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

[sandbagger]

Has any one ran a cai with the procal from ford? And lean conditions? Any other issues

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 9086]

Has any one ran a cai with the procal from ford? And lean conditions? Any other issues

No worries of a lean condition or any other issues.??

 

[sandbagger]

Thank you i think i'll order one and after i run truck with the procal on the drag strip i'll add it to see real world improvements

 

[Deleted member 9086]

Thank you i think i'll order one and after i run truck with the procal on the drag strip i'll add it to see real world improvements

You’re welcome…..glad I could assist.??

 

[Lion77]

Little bit more fun data (apples to apples unlike the previous comparison to full sized trucks):


Pro Cal tuned Ranger Raptor - 1/4-mile time of 13.6 sec ($58k as tested + 1k for Pro Cal / Install)
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


2024 Colorado ZR2 ($53k as tested) - 1/4-mile time of 15.5 sec
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/16/16 mpg
4,926 lbs / 315 hp = 15.6 lbs per hp


2024 Tacoma TRD Pro ($57.8k as tested) - 1/4-mile time of 16.1 sec (OUCH!)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/22/24 mpg
5,155 lbs / 326 hp = 15.8 lbs per hp


BTW, the RR is also the only mid-sized truck with a true floating 4-link and a Watts. As far as I know, the RR is actually the only truck with a Watts type rear end, I don't believe even the F-150 Raptor, or the Ram 1500 TRX / RHO use a Watts which is the ideal architecture for live rear axle configurations.

The Tacoma TRD Pro and Trail Hunter use coil springs and a pan hard bar which isn't a bad setup for what it is (note the image is from a regular TRD, but the Pro and Trail Hunter use the same architecture with their respective shocks):

The Colorado ZR2 uses leaf springs + Multimatic dampers and hydraulic jounce bumpers (how very "hobbyist" of them...):

This explains why the ZR2's suspension did the worst overall in terms of its ability to stay planted on rythm sections / washout in testing. If it could still tow the 7,700lbs of the more mundane Colorado's, it may be justified, but the ZR2 is down on towing just like the TRD Pro and RR, although both of the RR's competitors can still do 6k lbs until you get to the ZR2 Bison variant of the Colorado, which then also drops to 5,500lbs like the RR.

 

[Lion77]

BTW I know there have been a lot of questions regarding RR Pro Cal towing, which it does NOT affect towing as we have hashed out. Not only do we have direct information from FP on it, but here is a very grueling test and it was one of the ONLY mid-sized trucks to pass this test (low speed, hp-hill):

Will the TUNED Ford Ranger Raptor Fail The Extreme TFL Toaster Towing Test?

91F, up-hill, max tow weight at elevation and low speeds...about as bad as you can get for towing. AC was on. Being able to do that, I don't expect any issues with off-roading with the Pro Cal running it hard.

The factory cooling system on the RR is very good.

 

[Raptor-24]

No one that ever rides with you will remember the time you were 27% safer.

Do the tune. Enjoy the truck.

 

[Lion77]

BTW, this is why I am leaving my Intercooler stock aside from warranty concerns:

Bar & Plate vs. Tube & Fin – WAGNERTUNING.com –

Tube & Fin types flow better and have lower thermal mass. Bar & plate types rely heavily on thermal mass to absorb heat rather than transfer heat. So great for drag racing 1/4 miles pulls, but not good for track type work with varying loads (lots of on-off throttle), which is similar to Baja racing.

The reason the aftermarket offers Bar & Plate designs has NOTHING to do with superiority of design for the application...it's because they can't afford the tooling to make Tube & Fin like an OE can!

The "ideal" solution to enhancing intercooler performance would technically be a larger Tube & Fin design, but the aftermarket band-aid is to use a massively large and Bar & Plate while just accepting the inefficiencies.

So that's why all the Bar & Plate types of intercoolers claim "68% larger core volume etc."....that's not a good thing as it increases turbo lag and can cause edy currents (poor air charge uniformity).

Personally, as a Baja focused (aka hot lap) type truck, I'd rather try to use enhanced ducting (possibly removing the shudders) on the OE IC vs. shoving a very large inefficient IC in there for performance applications.

This is probably also why Ford Performance does NOT offer intercooler upgrades despite there being some CARB certified Bar & Plate IC's (COBB offers them).

