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

[Lion77]

I love mine, I think Ford should make this a factory direct upgrade option. Anyone buying a Ranger Raptor is probably not so much price limited as they are truck size limited. Aka garage too small for F-150 or they don't want something as big and wide as the F-150.

I doubt they really care that a Pro Cal tuned RR is a few tenths faster than a stock F-150 Raptor. Each Raptor has its own merits that are mostly chassis / offroad capability related.

F-150 can still tow 8k lbs and offers more cabin room and slightly wider/ longer bed, Bronco will do all the crawling the pickups cant and has the doors off / top less experience, the Ranger is a all around sport truck that can do some of everything. Its also the most nimble handling and compact for tighter trails / tracks / roads. Towing is still respectable at 5.5k lbs and the bed while not massive, is far more utilitarian than the Broncos trunk.

Thats power aside. So each has its niche. I like the Rangers all-around balance personally and it's more rally style nature. Great alla round fun vehicle with plenty of practicality baked in. Pro Cal just fine tunes its sporty powertrain to just right without eating into reliability to a meaningful degree.

Sponsored

 

[hand-filer]

I believe the second number more likely correlates to the bell housing bolt pattern or diameter in CM than torque rating. Kinda like a lug pattern on a wheel or hub bore. You can take any transmission and increase the input torque capacity with larger clutch packs, stronger gears etc. to a point, are they going to change the name then? You can change the torque converter stall speeds / multiply factor etc.

I believe you are wrong on that theory. The 5G Ranger came with the 10R80. Ford wouldn't change the bell housing pattern to accommodate the 10R60. That makes zero sense.

 

[hand-filer]

According to the article in Gears Magazine (a transmission rebuilding industry journal) the 10R80 has an input torque rating of 590 ft-lbs. (800 Nm). The 10R60 has a maximum input torque rating of 443 ft-lbs (600Nm).
It’s a Family Affair – 10R140, 10R80, and 10R60; The Same But Different
Forums are an excellent source of information and misinformation.

 

[jordantii]

According to the article in Gears Magazine (a transmission rebuilding industry journal) the 10R80 has an input torque rating of 590 ft-lbs. (800 Nm). The 10R60 has a maximum input torque rating of 443 ft-lbs (600Nm).
It’s a Family Affair – 10R140, 10R80, and 10R60; The Same But Different
Forums are an excellent source of information and misinformation.

If this is the case, 443 max input torque, in stock form the RR is already at the limit of the transmission. Add in the pro cal tune and you far exceed the input specs of the transmission. Something does not make sense here.

 

[hand-filer]

If this is the case, 443 max input torque, in stock form the RR is already at the limit of the transmission. Add in the pro cal tune and you far exceed the input specs of the transmission. Something does not make sense here.

They get around that problem by limiting power output in the first several gears when torque multiplication puts the most stress on the driveline.

 

[Lion77]

That's why I've said over and over again, I challenge anyone to find an actual Ford print on the transmission showing the naming nomenclature, it's probably not what most people think.

I already posted the 6.7L HO / 10R140 example. 6.7L HO option makes 1,200 lb-ft torque, if you convert 140 * 10nm ~= 1,032 lb-ft.....DOES NOT COMPUTE! I MIGHT buy that it could be 140 * 10 lb-ft = 1,400 lb-ft, that COULD be possible, but I still don't think it has anything to do with input torque ratings.

Never found, nor has anyone else provided and actual official Ford drawings to show this. Not once even for the older vehicles. After digging, if found that a bunch of on-line publications made those assumptions, keep repeating them as facts and it just stuck and became internet lore.

Then one site suddenly changed the multiplier from 10 lb-ft to 10 nm and now here we are.....so even if it meant lb-ft of torque, the 10R60 would be rated for a minimum of 600lb-ft of input torque, or 12% safety margin over a Pro Cal tuned 3.0L's max output of 536 lb-ft of torque.

But then you get into the shift points, it's NOT SHIFTING into the next gear at 3,500 RPM at WOT (i.e., you shift at 4,500 RPM, so the engagement of the next taller gear happens at 3,500 RPM as the torque locks sync the engine RPM up). It's shifting at redline at WOT, with about 1,000 RPM drop between gears, so 6k, going into the next gear at about 5k RPM, so even with the Pro Cal, the 3.0L is making around 350lb-ft at wheels 5k RPM (or about ~400 at the crank that the transmission will see) and that's the input torque your seeing at WOT. That's a HEALTHY 33% safety margin (2/3 derating for high reliability) of what even a FP tuned 3.0L makes in the power band.

