ProCal Tune and 10R60 Transmission

[joprato]

You should be safe doing an immediate rescue/recovery. The other vehicle is going to be doing their part too. Just don't hook up and tow a trailer. This is the standing advice of the ExST community.

If any issues arise in-warranty, the dealer will see recent flash history but won't know what specific tune was used. If the original FP install was done by a dealer, it may be easier to argue you only went back to stock tune for towing purpose.

Either way, potential warranty issues is a neverending debate.

thanks for the response. And I agree, warranty issues are just never ending… bigg rabbit hole there.

Sponsored

 

[Arsenall11]

I have the Australian version, will give them a call, thanks !

That’s why we come to forums, for ideas and help, not snide comments! Cheers.

 

[joprato]

Well, just a little update on the self install of the tune.

ford performance got back to me and their email is very clear, it won’t work for vehicles outside of either USA or Canada, so that’s the end of the road for my raptor, no tuning for it.

I'm going to get to my overland build soon, right after I get my EGR braces, and I’ll post pics of that once completed.

then it will be pipes, IC and upgraded radiator…

happy new year everyone !

 

[RedNose1]

Well, just a little update on the self install of the tune.

ford performance got back to me and their email is very clear, it won’t work for vehicles outside of either USA or Canada, so that’s the end of the road for my raptor, no tuning for it.

I'm going to get to my overland build soon, right after I get my EGR braces, and I’ll post pics of that once completed.

then it will be pipes, IC and upgraded radiator…

happy new year everyone !

Unless you tune it yourself.
By converting the Middle east to American, then you can install the FP Tune.

 

[joprato]

Unless you tune it yourself.
By converting the Middle east to American, then you can install the FP Tune.

Just started looking into the ZFG custom tuning, with some nostrum injectors and fuel pump, that should give some interesting results

not exactly on the cheap side of things but in the future, definitely something I’ll consider.
But now I’m curious, what did you mean by “converting” the Middle East to American ? Is it an option in the Ford performance tuning device ?

 

[Lion77]

A bit of a dated thread, but I wanted to add that after doing the conversion, 600nm ~= 443ft-lbs of torque. The 10R80 in the Gen 1 Rangers and F-150 is 800nm ~= 590ft-lbs. The 10R60 has been around in the explorer ST for several years now, my friend from high school has a 2021 ST with 130k on it, still drives great, but it's stock and he's consistent on maintenance. He drives it hard regularly, but again, he left it stock for that very reason (he was formerly in the Army and went to Iraq for a year right out of high school, drove an ASV, Humvee and M1A1 main battle tank, so very familiar with heavy vehicle maintenance as part of training).

Now 443ft-lbs is the rated torque, not the absolute maximum that includes the de-rating safety factor. In electrical, military and NASA standards are 2/3 of max, so your expected worst case normal use should not exceed 2/3 of absolute max. I'd read somewhere that with automatics it's around 25% margin, so close to electrical.

But we all know that the rated torque is the maximum torque that can be applied continuously with the transmission over its life while still being able to achieve its full-service life (for most OE's, under worst case conditions, with proper maintenance intervals, usually 150k miles minimum for severe duty).

10 = # of forward gears
R = Rear drive configuration
60 = rated torque in nm X 10 = 600nm

Here's my one beef with Ford Performance "warranty". I did the Stage 2 on a 2016 Mustang GT PP that had a bunch of suspension mods, but only engine mod was Stage 2 Power Pack from FP. Had my local dealer do it and submitted the paperwork for warranty. Cal was done at 17k miles. By 30k my clutch failed. Never drag raced it, but did track it regularly along with daily driving.

1/3 of the friction pad completely separated right at the rivets on one side of the disk, requiring them to take the trans off to replace it. The technician showed it to me and said it looked brand new aside from literally being broken (as in I didn't burn up the clutch slipping it as is common in drag racing, having driven other manuals for a decade and half, I also did heal and toe even on daily driving just to maximize its life).

None of that was covered under warranty being a "wear item" on a manual. And as others have stated, once your past 36k/3yrs....all bets are OFF. So, while I have zero doubt that Ford Performance can give you the rated power and torque safely on 91 and that the engine will hold up with proper maintenance and fuel over its lifespan, the drive train may not last that long, especially if you drive it hard regularly. The failures of highly tuned explorer ST's are a testament to that, where the 10R60's torque locks start to slip.

I will NOT ever do the procal tune on my Ranger Raptor unless I do a built 10R60 to match it with, simply because I don't think 2-3 tenths of a second is worth the cost of a new transmission and I can shave another tenth or two off just by using In Situ hydrogenated DLC coatings in the drive train that reduce friction losses incurred in boundary layer lubrication regimes, so I'm not increasing the torque load on the trans, just reducing friction losses which also enhances long term reliability as the additive packages in the oils get used up slower as a consequence. It's a win-win through efficiency.