So no, OE's are not stupid, they actually have a higher cost of manufacture, but offer much better efficiency in a given package size contrary to popular belief.

 

[Daweism]

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.

So this is the first time I've heard about this coating treatment and am doing some digging. What I gathered is it's as simple as injecting the tub of solution into the engine and transmission oil?

 

[MidnightSpecial]

Little bit more fun data (apples to apples unlike the previous comparison to full sized trucks):


Pro Cal tuned Ranger Raptor - 1/4-mile time of 13.6 sec ($58k as tested + 1k for Pro Cal / Install)
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


2024 Colorado ZR2 ($53k as tested) - 1/4-mile time of 15.5 sec
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 16/16/16 mpg
4,926 lbs / 315 hp = 15.6 lbs per hp


2024 Tacoma TRD Pro ($57.8k as tested) - 1/4-mile time of 16.1 sec (OUCH!)
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 23/22/24 mpg
5,155 lbs / 326 hp = 15.8 lbs per hp


BTW, the RR is also the only mid-sized truck with a true floating 4-link and a Watts. As far as I know, the RR is actually the only truck with a Watts type rear end, I don't believe even the F-150 Raptor, or the Ram 1500 TRX / RHO use a Watts which is the ideal architecture for live rear axle configurations.

The Tacoma TRD Pro and Trail Hunter use coil springs and a pan hard bar which isn't a bad setup for what it is (note the image is from a regular TRD, but the Pro and Trail Hunter use the same architecture with their respective shocks):

The Colorado ZR2 uses leaf springs + Multimatic dampers and hydraulic jounce bumpers (how very "hobbyist" of them...):

This explains why the ZR2's suspension did the worst overall in terms of its ability to stay planted on rythm sections / washout in testing. If it could still tow the 7,700lbs of the more mundane Colorado's, it may be justified, but the ZR2 is down on towing just like the TRD Pro and RR, although both of the RR's competitors can still do 6k lbs until you get to the ZR2 Bison variant of the Colorado, which then also drops to 5,500lbs like the RR.

How in the world did Toyota fumble the bag so hard. How is the Chevy turbo 4 banger faster than Toyota's setup. I was heavily considering the ZR2 before getting the Ranger Raptor because of the pricing and availability. TBH, I much prefer the looks and interior of the ZR2. It seems to be better suited for slow crawling trails too. Toyota was at the bottom of the list because of price and performance when I was shopping. The Tacoma interior is really nice though. I like that big screen.

 

[Lion77]

Yes, but there are specific formulations for each application, so use accordingly. My suggestion is read through the development and testing information first on the dedicated thread I provided for information sharing, just so that you're making the most informed choice possible:

Informational - Science / History Behind In Situ DLC Coatings for ICE and Transmission / Gearbox Applications | Ranger6G - 2024+ Ranger & Raptor Forum, News, Owners, Community (6th Gen)

If you want the less detailed information, I would stick to the NASA Spinoff publications and real-world testing examples like the Miss Madison Jed Boat testing. If you want to get into the specifics of Tribology, then dive right in like I did.

I'll give you fair warning that there are a few imbeciles on this forum who go around claiming anything other than their grandpa's motor oil is "snake oil" and you'll see their random posts as such sprinkled throughout the thread like rat turds.

The irony of it all is that the SAE is actually one of the sponsors for development of TriboTEX DLC films in addition to the SBIR Phase 1, 2 funding. Pictures are worth 1,000 words as they say:

Maybe they should drain their crank case from all that "SAE certified 5W-30 snake oil" and drive around for a bit . Some people are just too dense to learn anything new.

 

[Daweism]

How in the world did Toyota fumble the bag so hard. How is the Chevy turbo 4 banger faster than Toyota's setup. I was heavily considering the ZR2 before getting the Ranger Raptor because of the pricing and availability. TBH, I much prefer the looks and interior of the ZR2. It seems to be better suited for slow crawling trails too. Toyota was at the bottom of the list because of price and performance when I was shopping. The Tacoma interior is really nice though. I like that big screen.

I'm actually not a fan of the Tacoma shock dampen seats, I need dat ass feedback

 

[Lion77]

How in the world did Toyota fumble the bag so hard. How is the Chevy turbo 4 banger faster than Toyota's setup. I was heavily considering the ZR2 before getting the Ranger Raptor because of the pricing and availability. TBH, I much prefer the looks and interior of the ZR2. It seems to be better suited for slow crawling trails too. Toyota was at the bottom of the list because of price and performance when I was shopping. The Tacoma interior is really nice though. I like that big screen.