You could manually short shift it at 5k to get into the next gear at 4k, but the ECU can also torque limit, so there is a ton of things Ford can do for shift strategies like torque limiting until the clutches fully lock up, then apply vs. trying to apply while they are still slipping to sync up (just an example) under high torque. Whatever the case, I think it's pretty safe to assume the Pro Cal is NOT exceeding the 10R60's reliability envelope and the software-controlled powertrain is highly tunable reliability. People bit** about electronics, but they also do a LOT for modern performance and reliability under hard use that wasn't possible 25 years ago.

This is all contingent on "worst case" too, in real world driving, especially off-road, your rarely into boost and even then, most of the time it's still part throttle or short bursts in 1 or 2 gears. So yah, it'll hold up to hard use as long as you maintain it (barring there isn't a mfg. defect that would cause problems even on a stock engine).

But I personally would NEVER use anything other than Stock or Pro Cal for reliability unless I had a built bottom end (aftermarket forged Mahle Pistons, Rods, big turbos, higher flow injectors etc.) and a built race spec 10R60. On a factory engine and transmission, it's factory cal's, be it Ford OE or Ford Performance Pro Cals which are just a HO calibration kind of like they do with the 6.7L Power Stroke that comes with an HO option that adds another ~200 lb-ft of torque (likely at the expense of fuel economy).

 

[DriftJuice]

I feel the truck has plenty of power, I'd like to just tune the transmission and throttle.
Does anyone know if that's available from anyone?

Might be able to do that with a cobb accessport

 

[Bt_okst]

Would never go without the procal tune. Shifts and shift points are better, way more low end torque and take off. Just overall drives and shifts better and as I would've previously expected from stock. It's the tune the RRaptor shouldve had from the get go.

And to maximize any EcoBoost engine requires 91 octane. Their hp and torque ratings are all with 91 octane fuel or higher. So having to use 91 octane with the tune is no biggie.

 

[Ironwood]

But I personally would NEVER use anything other than Stock or Pro Cal for reliability unless I had a built bottom end (aftermarket forged Mahle Pistons, Rods, big turbos, higher flow injectors etc.) and a built race spec 10R60. On a factory engine and transmission, it's factory cal's, be it Ford OE or Ford Performance Pro Cals which are just a HO calibration kind of like they do with the 6.7L Power Stroke that comes with an HO option that adds another ~200 lb-ft of torque (likely at the expense of fuel economy).

[/QUOTE]

That's one school of thought. There's also nothing wrong with pushing it until it breaks then upgrading. If you want more power than the Procal offers, I'd say get it and then upgrade it if it ever breaks. Let your money stay in your pocket a little longer, lol. Many of our trucks are running higher power tunes with no problems on stock trannys and engines. We already have forged cranks and rods.

I have the Procal sitting on my desk ready for install after I finish break in. If that satisfies me, all good. If not, I'm getting Goosetuned on my stock engine and transmission. I won't die if my pavement queen RR breaks on the road. I'll just call AAA and get it towed and upgraded then.

 

[RaptorME]

Even the tuners aren't boosting torque much over the ProCal tune, there is a YouTube by SVT Performance tuning a RR with 5* and an S&B CAI, they kept it to about 560 ft/lb so only about 20 lb/ft more. Got about another 50 hp though so the top-end has room to breathe. As with Goose's experience, the intake made a sizable difference at high RPM.

 

[Ironwood]

Even the tuners aren't boosting torque much over the ProCal tune, there is a YouTube by SVT Performance tuning a RR with 5* and an S&B CAI, they kept it to about 560 ft/lb so only about 20 lb/ft more. Got about another 50 hp though so the top-end has room to breathe. As with Goose's experience, the intake made a sizable difference at high RPM.

I'm not sure you're comparing apples to apples, but please correct me if I'm wrong. The Procal literature advertises gains of 50 HP and 106 foot pounds of torque to 455 HP and 536 Torque, but that seems to be at the crank, not the wheels since stock is 405 HP and 430 torque. Aftermarket tuners are touting gains at the wheels, right? So 560 in torque at the wheels is way better than 536 at the crank.

 

[RaptorME]

That is crank hp and tq.

Sponsored