It's all about efficiency of application! I personally have gone down the "bigger, better route" but realized over time there are often a lot of unintended consequences, so instead I turned to focusing on 1. rigorous maintenance to maintain "like new" power over the vehicle's lifespan and 2. increasing efficiency through novel DLC technologies that yield small gains in power, fuel economy and reduce wear rates.

Just my 2 cents and experience also being an actual degreed Engineer (Electrical) whose hobby is automotive. Given that the 10R60's torque rating is 443 ft-lbs, pushing 530+ ft-lbs from the crank is going to shorten the service life of that trans, particularly the torque lock clutches that will eventually start to slip, especially during shock loading conditions like coming off of a jump and towing etc. That's also probably why the Rangers at the Raptor Assault school are mostly stock (aside from safety equipment), as they need them to last for years of abuse.

So, you really have to ask yourself, does 2-3 10ths matter? Or you would rather focus on 1. reliability and 2. consistency of performance over the life of the vehicle. The 5.3L LS is a great example. I've seen dyno's of Silverado 1500's new and then after 100k miles with dirty injectors, wear and tear on the rings from using poor quality filters, that same engine makes 50-70 hp less than rated because the ECU had to pull so much timing due to lack of maintenance to keep it from knocking itself to death. People may not notice the gradual loss in HP ever 10k, 5hp there, 7hp there, until it becomes severe enough you begin to notice.

So, I've become a big advocate of focusing on KEEPING the power over a long service life to really enjoy that vehicle reliably rather than on MAKING MORE POWER and suffering the frustration of a major failure much earlier on due to eating into safety margins too much.

If you do the FP cal, my advice is to get a built 10R60 with upgraded torque lock clutches and gears etc. that can safely handle the higher torque load over time. Maybe someday I'll do an upgraded 10R60 and the procal tune once it's paid off, but until then, I'm just focused on having fun with it and rigorous maintenance to it continues to make 405 HP / 430 ft-lbs even at 100k miles, then 150k miles then 200k miles.

 

[Lion77]

P.S., sorry for the really long post, it was just a bit of a complex subject.

 

[TrailRax]

Not sure how true it is, we talked to a few Ford contacts and an ambassador and they stated the RR has a 10R80 in it. Got word from a contact who works closely but not for Ford and Ford Performance. He got it from asking in person to the team while at Baja 1000 last year.

We shared the same concerns and if the truck was confirmed to have 10R60, we wouldn't do the tune because we were afraid to overload the transmission.

 

[hand-filer]

P.S., sorry for the really long post, it was just a bit of a complex subject.

Actually it was an interesting read, made easy by the quality grammar and sentence structure.
Sorry to hear about your Mustang experience. Mine is the opposite at at 13 years and counting.

 

[Lion77]

I'm 99% sure the 2024 - 2025 is equipped with the 10R60.

"Issue: Some 2017-2020 F-150, 2018-2021 Expedition/Navigator/Mustang, 2019-2023 Ranger vehicles equipped with a 10R80 transmission may exhibit a harsh/delayed engagement and/or harsh/delayed shift. This may be due to the transmission solenoid ID strategy, sticking valves in the main control valve body and/or axial movement of the CDF clutch cylinder (7H351) sleeve. To correct the condition, follow the Service Procedure to identify and correct the condition."

The 1st gen Ranger had the 10R80 ONLY because the 10R60 wasn't fully developed yet when they rebooted ranger in 2019. 2023 was the last year of the 1st gen Ranger obviously. The Explorer ST was the first to have the 10R60 to my knowledge for 2020 MY.

The bronco's also get the 10R60. It has all of the design updates that were rolled out to fix the issues with the 10R80, unless there's something still unknown but it seems at this point the latest production should be reasonably good design wise (aside from quality issues that will always exist to some degree).

But as stated, 443 ft-lbs is the limit, so unless someone can show me that's incorrect, I will keep the engine stock to avoid killing the trans and focus on good maintenance and other durability and utility upgrades over time as I share the same concern as @ TrailRax. It's already a great power train and by far the fastest of the mid-sized trucks, its' also on par with the regular F-150 Raptor (non-R) something like a street-oriented Silverado RST Z71 6.2L which is in the low 14 / high 13 second ballpark on the 1/4 mile, and you'll even beat out a 5.3L LS equipped RST or anything else that isn't the top model V8.

 

[Lion77]

Actually it was an interesting read, made easy by the quality grammar and sentence structure.
Sorry to hear about your Mustang experience. Mine is the opposite at at 13 years and counting.

Yah, I loved driving it, sounded amazing with the Pro Cal Stage 2 and the Corsa cat back I had on it. I also had it lowered moderately with CORRECT roll center (swapped out the front rear links with extended studs to correct the roll center for the new ride height). Had BMR adjustable sway bars and the last big change was going to be GT350 struts to get more ideal damping rate than the PP struts.

