From MPT back to PC

[Spartan1]

Ummm. Yes. And absolutely none of them offer "finer "throttle signals to the pcm than the stock ford maps. None

hmmm, I'm not sure about this one. The pedal commander has "eco" settings that one might say offers "finer" control. They claim that it can even save you some gas mileage. I'm definitely not here to discuss the definition of "finer", but if I was, I would say that it means (of better quality)... and quality is in the eye of the beholder (not just beauty). All that I know is that when my wife says "fine" it does not mean "fine".

 

[Smokeshow60]

hmmm, I'm not sure about this one. The pedal commander has "eco" settings that one might say offers "finer" control. They claim that it can even save you some gas mileage. I'm definitely not here to discuss the definition of "finer", but if I was, I would say that it means (of better quality)... and quality is in the eye of the beholder (not just beauty). All that I know is that when my wife says "fine" it does not mean "fine".

I think he ment #2 https://www.google.com/search?q=dic...zon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=fine

 

[Spartan1]

I think he ment #2 https://www.google.com/search?q=dic...zon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=fine

Yeah he likely did if you look at the context.

If he meant #2 then you are actually wrong since that little box has positive and negative settings. If finer = more or less sensitive is debatable I suppose

If he meant #1 then you may or may not be wrong. It would be a matter of opinion and I disagree with you. It is "finer"

Granted, the overall argument that you are trying to make is sort of a sound one. Not like it adds hp or tq but who cares. It's not like a bottle of Jack Daniels adds speed or strength but it sure feels like it. I'll have a double...are you sure you don't want one?

 

[FreightTerrain]

Yeah he likely did if you look at the context.

If he meant #2 then you are actually wrong since that little box has positive and negative settings. If finer = more or less sensitive is debatable I suppose

If he meant #1 then you may or may not be wrong. It would be a matter of opinion and I disagree with you. It is "finer"

Granted, the overall argument that you are trying to make is sort of a sound one. Not like it adds hp or tq but who cares. It's not like a bottle of Jack Daniels adds speed or strength but it sure feels like it. I'll have a double...are you sure you don't want one?

i like my pc. i cant afford jack cuz i bought an expensive truck and ended up putting too much money in it. pass me the kentucky tavern

 

[CROOKS]

There is a huge difference between the PC and a MPT tune. I sold my PC after the truck got tuned.
For the guys that think its even close go for a ride in a tuned truck. It will change your mind.

 

[bfr]

The stock raptor is slower than the regular ecoboost pickup and it’s about tie with a Silverado with a 6.2. It’s not a rocket.

hmmmmm???

From Motor Trend Truck of the Year Testing 2017 (and elsewhere):

Stock Raptor = 450hp, 510 lb-ft, 0-60 in 5.2sec, 1/4 in 13.9 sec @ 97.3 mph
Reg Ecoboost = 375hp, 470 lb-ft, 0-60 in 6.1sec, 1/4 in 14.7 sec @ 95.0 mph
Fastest Gen1 Raptor = 0-60 in 6.5 and a 1/4 in 15.1 sec @ 91.3 mph
Chevy Silverado 6.2L V8 = 420 hp, 460 lb-ft, 0-60 in ~6.9sec

 

[Guy]

Their numbers are inaccurate.

Fake news


5.2 seconds? The only people who believe it is John Hennessey and other sensational media. Just like the goof wth a tune who told Roman from TFL he was going to run in the 4s and he did 6.3 instead at a mile above sea level.

Look at real world testing. 100 percent stock at sea level it’s a 5.7-6 second truck. Same ballpark as a totally stock ecoboost with street tires.

I challenge anyone to show some slips and/or use a real 0-60 timer and post results. If you’re a stud with 93 octane maybe you’ll get into the high 5’s,

I love my truck, but I have no disillusion that it’s in the ballpark of a performance car or performance SUV when it comes to acceleration. The physics don’t even support that assertation. Best case scenario is that it’s putting 360 to the ground stock, with 5700 pounds and 35 x 12.5 tires in a less than aerodynamic shell.

My truck with a tune, catback, intercooler, CAI, and recently added SPD adapters (which didn’t seem to do anything)... with good 93 octane and some octane boost for good measure, on a dry flat road on a cool day will do 4.9... once I timed a 4.7 but I think it was bad data because I haven’t been able to repeat it.

I know I’m sure someone will chime in and say I must just have a slow one.... except oddly.... I’ve never had a wrench, a rattle, a whine, a leak, or a problem at 13000 miles.
So I think my truck is of decent QC.

hmmmmm???

From Motor Trend Truck of the Year Testing 2017 (and elsewhere):

Stock Raptor = 450hp, 510 lb-ft, 0-60 in 5.2sec, 1/4 in 13.9 sec @ 97.3 mph
Reg Ecoboost = 375hp, 470 lb-ft, 0-60 in 6.1sec, 1/4 in 14.7 sec @ 95.0 mph
Fastest Gen1 Raptor = 0-60 in 6.5 and a 1/4 in 15.1 sec @ 91.3 mph
Chevy Silverado 6.2L V8 = 420 hp, 460 lb-ft, 0-60 in ~6.9sec

 

[mmacfn]

So guy

How much does catback, intercooler & CAI change on top of the MTP tune?

Their numbers are inaccurate.

Fake news


5.2 seconds? The only people who believe it is John Hennessey and other sensational media. Just like the goof wth a tune who told Roman from TFL he was going to run in the 4s and he did 6.3 instead at a mile above sea level.

Look at real world testing. 100 percent stock at sea level it’s a 5.7-6 second truck. Same ballpark as a totally stock ecoboost with street tires.

I challenge anyone to show some slips and/or use a real 0-60 timer and post results. If you’re a stud with 93 octane maybe you’ll get into the high 5’s,

I love my truck, but I have no disillusion that it’s in the ballpark of a performance car or performance SUV when it comes to acceleration. The physics don’t even support that assertation. Best case scenario is that it’s putting 360 to the ground stock, with 5700 pounds and 35 x 12.5 tires in a less than aerodynamic shell.

My truck with a tune, catback, intercooler, CAI, and recently added SPD adapters (which didn’t seem to do anything)... with good 93 octane and some octane boost for good measure, on a dry flat road on a cool day will do 4.9... once I timed a 4.7 but I think it was bad data because I haven’t been able to repeat it.

I know I’m sure someone will chime in and say I must just have a slow one.... except oddly.... I’ve never had a wrench, a rattle, a whine, a leak, or a problem at 13000 miles.
So I think my truck is of decent QC.

 

[kpg81]

This forum makes me laugh.

Same with all the "Fake News" jackasses who drank Trump/Twitter ****** fake news BS and brainwashed his followers.

Now auto mags are being called "Fake News"?? It's Motor Trend. Their numbers are as accurate as the tools they use to just compare vehicles to each other... The same way a Dynojet and Mustang Dyno cannot be compared... They are just testing tools to compare runs.

Seriously, Trump and his Hollywood social media antics are ruining this country. The only thing Fake is his ******** presidency and the tards who have been dumb enough to be brainwashed by him.

 

[Guy]

I can’t say because the catback and CAI were done at the same time and I’ve tried them with the tune on a run but not separate. I didn’t time just the tune by itself. I should have but I didn’t have a reliable method.

And to the SOCAL guy.... you assume I’m a Trump guy..., nope... I’m a raptor driving lib.

I’m not so sure motortrend faked any numbers.... but they tested under ideal conditions with professional drivers I’m sure....

And.... who is to say Ford didn’t give them a cherry sample? My guess is they did.