-
Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features
Welcome to the #1 Explorer ST Forum and Explorer ST community dedicated to Explorer ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Explorer ST Forum today!
Best tune for 2020 Ford Explorer ST
- Thread starter JHeckler69
- Start date
Not quite.
E50 is the highest concentration you can run with a Tune where you are getting full power on the Stock Pump. On my ST, everything else stock that was good for a 0-60 of 3.75. You get E50 by using an app to calculate how much E85 and 93(E10) to mix.
93(E10) - A tune from the same Company(ZFG) for 93(E10 - Percentage VA requires pump gas to have of Ethanol) was good for a 0-60 of 4.06.
E85, If you want to run it at full potential you need an upgraded HPFP(High Pressure Fuel Pump). It is a $1600 device.
ZFG offers an E85 tune that will work with the Stock Pump. It is turned back. Advantages is it is slightly quicker than a 93(E10) tune at a 0-60 of 4.01 for me. It also gains a 10th or a little more in the 1/4 vs 93. Other advantage is no mixing, just drive up and Pump.
Hope that helps a bit...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
E50 is the highest concentration you can run with a Tune where you are getting full power on the Stock Pump. On my ST, everything else stock that was good for a 0-60 of 3.75. You get E50 by using an app to calculate how much E85 and 93(E10) to mix.
93(E10) - A tune from the same Company(ZFG) for 93(E10 - Percentage VA requires pump gas to have of Ethanol) was good for a 0-60 of 4.06.
E85, If you want to run it at full potential you need an upgraded HPFP(High Pressure Fuel Pump). It is a $1600 device.
ZFG offers an E85 tune that will work with the Stock Pump. It is turned back. Advantages is it is slightly quicker than a 93(E10) tune at a 0-60 of 4.01 for me. It also gains a 10th or a little more in the 1/4 vs 93. Other advantage is no mixing, just drive up and Pump.
Hope that helps a bit...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
3
- Show All
My Dragy battery died and the road is now wet so I'll have to wait until tomorrow for 0-60 times with the canned tune. Baseline was a 5.72, DA was a lousy 4328ft. That seems to be as good as mine will do stock.
I managed to get the SCT pre-load 91 octane tune to work.
Before, it built boost fairly quickly and spiked up to 17 lbs of boost and then fell back to around 16 lbs on the X4.
With the canned 91 tune, it now goes to 18.5 lbs pretty much instantly, holds there, and it pulls much harder past 5000 rpms.
Stay tuned
for results. Not sure it feels strong enough to break into the 4's with this tune but we will see.
I managed to get the SCT pre-load 91 octane tune to work.
Before, it built boost fairly quickly and spiked up to 17 lbs of boost and then fell back to around 16 lbs on the X4.
With the canned 91 tune, it now goes to 18.5 lbs pretty much instantly, holds there, and it pulls much harder past 5000 rpms.
Stay tuned
for results. Not sure it feels strong enough to break into the 4's with this tune but we will see.
Results from the Canned 91 octane tune from SCT, loaded onto my X4 that I still had from my previous Ex Sport. Baseline on Friday was a 5.72 with a DA of 4328 ft.
Slightly better DA today at 3021 ft.
0-60 was 5.14 (4.94 with a 1 ft rollout) So it was close to a 6/10ths improvement with the canned tune for my vehicle.
I did get some weird behaviour, it spun the tires the first time I got it up on the brake so I aborted that run and then tried to launch it with a bit less throttle and the traction control light flashed, even though I had it turned off.
I then did a backup run less than a minute later and it had a better 0-30 time but it fell off slightly from heatsoak, 5.30.
Not bad for just loading a canned tune from a tuner I had sitting on my shelf.
Slightly better DA today at 3021 ft.
0-60 was 5.14 (4.94 with a 1 ft rollout) So it was close to a 6/10ths improvement with the canned tune for my vehicle.
