Pulsar XT vs Ford Procal Tuner Dyno Comparison

[MWILD]

Wanted to follow up with more info on testing this over the weekend. The engine does exhibit a mild knock at low rpm when running the devices together. This may cause an issue over extended time of use. The knock events occur under low rpm high load, like tip in. Under wide open throttle like we tested on the Dyno, this is not an issue.

Just a reminder this is with 93 fuel, so running 91 or less octane could cause more issues unless you run a lower level on the Pulsar. So at this point, our calibrators are not condoning the use of the devices running in conjunction with each other.

Sounds like similar issue others were having using the JB4 using a higher maps stacked with the Ford Tune. I would think using a lower level, like 3 or 4 as mentioned should help alleviate the spark knock issue.

I’d be interested to see 93 octane gas w/one step colder plugs would help. Maybe even going to E30? Won’t know for sure until it’s tested

Sponsored

 

[Superchips_Mktg]

Sounds like similar issue others were having using the JB4 using a higher maps stacked with the Ford Tune. I would think using a lower level, like 3 or 4 as mentioned should help alleviate the spark knock issue.

I’d be interested to see 93 octane gas w/one step colder plugs would help. Maybe even going to E30? Won’t know for sure until it’s tested

Using Sport Mode will lessen any chance of issue as well, since it eliminates the low rpm/high load situations.

 

[MWILD]

Using Sport Mode will lessen any chance of issue as well, since it eliminates the low rpm/high load situations.

Just curious, do you know if the knock events were audible or was this something that was captured with a monitoring/logging tool?

 

[Dialtone]

My 5¢. For me I prefer the flatter less peaky tune of the Procal. Yes I'd be giving up peak tq/hp numbers but I'm no longer running 1/4 miles and looking for ideal shift points. Something that gives me a broader peak area would be my preference. Nice number. I know Cobb has a tune for 2.3l Mustangs but they don't mention an Accessport for Broncos. Hopefully that is in the works. Was very happy with the performance and tenability of the AP on my BMW 1 Series. I'd trade mine in in a heartbeat for one for our Bronco.

 

[Hemisfear]

So in conclusion the Ford Procal is the safer tune…good to know!

 

[Wildruby]

So in conclusion the Ford Procal is the safer tune…good to know!

Might be true, but from their posting how’d you get that?

if anything I applaud them for doing this and being transparent on results

 

[Cux211]

So in conclusion the Ford Procal is the safer tune…good to know!

You call it safer I’d call it extremely conservative leaving a ton on the table, what is really need is a viable option that doesn’t require having to get the vehicle in the tuners hands to get full custom flash capability with trans tuning

 

[TrailDust]

So in conclusion the Ford Procal is the safer tune…good to know!

How did you come to this conclusion from what they posted? All I see is if you stack the two tunes together, run the Pulsar on level 5 with the procal tune then there is a possibility of knock. Stand alone what leads you to say the Pulsar is not as safe?

 

[Gtrekker]

2.7 on the Dyno this morning for some competitive analysis. Who would like to see power/torque comparisons between the Ford Procal and Pulsar XT? We’ll also investigate the effects of running the two devices in conjunction with each other.


UPDATE Jan 19:

Alright guys, here are the dyno comparisons from our testing yesterday. This was done at our Sanford, FL location, our test Bronco runs a factory intake/exhaust system and 35" tires.

The stock run backed up what we've seen on dozens of different runs during our development time this past year. 272hp/347tq.

Flashing the Ford Procal into the vehicle, we saw a gain of 35hp and 32tq, for 307hp/379tq.

Next, the Pulsar XT, run on Level 5. New peaks of 321hp/420tq, which is +49hp/73tq over stock and +14hp/41tq over the Procal calibration.

Below is the graph comparing the Procal to the Pulsar XT.

And since so many of you asked, we reflashed the Procal into the Bronco and ran a couple final runs with the Procal calibration and Pulsar XT set to Level 5. Initially, we were surprised to see the gains we did but as we studied the data it all makes sense to see what we're seeing. Running the devices together peak jumped to 345hp/440tq, which is now +73hp/93tq over stock.

