EXPY Tunes

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

OP
OP
M

Mike Wolfe

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Posts
479
Reaction score
174
Location
Tonopah AZ
Well
Feels nearly as quick as my 2013 Taurus SHO with PP & Livernois 93 octane calibration with 3 bar map
Had it on the dragstrip 4 years ago
Was in the winter here (about 85 degrees) & ran 3.8-3.9 seconds 0-60 time & 11.8-12.0 quarter mile times
Not planning to take the EXPY to the drag strip
Do not have a way to measure 0-60 times
Know for sure it would really blow the doors off of our company Escalades
Would bet that with dual injectors have enough fuel to run in the low 4's even though everything else is stock
do have then3:73 axle ratio though
 

Randy Schmidt

Full Access Members
Joined
May 15, 2018
Posts
446
Reaction score
198
Location
Illinois
Not trying to be a Debbie Downer because I am a huge fan of a tune and calibrating an ecu... However, I am in disbelief that an Expedition will ever run 0-60 in the low 4's... Maybe if it had quad turbos... lol
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
Well, I just shocked meeself!
Traction control off
Auto stop off
Normal mode instead of Sport because I forgot
2 Hi also cuz I forgot sport mode which automatically chooses 4auto.

This is .01 slower than my best on 4 wheels in 1/4 mile, and yes I loaded the tranny this time to 2000 rpm.
Unreal, this thing is 100% stock except 93 non ethanol and about .25 of 23 gallons left on board!

Screenshot_20180904-064549.png

Screenshot_20180904-064516.png
 

Randy Schmidt

Full Access Members
Joined
May 15, 2018
Posts
446
Reaction score
198
Location
Illinois
Well, I just shocked meeself!
Traction control off
Auto stop off
Normal mode instead of Sport because I forgot
2 Hi also cuz I forgot sport mode which automatically chooses 4auto.

This is .01 slower than my best on 4 wheels in 1/4 mile, and yes I loaded the tranny this time to 2000 rpm.
Unreal, this thing is 100% stock except 93 non ethanol and about .25 of 23 gallons left on board!

View attachment 26547

View attachment 26548
Amazing that your truck with 375hp can do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. I stand corrected. Maybe with a tune this thing can do 0-60 in mid 4's.
 

Blackscreen67

Born to spool
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Posts
379
Reaction score
85
Location
TEXAS
Well, I just shocked meeself!
Traction control off
Auto stop off
Normal mode instead of Sport because I forgot
2 Hi also cuz I forgot sport mode which automatically chooses 4auto.

This is .01 slower than my best on 4 wheels in 1/4 mile, and yes I loaded the tranny this time to 2000 rpm.
Unreal, this thing is 100% stock except 93 non ethanol and about .25 of 23 gallons left on board!

View attachment 26547

View attachment 26548

Have you done a brake boosted launch in 4wd? Can' remember. Also, you mind me asking how much you weigh? Trying to run the math for horsepower to the wheel.

Assuming total weight of 5900lbs at 13.62 1/4, that's 383hp at the rear and 415 at the crank.

If this is the case, then it wouldn't surprise me since it's not uncommon for vehicle specs to be underrated from the factory.
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
Amazing that your truck with 375hp can do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. I stand corrected. Maybe with a tune this thing can do 0-60 in mid 4's.

I'm not trying to pass these numbers off as gospel, that's what the track and timing lights are for, which I plan to go this weekend, weather permitting.
Also we need to remember that my truck has been through 3 tanks of pure, non-ethanol 93 octane gasoline, after a couple or so tanks of 87 then 93 with 10% ethanol. It's not just making 375hp anymore. In fact I would wager it is more than 400 as I'm almost certain the 400 Ford claims with 93 octane is gained with the all too common in USA 10% ethanol.
The F-150 forums are well aware of this, as are Mustang forums, regarding Ford's published hp claims, and 93 octane.

Here is a very good explanation...https://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
Have you done a brake boosted launch in 4wd? Can' remember. Also, you mind me asking how much you weigh? Trying to run the math for horsepower to the wheel.

Assuming total weight of 5900lbs at 13.62 1/4, that's 383hp at the rear and 415 at the crank.

If this is the case, then it wouldn't surprise me since it's not uncommon for vehicle specs to be underrated from the factory.

You and I are on the same page sir, see my reply above this post...
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
Have you done a brake boosted launch in 4wd? Can' remember. Also, you mind me asking how much you weigh? Trying to run the math for horsepower to the wheel.

