ProCal Tune and 10R60 Transmission

[Lion77]

I guess I don't disagree on any one point, but being an engineer, I tend to really like to understand the details and impacts of what I'm changing before I change it to avoid issues, although in this case, the exception to that rule is that other engineers have done that development and test work already.

Still, I do like to understand and work out the discrepancies before I jump into it. I've used FP cal's in the past, Stage 2 Power Pack on my 2016 GT PP and never had any engine related issues due to the power pack, so maybe this is one of those situations where it is what it is and the answer is there, but not accessible to those not in development and testing side.

Sponsored

 

[Lion77]

Not sure if you saw this, but some actual testing out in the whild by Steeda. I used some of their suspension parts on my 2016 GT PP (roll center corrected links).

Testing the Ranger Raptor with a Ford Performance ProCal Tune - YouTube

Pretty significant change. Best 0-60 stock at 1,300 miles on odo was 5.59s, which is right where a stock RR should be. Best he could do after was 5.20s, or 4/10ths, but it was a different day.

Given that the Pro Cal tune is netting you around 50 hp (depending on the day, altitude, fuel, humidity), that's right about what is expected and the dyno results show some impressive results. There's a lot more area under that curve.

I also finally got a response from FP on my question about the trans and while it wasn't a bit cookie cutter, it was sufficient enough to put the question to rest.

 

[Lion77]

From the Steeda testing stock vs. FP Pro Cal after 1 week of adapt at their particular location (I think they are down in Florida, so hot and humid which is why the stock RWP numbers are below 350).

Regardless, same truck, same gas, same dyno with similar environmental conditions. It would be hard to beat that with factory powertrain components and NOT break something, certainly nothing aftermarket can compete with the FP cal's in terms of reliability since FP has literally been developing the Raptors, GT350's and GT500's since their inception.

Access to OEM testing facilities, full data packs etc. Baja 1000 also data packed the RR to see if they could improve something. Nothing aftermarket can come even close to that, so if you do mod factory tuning, I'd only ever go with FP, otherwise stock.

I really like the flatter top end; the power curve is much broader. For me it's not peak numbers, it's AVERAGE AREA UNDER THE CURVE and that curve provides substantial gains, especially in the mid-range. Paired with the 10spd, I don't think you can find it wrong footed in terms of power on tap which allows you to really focus on your line, brake zones etc. for performance driving.

 

[ihor1337]

Thanks @Lion77 for posting the official reply from FP, that put mind at ease a bit since I'm tuned

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

With Ford Performance, there was never any question from me. I’ve used their parts for decades with various models. Never any issues or doubts, especially considering their ongoing Racing Programs and available data.

 

[Lion77]

Well, hopefully this can at least help put some at ease regarding testing, while it's not super specific, I will say FP does a lot of real-world testing on durability that the factory vehicles go through and their methods of tapping into the capabilities lie in latent capacity that's engineered into specific vehicles.

For example, the 2015-2017 Mustang GT's had the Gen 2 5.0L. The internals in the Gen 2 Coyote 5.0L were the rods, crank, pistons, valves / cams from the previous generation Boss 302 (S197 chassis) which was set up for real track work.

So, when the Power Packs rolled out and they suddenly started increasing maximum RPM from 6,500 to 7,150 (stage 2) and then 7,500 (stage 3), some of us were very concerned about engine reliability until my research into the engine design uncovered that fact. For reference, the Boss 302's red line was 7,500 and used powder forged rods, higher flow intake manifold etc. and some other enhancements to handle the higher red line and tap into top end power, so the mechanical over capacity was built into the rotating assembly at the factory of the 2nd Gen production 5.0's used in the 2015-2017 GT's.

Since the RR Pro Cal is a control strategy only upgrade (nor hardware changes like with the Power Packs that accompanied the cal) and given the past experiences and knowledge with the 5.0 on the S550 GT's, their e-mail response etc., I have confidence that the 10R60 has built in capacity and there is a well-developed torque limiting strategy to prevent damage.

Also, I'm not 100% confident the internet spec of 600nm is correct anyway in the 10R60...I can't find anything official, so how do we know it's not 600 lb-ft? I mean Ford has typos on their official site regarding the 3.0L being port and direct injection when it's DI only...

Seems odd that Ford would spec the 10R60 in newton meters (metric) yet rate their engines in lb-ft torque an HP, so there's that as well. 600 lb-ft is a lot more than 600 nm (443 lb-ft).

