Bama Tune Review
8/1/10, 07:34 AM
#1
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
Bama Tune Review
By Richard Woodford from AM Blog
August 1, 2010 at 1:07 am
2011 Mustang GT
I finally had a chance to install the BAMA/SCT tune and play with it. WOW. It’s actually such a boost in raw power that I’m thinking of using just the street tune for daily driving. Here’s the detail (note: my car is an automatic and my testing method was basically “floor it” – I did not power brake or anything like that):
I used my g-timer prior to tuning. Stock, I got 0-60 in 4.75 and 1/4 mile in 13.17@108.3. Good numbers in line with most tests we’ve all seen.
I answered my own question – there is a “remove speed limiter” option. I left everything the way BAMA set it and installed the “performance” tune.
The first thing I noticed – the car used to “chirp” on 1-2 upshift, now it completely breaks loose and lays two nice 30-foot long tire marks on 1-2 upshift. So much tire spin that I’m sure lack of traction is hindering the times (i.e. if I had better tires, these numbers would be even better). I’m pretty sure the 1-2 burn-out is so crazy that the traction control is kicking in too, futher hindering the full potential. One note (to be fair), I also put in a K&N panel air filter into the stock air box, but I’m sure most of this gain was the tune.
Post-tune g-timer results:
0-60 4.38, 1/4 12.60@114.7.
Shifts are much firmer and the engine sounds excellent. Not to mention that these times are FAST.
After I finish break-in, get the oil changed (Royal Purple or Q), and get a cooler day at the track, I’m betting it breaks 115 in the 1/4.
August 1, 2010 at 1:07 am
2011 Mustang GT
I finally had a chance to install the BAMA/SCT tune and play with it. WOW. It’s actually such a boost in raw power that I’m thinking of using just the street tune for daily driving. Here’s the detail (note: my car is an automatic and my testing method was basically “floor it” – I did not power brake or anything like that):
I used my g-timer prior to tuning. Stock, I got 0-60 in 4.75 and 1/4 mile in 13.17@108.3. Good numbers in line with most tests we’ve all seen.
I answered my own question – there is a “remove speed limiter” option. I left everything the way BAMA set it and installed the “performance” tune.
The first thing I noticed – the car used to “chirp” on 1-2 upshift, now it completely breaks loose and lays two nice 30-foot long tire marks on 1-2 upshift. So much tire spin that I’m sure lack of traction is hindering the times (i.e. if I had better tires, these numbers would be even better). I’m pretty sure the 1-2 burn-out is so crazy that the traction control is kicking in too, futher hindering the full potential. One note (to be fair), I also put in a K&N panel air filter into the stock air box, but I’m sure most of this gain was the tune.
Post-tune g-timer results:
0-60 4.38, 1/4 12.60@114.7.
Shifts are much firmer and the engine sounds excellent. Not to mention that these times are FAST.
After I finish break-in, get the oil changed (Royal Purple or Q), and get a cooler day at the track, I’m betting it breaks 115 in the 1/4.
8/1/10, 02:21 PM
#8
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 13, 2010
Location: Cal
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8/1/10, 02:31 PM
#9
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8/1/10, 02:33 PM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone was telling me that your better off doing a quality drop in filter rather than a CAI. The gain in air flow is negligible especially on the 2011's something about the new air boxes being the same that are on the gt500 is that possible ? Forgive me I was half listening when he was telling me I might have it all backwards.
8/1/10, 02:55 PM
#11
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone was telling me that your better off doing a quality drop in filter rather than a CAI. The gain in air flow is negligible especially on the 2011's something about the new air boxes being the same that are on the gt500 is that possible ? Forgive me I was half listening when he was telling me I might have it all backwards.
2005 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 550 cfm
2010 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 800 cfm
2011 Air Box and Inlet Tune = 749 cfm
2011 C&L "No Tune" = 1096 cfm
2011 C&L "Tune Required" = 1112 cfm
The smaller inlet tube diameter of the 2011 (Because of the single TB) reduces flow for the 2011 Assembly compared to 2010 even in aftermarket assemblies. Thats why removing the "No Tune" Restricter in the C&L resulted in such a small gain in airflow.
Based on the gains seen on the 300 bhp 4.6L (1.83 cfm per hp stock) and the 2011 having 1.82 cfm per hp (factory ratings) stock I would expect a 5.0L to respond in a similar fashion. Thats assuming their isnt an even larger restriction downstream.
PS The factory Motorcraft Filter in the GT500 has such deep pleats (which results in a very large surface area) some tests have shown the K&N (Lower Surface Area) to actually cost power. I dont believe the 5.0 takes the same element.
Last edited by Gene K; 8/1/10 at 03:02 PM.
8/1/10, 03:18 PM
#13
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flow at 28" of Depression
2005 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 550 cfm
2010 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 800 cfm
2011 Air Box and Inlet Tune = 749 cfm
2011 C&L "No Tune" = 1096 cfm
2011 C&L "Tune Required" = 1112 cfm
The smaller inlet tube diameter of the 2011 (Because of the single TB) reduces flow for the 2011 Assembly compared to 2010 even in aftermarket assemblies. Thats why removing the "No Tune" Restricter in the C&L resulted in such a small gain in airflow.