But alas, that clutch failed and the dealer completely destroyed that car as they had a diesel tech do it since the regular tech that serviced the mustangs broke his arm. They ended up damaging the main bearing seal and gave it back to me leaking oil, damaged a crank angle sensor resulting in multiple cylinder misfire, broke interior trim and tried to hide it by gluing it back together...it was a mess, so we traded it in for a demo model CX-9 Grand Touring that my wife drives. All that over 6 weeks just to swap a clutch.

Then I learned that Ford used a polymer clutch line on the manuals and routed it close to the header, so it would heat up, expand and not fully disengage the clutch. There's all kinds of issues with "clutch petal getting stuck to the floor" on the mustang forums for manuals. Autos were good to go, you can beat them, and they just keep ticking, but the manuals...Ford cheeped out with Getrag. They should have used the TR6060 like in the GT350 and Chevy Camaro's.

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

A bit of a dated thread, but I wanted to add that after doing the conversion, 600nm ~= 443ft-lbs of torque. The 10R80 in the Gen 1 Rangers and F-150 is 800nm ~= 590ft-lbs. The 10R60 has been around in the explorer ST for several years now, my friend from high school has a 2021 ST with 130k on it, still drives great, but it's stock and he's consistent on maintenance. He drives it hard regularly, but again, he left it stock for that very reason (he was formerly in the Army and went to Iraq for a year right out of high school, drove an ASV, Humvee and M1A1 main battle tank, so very familiar with heavy vehicle maintenance as part of training).

Now 443ft-lbs is the rated torque, not the absolute maximum that includes the de-rating safety factor. In electrical, military and NASA standards are 2/3 of max, so your expected worst case normal use should not exceed 2/3 of absolute max. I'd read somewhere that with automatics it's around 25% margin, so close to electrical.

But we all know that the rated torque is the maximum torque that can be applied continuously with the transmission over its life while still being able to achieve its full-service life (for most OE's, under worst case conditions, with proper maintenance intervals, usually 150k miles minimum for severe duty).

10 = # of forward gears
R = Rear drive configuration
60 = rated torque in nm X 10 = 600nm

Here's my one beef with Ford Performance "warranty". I did the Stage 2 on a 2016 Mustang GT PP that had a bunch of suspension mods, but only engine mod was Stage 2 Power Pack from FP. Had my local dealer do it and submitted the paperwork for warranty. Cal was done at 17k miles. By 30k my clutch failed. Never drag raced it, but did track it regularly along with daily driving.

1/3 of the friction pad completely separated right at the rivets on one side of the disk, requiring them to take the trans off to replace it. The technician showed it to me and said it looked brand new aside from literally being broken (as in I didn't burn up the clutch slipping it as is common in drag racing, having driven other manuals for a decade and half, I also did heal and toe even on daily driving just to maximize its life).

None of that was covered under warranty being a "wear item" on a manual. And as others have stated, once your past 36k/3yrs....all bets are OFF. So, while I have zero doubt that Ford Performance can give you the rated power and torque safely on 91 and that the engine will hold up with proper maintenance and fuel over its lifespan, the drive train may not last that long, especially if you drive it hard regularly. The failures of highly tuned explorer ST's are a testament to that, where the 10R60's torque locks start to slip.

I will NOT ever do the procal tune on my Ranger Raptor unless I do a built 10R60 to match it with, simply because I don't think 2-3 tenths of a second is worth the cost of a new transmission and I can shave another tenth or two off just by using In Situ hydrogenated DLC coatings in the drive train that reduce friction losses incurred in boundary layer lubrication regimes, so I'm not increasing the torque load on the trans, just reducing friction losses which also enhances long term reliability as the additive packages in the oils get used up slower as a consequence. It's a win-win through efficiency.

It's all about efficiency of application! I personally have gone down the "bigger, better route" but realized over time there are often a lot of unintended consequences, so instead I turned to focusing on 1. rigorous maintenance to maintain "like new" power over the vehicle's lifespan and 2. increasing efficiency through novel DLC technologies that yield small gains in power, fuel economy and reduce wear rates.

Just my 2 cents and experience also being an actual degreed Engineer (Electrical) whose hobby is automotive. Given that the 10R60's torque rating is 443 ft-lbs, pushing 530+ ft-lbs from the crank is going to shorten the service life of that trans, particularly the torque lock clutches that will eventually start to slip, especially during shock loading conditions like coming off of a jump and towing etc. That's also probably why the Rangers at the Raptor Assault school are mostly stock (aside from safety equipment), as they need them to last for years of abuse.