It appears the Procal device makes some changes to some torque management tables that we can't control through our inline Pulsar module, so with that internal calibration change, the affect of the airflow modifications the Pulsar XT requests are greater, and we're seeing a solid increase in output. It's worth noting that watching the data throughout the pulls, IAT and knock all remain well in the safe zone on 93 Octane. On first look, it appears there should be no real negative effect by running the devices together (if you run good 91+ Octane) but we aren't going to make that an official statement unless we were able to do a lot more testing, so do so at your own risk.

At the end of the day, we know the improved transmission shift strategies within the Procal are a big reason a consumer would go that route but the engine calibration is extremely mild and leaves a lot of safe/usable power on the table that our Pulsar XT can unleash. We're bias in thinking Pulsar offers a better user experience along with more power/torque. With no PC/Laptop required, an easy 15 minute plug and play install and an extremely intuitive smartphone app to control it all. The ease of calibrating tire size, setting your pedal sensitivity where you like it, navigating the app and ability to change power levels on the fly make it a win/win in comparison to Procal in our minds, not to mention Pulsar XT is less expensive. But this is the beauty of having options in the market. Take the data for what it's worth and please feel free to comment your thoughts or questions.

Very interesting....

What would be your thoughts on the Pulsar's performance on a 2.7 with a CAI, down pipes and Borla Exhaust?

I would think with the upgrades the numbers should improve...

But, it may not allow for a less restricted air flow. Hmmmm....

Thoughts...

Waiting for the hack has been a long wait and still waiting.

 

[Hemisfear]

How did you come to this conclusion from what they posted? All I see is if you stack the two tunes together, run the Pulsar on level 5 with the procal tune then there is a possibility of knock. Stand alone what leads you to say the Pulsar is not as safe?

Seriously?
The bigger the bang the shorter the life…

 

[Tex]

My 5¢. For me I prefer the flatter less peaky tune of the Procal. Yes I'd be giving up peak tq/hp numbers but I'm no longer running 1/4 miles and looking for ideal shift points. Something that gives me a broader peak area would be my preference. Nice number. I know Cobb has a tune for 2.3l Mustangs but they don't mention an Accessport for Broncos. Hopefully that is in the works. Was very happy with the performance and tenability of the AP on my BMW 1 Series. I'd trade mine in in a heartbeat for one for our Bronco.

Slightly peaky power curves like what was posted aren't a detriment with a 10 speed trans like they are with a 3 or even a 6 speed trans, and that's where a flatter curve has the definitive advantage because you can't keep the engine in a narrow range. With enough gears, you can keep it right there at that peak where the most power is developed, but you also need to leave some of that RPM range on the table and recalibrate shift points to accommodate that. Since we're working with a lot more gears, it makes more sense to have the trans shoot for that peak power and keep the engine where it wants to be...doing its most efficient work rather than sacrificing some of that easily made power to bolster the rest of the RPM where it doesn't want to be at. In an ideal world we'd have CVT's that hold the engine at that peak and keep it there until the CVT runs out of gear and RPM's have to increase, but a 10 speed is pretty close to that in practice. Judging by where that peak is happening, I'd say that 3500-4500 range is a great RPM for a V6 to be living at, you're not bumping the redline to make use of the whole curve or cramming a ton of boost in down low in an effort to flatten out a curve...it's a good RPM for the engine to breathe and make efficient power with nominal boost. I'd take a peaky curve with a trans adjustment in the Bronco over a flatter curve every time for a daily driver just as much as in race applications. I paid for 10 gears, I'm going to use all 10 of them.

If you look at the two tunes side by side, comparing the amount of power the procal makes over the xt after 5252RPM, there's not much gained overall. Before 5252RPM, you're leaving a whole lot of power on the table, not just that 50HP at peak but more power overall that's spread out over a 2000RPM range for the xt. It's actually more like a 3200RPM range but between 2000-3400RPM it's only a few HP difference, mostly trivial. With the procal you're giving all of that up just to gain a max of 12hp after 5252RPM in a short 500RPM range for the sole purpose of having the curve appear flatter. Even with a 3 speed trans, the XT would still provide more usable power in any situation. The question then becomes, how often are you needing a little more power above 5500RPM in a very short range, and are you willing to sacrifice up to 50HP everywhere else just to get it? Imagine you're looking at buying a tuner or CAI or whatever performance product online and the dyno chart they post is the one comparing the procal with the xt, now imagine the black line is a factory Bronco and the red line is what you get after the performance product...is that something you'd spend money on? I wouldn't even do that for free if a buddy gave one to me.