Based on the gains seen on the 300 bhp 4.6L (1.83 cfm per hp stock) and the 2011 having 1.82 cfm per hp (factory ratings) stock I would expect a 5.0L to respond in a similar fashion. Thats assuming their isnt an even larger restriction downstream.
PS The factory Motorcraft Filter in the GT500 has such deep pleats (which results in a very large surface area) some tests have shown the K&N (Lower Surface Area) to actually cost power. I dont believe the 5.0 takes the same element.
2005 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 550 cfm
2010 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 800 cfm
2011 Air Box and Inlet Tune = 749 cfm
2011 C&L "No Tune" = 1096 cfm
2011 C&L "Tune Required" = 1112 cfm
The smaller inlet tube diameter of the 2011 (Because of the single TB) reduces flow for the 2011 Assembly compared to 2010 even in aftermarket assemblies. Thats why removing the "No Tune" Restricter in the C&L resulted in such a small gain in airflow.
Based on the gains seen on the 300 bhp 4.6L (1.83 cfm per hp stock) and the 2011 having 1.82 cfm per hp (factory ratings) stock I would expect a 5.0L to respond in a similar fashion. Thats assuming their isnt an even larger restriction downstream.
PS The factory Motorcraft Filter in the GT500 has such deep pleats (which results in a very large surface area) some tests have shown the K&N (Lower Surface Area) to actually cost power. I dont believe the 5.0 takes the same element.
8/1/10, 04:07 PM
#14
V6 Member
Join Date: April 9, 2010
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Those are some serious numbers! I went with the regular 93 octane tune, but now I might have to try the race tune! I wonder if that tune puts more stress on the engine, or reduces longevity? I might have to email Bama to see if i can run the race tune regularly.
8/1/10, 04:56 PM
#15
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Those are some serious numbers! I went with the regular 93 octane tune, but now I might have to try the race tune! I wonder if that tune puts more stress on the engine, or reduces longevity? I might have to email Bama to see if i can run the race tune regularly.
More timing on bottom + optimized AFR + faster throttle opening rate = Torque Tune
More timing on top + optimized AFR + faster throttle opening rate = Performance Tune
More timing in both places + optimized AFR + throttle opening rate limited only by the speed of throttle motor.
I ran the "Race 93" with deactived TCS (To keep from forgetting it if something interrupted my routine at the strip) pretty much 24/7 for 3 years. Only put in the performance tune for snow.
8/1/10, 06:09 PM
#18
Member
Join Date: July 14, 2010
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the difference in gain percentage-wise is the same or better than past years, I would want both CAI and tune. Since I don't see a number above for 2011 tune and no CAI, I can't really compare...
And if I'm just being a pain, tell me
8/1/10, 06:27 PM
#19
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
Flow at 28" of Depression
2005 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 550 cfm
2010 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 800 cfm
2011 Air Box and Inlet Tune = 749 cfm
2011 C&L "No Tune" = 1096 cfm
2011 C&L "Tune Required" = 1112 cfm
The smaller inlet tube diameter of the 2011 (Because of the single TB) reduces flow for the 2011 Assembly compared to 2010 even in aftermarket assemblies. Thats why removing the "No Tune" Restricter in the C&L resulted in such a small gain in airflow.
Based on the gains seen on the 300 bhp 4.6L (1.83 cfm per hp stock) and the 2011 having 1.82 cfm per hp (factory ratings) stock I would expect a 5.0L to respond in a similar fashion. Thats assuming their isnt an even larger restriction downstream.
PS The factory Motorcraft Filter in the GT500 has such deep pleats (which results in a very large surface area) some tests have shown the K&N (Lower Surface Area) to actually cost power. I dont believe the 5.0 takes the same element.
2005 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 550 cfm
2010 Air Box and Inlet Tube = 800 cfm
2011 Air Box and Inlet Tune = 749 cfm
2011 C&L "No Tune" = 1096 cfm
2011 C&L "Tune Required" = 1112 cfm
The smaller inlet tube diameter of the 2011 (Because of the single TB) reduces flow for the 2011 Assembly compared to 2010 even in aftermarket assemblies. Thats why removing the "No Tune" Restricter in the C&L resulted in such a small gain in airflow.
Based on the gains seen on the 300 bhp 4.6L (1.83 cfm per hp stock) and the 2011 having 1.82 cfm per hp (factory ratings) stock I would expect a 5.0L to respond in a similar fashion. Thats assuming their isnt an even larger restriction downstream.
PS The factory Motorcraft Filter in the GT500 has such deep pleats (which results in a very large surface area) some tests have shown the K&N (Lower Surface Area) to actually cost power. I dont believe the 5.0 takes the same element.
8/1/10, 06:53 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance on getting CAI no tune and CAI with tune numbers for the 05 and the 10? I would be curious to see the net gain at each year. I had an AEM Brute and tune on my 06 GT...no idea on numbers, but significance difference.
If the difference in gain percentage-wise is the same or better than past years, I would want both CAI and tune. Since I don't see a number above for 2011 tune and no CAI, I can't really compare...
:
If the difference in gain percentage-wise is the same or better than past years, I would want both CAI and tune. Since I don't see a number above for 2011 tune and no CAI, I can't really compare...
:
Unless you're getting the CAI used, that is likely not a good hp to $ return. As you add other modifications, perhaps the new CAI becomes more beneficial . . .