Mustang vs. F-150
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Mustang vs. F-150
I spend quite a bit of time on the Corral/Mustang board to see if any of the 4.6 Mustang modifications would carry over to my 4.6 F-150.
There is a night and day difference in opions on the effectiveness of the SuperChip between the two. It is obvious that the SuperChip is the chip of choice for the F-150. But most of the Mustang owners have anything good to say about the SuperChips.
How can F-150 owners be so satisfied while the Mustang owners aren't?
There is a night and day difference in opions on the effectiveness of the SuperChip between the two. It is obvious that the SuperChip is the chip of choice for the F-150. But most of the Mustang owners have anything good to say about the SuperChips.
How can F-150 owners be so satisfied while the Mustang owners aren't?
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi timteeee,
The Mustangs are tuning much more aggressively from teh factory than these F-150's are. These F-150's are tuned for 87 octane from the factory, while the 4.6 found in the Mustang GT's is tuned for premium gas already. SO while we still make power gains on the Mustangs, it's not as much as on the F-150's.
It's basically the difference between an engine that came from the factory with it's tuning already optimized for performance, as it is in the Mustang GT, versus an engine that was tuend to be able to run on the lowest octane fuels, like the 4.6 in the F-150.
While the maximum gain from the Superchip for the 4.6 in the F-150 is 26 horsepower, in the '99 & newer 260 horsepower 4.6 Mustang GT it's 15-18 horsepower.
Factory "musclecars" are virtuaklly always tuned more aggressively from the factory than trucks are, as they're 2 completley different types of vehicles, made for completly different purposes.
In these trucks, to get 260 horsepower from the stock factory motor, you have to go to the 5.4 motor, and this is one of the reasons why, these truck engines are all tuned much less aggressively.
The Mustangs are tuning much more aggressively from teh factory than these F-150's are. These F-150's are tuned for 87 octane from the factory, while the 4.6 found in the Mustang GT's is tuned for premium gas already. SO while we still make power gains on the Mustangs, it's not as much as on the F-150's.
It's basically the difference between an engine that came from the factory with it's tuning already optimized for performance, as it is in the Mustang GT, versus an engine that was tuend to be able to run on the lowest octane fuels, like the 4.6 in the F-150.
While the maximum gain from the Superchip for the 4.6 in the F-150 is 26 horsepower, in the '99 & newer 260 horsepower 4.6 Mustang GT it's 15-18 horsepower.
Factory "musclecars" are virtuaklly always tuned more aggressively from the factory than trucks are, as they're 2 completley different types of vehicles, made for completly different purposes.
In these trucks, to get 260 horsepower from the stock factory motor, you have to go to the 5.4 motor, and this is one of the reasons why, these truck engines are all tuned much less aggressively.
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Re: Mustang vs. F-150
Originally posted by timteeee
I spend quite a bit of time on the Corral/Mustang board to see if any of the 4.6 Mustang modifications would carry over to my 4.6 F-150.
There is a night and day difference in opions on the effectiveness of the SuperChip between the two. It is obvious that the SuperChip is the chip of choice for the F-150. But most of the Mustang owners have anything good to say about the SuperChips.
How can F-150 owners be so satisfied while the Mustang owners aren't?
I spend quite a bit of time on the Corral/Mustang board to see if any of the 4.6 Mustang modifications would carry over to my 4.6 F-150.
There is a night and day difference in opions on the effectiveness of the SuperChip between the two. It is obvious that the SuperChip is the chip of choice for the F-150. But most of the Mustang owners have anything good to say about the SuperChips.
How can F-150 owners be so satisfied while the Mustang owners aren't?
Do any of the Mustang owners ever use, or talk about, the Diablo chip ... at the Mustang board?
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Mike, I appreciate the response.
Those Mustang owners do talk favorably about chips, just not SuperChips (a few have mentioned Diablo). So if it was difficult to squeeze out power and performance from an already aggressively tuned Mustang 4.6, it would seem that none of the chips for the 4.6 would be worth the money.
I was just surprised that SuperChips wasn't the chip to have for a Mustang when they seem to work so well on an F-150.
Those Mustang owners do talk favorably about chips, just not SuperChips (a few have mentioned Diablo). So if it was difficult to squeeze out power and performance from an already aggressively tuned Mustang 4.6, it would seem that none of the chips for the 4.6 would be worth the money.