Assuming total weight of 5900lbs at 13.62 1/4, that's 383hp at the rear and 415 at the crank.

If this is the case, then it wouldn't surprise me since it's not uncommon for vehicle specs to be underrated from the factory.

No, I've not tried to launch until this morning. Normally I put in Sport mode, which by default engages 4A, but I totally forgot to turn the knob to Sport, so by default I was in Normal mode and 2-HI.

My weight is between 235-245, plus I have an 11" drop receiver hitch (BlueOx), locking pin and 2-5/16" ball, hanging off the back end. Big difference today was THREE things...only about 4 gallons in tank vs 23...was in 2wd... launched@2000-2200rpm opposed to mashing it off idle ~750rpm
 
OP
OP
M

Mike Wolfe

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Posts
479
Reaction score
174
Location
Tonopah AZ
I still predict mine is doing 0-60 mph in the 4.0 to 4.5 second range with the 5 Star 93 octane performance/tow calibration
Do not have any way to verify
But sure runs demonstrably better
 

1955moose

Full Access Members
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Posts
6,004
Reaction score
1,351
I think you guys are optomistic on your 1/4 mile times. A 3500 pound car like a early 70's muscle car say a Plymouth road runner with a 425 hp hemi big block would run upper 12's to low 13's at best at the strip. Add 2300 pounds like the Expedition has, and your going to need at least 550 hp to get those numbers, and 112 to 118 mph speeds. Take it to the track, would be interesting what #s they do put down. My guess is mid 13's, 100-107 mph on top.

Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
 

Blackscreen67

Born to spool
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Posts
379
Reaction score
85
Location
TEXAS
No, I've not tried to launch until this morning. Normally I put in Sport mode, which by default engages 4A, but I totally forgot to turn the knob to Sport, so by default I was in Normal mode and 2-HI.

My weight is between 235-245, plus I have an 11" drop receiver hitch (BlueOx), locking pin and 2-5/16" ball, hanging off the back end. Big difference today was THREE things...only about 4 gallons in tank vs 23...was in 2wd... launched@2000-2200rpm opposed to mashing it off idle ~750rpm

At 6k 389 to the rear and 422 crank.
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
I think you guys are optomistic on your 1/4 mile times. A 3500 pound car like a early 70's muscle car say a Plymouth road runner with a 425 hp hemi big block would run upper 12's to low 13's at best at the strip. Add 2300 pounds like the Expedition has, and your going to need at least 550 hp to get those numbers, and 112 to 118 mph speeds. Take it to the track, would be interesting what #s they do put down. My guess is mid 13's, 100-107 mph on top.

Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk

I'm all for goon behavior at the proper venue. That said, I do plan to hit the strip, this weekend.

0-60 with a 3.73 rear end @5.5 is totally believable if you drink the same kool-aid I've been drinking. My estimated weight of a small expy 4x4 full of fuel is 5865lbs from what I've been able to find.
Number next, Ford has OAR built in to their PCM/ecu strategy.
Number after that, ethanol has lower btu than pure gasoline.
It is reasonable to believe pure gas vs 10% ethanol -90% gasoline the non ethanol gas will have 10% more btu's than the 90/10 mix that is prevalent all over USA.
I've been running 93 octane with zero ethanol for a couple of weeks now, there is no doubt there is more power on tap than when 87 with 10% ethanol was in there, it is in fact, that noticeable. If I had an arduous commute to and from work, like when I lived in Dallas, I'd be an 87+10% ethanol goon. Gratefully, I'm not, and I enjoy the difference from simply good quality fuel.

What I'm most curious about, is once I do get timing light certified numbers, if they are anywhere within 2-tenths of what this little device has registered, I see zero value (at least at the current prices) for a tune, before upgrading to a massive CAC replacement, for almost the same money. Longevity in mind, the bigger CAC will do wonders for this little V6 than a $650 tune.
I'm not bashing these companies offering a tune, OR those who've ponied up the money for a tune. I'm simply not convinced it is as fantastic as those companies' are touting for the price. There's a lot that can be done, for pennies on the dollar, in comparison without worrying about your warranty. Sure some would say going to the strip, with or without a tune is reason enough for Ford to void the warranty.
To that I say, bahhh humbug, as long as it's a test and tune, and I'm not actively competing for prizes or money, there's no issue.
Several motorcycles, as well as a 1992 z-28 25th anniversary were never excluded from warranty coverage, and they all spent a lot of time at the dragstrip. The z-28 got a new transmission that had the higher stall converter of the Corvette, at 42,000 miles...in 1995
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
I should have clarified, the cost of the tune, isn't that extraordinary, however if you don't have an N-Gauge, you have to buy it in order to tune these things.
So yes, $100-$200 for a few tunes is an awesome price, but I have to consider the cost of the device in my decision to move forward with my plans at the most cost effective means necessary.

