Poll: Stock or Pro Cal (What's your experience, Good, Bad, Meh?)

[Lion77]

https://www.ranger6g.com/forum/thre...tor-0-60-mph-verified-times-post-yours.13674/
@Lion77 here you go you will see them posted towards the end.

Thanks, just read through that thread and the FP Pro Cal is no joke on performance. Looks like you're getting more than just a 10th of a sec. per every 10HP that is typical of NA engines.

Based on what I'm seeing on the dyno runs, you have bigger gains across more of the curve than with an NA car like my 5.0L GT.

Although I am still of the mindset that the Pro Cal is about as much as you can safely squeeze from the 3.0L and 10R60 in their stock forms without significantly cutting into durability.

So, for me, it would only ever be Stock or Pro Cal on a stock bottom end and 10R60, beyond that I think you really need a built bottom end and a built 10R60 for longer term durability when pushing big power.

Isn't that the point of the Pro Cal though? Ford Performance is giving you as much as they can while still meeting durability requirements on the factory bottom end and 10R60.

Sponsored

 

[AMGRAPTOR]

Thanks, just read through that thread and the FP Pro Cal is no joke on performance. Looks like you're getting more than just a 10th of a sec. per every 10HP that is typical of NA engines.

Based on what I'm seeing on the dyno runs, you have bigger gains across more of the curve than with an NA car like my 5.0L GT.

Although I am still of the mindset that the Pro Cal is about as much as you can safely squeeze from the 3.0L and 10R60 in their stock forms without significantly cutting into durability.

So, for me, it would only ever be Stock or Pro Cal on a stock bottom end and 10R60, beyond that I think you really need a built bottom end and a built 10R60 for longer term durability when pushing big power.

Isn't that the point of the Pro Cal though? Ford Performance is giving you as much as they can while still meeting durability requirements on the factory bottom end and 10R60.

You’re welcome. I agree about the transmission needing to be upgraded if you go all out but I think the engine has a lot more in it for sure.

 

[DirtDerrick]

Thanks, just read through that thread and the FP Pro Cal is no joke on performance. Looks like you're getting more than just a 10th of a sec. per every 10HP that is typical of NA engines.

Based on what I'm seeing on the dyno runs, you have bigger gains across more of the curve than with an NA car like my 5.0L GT.

Although I am still of the mindset that the Pro Cal is about as much as you can safely squeeze from the 3.0L and 10R60 in their stock forms without significantly cutting into durability.

So, for me, it would only ever be Stock or Pro Cal on a stock bottom end and 10R60, beyond that I think you really need a built bottom end and a built 10R60 for longer term durability when pushing big power.

Isn't that the point of the Pro Cal though? Ford Performance is giving you as much as they can while still meeting durability requirements on the factory bottom end and 10R60.

Welcome to the community!

Factory size tires/wheels/weight then stock transmission around good for around 525 rear wheel torque.

Bottom end/cradle 700rwhp, hopefully 750, let you know soon.

 

[DirtDerrick]

You’re welcome. I agree about the transmission needing to be upgraded if you go all out but I think the engine has a lot more in it for sure.

Here’s factory turbos massaged by CRPerformance. Had a little more but had to get off dyno before we were finished.

 

[Lion77]

Welcome to the community!

Factory size tires/wheels/weight then stock transmission around good for around 525 rear wheel torque.

Bottom end/cradle 700rwhp, hopefully 750, let you know soon.

If that's the case, then the Pro Cal is NO WHERE near that max, so should be about as long term reliable as the factory cal.

BTW, 525 WTQ * 1.14 = 598.5 lb-ft of input torque to the 10R60....which is rated for up to 600 lb-ft of input torque. SO that makes perfect sense and lines up very well.

The Pro Cal is only putting down about 430-460 WTQ at BEST. With crappier weather and altitude, less. So, I can buy that 525 WTQ is about the limit.

Also, any transmission should be rated to last, it's full severe service lifespan of 150-200k at MAX input torque. So even with a Pro Cal, with proper maintenance, it should last the life of the truck.