My guess is that the very thing I warned about is happening with the Taco Hybrids. The hybrid batteries are rather low capacity, NiMH instead of LiFe chemistry. NiMH cells are much more robust in terms of charge cycles (more durable), but they have lower power density than LiFe used in EV's and they are rather heavy comparatively.

So, the low capacity is probably drained after a few gears since they are primarily sized to hold just enough to aid in starting from a dead stop in "stop and go" traffic or offer "boost power" via the electric motor for short bursts. They aren't designed for extended periods of "boost power", so anything endurance related is going to done from the gas engine.

Aka, it would quickly run out in anything even remotely like a Baja race, then it's just parasitic weight that actually slows you down. I'm a huge fan of hybrids for daily drivers, the technology works and is well proven (my daughter has a 2012 Prius with 180k miles on it, still original hybrid battery and engine, still gets in the high 40 to low 50 mpg range). It can help an "average" vehicle get better acceleration when it's only periodic as well, but it does have its limits and I'm guessing that's what happening to the Taco hybrids.

I did see a few other tests by Car & Driver where the Taco's ran mid 15's, so ideally, it's pretty comparable to the ZR2, but still no where near a Ranger Raptor and it could only dream of one day being a Pro Cal tuned Ranger Raptor.

For reference, the stock 2024 RR ran a 14.1 in C&D's testing. Still way faster quarter mile than any mid-sized off-road competitor (TRD Pro, ZR2, Frontier or 4Runner Hybrid) they tested.

With honed launch techniques, several members on this forum ran low 13 second 1/4 miles with ONLY a Pro Cal tune + launch technique, no other mods. One guy managed to eke out a 12.95 on a day with optimal good DA.

How's that for some speed? I doubt any one of the other mid-sized trucks the RR competes against could even come close to that unless with a built race engine (forged pistons, rods, big injectors and turbos E85 etc.):

Official Ranger Raptor 0-60 MPH Verified Times - Post Yours! | Ranger6G - 2024+ Ranger & Raptor Forum, News, Owners, Community (6th Gen)

 

[Lion77]

BTW, I would agree the ZR2 seems to be more focused on "traditional off-road applications", which is trails and rock crawling vs. baja running. The ZR2 Bison would best a RR in crawling due to the added ground clearance with it's 35's, although I think the regular ZR2 is pretty close to the RR if you throw on a pair of sliders. From the TFL testing, they actually still picked the RR for trails / crawling when compared to the Taco Trail Hunter, both had nearly identical approach, break over, departure angles, both run 33" tires, so it's really only the ZR2 Bison or GMC AT4's that offer added crawling capability if that's your thing.

I might argue however that pickups are NOT the ideal crawlers....the Bronco's and Jeeps are better for that application because of the shorter wheel base, enabling much better approach, breakover and departure angles.

I will say that the low-end torque of modern TGDI I4's is great for those uses compared to the outgoing NA V6 engines of the ZR2 and Taco's, so they offer a lot of improvement over previous gens.

The Ranger Raptor's TT GDI V6 is unique to this space and offers a very unique capability especially with the 10R60, it's more optimized for high speed / performance uses with the ability to do 90% of the crawling / trail of the other trucks vs. optamized specifically as a crawler / trail truck.

The RR has a much more advanced suspension and considerably more power on tap, especially with a Pro Cal, but even stock it's significant. Stock, it's a clear winner overall, but with a Pro Cal it punches WAY above its weight class / price point.

 

[doncaddigan]

No, due to possible engine knock.

The FP tune specifically calls for 91 + octane and I believe 93 optimal. You might be able to get away with 89 octane in a pinch, if this was all that was available but only for a short duration and altitudes below 3500 vertical feet.

No matter, using 89 will directly pull timing and affect overall engine performance.??

This is interesting to me. At the raptor assault program, the FP guys told us that the 150 raptor could automatically reconfigure to use lower octane, that it would hurt the truck. But the truck ran to specs with the proper octane. So the RR must be a bit different. I just got the RR so I'm waiting for the '25 to be approved and I will do this upgrade.

Sponsored