I was just surprised that SuperChips wasn't the chip to have for a Mustang when they seem to work so well on an F-150.
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Knoxville, TN
Originally posted by Superchips_Distributor
<snip>These F-150's are tuned for 87 octane from the factory, while the 4.6 found in the Mustang GT's is tuned for premium gas already.<snip>
<snip>These F-150's are tuned for 87 octane from the factory, while the 4.6 found in the Mustang GT's is tuned for premium gas already.<snip>
I can see why the Mustangs would be tuned more aggressively than the F-150s... I would hope the GTs are tuned more aggressively than the F-150s.
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi timtee,
You're very welcome.
This also depends somewhat on just which models of Mustang we're talking about here. In the earlier 5.0's that still use adjustable distributors, many of their owners prefer to just twist the distributor to bring in a gross timing adjustment. While this is not the best way to tune those vehicles of course, they can add some power like that, and it's usually those owners who tend to care less for performance chips in general.
In the newer models that do not have adjustable timing, those are the owners who generally prefer the use performance chips, as a loose general observation.
You're very welcome.
This also depends somewhat on just which models of Mustang we're talking about here. In the earlier 5.0's that still use adjustable distributors, many of their owners prefer to just twist the distributor to bring in a gross timing adjustment. While this is not the best way to tune those vehicles of course, they can add some power like that, and it's usually those owners who tend to care less for performance chips in general.
In the newer models that do not have adjustable timing, those are the owners who generally prefer the use performance chips, as a loose general observation.
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi Y2K4.2XL,
Thanks for your post, and there may well be a certain amount of truth to that, I'll tell you what we've seen, and then if you don't mind, I have a couple of questions at the end for you...............
In my own 1991 5.0 Mustang GT, while it's factory timing spec of 10 degrees BTDC would allow the use of 89 octane if it was good quality fuel without exhibiting audible detonation, it was clearly marked "premium fuel recommended" on the dash. It was not a "Cobra" model. Other than saying "premium fuel recommended", having a 140 mph speedo, and a higher redline on the tach, it's dash gauges, facing, background, etc. were darn near identical to the 1989 Mustang 4-banger of my wife's way back then. It was one of the things I hated about those older Mustang V-8 LX's & GT's, that cheap dash.
It's true that we do make more power gains on those 5.0's than we do on the newer 260-hp versions of the 4.6 which debuted in the 1999 model year, so while the 5.0's are *all* tuned more aggressively than these truck engines are, the 260-hp 4.6's which started in the Mustang GT in the 1999 model year are tuned more aggressively still.
The bottom line is that *all* of the computer-controlled V-8 engines in the Mustang are tuned substantially more aggressively than those same engines are tuned when used in these trucks, and that is the basic "issue" here which affects the results when installing a performance chip. Engines that are tuned more conservatively from the factory, like all of these truck engines, will gain more power from the Superchip than will an engine that was tuned for the use of premium gas from the factory to begin with, as this is our common limitation, the octane number that can be tuend for, and so we're limited to tuning for pump premium, except in custom or racing programs of course.
Interestingly, we gain considerably more power when retuning the 4.6 DOHC Cobra engine as it's installed in the 1993-1998 Lincoln Mark 8, which recommends premium gas from the factory, than we gain in that same motor as installed in the 1996-1999 Mustang Cobra. Now of course the Cobra's 4.6 DOHC motor has different camshafts than the Mark 8. Here again, it's a matter of just how aggressively it's tuned originally.
I have to say that I find it hard to believe that the 1999 & newer 260-hp GT 4.6 SOHC motor does not recommend the use of 91 octane or higher from the factory, but not owning one, I can't take a look at the owner's manual, so I have to take your word for it, and I'm glad you mentioned this so we can ask you.........
Since you own a 2000 260-hp 4.6 SOHC Mustang GT, perhaps you can share that with us, for example, in the owner's manual, does it tell you to use only 87 octane, as the trucks do? Or does it say that premium gas is "recommended", though not actually "required", etc? Is there no silkscreen on the dash gauge facing that says "premium fuel recommended", and no such statement under the fuel filler cap as well?
Thanks for bringing this up, & thanks in advance for providing the answers to those questions if you can, I appreciate it. We're so focused on these trucks around here that we see very few Mustangs these days, so I can only speak to those that I've seen or owned.
Thanks for your post, and there may well be a certain amount of truth to that, I'll tell you what we've seen, and then if you don't mind, I have a couple of questions at the end for you...............