Although I doubt drag racing it with brake boosting constitutes "severe service" conditions...that's beyond the scope of normal use so your mileage may vary...

 

[Lion77]

Here’s factory turbos massaged by CRPerformance. Had a little more but had to get off dyno before we were finished.

Is that on a built 10R60 or you just running the stock trans until it blows up then rebuilding it? I'm assuming since your on-factory turbos, the bottom end is also factory.

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

Is that on a built 10R60 or you just running the stock trans until it blows up then rebuilding it? I'm assuming since your on-factory turbos, the bottom end is also factory.

Ask him how many times he’s blown the rear end out of the truck and the other issues he’s had? You’re only hearing half the story.

If he pushes it to what he claims, it will be a new engine, new rear-end and new trans.

 

[Lion77]

That's what I was thinking. Hard to believe that will last very long at that power level. You can push any piece of machinery to extreme levels for a very short time.

I've seen people push 400-450 WHP from a 2.3L Ecoboost Mustang with stock bottom end and nothing more a CAI and Intercooler...for about 10k miles until a rod goes through the bottom end or they crack a land on the piston...

It's why I say that the FP Pro Cal is probably about as much as the 3.0L and 10R60 can handle while still expecting a full-service life (around 150k-200k with proper maintenance and NOT drag launching). Once you push to a certain point, you really start cutting into component lifespan rapidly (usually it's exponentially shortened).

Don't go past the inflection point! The Ranger Raptor is an off-road truck, not a drag car. Large high mass tire / wheel setup with a 4x4 driveline isn't really meant for drag launches, it's mean for dirt / sand etc. or towing which is more thermal stresses than anything else.

Drag launching on a dirt track / baja is WAY different than drag launching on a paved asphalt strip in terms of what is getting stressed!

BTW my Pro Cal came, got the voucher set up on FP website to download the software. Install is tomorrow, so looking forward to testing it out (took the day off to go play, why not?).

 

[Fawnbuster]

does the ford performance tune for the ranger raptor include the cold air kit for the price or is it extra?

 

[Lion77]

There is no FP CAI. Any CAI's are aftermarket. From what I've seen, the gains are modest for CAI's, but the big issue I have is warranty. Dealers unfortunately are going to look at that non-Ford CAI and immediately assume you did something if there's a problem.

I've stated this before, there's also a LOT of drawbacks with re-usable filters, AFE, K&N's etc. allow a lot higher dust contamination on the induction side. That is the worst thing you can do for a GDI engine...fine dust. Those filters also have about 1/3 the dust capacity, so they flow better for a very short time then clog up and flow considerably worse, so you gotta clean them constantly to keep them flowing well.

My opinion is the juice isn't worth the squeeze unless it's a dedicated track car (on-road) that see a few hundred miles a year where that makes sense. I'd rather have a clean induction system making the same power at 50k or 100k than a dirty one that make 10-15hp more for a while then lost 20-30 hp from upper cylinder wear as it directly correlates to dust particle size just like oil filtration rates and bearing wear.

I guess one caveot would maybe be a CAI, then toss the re-usable filter and fine a paper conical filter that is the same size. There's a ton of conical paper filters for big trucks that will flow better than the stock panel filter you could use with a CAI to increase flow and dust capacity more than stock, but avoid the contamination issues of oiled cotton filters and AFE dry filter types.

The Stage 2 Power Pack for my GT did that, had a large conical paper filter from the GT350, which is a production track car. They used OE type filtration media for a reason!

Thats the Ford OEM GT350 intake (with throttle body) that comes with the Stage 2 Power Packs for 2015-2017 Mustang GT's with the 2nd Gen 5.0L. I just sealed it off at the top since the hood seal didn't work well and used custom ram air ducting up front like the actual GT350 did to build a small amount of pressure inside thus reducing restriction.

Still, the warranty thing...if you don't care, by all means. For me, the Pro Cal doesn't throw any visual red flags and it's done by Ford Performance which is stamped all over the truck...and it's installed by the dealer. That's a very winnable warranty repair scenario vs. other mods.