I did get some weird behaviour, it spun the tires the first time I got it up on the brake so I aborted that run and then tried to launch it with a bit less throttle and the traction control light flashed, even though I had it turned off.
I then did a backup run less than a minute later and it had a better 0-30 time but it fell off slightly from heatsoak, 5.30.
Not bad for just loading a canned tune from a tuner I had sitting on my shelf.
Attachments
-
1
- Show All
As Lokiwolf said, I updated the tuner.
I had updated the tuner recently on my laptop and then plugged it into my ST. It uploaded the tune over WiFi in my driveway and I flashed it. SCT has an 87, 91, and 93 octane tunes. I had 91 in the tank at the time so I used that tune. Next tank, I'll fill it with 94 octane (no 93 octane in BC, 91 or 94 are our choices, both are ethanol free) and try out the 93 tune.
I had updated the tuner recently on my laptop and then plugged it into my ST. It uploaded the tune over WiFi in my driveway and I flashed it. SCT has an 87, 91, and 93 octane tunes. I had 91 in the tank at the time so I used that tune. Next tank, I'll fill it with 94 octane (no 93 octane in BC, 91 or 94 are our choices, both are ethanol free) and try out the 93 tune.
-
1
- Show All
Anything you can show me to back up that statement? I would agree that an ethanol blended 91 can be tuned to beat out straight 91 but not buying that the 87 with 10% ethanol would out perform it.
Yes, ethanol is very effective for knock suppression but there are plenty of other methods that can suppress knock in fuel.
I've got plenty of logs from working with my tuner on my mustang that show plenty of knock activity with ethanol blended 91 octane fuel. The inconsistency in the blend and the performance is very pronounced.
Yes, ethanol is very effective for knock suppression but there are plenty of other methods that can suppress knock in fuel.
I've got plenty of logs from working with my tuner on my mustang that show plenty of knock activity with ethanol blended 91 octane fuel. The inconsistency in the blend and the performance is very pronounced.
Chemistry. Ethanol isn’t just about knock prevention. Cooling, slower frame front, also contribute.
There was a VW tuner in Canada who documented it on several Dyno tuned GTI’s. On my phone, so can’t find the link currently. Might be able to find it later.
In addition, you cannot compare forced induction tuning to NA tuning on your Mustang. It is not the same. I should have clarified. I have no idea whether my first statement would be true on a NA motor. I have no data on that. On our EB motors 87 E10 when tuned has more potential for power than 94 E0 when tuned.
You could do a little experiment. Won’t be quite the same, but would be interesting all the same.
3 0-60’s in a row on 94 with the SCT tune.
Next tank run 87 E10 with SCT’s 87 tune and do 3 0-60’s in a row.
I curious how the first run compares in both cases, and then to see how much it falls off.
That is the biggest difference in my ZFG turned back E85 and 93. It is only slightly faster, but it sees a lot more consistency in heat, and doesn’t fall off as much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
There was a VW tuner in Canada who documented it on several Dyno tuned GTI’s. On my phone, so can’t find the link currently. Might be able to find it later.
In addition, you cannot compare forced induction tuning to NA tuning on your Mustang. It is not the same. I should have clarified. I have no idea whether my first statement would be true on a NA motor. I have no data on that. On our EB motors 87 E10 when tuned has more potential for power than 94 E0 when tuned.
You could do a little experiment. Won’t be quite the same, but would be interesting all the same.
3 0-60’s in a row on 94 with the SCT tune.
Next tank run 87 E10 with SCT’s 87 tune and do 3 0-60’s in a row.
I curious how the first run compares in both cases, and then to see how much it falls off.
That is the biggest difference in my ZFG turned back E85 and 93. It is only slightly faster, but it sees a lot more consistency in heat, and doesn’t fall off as much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
1
- Show All
Explorer ST Posts
-
-
-
-
-
2025 Rear driver side night time driving light fail- Latest: 23 Explorer ST
-
-
-