In my own 1991 5.0 Mustang GT, while it's factory timing spec of 10 degrees BTDC would allow the use of 89 octane if it was good quality fuel without exhibiting audible detonation, it was clearly marked "premium fuel recommended" on the dash. It was not a "Cobra" model. Other than saying "premium fuel recommended", having a 140 mph speedo, and a higher redline on the tach, it's dash gauges, facing, background, etc. were darn near identical to the 1989 Mustang 4-banger of my wife's way back then. It was one of the things I hated about those older Mustang V-8 LX's & GT's, that cheap dash.
It's true that we do make more power gains on those 5.0's than we do on the newer 260-hp versions of the 4.6 which debuted in the 1999 model year, so while the 5.0's are *all* tuned more aggressively than these truck engines are, the 260-hp 4.6's which started in the Mustang GT in the 1999 model year are tuned more aggressively still.
The bottom line is that *all* of the computer-controlled V-8 engines in the Mustang are tuned substantially more aggressively than those same engines are tuned when used in these trucks, and that is the basic "issue" here which affects the results when installing a performance chip. Engines that are tuned more conservatively from the factory, like all of these truck engines, will gain more power from the Superchip than will an engine that was tuned for the use of premium gas from the factory to begin with, as this is our common limitation, the octane number that can be tuend for, and so we're limited to tuning for pump premium, except in custom or racing programs of course.
Interestingly, we gain considerably more power when retuning the 4.6 DOHC Cobra engine as it's installed in the 1993-1998 Lincoln Mark 8, which recommends premium gas from the factory, than we gain in that same motor as installed in the 1996-1999 Mustang Cobra. Now of course the Cobra's 4.6 DOHC motor has different camshafts than the Mark 8. Here again, it's a matter of just how aggressively it's tuned originally.
I have to say that I find it hard to believe that the 1999 & newer 260-hp GT 4.6 SOHC motor does not recommend the use of 91 octane or higher from the factory, but not owning one, I can't take a look at the owner's manual, so I have to take your word for it, and I'm glad you mentioned this so we can ask you.........
Since you own a 2000 260-hp 4.6 SOHC Mustang GT, perhaps you can share that with us, for example, in the owner's manual, does it tell you to use only 87 octane, as the trucks do? Or does it say that premium gas is "recommended", though not actually "required", etc? Is there no silkscreen on the dash gauge facing that says "premium fuel recommended", and no such statement under the fuel filler cap as well?
Thanks for bringing this up, & thanks in advance for providing the answers to those questions if you can, I appreciate it. We're so focused on these trucks around here that we see very few Mustangs these days, so I can only speak to those that I've seen or owned.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Knoxville, TN
OK, here goes, I feel funny posting this on the "F-150" site but here goes...
On page 169 of my '00 Mustang owners guide it says...
I don't think I have ever really read that word for word, it sounds kinda goofy... "Do not be concerned if your engine sometimes knocks lightly" ... sorry but I would be concerned.
FWIW I run 87 octane in it and it does not knock at all. Sometimes in my F-150 it will knock slightly with 87 when I pull my racecar.
One more note, I have the owners manual from my old 89 5.0 LX(I have had at least 10 Mustangs) and the first line under "Octane Rating" is exactly the same as the first line from the quote above.
On page 169 of my '00 Mustang owners guide it says...
Octane recommendations
Your vehicle is designed to use "Regular" unleaded gasoline with an (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. We do not recommend the use of gasolines labeled as "Regular" that are sold with octane ratings of 86 or lower in high altitude areas.
Do not be concerned if your engine sometimes knocks lightly. However, if it knocks heavily under most driving conditions while you are using fuel with the recommended octane ratings, see your dealer or a qualified service technician to prevent any engine damage.
Your vehicle is designed to use "Regular" unleaded gasoline with an (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. We do not recommend the use of gasolines labeled as "Regular" that are sold with octane ratings of 86 or lower in high altitude areas.
Do not be concerned if your engine sometimes knocks lightly. However, if it knocks heavily under most driving conditions while you are using fuel with the recommended octane ratings, see your dealer or a qualified service technician to prevent any engine damage.
FWIW I run 87 octane in it and it does not knock at all. Sometimes in my F-150 it will knock slightly with 87 when I pull my racecar.
One more note, I have the owners manual from my old 89 5.0 LX(I have had at least 10 Mustangs) and the first line under "Octane Rating" is exactly the same as the first line from the quote above.
