5.0L GT Modifications Placeholder for future motor based GT's modifications.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2014 GT Ford Racing Tune

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 1, 2014 | 04:55 PM
  #21  
dmichaels's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 14, 2013
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 111
From: CT
Originally Posted by 5LHO
I think it's doing ok for a fully loaded 2012 car with every option bar glass roof, running a 91 octane street tune. Dragster Maths tells me that's 439 horses at the flywheel required. Tough to spend money to switch to another tune with results like that.
Yep, you're probably at 3700 lbs+ and on 91 octane that's pretty solid. Maybe I'll get to a drag strip this summer for the first time in like 12 years and see how I do with my car... if I can trap 112 or better I think I'd be happy.
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2014 | 02:50 PM
  #22  
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 3, 2011
Posts: 700
Likes: 4
From: East Haven, Connecticut
Originally Posted by dmichaels
Maybe I'll get to a drag strip this summer for the first time in like 12 years and see how I do with my car... if I can trap 112 or better I think I'd be happy.
There's an 1/8 mile track going up in Windham.
I'll be up there all the time racing.
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2014 | 04:23 PM
  #23  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by dafreeze
450#? More like 390 add the 60# @ 1500 rpm, not peak
Huh? It doesn't matter where the added tq is in the band. "Peak tq" is not what's at the redline, it's the highest point. The +60, even at 1500 rpms is now the peak.

Therefore, he is accurate in saying the tune gives 450 tq.
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2014 | 04:52 PM
  #24  
dmichaels's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 14, 2013
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 111
From: CT
Originally Posted by typesredline
Huh? It doesn't matter where the added tq is in the band. "Peak tq" is not what's at the redline, it's the highest point. The +60, even at 1500 rpms is now the peak.

Therefore, he is accurate in saying the tune gives 450 tq.
As I understand, the tunes give large torque gains at lower RPM's (+60 ctq over stock at say 1500 RPM) but less gain at peak torque (say +15 ctq at peak for total of ~405). Those are made up numbers, but that's the message that was trying to be conveyed.

Still, increases anywhere are good!
Reply
Old Jan 2, 2014 | 05:17 PM
  #25  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by dmichaels
As I understand, the tunes give large torque gains at lower RPM's (+60 ctq over stock at say 1500 RPM) but less gain at peak torque (say +15 ctq at peak for total of ~405). Those are made up numbers, but that's the message that was trying to be conveyed. Still, increases anywhere are good!
Understood. However when a car is advertised with HP and TQ numbers as peak that is the highest they hit on the curve.

Your terminology is incorrect. "Peak" numbers are not at the top of the band but the highest number on the band.

I get what you're saying. I'm just defending the original statement of the tune giving 426hp and 450tq. This is accurate since those numbers are "peak". The 390 claimed from the factory hits at about 4500 rpms and then tapers down from there. This tune adds the tq to the bottom end creating more power "under the curve".

Anyone who has tuned before knows that this is ideal. Low peak tq.
Reply
Old Jan 20, 2014 | 07:30 PM
  #26  
dmichaels's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 14, 2013
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 111
From: CT
Agree more area under the curve.

My terminology is correct. Torque gains at the RPM at which the engine creates peak torque are far less then 60ft-lb. Quote from Ford Racing:
Approximate peak increases of 16 hp / 9 lb-ft over stock
HUGE 60 lb-ft Torque increase at 1,500 RPM.


So based in this the tune makes 399 crank torque as a maximum value, and 436 chp as a max power.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2014 | 06:32 PM
  #27  
5LHO's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: December 28, 2011
Posts: 284
Likes: 17
'cept I only started with 412 CHP and dragstrip-dynoed 439.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2014 | 01:54 PM
  #28  
miner999r's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: April 29, 2013
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Saskatchewan
Originally Posted by GT Rock
Hey fellas..I'm getting the Ford Racing Performance package for my '14 GT. It consists of a Procal calibration and a K&N high flow air filter. Supposed to up to 426 hp and 450 lbs torque. Has anyone done this one? Thoughts?


Is the K&N filter a "dry" type or an oil soaked sponge type? I would be interested in this package but would be reluctant to go away from a dry type air filter.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2014 | 06:00 PM
  #29  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by miner999r
Is the K&N filter a "dry" type or an oil soaked sponge type? I would be interested in this package but would be reluctant to go away from a dry type air filter.
It's oil soaked. I've had too many issues with maf's getting gunked from the oil.

I only run aem dry flow now. They make one for the 5.0. It's around $50.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 06:08 AM
  #30  
Dave Bogue's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: January 1, 2014
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Bay Florida
I have the Ford Racing Pro Cal tune. I bought the K&N, but have not installed it. The car runs great with the stock filter and intake (auto trans). I especially like the torque of this engine.

What are the pros & cons of using the stock filter?

My guess: slightly more HP with the K&N and perhaps a slight increase in MPG, but with less filtering of the air flow than the stock filter.

