It saves a copy of your stock ECU, which may be needed if anything goes wrong. If your car ever throws a CEL, we can now check it with the ProCal rather than spending $100 on a diagnosis.

 

[metalhead79]

I pushed my old '97 GT's 4.6 SOHC engine to far and blew it up. I'm familiar with blown engines and want to avoid that again.
It cost me $5k to swap in the '03 Mach 1 crate motor in early 2003 - and that was because the shop did it at cost due to me being in the Marine Corps at the time.
A safe tune along with proper preventative maintenance is critical for me. This car is my daily driver. Rain, snow or shine, I drive her every day. I don't want to be running at the ragged edge of reliability. Trading off a few HP for reliability is worth it to me.

 

[TheLion]

I pushed my old '97 GT's 4.6 SOHC engine to far and blew it up. I'm familiar with blown engines and want to avoid that again.
It cost me $5k to swap in the '03 Mach 1 crate motor in early 2003 - and that was because the shop did it at cost due to me being in the Marine Corps at the time.
A safe tune along with proper preventative maintenance is critical for me. This car is my daily driver. Rain, snow or shine, I drive her every day. I don't want to be running at the ragged edge of reliability. Trading off a few HP for reliability is worth it to me.

And this is why the FP will remain at the top of my list and first recommendation of a tune in terms of reliability. I would place Roush, Livernois and Montune togeather in a second category followed third by Cobb or other similar canned tunes as well as Shop tunes for the above mentioned track records and issues. If you want the fastest car, a shop tune is going to generally be the absolute top performers, but there's a price for everything. There are plenty of people that will disagree and stomp their feet at this, but I think the reasoning and evidence is fairly sound.

People have a tendency to want to rationalize why what they have is the best, myself included. After all who would want to think their tune or modification is riskier than another path they could have taken or sub-par performance wise? I think far to many people don't accept the reality of the risk nor plan for such an event should it actually occur. They just hope for the best after rationalizing and making themselves feel good about their choice, it's really a justification process they go through so they can accept a risk they know they otherwise should not take on.

It's a fact that Livernois is a riskier software to use than Ford Performance because of the warranty issue and power the engine is producing even if well architect-ed and tested. More power will result in greater wear long term and pose greater risk of failure due to defects or factory component limits being pushed. We can't get around these things as they are natural consequences, which is why I am suggesting it is better left as an upgrade path after warranty / infant mortality phase have both passed or if your able to cover the "what if condition". There are several people on here who had no issue covering the "what if" risk and ended up doing so, while they were out of warranty they were able to replace the engine in short order without undue financial burden and that's perfectly acceptable.

 

[PRG3k]

check out this site for some OAR info:
http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/unde...ons-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/

Thanks but already knew that

 

[arghx7]

Lion, in regards to the sample rate of the data, there is more than one way to transfer the data over the diagnostic port. If you are using generic OBD II PIDs, that tends to be the slowest. There are other protocols that are much faster like XCP and CCP. I don't know what Cobb uses when you are taking data with an accessport, but on my AP I think the fastest I can get is about 20 hertz (it's been a while since I've tried).

The fastest is using a special PCM with an on board emulator module (sort of like a Moates Quarterhorse for an oldschool 5.0 Fox). The software and equipment needed to do that with commercial equipment costs about as much as your car (Google search ETAS XETK for the emulator ETAS INCA for the software) . That's probably what Ford (or whoever they outsourced the Ford Performance tune to, which would probably be Roush) is using. Those can sample as fast as the ECU can calculate the values (often 250-500 hertz depending on the parameter).

 

[TheLion]

Lion, in regards to the sample rate of the data, there is more than one way to transfer the data over the diagnostic port. If you are using generic OBD II PIDs, that tends to be the slowest. There are other protocols that are much faster like XCP and CCP. I don't know what Cobb uses when you are taking data with an accessport, but on my AP I think the fastest I can get is about 20 hertz (it's been a while since I've tried).

The fastest is using a special PCM with an on board emulator module (sort of like a Moates Quarterhorse for an oldschool 5.0 Fox). The software and equipment needed to do that with commercial equipment costs about as much as your car (Google search ETAS XETK for the emulator ETAS INCA for the software) . That's probably what Ford (or whoever they outsourced the Ford Performance tune to, which would probably be Roush) is using. Those can sample as fast as the ECU can calculate the values (often 250-500 hertz depending on the parameter).

And you just proved my point as to why using the common busses available through OBDII is not fast enough. You need to have the data at the same rate as the PCM...which is what Livernois told us they do a while back, 8mS refresh (125hz) is that they said their system works at. That's a far cry from the fastest supported OBDII data bus protocol, 20Hz. Most are 5-10 and intended primarily for diagnostic / trouble shooting purposes.

 

[klineka]

This thread among others that I have been reading have pretty much convinced me to go with Livernois over Cobb, I was initially sold on Cobb but I like the reliability aspect of Livernois. Does anyone know if they do e30 tunes for ecoboost? I messaged them a little bit ago so I'm sure theyll tell me but was just curious if anyone on here has an e30 tune from them.

 

[TEXAS HEAT]

Nope.

Sponsored