So, you really have to ask yourself, does 2-3 10ths matter? Or you would rather focus on 1. reliability and 2. consistency of performance over the life of the vehicle. The 5.3L LS is a great example. I've seen dyno's of Silverado 1500's new and then after 100k miles with dirty injectors, wear and tear on the rings from using poor quality filters, that same engine makes 50-70 hp less than rated because the ECU had to pull so much timing due to lack of maintenance to keep it from knocking itself to death. People may not notice the gradual loss in HP ever 10k, 5hp there, 7hp there, until it becomes severe enough you begin to notice.

So, I've become a big advocate of focusing on KEEPING the power over a long service life to really enjoy that vehicle reliably rather than on MAKING MORE POWER and suffering the frustration of a major failure much earlier on due to eating into safety margins too much.

If you do the FP cal, my advice is to get a built 10R60 with upgraded torque lock clutches and gears etc. that can safely handle the higher torque load over time. Maybe someday I'll do an upgraded 10R60 and the procal tune once it's paid off, but until then, I'm just focused on having fun with it and rigorous maintenance to it continues to make 405 HP / 430 ft-lbs even at 100k miles, then 150k miles then 200k miles.

Yes, this is correct and 2/3 ‘s is mil spec.

 

[Hoss]

Hasn’t changed my mind.

 

[Lion77]

I've tried reaching out to FRPP on this issue, so far nothing, not even a acknowledgement. Hoping they will at least give an honest answer. Maybe the answer is "yes, it does exceed the max input specification, so the tradeoff is a shorter lifespan of the torque locks" or "no, the internet has incorrect information, and the actual input torque specification is 600 lb-ft, not nm, so there is considerable margin still".

There are some possibilities this is a non-issue, and WE have some incorrect information on specifications, but I'll keep it stock until / unless I can actually answer that question with some confidence. Another possibility is that they are torque limiting in certain gears / conditions where it would be an issue, but not in gears where it wouldn't. Obviously, FP knows the truck in great detail considering they had a hand in its actual development and testing, but a discrepancy is a discrepancy, and I'd like an answer.

I think most of us understand where the added power is coming from, getting rid of the need to retard timing if someone switches suddenly from 91 back to 87 on the factory tune. You can only advance so far on higher octane and still be able to scale back fast enough to prevent damage.

Get rid of the requirement to scale back on lower octane and you can be more aggressive with 91 timing / fueling and still maintain the same reliability. Some cars are ONLY tuned for 91 or higher like the GT350 with the 5.2L Voodoo or the 5.2L Super Charged Predator, so there is no Pro Cal / Power for those like with the 2.3L EB's and 5.0L Coyotes (Gen 1, Gen 2 and Gen 3).

The real question is, can the 10R60 manage it with any reasonable expectation of longer-term reliability (i.e., if it was expected to last say 150k instead of 200k, I might ok with that, but not going from 200k down to 100k, essentially halving the service life).

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

I've tried reaching out to FRPP on this issue, so far nothing, not even a acknowledgement. Hoping they will at least give an honest answer. Maybe the answer is "yes, it does exceed the max input specification, so the tradeoff is a shorter lifespan of the torque locks" or "no, the internet has incorrect information, and the actual input torque specification is 600 lb-ft, not nm, so there is considerable margin still".

There are some possibilities this is a non-issue, and WE have some incorrect information on specifications, but I'll keep it stock until / unless I can actually answer that question with some confidence. Another possibility is that they are torque limiting in certain gears / conditions where it would be an issue, but not in gears where it wouldn't. Obviously, FP knows the truck in great detail considering they had a hand in its actual development and testing, but a discrepancy is a discrepancy, and I'd like an answer.

I think most of us understand where the added power is coming from, getting rid of the need to retard timing if someone switches suddenly from 91 back to 87 on the factory tune. You can only advance so far on higher octane and still be able to scale back fast enough to prevent damage.

Get rid of the requirement to scale back on lower octane and you can be more aggressive with 91 timing / fueling and still maintain the same reliability. Some cars are ONLY tuned for 91 or higher like the GT350 with the 5.2L Voodoo or the 5.2L Super Charged Predator, so there is no Pro Cal / Power for those like with the 2.3L EB's and 5.0L Coyotes (Gen 1, Gen 2 and Gen 3).

The real question is, can the 10R60 manage it with any reasonable expectation of longer-term reliability (i.e., if it was expected to last say 150k instead of 200k, I might ok with that, but not going from 200k down to 100k, essentially halving the service life).

Ford Performance, wouldn’t produce a tune and offer it for sale to the public, knowing it met or exceeded designed and manufactured specifications of the drive train. Ford Performance, would literally be inviting a GIANT liability law suit.

Both Engine ECU and TCU are torque limited thru tuning. 91 octane is required as a minimum with the FP tune.

Long term reliability is more dependent upon abuse or misuse. Launching while brake boosting, is essentially considered owner abuse or misuse. It can easily be detected thru Ford Telemetry and EDR data.

Sponsored