Short Review of Brenspeed tune for 2010 GT
01-01-2010, 06:32 PM
#21
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 54
Ok, I've read the whole thread and I been given the impression that after paying 300-400 dollars for the tune no one is sure the car is any quicker. All anybody had is a vague seat of the pants possibility of improvement.
Wow! Brenspeed should go back to the drawing board if no one can be sure of an improvement. This is disappointing, I was hoping that a tune would bring my GT to life. In the past, a tune made a very noticeable difference.
JE
Wow! Brenspeed should go back to the drawing board if no one can be sure of an improvement. This is disappointing, I was hoping that a tune would bring my GT to life. In the past, a tune made a very noticeable difference.
JE
Last edited by JaggedEdge; 01-01-2010 at 06:40 PM.
01-01-2010, 06:49 PM
#22
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 242
Ok, I've read the whole thread and I been given the impression that after paying 300-400 dollars for the tune no one is sure the car is any quicker. All anybody had is a vague seat of the pants possibility of improvement.
Wow! Brenspeed should go back to the drawing board if no one can be sure of an improvement. This is disappointing, I was hoping that a tune would bring my GT to life. In the past, a tune made a very noticeable difference.
JE
Wow! Brenspeed should go back to the drawing board if no one can be sure of an improvement. This is disappointing, I was hoping that a tune would bring my GT to life. In the past, a tune made a very noticeable difference.
JE
I dont know personally, I would rather have to go to the floor for the power, so its easier to just cruise. Especially since my car will eventually see snow i'm sure.
It does give more on the Dino power though I do believe
Last edited by def67; 01-01-2010 at 06:54 PM. Reason: adding stuff
01-27-2010, 04:22 PM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 599
Update -
I have now run the Brenspeed 87, 89 and 91 tune in my 2010 Mustang and compared to the stock Ford tune for several weeks. The observations I have made earlier in this thread and now are all from seat of the pants street driving. I have not dyno'd or ran on a track.
Since I have already provided my impressions of the 91 tune earlier, now I am providing my impressions of the 87 and 89.
Both the 87 and 89 have a quicker throttle response than stock. The 89 tune is actually pretty nice for throttle response. It is quicker throttle than stock but not overly sensitive. The 87 and 89 are both more linear than the 91 tune for throttle. However, the performance of both the 87 and 89 tune are below stock on upper speeds. I think the 89 feels quicker to 60 mph than stock. The 89 feels more torquey off of the line. BUT at freeway speeds both of these tunes are dogs. If you run 3rd gear full throttle from 80 to 110 mph the stock tune is far punchier and faster. The engine feels strained somehow with the 89 or 87 tune at these higher speeds.
So far - Stock tune is best. At least on my car.
Anyone interested in buying the tuner - obviously you would have to load your own tune files, but I cannot see why I would keep the tuner itself since stock is best for now......
I have now run the Brenspeed 87, 89 and 91 tune in my 2010 Mustang and compared to the stock Ford tune for several weeks. The observations I have made earlier in this thread and now are all from seat of the pants street driving. I have not dyno'd or ran on a track.
Since I have already provided my impressions of the 91 tune earlier, now I am providing my impressions of the 87 and 89.
Both the 87 and 89 have a quicker throttle response than stock. The 89 tune is actually pretty nice for throttle response. It is quicker throttle than stock but not overly sensitive. The 87 and 89 are both more linear than the 91 tune for throttle. However, the performance of both the 87 and 89 tune are below stock on upper speeds. I think the 89 feels quicker to 60 mph than stock. The 89 feels more torquey off of the line. BUT at freeway speeds both of these tunes are dogs. If you run 3rd gear full throttle from 80 to 110 mph the stock tune is far punchier and faster. The engine feels strained somehow with the 89 or 87 tune at these higher speeds.
So far - Stock tune is best. At least on my car.
Anyone interested in buying the tuner - obviously you would have to load your own tune files, but I cannot see why I would keep the tuner itself since stock is best for now......
01-27-2010, 07:59 PM
#27
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 659
01-27-2010, 08:31 PM
#28
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 599
Also, what tunes did you have done? What octane? Rear O2's on or off? anything else?
My processor code is JVE3
My top tune was 91 octane (cannot get more in CA) and rear O2's left on.
01-27-2010, 10:26 PM
#29
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 402
This is an interesting item to consider. Though I've never read of previous model year vehicles being processor version sensitive to an installed tune. Could've missed this feedback though -- with the vast amount of posts out there on this subject.
The butt dyno is such a subjective measure; maybe you're looking for responses in your tune that others aren't?
With tuner in hand, I have no tune installed. Yet.
The butt dyno is such a subjective measure; maybe you're looking for responses in your tune that others aren't?
With tuner in hand, I have no tune installed. Yet.
01-28-2010, 01:01 AM
#30
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange county, CA
Posts: 505
Well I got to say I am not happy with my 91 tune (cali). My idle is wack, Car will almost stall sometimes. Pings at high rpms, and it has flat spots. To get rid of the pinging brenspeed told me to retard timing, which I did by 4 degrees. STILL PINGS! I am going to do it the right way, dyno tune FTW. But I got to say car feels alot nice than stock, I just hate the idle and pinging.