 

[Lion77]

Got mine installed today, $167 after taxes. Took it out for a spin (well, the trip home was about 31 miles), nice improvement in shift points and I think the transition from no boost to boost is much more linear than before.

Factory cal, in normal mode, it kind of felt like I'd get no boost or really get into boost quickly, there wasn't much of a "50%" region, so I agree with others the transmission tuning alone was worth the price of admission.

Even though it hasn't gone through a drive cycle to do the "learn" yet for full power, I would say the mid-range torque is already there (most dyno runs show the same, some of the mid-range torque is immediately available).

It's impressive to me already between the trans tuning and mid-range torque. Although I do periodically get a burning smell, almost like oil. Not every time. At about 5k miles on this oil change interval with Motorcraft FS and it's still at the top of the dipstick, so it's not burning oil (or if there is oil vaporization its extremely low).

Note that I've had this intermittent burning smell off and on since the truck was new, usually after running it hard.

I've read a bunch of posts from owners of Bronco's and ST's experiencing that periodically as well. Anyone else get that and know the source? My guess would be contaminants spraying up into the engine bay from the partially open wheel wells burning off the turbine side of the turbo housing.

I checked both turbos and don't see any signs of oil or coolant on either. Don't see any leaks around the valve covers, nothing under or around the pan. Not a drop. It's not all the time either, just sometimes.

 

[Lion77]

Has about 325 miles on it now so it's fully completed a drive cycle (which I BELIEVE takes around 200 miles). All I can is, AWESOME! I would agree with the majority of reviews that this is how the truck should have come from Ford.

I would almost make the statement that the throttle mapping is more "mazda like", who does a great job at mapping throttle response in a very intuitive way (I say this as our daily's are a Mazda 3 and CX-9, so I'm a bit spoiled by the intuitive driving dynamics of the Mazdas).

The truck certainly feels more "raptor like", it's eager to go and when you put your foot in it, there is a strong consistent pull all the way up through the gears now even at the higher speeds where before it felt a bit lacking at highway speeds (as most vehicles under 500 hp do).

Given that this is an off-road truck and most off-road speeds are far below highway speeds (70-80 mph) that wasn't a huge issue, but a bit of an irritation point for me. The Pro Cal put the truck right in sweet spot for power / torque to balance off-road drivability and on-road performance, making it almost like a "sport truck" on-road. It does both reasonably well now, although it still obviously lacks outright grip for high G cornering, to be expected with K03's on there. I can live with that, because overall it still has a great feel even on-road for what it is and I don't want to give up the off-road capabiltiy, which is the core purpose of the Ranger Raptor.

At lower speeds, it just digs and rockets off so well even in 4A with the added parasitic drag. Although I will say my truck is a bit unique, having been fully treated with DLC coatings in the entire powertrain prior to and it certainly had the intended effect. I applied that same duo to the 2016 GT and it was awesome.

Anyone willing to give it a try, I highly recommend Pro Cal + TriboTEX DLC films for an incredibly smooth power delivery and maximining RWHP by reducing parasitic losses. The biggest advantage of DLC films though isn't the recovery of power lost to drag forces, it's wear reduction by mitigating friction losses and enhancing oil film adhesion to bearing surfaces. All those things are going to help make the most of the truck's service life when running the Pro Cal. It's a perfect pairing.

Assuming about a 3% overall recovery of lost power due between the engine and drive line losses: that would be equivalent to making 455 * 1.03 = 467 HP at the crank (effective), except you're not really making more power in the conventional sense (more air, fuel, timing, pressure), your just reducing losses and getting more of your existing power from the Pro Cal to the rear wheels while also reducing wear on all critical parts that experience wear due to heat and pressure (i.e., piston rings, bearings, gear tooth faces).

Try it, you'll thank me later.

1x Engine
1x Automatic Transmission
3x Differential (front and rear diffs, transfer case all uses same doping)

Will run about $350 to do everything. Re-apply to engine every 30k-40k. Re-apply to drive line every 60k-80k. Even on the factory cal, the DLC films made a noticeable improvement, the Pro Cal took it much further.