 

[T-Rev]

Testing the Ranger Raptor with a Ford Performance ProCal Tune - YouTube

Pretty significant change. Best 0-60 stock at 1,300 miles on odo was 5.59s, which is right where a stock RR should be. Best he could do after was 5.20s, or 4/10ths, but it was a different day.

He definitely needs to work on the launch technique/settings. Should easily be 1/2 second quicker. This thread has good data on 0-60 and 1/4 with the FP tune.
(4) Official Ranger Raptor 0-60 MPH Verified Times - Post Yours! | Page 4 | Ranger6G - 2024+ Ranger & Raptor Forum, News, Owners, Community (6th Gen)

 

[Lion77]

He definitely needs to work on the launch technique/settings. Should easily be 1/2 second quicker. This thread has good data on 0-60 and 1/4 with the FP tune.
(4) Official Ranger Raptor 0-60 MPH Verified Times - Post Yours! | Page 4 | Ranger6G - 2024+ Ranger & Raptor Forum, News, Owners, Community (6th Gen)

That's similar to how subaru would get mid 13 second quarter mile runs out of their WRX STI's despite it being a not-so-great engine with a very narrow power band and a non-existent low end.

What they did was rev it up to 5-6k RPM then just dump the clutch (AWD car with 50/50 torque biasing) .... until people started snapping engine mounts and drive line components.

So, Subaru electronically limited it a few years later and nobody could get them to run faster than 14.1, which isn't bad, but nowhere near the hero runs of the older models that you could abuse to the point of breakage.

I'm sure the RR would hold to for a while, but that's a lot of stress on the drive line for a truck with a pretty hefty toque output....I'd say that falls into the category of "abuse" that would not be warrantied.

Although it is nice to brag about the RR being at least capable of that!

 

[Lion77]

Also wanted to provide this, some on the forum have suggested flashing the PCM back to stock for towing, Ford Performance would disagree with that. Also, every time you flash the PCM, you risk bricking the uC. I have developed software on microcontrollers and also FPGA's, all it takes is one comms interruption, so I'd advise against frequently flashing the PCM (maybe in a trouble shooting situation only on difficult problems or an emergency situation while traveling if you cannot find 91+).

That is why the Pro Cal for the Explorer ST explicitly states ***DO NOT TOW*** while the Pro Cal for all of the Raptors (F-150, Ranger and Bronco) provide no warning against towing, which is accounted for and tested.

Whether or not the powertrain can handle the extra power, or FP just detunes for towing back to factory power levels when in tow mode, who knows (but from some of the TFL testing towing with the Pro Cal, it would seem the powertrain is very capable of handling it without issue at max tow and your indeed getting the extra power).

Ford Performance has confirmed this directly with development engineering, so there should be no question about towing with a Pro Cal on the Ranger Raptor assuming NO OTHER POWERTRAIN MODS.

How a CAI or IC could affect that I don't know, CAI's can be particularly problematic in that if not carefully done, they can throw off the MAF sensors and CAN cause lean conditions (not saying they will but let's be clear that this is only guaranteed with a completely stock powertrain + Pro Cal as that's what FP tests, not other induction mods, so modify at your own risk). And IC shouldn't pose any lean conditions risk, but it certainly can affect lag, boost and flow rates / back pressure and turbo charger heat loads, not always in a positive way.

I'm of the opinion that if you're doing the Pro Cal and not going aftermarket with say a built bottom end, I'd keep the powertrain stock and focus on maintenance and efficiency enhancements like In Situ DLC coatings (i.e., TriboTEX etc) to reduce oil consumption and minimize vaporization that affects timing under sustained high loads.

Thermally induced knock WILL cause the ECU to pull timing which was a big challenge for the Mustang GT 5.0's that tracked due to the thermal loading causing vaporization. Those oil vapors dilute fuel octane and induce knock, so the PCM pulls timing to keep things within safe operating limits, and you lose power.

Keeping consistent power should be the focus for Pro Cal tuned RR's (catch cans possibly, rigorous maintenance, synthetic oils, DLC coatings, regular air filter changes etc.) so you can consistently get the most out of it even when running it hard in hot conditions for hours at a time (just my opinion on the subject).

 

[Lion77]

Ford 4R100 Transmission - Monster Transmission - Monster Transmission

Makings of a Bulletproof 4R100 Transmission - Gearstar

Transmission input torque ratings are in lb-ft, not nm, which makes sense. So 10R60 is rated for 600 lb-ft input torque.

