2009 F150 5.4l POWER LEAKED!!

[the_spaniard]

Good numbers for the new 5.4.

 

As far as the last gen "boat anchor", I would tend to agree with that assessment. Does it make a difference if the engine is great if the transmission sucks?. Yes, if that's true technically it isn't the engine.

 

My 2000 "felt" underpowered compared to the competition at the time. Blame the engine, blame the transmission, blame repeated solar flares, but that's the way I felt after driving friend's trucks from the general. A lot of people that own the trucks with the 5.4L share that opinion.

 

Yes, I understand the F150 outsells the competition. That doesn't make my (or anyone else that actually owns one) complaints invalid that the truck felt underpowered. I don't do burnouts, and I don't drive like a raped ape. If the six-speed fixed the problem, hey great. The point being, it was a problem.

Edited May 17, 2008 by the_spaniard

[RichardJensen]

Of course, there's also the question of how severe a problem off-the-line acceleration is, in the grand scheme of things.

[Extreme4x4]

Well, obviously not that great of a problem............... or it wouldn't still be the best selling truck.

 

GM trucks are usually faster, and may get better mileage. However, they are also usually much lighter than the comparable Ford............... and have comparatively lower limits because of the strength deficit (due to lighter materials), also.

 

'02 was the last year that GM made a decent looking truck. The GMC's are ok, until you look at how stangely flat faced they are............ kinda like someone ran into the front.

[F250]

especially since they are ignorant to the fact that Fords ECMs are configured to EASE the throttle by wire inputs..........

 

Bingo! we have a winner.

Even the old 2-valve 5.4L felt stronger if you just stomped on it from a stop because the throttle snapped open and the truck jumped off the line. The 3-valve's electronic throttle control is programed to open the throttle smoothly (especially in 4WD LOW range) to apply torque at a rate that provides smooth acceleration and maintains traction.

 

As for the transmission, well Ford has had the 5-speed behind the F-250 5.4L for years so they could have used it until the 6-speed was ready.

My truck has the 3.73L axles which gives it a little edge over the standard 3.55s. Looks like Ford has dropped the 4.10 axles from the old heavy payload package, apparently not needed anymore now that the 6-speeds are here.

[J-150]

Still don't cure ugly...

 

 

 

that's what we keep telling your Mom

[J-150]

Of course, there's also the question of how severe a problem off-the-line acceleration is, in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

with $6 gas, the days of flooring it off a green light are coming to an end.

[papilgee4evaeva]

with $6 gas, the days of flooring it off a green light are coming to an end.

 

Sadly, you'll still have a few American Idiots who will still do it in their GMT900 SUVs...

[LSFan00]

It's great that they are addressing the boat anchor configuration problem finally. It's related to the motor, the throttle control, the transmission, and other things, not really an engine block problem. It's been a dog for acceleration for years and I am glad they are fixing it.

 

Yes, this feature (acceleration) matters to a lot of consumers, and consumers perception actually matters to sales. Even if not many folks wind up stomping on it from a green light very often, that's a big feature of the test drive/new truck bragging point. This isn't a revolutionary point I'm making, and the pom pom wavers who insinuate that to doubt the configuration/nickname of this motor as sold recently in the F-150 is to doubt the gospel of the mod motors since 1993, are the equivalent of biblical literalists who deny the simple fact that the earth is not 8,000 years old. Get over yourselves.

[mlhm5]

So the 4.4L Diesel will be:

 

350 HP/450 lg-ft Torque giving you about 24 MPG if the new F-150 gets 20 MPG

 

There is no way that a 4.4L diesel with 350 HP will get 24mpg unless it is driven downhill at <55mph, and then maybe not.

[Sixt9coug]

There is no way that a 4.4L diesel with 350 HP will get 24mpg unless it is driven downhill at <55mph, and then maybe not.

 

 

if the gas version can hit 20mpg.... why not?

[RichardJensen]

It's great that they are addressing the boat anchor configuration problem finally. It's related to the motor, the throttle control, the transmission, and other things, not really an engine block problem. It's been a dog for acceleration for years and I am glad they are fixing it.

 

Yes, this feature (acceleration) matters to a lot of consumers, and consumers perception actually matters to sales. Even if not many folks wind up stomping on it from a green light very often, that's a big feature of the test drive/new truck bragging point. This isn't a revolutionary point I'm making, and the pom pom wavers who insinuate that to doubt the configuration/nickname of this motor as sold recently in the F-150 is to doubt the gospel of the mod motors since 1993, are the equivalent of biblical literalists who deny the simple fact that the earth is not 8,000 years old. Get over yourselves.

1) The core issue is 'how much' the lack of off-the-line snap matters. Per Ford's sales, it doesn't matter much. No one here would deny that a lack off punch off the line =matters= to =some= people. However, the issue is =how many of them= are buying trucks (and in this market, STILL buying trucks instead of trading them in on Muranos and Edges and such).