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Knoxville, TN
Originally posted by Superchips_Distributor
Hi timtee,
You're very welcome.
This also depends somewhat on just which models of Mustang we're talking about here. In the earlier 5.0's that still use adjustable distributors, many of their owners prefer to just twist the distributor to bring in a gross timing adjustment. While this is not the best way to tune those vehicles of course, they can add some power like that, and it's usually those owners who tend to care less for performance chips in general.
In the newer models that do not have adjustable timing, those are the owners who generally prefer the use performance chips, as a loose general observation.
Hi timtee,
You're very welcome.
This also depends somewhat on just which models of Mustang we're talking about here. In the earlier 5.0's that still use adjustable distributors, many of their owners prefer to just twist the distributor to bring in a gross timing adjustment. While this is not the best way to tune those vehicles of course, they can add some power like that, and it's usually those owners who tend to care less for performance chips in general.
In the newer models that do not have adjustable timing, those are the owners who generally prefer the use performance chips, as a loose general observation.
Sheeew, I'm finished with Mustang 101 now...
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi Y2K4.2XL,
OK, & thanks very much for that info from the owner's manual for your 2000 GT.
I would agree, I don't care much for that statement of if it knocks lightly that's OK, though it is generally true that for actual engine damage to result from detonation, it usually has to be fairly heavy and/or prolonged.
OK, & thanks very much for that info from the owner's manual for your 2000 GT.
I would agree, I don't care much for that statement of if it knocks lightly that's OK, though it is generally true that for actual engine damage to result from detonation, it usually has to be fairly heavy and/or prolonged.
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
I feel that my point is still being missed here. The 4.6 Mustang owners (along with the 4.6 Crown Vic and T-Bird owners) don't recommend Superchips. Rather they prefer other chips.
Regardless of how aggressively tuned a Mustang, Crown Vic or T-Bird 4.6 engine is tuned from the factory, if any chip was going to make a difference, I would have thought it would have been the Superchip. But that doesn't appear to be the case.
I understand that more power can be extracted from a F-150 4.6 w/ a Superchip than a Mustang 4.6 w/ a Superchip due to factory tuning. But that was never the point or issue I was trying to clarify.
So to finish beating this into the ground, I'll try to phrase this differently. SuperChips claims to be the top of the line, premier chip maker. So that would explain why SuperChips beats out the other chips for the F-150. But when it comes to other models w/ the 4.6, why does it fail? Shouldn't SuperChips outperform all other chips, regardless of model? Or as some recent postings have stated, is information being skewed?
Regardless of how aggressively tuned a Mustang, Crown Vic or T-Bird 4.6 engine is tuned from the factory, if any chip was going to make a difference, I would have thought it would have been the Superchip. But that doesn't appear to be the case.
I understand that more power can be extracted from a F-150 4.6 w/ a Superchip than a Mustang 4.6 w/ a Superchip due to factory tuning. But that was never the point or issue I was trying to clarify.
So to finish beating this into the ground, I'll try to phrase this differently. SuperChips claims to be the top of the line, premier chip maker. So that would explain why SuperChips beats out the other chips for the F-150. But when it comes to other models w/ the 4.6, why does it fail? Shouldn't SuperChips outperform all other chips, regardless of model? Or as some recent postings have stated, is information being skewed?
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi timtee,
Well, what you're really expressing is opinion, not fact, and that's where this kind of "logic" tends to break down. It's easy to *say* just about anything, but until you get down to correct & accurate dyno testing and/or correctly formatted back-to-back track testing with ECU being cleared after program changes and cool-down times between the runs, combined with monitoring the Air/Fuel ratios being run in real time, which is very rarely done by the average hot-rodder, it's all talk, opinion, & personal preference at best.
We're not leaving any power "laying on the table" on the 4.6 Mustangs in their powertrain programming. There aren't any "secrets" or "tricks" to making power via powertrain programming on those vehicles that Superchips isn't very well aware of.
There are, however, some tuners playing with leaning out the A/F's @ WOT to bring power up more, and that is something we don't take chances with, we keep the A/F's very safe. So it is possible to make more power than we are, but only by taking chances that we won't.
The bottom line is that no matter how good the Superchip is on any given vehicle, not everybody is always going to think that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Few things in this world will ever be 100% other than the basic fact that we're all food for worms, ultimately.