I wonder how many people would be just as content simply buying 93 octane gas a few times, vs buying a device, plus a tune for $650 AND STILL be required to buy 93 octane gas.
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
At 6k 389 to the rear and 422 crank.

That is inline with my estimate...
~236lbs - me
~75lbs - blue ox wdh receiver
~5645 - XLT 4x4 fully fueled 23 gallon tank

I'm also very curious to know (likely will never get affirmation) if HDTow pkg in Expedition also has enhanced PCM tuning (especially at low end rpm ~ <3000rpm with possibly extra - momentary 3-4 psi increase in boost?).

Would make my perception of performance much more palatable/understandable.

IMG_20180904_185912548.jpg
 
OP
OP
M

Mike Wolfe

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Posts
479
Reaction score
174
Location
Tonopah AZ
OK All
I think the 5 star tune is worth every cent
I have the XLT with FX4 & the HD Tow package
Needed the N Gauge because the older programmers I have do not have enough memory capacity to hold the software necessary for the engine & trans.
I have always used premium fuel in it & I can assure everyone there is no way just using premium is going to come anywhere close to the performance I gained using the 93 octane performance/tow calibration from 5 Star
The difference is amazing
So you can either step up to the plate & purchase the N gauge tuner & enjoy amazing performance increases or not
That is certainly your choice:33:
 

5150 pops

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
296
Reaction score
81
Location
Virginia
I think you guys are optomistic on your 1/4 mile times. A 3500 pound car like a early 70's muscle car say a Plymouth road runner with a 425 hp hemi big block would run upper 12's to low 13's at best at the strip. Add 2300 pounds like the Expedition has, and your going to need at least 550 hp to get those numbers, and 112 to 118 mph speeds. Take it to the track, would be interesting what #s they do put down. My guess is mid 13's, 100-107 mph on top.

Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
One more little tidbit...how much torque were those Hemi's putting down? I doubt they were much more than 500ft/lbs???
They also roasted their tires too 6" wide bias ply.

I'm confident the 3.5 Ecoboost v6 is around 500ft/lbs + on good fuel and decent weather conditions.

And then you add in computer controlled auto shift, seems not too far fetched, but in due time, weather permitting, the mystery will be solved.
 
Last edited:

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
I'm confident the 3.5 Ecoboost v6 is around 600ft/lbs + on good fuel and decent weather conditions.

And then you add in computer controlled auto shift, seems not too far fetched, but in due time, weather permitting, the mystery will be solved.

No stock ecoboost will put down close to 600 lb ft of torque. You need to understand compression ratios and variable cam timing to get why 93 octane adds zero power to a stock ecoboost engine over 91 octane. Ford rates the ecoboosts output on premium 91 octane fuel already. Gen 1 425 lb ft, Gen 2 470 lb ft. The 3.5 is made for 91 octane fuel and when octane of lesser grade is used knock sensors sense and timing is retarded to avoid predetonation. AKA power is lost. Now when you put in 91 octane power is increased as the ECU is not commanding the engine to retard timing as much. It is made for 91 and when it is used it is retarding detonation the least. Using 93 octane will yield zero gain on power over 91 octane because to do so you would need to raise the compression ratio to use the power. Best way to add juice is add boost. Best way to do so is via A/M tune like Mike Wolfe is using. Then higher numbers are achievable. Without AM alterations you will not see anything higher than stock numbers.
 
Last edited:

1955moose

Full Access Members
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Posts
6,004
Reaction score
1,351
You were close, it's actually 490 ft lbs at 4000 rpm for a 70 model. 71 should be close. I was just spitballing. Could you imagine though stripping down a 18 model with the max tune, 93 octane, getting the stickiest tires, and imagine the look on the 2018 mustang guys faces with the 500 hp coyote motors when you pass him at the finish line. Let's see, no second, third seat, no tow hitch, driver's seat only, all carpets yanked, how much weight loss sans A/C. I'm predicting a sub 5000 pound pony car chaser.

Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
For reference a 2011 gen 1 6.7L powerstroke Turbo Diesel puts out 735 lb ft of torque.....the notion of a stock ecoboost of half it’s displacement coming close is not attainable. By no means am I saying higher numbers aren’t achieveable, you need to tune and alter from stock.
 
Last edited:
Top