 

2) Biblical literalists insist that the universe is only a little over 6,000 years old, and that's because they are selective in what they take literally.

[JETSOLVER]

1) The core issue is 'how much' the lack of off-the-line snap matters. Per Ford's sales, it doesn't matter much. No one here would deny that a lack off punch off the line =matters= to =some= people. However, the issue is =how many of them= are buying trucks (and in this market, STILL buying trucks instead of trading them in on Muranos and Edges and such).

 

Interesting comment. You are bang on that for most LIGHT truck buyers, who don't use it for consistent hauling or towing, the throttle as written is fine, and seamless. Not to mention the benefits to mileage and emissions.

 

Funny thing though, if one is trying to manoeuvre in close quarters, such as reversing into a camping pad, that throttle lag is a real problem. The momentum shift as one gooses the throttle to get the sucker moving vs. the need to stop in a short distance can be downright dangerous at times. I have wondered in the last year or so, that if Ford was to offer a throttle map on the dash for something like trailering(along the lines of the FANTASTIC native trailer brake controller, which may be the single biggest boon to real haulers since the factory battery isolator) it would be a step on the industry and another reason to make Ford a de facto default choice when shopping for a new work or serious play truck.

 

The products are so good industry wide now(I assume somebody is buying the imports, I keep seeing more and more of them, but damm few in work livery!) that this sort of innovation is going to be the difference. And of course, the imports will get better. That is how they got to where they are(on top more or less).

 

And as to looks, meh, they are all trucks. I find the Chevy handsome, the GM less so, the Dodge more a cartoon caricature of its past self, and the Ford somehow lacking in the sort of smooth aggression that I thought the last version had. The grill doesn't REALLY need to be that big does it? Or perhaps to appeal to the sorts of people whom I generally see driving light pickups in the big bad city, it does.

 

Dogs may like trucks, but I sure as hell won't drive one unless I need to. Watching people manoeuvre these things in parking lots and HA HA trying to parallel park is pretty entertaining. I figure it serves them well to pay $140+ to fill the thing for a week of heavy hauling like getting a loaf of artesian bread and flavoured bottled water along with little fluffy, the throw cushion rat, er, dog, er, currently approved fashion accessory.

[mlhm5]

if the gas version can hit 20mpg.... why not?

 

The 4.4 liter V8 diesel is based on the twin-turbo 3.6 liter/270HP that’s in the 2007 Range Rover and that only gets 16/26 MPG.

 

You would have to be drinking something to think Ford can boost the HP to 350 and get 24 mpg combined.

[Sixt9coug]

The 4.4 liter V8 diesel is based on the twin-turbo 3.6 liter/270HP that’s in the 2007 Range Rover and that only gets 16/26 MPG.

 

You would have to be drinking something to think Ford can boost the HP to 350 and get 24 mpg combined.

 

 

last i heard Range Rover doesnt sell a diesel in the states. I wouldnt be shocked if the Range Rover weighed more than an F150 (RR is around 5800lbs) . The TDV8 in the Range Rover though supposedly gets around 25mpg combined as well. With the right tuning, getting a max of 24 out of one in the F150 shouldnt be a problem.

 

Edit - yeah, the F150 is lighter and only comes close to it in one configuration. a 4x4, Long bed Supercab with the 5.4L and the payload package gets to around 5800lbs. So i dont think the rest of the lineup will be a problem with economy, seeing as the average F150 is lighter by almost 600lbs. In fact, a Crew Cab 4x2 with a 5.4L is 'only' around 5200 lbs. i think 600 lbs less weight will make PLENTY of difference.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Sixt9coug

[OHV 16V]

AFAIK, LS3 is the current family of Chevy 'small blocks'...

 

Actually, that isn't correct. The letters "LS" are the only two that refer to the current V8 engines for their cars, with any number or letter after designating what it's for. LS3 refers to the 6.2L that is in the Corvette and G8 only. (Unless, of course, we want to count the old-skool motors, in which case the LS3 was Chevrolet's engine code for the 402 cubic-inch V8 from the 70's.)

 

With the trucks, the "S" is removed from the name. The 6.2L truck/SUV engine is an L92, the current 6.0L is the L76. And the 5.3L gets any of four designations depending on whether they're iron or aluminum block, and with or without "Flex Fuel" capability. Current 5.3L codes are LY5, LMG, LH6, & LC9.

 

And GM still refers to the truck versions as the "Vortec" engine family, not the "LS". Although Richard, you are correct in that the truck V8s are indeed LS variants.

Edited May 18, 2008 by OHV 16V

[StevenCaylor]

Has anyone heard which engine is going to be standard on each model for 2009? Since MPG is so important, I would assume that the 4.6 2V/4sp would be standard on XLT and lower models for cost reasons and 4.6 3V/6sp would be standard on models higher than XLT. The all aluminum 4.6 3V/6sp with a low numeric axle ratio would seem to be the best bet for MPG until the V6s and diesel are available.