Dave
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 07:49 AM
  #31  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by Dave Bogue
I have the Ford Racing Pro Cal tune. I bought the K&N, but have not installed it. The car runs great with the stock filter and intake (auto trans). I especially like the torque of this engine. What are the pros & cons of using the stock filter? My guess: slightly more HP with the K&N and perhaps a slight increase in MPG, but with less filtering of the air flow than the stock filter. Dave
The new filter doesn't filter less. It will actually filter more even though it still allows more air flow. Kinda goes against logic. Anyway, it's not really going to add any power or mpgs. But it is much better quality and will last much longer. Since you have the k&n though I'd stick with stock. K&n swear that the oil won't cause problems but it most certainly will. I've personally seen it destroy the MAF on an RSX type s, 350z and sentra ser spec v. I only use aem dry flow, which since owned by k&n is identical except for the oil vs no oil.

Last edited by typesredline; Feb 3, 2014 at 07:50 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 08:48 AM
  #32  
Dave Bogue's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: January 1, 2014
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Bay Florida
The problems you mentioned might be caused by owners cleaning, then over-oiling the filter. The excess oil then gets sucked into the intake.

In any event, the stock air filter, changed every 10,000 miles or so, is a safe bet for engine longevity.

Dave
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 10:34 AM
  #33  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by Dave Bogue
The problems you mentioned might be caused by owners cleaning, then over-oiling the filter. The excess oil then gets sucked into the intake. In any event, the stock air filter, changed every 10,000 miles or so, is a safe bet for engine longevity. Dave
Possible based on what I told you. However this is not the case. If anything they were underoiled to prevent the issue to no avail. Plus I've seen it happen with a brand new filter oiled by k&n.

Stock filter replaced often or an aem dry flow is the way to go.

Last edited by typesredline; Feb 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 01:54 PM
  #34  
FromZto5's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 10,141
Likes: 172
Originally Posted by typesredline
It's oil soaked. I've had too many issues with maf's getting gunked from the oil. I only run aem dry flow now. They make one for the 5.0. It's around $50.
Types,

Where can you get this aem dry filter? Magnuson's sc kit came with a box KN filter. Not sure if it was oiled, but probably. So far no issues, over a few hundred miles, but would like to switch to aem.

Last edited by FromZto5; Feb 3, 2014 at 01:55 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2014 | 04:57 PM
  #35  
dmichaels's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 14, 2013
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 111
From: CT
Originally Posted by typesredline
The new filter doesn't filter less. It will actually filter more even though it still allows more air flow. Kinda goes against logic. Anyway, it's not really going to add any power or mpgs. But it is much better quality and will last much longer. Since you have the k&n though I'd stick with stock. K&n swear that the oil won't cause problems but it most certainly will. I've personally seen it destroy the MAF on an RSX type s, 350z and sentra ser spec v. I only use aem dry flow, which since owned by k&n is identical except for the oil vs no oil.
I will add to your list 2002 Audi S4 and 2002 Nissan Maxima for MAF's that were killed. Two on the Maxima, and the S4 I was able to clean...
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2014 | 10:52 AM
  #36  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by FromZto5
Types, Where can you get this aem dry filter? Magnuson's sc kit came with a box KN filter. Not sure if it was oiled, but probably. So far no issues, over a few hundred miles, but would like to switch to aem.
For a standard oem box replacment? That's here http://www.aemintakes.com/store/prod...?prod=28-20431. Nice! $44 and free shipping!

But they also have general cone filter sizes if it's something aftermarket. For example I have an aem dry flow cone on my injen cai for the RSX.

Last edited by typesredline; Feb 4, 2014 at 10:57 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2014 | 11:44 AM
  #37  
FromZto5's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 10,141
Likes: 172
Originally Posted by typesredline
For a standard oem box replacment? That's here http://www.aemintakes.com/store/prod...?prod=28-20431. Nice! $44 and free shipping! But they also have general cone filter sizes if it's something aftermarket. For example I have an aem dry flow cone on my injen cai for the RSX.
That's exactly what I was looking for sir. Thank you. Magnuson uses the oem box, but KnN ... So I wanted to switch to dry.
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2014 | 02:13 PM
  #38  
typesredline's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Originally Posted by FromZto5
That's exactly what I was looking for sir. Thank you. Magnuson uses the oem box, but KnN ... So I wanted to switch to dry.
Sweet! Yeah it's good stuff. Fully enclosed in silicone on the sides makes it very durable. It's like having a cheap filter in your home ac vs a nice 3m one. It might not make my electric bill lower and the dry flow probably doesn't add any hp. But I'd like to think the coyote thanks me.
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2014 | 02:20 PM
  #39  
Bocefus's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: September 19, 2012
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by Dave Bogue
I have the Ford Racing Pro Cal tune. I bought the K&N, but have not installed it. The car runs great with the stock filter and intake (auto trans). I especially like the torque of this engine. What are the pros & cons of using the stock filter? My guess: slightly more HP with the K&N and perhaps a slight increase in MPG, but with less filtering of the air flow than the stock filter. Dave
highly recommend you slap in the k&n filter. Highly.
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2014 | 02:24 PM
  #40  
Bocefus's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: September 19, 2012
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Not arguing but I've never heard of k&n killing cars. I've been using them for years with no issues.

If k&n filter is bad then why would ford offer it in the Procal package?
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 PM.