 

[Wildruby]

Seriously?
The bigger the bang the shorter the life…

Did you release the pinging was on a stacked tune?

they did that because we (the forum) have asked it a bunch of times (stacking tunes). Their answer was they had no idea and probably shouldn’t be paired together. Which would be most company’s answers. they didn’t stop at that, they went the extra mile and showed what would happen, pros and cons. I wish most companies would be this awesome and transparent.

 

[Dialtone]

Slightly peaky power curves like what was posted aren't a detriment with a 10 speed trans like they are with a 3 or even a 6 speed trans, and that's where a flatter curve has the definitive advantage because you can't keep the engine in a narrow range. With enough gears, you can keep it right there at that peak where the most power is developed, but you also need to leave some of that RPM range on the table and recalibrate shift points to accommodate that. Since we're working with a lot more gears, it makes more sense to have the trans shoot for that peak power and keep the engine where it wants to be...doing its most efficient work rather than sacrificing some of that easily made power to bolster the rest of the RPM where it doesn't want to be at. In an ideal world we'd have CVT's that hold the engine at that peak and keep it there until the CVT runs out of gear and RPM's have to increase, but a 10 speed is pretty close to that in practice. Judging by where that peak is happening, I'd say that 3500-4500 range is a great RPM for a V6 to be living at, you're not bumping the redline to make use of the whole curve or cramming a ton of boost in down low in an effort to flatten out a curve...it's a good RPM for the engine to breathe and make efficient power with nominal boost. I'd take a peaky curve with a trans adjustment in the Bronco over a flatter curve every time for a daily driver just as much as in race applications. I paid for 10 gears, I'm going to use all 10 of them.

If you look at the two tunes side by side, comparing the amount of power the procal makes over the xt after 5252RPM, there's not much gained overall. Before 5252RPM, you're leaving a whole lot of power on the table, not just that 50HP at peak but more power overall that's spread out over a 2000RPM range for the xt. It's actually more like a 3200RPM range but between 2000-3400RPM it's only a few HP difference, mostly trivial. With the procal you're giving all of that up just to gain a max of 12hp after 5252RPM in a short 500RPM range for the sole purpose of having the curve appear flatter. Even with a 3 speed trans, the XT would still provide more usable power in any situation. The question then becomes, how often are you needing a little more power above 5500RPM in a very short range, and are you willing to sacrifice up to 50HP everywhere else just to get it? Imagine you're looking at buying a tuner or CAI or whatever performance product online and the dyno chart they post is the one comparing the procal with the xt, now imagine the black line is a factory Bronco and the red line is what you get after the performance product...is that something you'd spend money on? I wouldn't even do that for free if a buddy gave one to me.

All true. What you didn't point out is that ideally the stock transmission will shift exactly at that ideal, narrower peak. If there is a DIY way to make that happen I'm sure many, including myself, would be interested. Bigger target if you have a broader plateau of peak torque. This assumes we're talking the stock auto 10Spd. I can see the torque advantage where acceleration is the sole requirement. I'm not an off road rock crawler type so I can't speak to whether a flatter curve is better than a leakier curve. I do know that if you're towing something a big old ironing board for your tq peak. My uneducated impression of rock crawling is it's not much different than towing. I would really appreciate someone educating me on that point. I come here to learn and hopefully contribute something useful in return.
To return to my first sentence; "My 5¢. For me I prefer the flatter less peaky tune of the Procal". Nothing you stated, no matter how factually accurate given your stated goals, changes my mind. Are both of us right? I'd say yes given our slightly different goals. Could we both be wrong? Not so much.
Fun back and forth. Thanks for that.
I really would like to know if a flatter torque peak is advantageous for low speed, grunt inducing conditions.

 

[Altitude]

As a Pulsar XT owner (I think its great), I would like to see the dyno numbers on stages 1-4 for a complete picture.

 

[Chaddy]

I have the Procal tune plus an aftermarket VR piggyback tuner and it’s awesome together. I like to play with buttons. lol So I like the ability to change the power curve to where I’m going to be driving(mountains, paved, sand, and snow).

Sponsored