Edited May 17, 2008 by StevenCaylor

[MERKURXR4Ti]

The 4.4 liter V8 diesel is based on the twin-turbo 3.6 liter/270HP that’s in the 2007 Range Rover and that only gets 16/26 MPG.

 

You would have to be drinking something to think Ford can boost the HP to 350 and get 24 mpg combined.

 

For the last freaking time, despite popular belief it's not based on the lion.

 

It's based on the Puma I4

 

Back on topic, I'm somewhat impressed by these numbers, anyone notice how the peak torque rpm lowered - always a good thing.

[DearbornDerek]

Has anyone heard which engine is going to be standard on each model for 2009? Since MPG is so important, I would assume that the 4.6 2V/4sp would be standard on XLT and lower models for cost reasons and 4.6 3V/6sp would be standard on models higher than XLT. The all aluminum 4.6 3V/6sp with a low numeric axle ratio would seem to be the best bet for MPG until the V6s and diesel are available.

 

The FX4 and up are standard 5.4L. I'm guessing the 2V will be standard in the XL and/or STX, with the 3V standard on the XLT.

[fbmphil]

The all aluminum 4.6 3V/6sp with a low numeric axle ratio would seem to be the best bet for MPG until the V6s and diesel are available.

 

I think it will be possible to average 19mpg or more in a 75/25 highway city mix with the 3v 4.6

[Blueblood]

1) The core issue is 'how much' the lack of off-the-line snap matters. Per Ford's sales, it doesn't matter much. No one here would deny that a lack off punch off the line =matters= to =some= people. However, the issue is =how many of them= are buying trucks (and in this market, STILL buying trucks instead of trading them in on Muranos and Edges and such).

 

2) Biblical literalists insist that the universe is only a little over 6,000 years old, and that's because they are selective in what they take literally.

 

It's amazing what level you'll go to to twist and spin here, and bring up these constant straw men, and ignore actual important things like passing power, hill climbing power, etc.

 

Just give it up already..

[Edstock]

It's amazing what level you'll go to to twist and spin here, and bring up these constant straw men, and ignore actual important things like passing power, hill climbing power, etc.

Please give description pf these straw-filled entities.

 

"ignore actual important things like passing power, hill climbing power, etc. " Please indicate where and how they are ignored.

 

Otherwixe, all we have here is snooterspew. Please do better than this, or just give it up already

[jon_the_limey]

Rut-Row ! I smell a "defeat device" investigation coming from the EPA !

 

 

 

While injecting on open valves improves your power, the reason you don't is that bad for emissions. (I don't but the part about improving emission. If it did, open valve injection would be done all of the time)

 

Sooooooo, if this open valve injection is only done during an operating mode that never occurs during the EPA cycle (like towing or high RPM), it is certainly grounds for investigation. Who knows, they might squeak by !

 

I worked there there long enough to see Ford get caught not once, but twice (over 15 years apart) for the "lean cruise" defeat device.

 

I'm curious to why you think open valve injection would be bad for emissions?

 

I would have thought that if done well there could be some benefits, certainly in terms of HC & CO and the ability for the calibrator to tune to a narrower and more defined mean cycle. One of the problems of closed valve injection is that the ports are wetted with the fuel and that the fuel "puddles" on the port walls. I know that during transients that this puddle mass has to be taken into account during calibration, but as it is difficult to determine this mass then the calibrator has to play safe because of a less than consistent air to fuel ratio.

 

The only reason I see that it might be bad for emissions is that larger flow rate injectors have to be used and that injector pulse width at low fuel deliveries becomes small and hence harder to control. Maybe the fuel system for this engine with high precision port injectors and suitable engine management can handle this? After all is this not effectively what stoichiometric GDI is doing anyway.

[armadamaster]

that's what we keep telling your Mom

 

 

Wow, thanks for elevating the argument with personal attacks.

 

Not to mention not daring to argue the F-150 is the best looking truck on the market, after all, we know the Ram currently holds that title and locks it into place it appears for 2009.

[jpd80]

A lot of thing are changing in US OBD Emissions. As of 2008 manufacturers are now required to

run the Euro ISO Standard CAN BUS (Controller Area Network bus).

With that change, moving to bulk supplies from European manufacturers (like Bosch) can be justified.

[Blueblood]

Please give description pf these straw-filled entities.

 

 

You must be blind because you do this in every thread, everytime someone points something out that somebody else has said you ask for proof as if you're incapable of reading them for yourself.

 

But you're just being an ass again so I won't waste my time pointing these things out to you.

 

"ignore actual important things like passing power, hill climbing power, etc. " Please indicate where and how they are ignored.

 

They are ignored by the always spinning Richard Jenson.

 

Otherwixe, all we have here is snooterspew. Please do better than this, or just give it up already

 

 

Blah blah blah, why don't YOU give up already, as usual you offer nothing of substance here but your typical baiting and childish antics.

 

This board wasn't created for cheerleading yes men.