 

[Fawnbuster]

Just looked at the Ford performance website and it states the tune is available for both the 24 and 25 Raptor Ranger now.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9603-REB30

 

[Lion77]

Go for it! I love the Pro Cal on my 24' RR.

 

[Lion77]

Just some food for thought (based on data from Car and Driver's specs and performance gains from the Pro Cal as listed by Ford Performance):

2ns Gen Ranger Raptor (2024 - 2025) w/Pro Cal
5,372 lbs / 455 hp = 11.8lbs per hp
Est. 0-60 is 4.8 sec. with 1ft roll out

Note: car and driver with 1ft roll out did 5.3 stock, Pro Cal tuned RR is about 500mS quicker under same test conditions which is in line with typical gains of 1/10th of a sec. per every 10 hp.

3rd Gen F-150 Raptor (2021 - 2025) STOCK
5,947 lbs / 450 hp = 13.2 lbs per hp
Est. 0-60 is 5.2 sec. with 1 ft roll out

3rd Gen F-150 Raptor (2021 - 2025) Pro Cal
5,947 lbs / 466 hp = 12.7 lbs per hp
Est. 0-60 is 5.0 sec. with 1 ft roll out

Aside from the F-150 Raptor R, a Pro Cal tuned Ranger Raptor is a bit faster than a Pro Cal tuned F-150 Raptor due to the better power to weight ratio. Both trucks are within about 10hp of each other, but you cannot get around the fact that the full-sized F-150 Raptor is 575lbs heavier.

Here's a quick list of the top off road trucks, their Respective 1/4 mile times using same source / same method as well as their practical side (how much does it cost to actually drive the thing around...).

F-150 Raptor R - 1/4 mile of 12.0 sec ($109k min)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 10 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 12/10/15 mpg
6,090 lbs / 720 hp = 8.5 lbs per hp

Ram 1500 TRX - 1/4 mile of 12.3 sec ($98k min)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 9 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 12/10/14 mpg
6,350 lbs / 702 hp = 9.0 lbs per hp

Jeep Wrangler Hemi - 1/4 mile of 12.8 sec ($93k min)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 14/13/16 mpg
5,098 lbs / 470 hp = 10.8 lbs per hp

Ram RHO - 1/4 mile of 13.2 sec ($71k min)
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 15/14/16 mpg
6,283 lbs / 540 hp = 11.6 lbs per hp

Pro Cal Ranger Raptor- 1/4 mile of 13.6 sec ($55k min)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 17/16/18 mpg
5,372 lbs / 455 hp = 11.8lbs per hp

Pro Cal F-150 Raptor- 1/4 mile of 13.7 sec ($65k min)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 11 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/15/18 mpg
5,947 lbs / 466 hp = 12.7 lbs per hp

You give up a LOT in terms of cost of ownership for relatively small gain in outright performance with the top tier trucks and I would argue off-road it's far less meaningful because terrain and suspension is going to be the limit rather than outright power.

The Ram RHO is impressive at its price point for a full-sized truck but having parents who have owned Dodge / Chrystler vehicles in the past I'm skeptical of its longer-term durability and it has the same issues as the F-150 Raptor...it's just too big for a lot of practical off-roading in addition to the exorbitant cost of ownership.

I really like the cost / performance / utility value in the RR and it's such a great formula even in stock form, but it really shines with the factory hot cal from Ford Performance.

Interestingly, Audi's 2.9L TT V6, whose block is based on their previous 3.0L CGI iron block which is very similar to Ford's 3.0L CGI block, makes 444hp / 442 lb-ft, very close to the FP Pro Cal tuned 3.0L and only runs on premium (91+):

Audi RS5 Features and Specs

I'm guessing the mid 400 hp range is about the optimal power output range for a CGI 3.0L V6 TT configuration on 91 pump gas without dramatically shortening its service life (i.e., you can expect to get at least 150k out of with proper maintenance).

Sponsored