Stock 3.0L produces 430 lb-ft, or 71.6% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So there's a 28.4% capacity margin.

Pro Cal produces up to 536 lb-ft, or 89.3% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So there's a 10.7% capacity margin.

The rated input torque is the maximum torque the transmission was rated to still meet its expected service life. So, the 10R60 is designed to handle 600 lb-ft of torque and meet its severe duty service life of 150,000 miles, but most people don't drive severe duty every day.

 

[rocsteady]

Ford 4R100 Transmission - Monster Transmission - Monster Transmission

Makings of a Bulletproof 4R100 Transmission - Gearstar

Transmission input torque ratings are in lb-ft, not nm, which makes sense. So 10R60 is rated for 600 lb-ft input torque.

Stock 3.0L produces 430 lb-ft, or 71.6% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So there's a 28.4% capacity margin.

Pro Cal produces up to 536 lb-ft, or 89.3% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So there's a 10.7% capacity margin.

The rated input torque is the maximum torque the transmission was rated to still meet its expected service life. So, the 10R60 is designed to handle 600 lb-ft of torque and meet its severe duty service life of 150,000 miles, but most people don't drive severe duty every day.

Really appreciate the information you've been providing. This post was the last little nudge I needed to give myself the okay to do the Ford tune. Thank you.

 

[Lion77]

You're welcome. I started digging into the issue and couldn't find any official documentation on the 10R60 specifically, but then I got the idea to use comparative analysis, one of the most basic and common test methods in engineering.

I started to look at various Ford transmissions in their trucks throughout the years and all of them have been rated in lb-ft of torque, it's been commonly understood for decades.

Then I found the example of the F-350's with the latest Power Stroke 6.7L making 1,050 lb-ft of torque, with the 10R140.

Do the math, 1,400nm = 1036 lb-ft....yet the engine makes 1,050. So why would they make a heavy-duty diesel work truck and put in a transmission whose input torque capacity completely stock doesn't even meet the factory engine's output torque? Clearly, it's in lb-ft.

So not only does all the historical data on Ford truck transmissions going back several decades provide a frame of reference, but that example alone discredits it being in newton meters.

It looks like Ford 10Rxxx transmissions tend to range from 25-37% more input torque than the factory engines produce they are paired with (keep in mind design wise, there are a lot of engine options in say the F-150, so it needs to accommodate all the options).

Engine Output Torque to Transmission Input Torque Margins:
F-350 with 10R140: (1 - (1,050 lb-ft / 1,400 lb-ft)) * 100 = 25%
F-150 / Raptor with 10R80: (1 - (510 lb-ft / 800 lb-ft)) * 100 = 37%
F-150 Raptor with 10R80 + Pro Cal: (1 - (554 lb-ft / 800 lb-ft)) * 100 = 21%
F-150 Hybrid with 10R80: (1 - (570 lb-ft / 800 lb-ft)) * 100 = 29%
Ranger Raptor with 10R60: (1 - (430 lb-ft / 600 lb-ft)) * 100 = 29%
Ranger Raptor with 10R60 + Pro Cal: (1 - (536 lb-ft / 600 lb-ft)) * 100 = 11%

 

[Lion77]

And for those following this thread, I have changed my mind from earlier posts with some caution, about the Pro Cal based on what I know now. However, I WILL say that the transmission would theoretically last longer on the factory cal with the higher 29% (nearly 2/3 derated) safety margin than with a pro cal which cuts the safety margin down to about 11%.

However, we now know that there is still a somewhat reasonable design safety margin even with the pro cal, it's well tested by Ford Performance and there is a 36k / 3yr warranty by Ford Performance that WILL cover damage IF it occurred due to the pro cal.

After that period, damage or defects would need to be covered by factory warranty or extended warranty and would be honored IF the pro cal was not deemed to be the cause of the issue past he FP 3yr/36k supplemental warranty (i.e., if you cam phasor went out, there's a LOOONGGG history of phaser issues with the EB V6's, so I think that would be fairly safe warranty repair example past the FP supplemental time / mileage period).

Hopefully that kind of summarizes it for everyone. And I do still think it would be more ideal to have upgraded torque lock clutch plates like the Raybestos one's that offer 20% increase in clamping forces.

Lots to consider / weigh / factor in, but I think we all have good information now. I'm very tempted by the Pro Cal at this point...decisions, decisions!

 

[Hoss]

Okeedokee then

Sponsored