If you ever want to answer this for yourself, I would suggest locating a good eddy current chassis dyno equipped to be able to monitor A/F's in real time, get your various chips assembled and ready, and then go to it and see for yourself whose chip is making what power and at what A/F ratios.
Take care & thanks for your post!
Well, what you're really expressing is opinion, not fact, and that's where this kind of "logic" tends to break down. It's easy to *say* just about anything, but until you get down to correct & accurate dyno testing and/or correctly formatted back-to-back track testing with ECU being cleared after program changes and cool-down times between the runs, combined with monitoring the Air/Fuel ratios being run in real time, which is very rarely done by the average hot-rodder, it's all talk, opinion, & personal preference at best.
We're not leaving any power "laying on the table" on the 4.6 Mustangs in their powertrain programming. There aren't any "secrets" or "tricks" to making power via powertrain programming on those vehicles that Superchips isn't very well aware of.
There are, however, some tuners playing with leaning out the A/F's @ WOT to bring power up more, and that is something we don't take chances with, we keep the A/F's very safe. So it is possible to make more power than we are, but only by taking chances that we won't.
The bottom line is that no matter how good the Superchip is on any given vehicle, not everybody is always going to think that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Few things in this world will ever be 100% other than the basic fact that we're all food for worms, ultimately.
If you ever want to answer this for yourself, I would suggest locating a good eddy current chassis dyno equipped to be able to monitor A/F's in real time, get your various chips assembled and ready, and then go to it and see for yourself whose chip is making what power and at what A/F ratios.
Take care & thanks for your post!
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Originally posted by timteeee
I feel that my point is still being missed here. The 4.6 Mustang owners (along with the 4.6 Crown Vic and T-Bird owners) don't recommend Superchips. Rather they prefer other chips.
I feel that my point is still being missed here. The 4.6 Mustang owners (along with the 4.6 Crown Vic and T-Bird owners) don't recommend Superchips. Rather they prefer other chips.
"The 4.6 Mustang owners (along with the 4.6 Crown Vic and T-Bird owners)" have purchased Suerchips and used them, tried other chips and preferred them ... because they, in their own opinion, thought they performed better than the Superchip ... and probably backed-up their "opinions" with quicker ET's? Why *else* would they prefer *other* chips?
Did I get your point?
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Superchips_Distributor
If you ever want to answer this for yourself, I would suggest locating a good eddy current chassis dyno equipped to be able to monitor A/F's in real time, get your various chips assembled and ready, and then go to it and see for yourself whose chip is making what power and at what A/F ratios.
If you ever want to answer this for yourself, I would suggest locating a good eddy current chassis dyno equipped to be able to monitor A/F's in real time, get your various chips assembled and ready, and then go to it and see for yourself whose chip is making what power and at what A/F ratios.
That reminds me ...
Remember when I mentioned that this very thing hapened "... get your various chips assembled and ready ...", with all the *major* chip makers present and ready for their "shoot-out", trying to see which chip made the most power and the "fastest chip"? BTW, Ed Wright's "FastChip" won. You can claim that Superchip went in with an untweaked "out-of-the-box chip", but I'd bet that they took every measure to try and ensure that they would walk away from the "shoot-out" bragging about having the fastest chip. Just my opinion.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 4
From: Friendswood Texas
is it against the rules to post what something cost?
how much is a superchip? how much is the diablo?
buffalozone is the diablo really RU-EEELS, and is a lot cheaper you can stop your campaigning soon as people will start to post similar responses and better yet drag strip times.
a 3400 lb 260 h.p. mustang with a stick and a 4500 lbs truck with 220 h.p. and an automatic are very, very different (i think that most people into mustang performace have a 5 speed).
most people that are happy with the superchip really like what it does for the trans.
maybee with with the 5-speed, the superchip and the diablo are on a more level playing field and this is where the cost is an issue.
how much is a superchip? how much is the diablo?
buffalozone is the diablo really RU-EEELS, and is a lot cheaper you can stop your campaigning soon as people will start to post similar responses and better yet drag strip times.
a 3400 lb 260 h.p. mustang with a stick and a 4500 lbs truck with 220 h.p. and an automatic are very, very different (i think that most people into mustang performace have a 5 speed).
most people that are happy with the superchip really like what it does for the trans.
maybee with with the 5-speed, the superchip and the diablo are on a more level playing field and this is where the cost is an issue.