Ford Fiesta ST Forum banner

My Cobb AP observations...

13275 Views 49 Replies 15 Participants Last post by  Soldjeepforst
Finally got the Cobb AP installed this morning. I initially installed the 91 octane stage 1 map due to everyone saying it was better than the 93 map. Peak boost on the 91 map was 19.92 psi, but on average it is hitting 19.5-ish. The max boost run that produced that number was in 2nd gear.
I was seeing 17-18 psi in first gear, but the gear run out is so short it's hard for me to visually read the gauge. I can't really tell on the butt-dyno if the engine is making any more power but I plan on doing a dyno test in a few weeks with all three maps (stock, 91 and 93) just so I can document the output differences on paper. I also tried the 93 octane stage 1 map and concur with others findings that it's not nearly as "responsive" as the 91 map. I have a feeling Cobb is going to want to go back to the drawing board in regards to the 93 map. I still think the 91 octane stage 1 map could be tweaked for a smidge more for a 93 octane car. Boost seems to taper down a bit too much as rpm climbs. I think I remember reading that the 93 map doesn't have quite the taper down and runs 1-2 psi higher at upper rpm. It just appears as if the A/F ratio targets are set too rich on the 93 map and that could be an issue. The engine seems a bit muffled compared to the 91. I was kind of hoping to see peak psi around at least 20.5 psi. Mine seems to be displaying peak boost numbers with nothing erratic showing up like others have. I only drove the FiST about 12 miles since I installed the 91 map. Wondering if all the short/long term fuel trims and speed density learning are erased with the reflash (I would think they would be). Overall I like the AP and can't wait for the Racer Access to be released.
See less See more
41 - 50 of 50 Posts
I've never seen (or never noticed) 91 at the pump. Around here we get 87, 89, 93. New England area.
Lucky i have seen 87 89 91 92 and if I hunt around a bit I can find 93.. there may even be a place around here that sells 100 race gas. But I have yet to find that unicorn.... fyi 93 with a 91 oct tune will work too
I've never seen (or never noticed) 91 at the pump. Around here we get 87, 89, 93. New England area.
In California we only get 87, 89, & 91 and not 93.
We can get 100 as well but that's way too much money.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave
ahh we get to the old debate would you rather be fast from 5k to 7k or fast from 3k to 6k rpm's ? After living with a hi rev no torque car I'll take the Phat low end torque curve and add to that ;) but thats just me
But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave
But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave
:hilarious:
  • Like
Reactions: 2
ahh we get to the old debate would you rather be fast from 5k to 7k or fast from 3k to 6k rpm's ? After living with a hi rev no torque car I'll take the Phat low end torque curve and add to that ;) but thats just me
X2

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Torque is where it's at for the fun factor. I came from Mustangs. Drove a Civic Si a few years ago thinking I could deal with the lack of torque. Wrong! Bought an '08 Mustang GT/CS :) My '86 GT was hilarious. It could pull stumps up to about 4K RPM, then it just fell flat. Burnouts were anti-climactic ... unless you could grab a shift and keep the tires spinning ;-)
But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave
Why do I knot even question this LOL :rotfl:
I too agree the change from stock is very impressive.

I just don't think the difference between 91 and 93 is worth the difference in fuel cost.
I think I will stay with the 91.

Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave
Yeah, there just isn't that much of a difference. Where I've seen the biggest difference in the two tunes is closed loop fuel economy, the stage 3 returns around 6-8% better.
Torque is where it's at for the fun factor. I came from Mustangs. Drove a Civic Si a few years ago thinking I could deal with the lack of torque. Wrong! Bought an '08 Mustang GT/CS :) My '86 GT was hilarious. It could pull stumps up to about 4K RPM, then it just fell flat. Burnouts were anti-climactic ... unless you could grab a shift and keep the tires spinning ;-)
Yeah, I had a 1986 GT convertible. Red with a white top, and white leather seats. 2.73 gears... lots of torque but not much of anything else. My FiST would blow the doors off of that car. The heads on '86 model 5.0s really sucked (not to mention the anemic plenum, lower intake manifold, throttle body and other differences). The '87 and up speed density 5.0s could breathe a lot better and ran a lot better. Then due to new emissions standards, they switched over to MAF in '89. The debate still rages on today which ran better. I know it was easier to use a B303 cam in the '89+ heh (better idle quality and drivability). Back in the day I ate, breathed and slept Mustang 5.0s (owned 7 of them: an '86, '88, two '89s, two '90s and a '91). The only "GT" model was the '86. The rest were all LX 5.0s in trunk back (notchback) or convertible. :eek:
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I'm not sure what mods you guys have but when I installed my downpipe I started getting 3-4 more psi. Max I've seen is 23.2 psi but when I get my pro tune next week it's going to adjusted to 24psi and a/f ratio brought down to 11ish.
41 - 50 of 50 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top