Mustang69-05

What Bama Chips tune are you guys running? Performance or torque tunes? Anyone tried both? Is there much of a difference? I understand the difference between the two, just wondering what you guys are running and what kind of feedback for both types would be. I'm ordering on Friday and I'm still not sure what to run...... Thanks!

traffic142

93 torque tune and love it

don_w

I tried both on the street and on the track, and with an automatic trans, I preferred the torq tune.

gpp

i have the 93 octane for both tunes and prefer the torque.differance seems to be that the torque tune seems to have a lot crisper jump to it when used in town leaving a stop light with say 1/2 throttle.the horse power seems to pull better when full throttle is used say at the drag strip.do like i did and try them both and you will see the differance but its not going to be a big differance.i do like the torque tune down low for in town driving and if i had to chose one i would use the torque ,and i also have a automatic trans.

pittperson

I am also running the 93 torque tune. I've got a 5sp and I can lay a loooooooong strip in 2nd gear. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]

GRAYPNY

I'm Mr. conservative so I'm running the 91 octane performance tune.

pike

In Arizona we don't have 93 so it's 91 for us.I'm running the 91 torque tune
and all I can say is it's WonDer-Fulled [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/burnout.gif[/img]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rock_band.gif[/img] with [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bama.gif[/img] chips

RPM

93 Perf tune.

DaTT(1sK)

I should receive my SCT tomorrow, I will try them both before I choose the one.......although it sounds like the torque tune is where its at.

bpmurr

93 Torque

ren274u

On the street i run the torque, at the track i run the perf. I find it to be .03-.05 quicker in the 1/4

don_w

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ren274u @ March 1, 2006, 9:11 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
On the street i run the torque, at the track i run the perf. I find it to be .3-.5 quicker in the 1/4
[/b][/quote]
Really??? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] The difference when I tested them was maybe .03 - .05, at most.

05passion

i have tried both and with the 5 speed i did not notice a lot of difference between the two except on the top end and then i prefer the perf.tune seems to work better for me,they are 91 oct.

ren274u

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(don_w @ March 2, 2006, 12:12 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Really??? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] The difference when I tested them was maybe .03 - .05, at most.
[/b][/quote]


Maybe its becuase the track your ran at is a 1/8th?? maybe you dont get enough out of the top end of the car to make a difference. I was at the track last night, loaded up both tunes with the same exact shift points.
60ft's the same but the torque got me 13.55 and the perf got me 13.501

On an unrelated note, my steeda underdrive pulleys shave .15 off my et. I was very impressed by them

Donna

Great info. I received my JLT and X2 from Bama Chips yesterday. I think I will try the torque tune first.

RPM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ren274u @ March 2, 2006, 6:06 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Maybe its becuase the track your ran at is a 1/8th?? maybe you dont get enough out of the top end of the car to make a difference. I was at the track last night, loaded up both tunes with the same exact shift points.
60ft's the same but the torque got me 13.55 and the perf got me 13.501

On an unrelated note, my steeda underdrive pulleys shave .15 off my et. I was very impressed by them
[/b][/quote]

On the street i run the torque, at the track i run the perf. I find it to be .3-.5 quicker in the 1/4

Really??? headscratch.gif The difference when I tested them was maybe .03 - .05, at most.

Really???? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] 13.55 - 13.501 = .049. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]

SC67Stang

I 'm running the 93 Perf tune, it seems to work better on the top end and is still great down low.
Also I'm getting 19 MPG in the city with my Automagic.
Go Doug Go!

blackhat

I LOVE my Bamachips tune!! I tried both, the 93 torq and 93 perf. The 93 perf for me is definitely the stronger of the two, even down low from a stop light. So I run 93 perf.

I say definitely the stronger of the two on my car. I'm sure the 93 torq should give better get up and go at the low end but it doesn't; car feels flat.

ren274u

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RPM @ March 2, 2006, 7:46 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
On the street i run the torque, at the track i run the perf. I find it to be .3-.5 quicker in the 1/4

Really??? headscratch.gif The difference when I tested them was maybe .03 - .05, at most.

Really???? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] 13.55 - 13.501 = .049. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]

Ooops sorry for the confustion not .3-.5 i mean .03 - .05,

don_w

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(don_w @ March 1, 2006, 9:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Really??? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img] The difference when I tested them was maybe .03 - .05, at most.[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ren274u @ March 2, 2006, 4:06 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>I was at the track last night, loaded up both tunes with the same exact shift points. 60ft's the same but the torque got me 13.55 and the perf got me 13.501[/b][/quote]

Yup... that's what I figured... about 0.05.

BTW, 0.05 is in the range of "heat soak" drop off with these cars. If mine didn't get a decent cooldown between passes, it could easily lose 5/100 like that. And changing weather conditions could do it, too. That's why when I tested the torq tune vs the perf tune, I really couldn't draw any final conclusions. The runs were very close, and within the expected margin of deviation for track testing.