09 F150 power numbers

[OHV 16V]

And I'm not impressed with the torque ratings of the import 3.5/3.7L engines either. They sacrifice low rpm torque for high rpm operation which increases max hp but not torque.

 

The MKS 3.7L has the same or better low end torque.

 

Although I generally agree with what you're saying, this one isn't true. The Lexus GS350, a direct competitor to the MKS, using a 3.5-liter, makes it's torque @3600 rpm vs. the MKS's 4250 rpm, and the Lexus has 30 more hp and 4 additional lb.-ft. to boot.

 

Mercedes-Benz's 3.5-liter unit has 5 fewer ponies and 12 lb.-ft. less, but it makes it's torque from 2400-5000 rpm.

 

Your statement is correct concerning class entries from Acura & Infiniti, but they are strong nonetheless. The Infiniti in particular, is a beast... ( For an NA V-6)

[akirby]

Although I generally agree with what you're saying, this one isn't true. The Lexus GS350, a direct competitor to the MKS, using a 3.5-liter, makes it's torque @3600 rpm vs. the MKS's 4250 rpm, and the Lexus has 30 more hp and 4 additional lb.-ft. to boot.

 

Mercedes-Benz's 3.5-liter unit has 5 fewer ponies and 12 lb.-ft. less, but it makes it's torque from 2400-5000 rpm.

 

Your statement is correct concerning class entries from Acura & Infiniti, but they are strong nonetheless. The Infiniti in particular, is a beast... ( For an NA V-6)

 

That Lexus engine is stouter than I thought. It's also high compression requiring (I assume) premium to deliver those power figures:

 

Lexus GS350 274 @ 3600 RPM on premium (CR 11.5)

 

MKS torque: 270 @ 4250 RPM on regular (CR 10.3)

 

I don't know what the torque curve looks like but that's pretty impressive for a 3.5 even on premium fuel. I assume it has DI?

[OHV 16V]

That Lexus engine is stouter than I thought. It's also high compression requiring (I assume) premium to deliver those power figures:

 

Lexus GS350 274 @ 3600 RPM on premium (CR 11.5)

 

MKS torque: 270 @ 4250 RPM on regular (CR 10.3)

 

I don't know what the torque curve looks like but that's pretty impressive for a 3.5 even on premium fuel. I assume it has DI?

 

You're correct on both accounts, the GS350 has DI and it indeed does require premium. The motor's compression ratio is even higher, 11.8:1.

[Extreme4x4]

Other sites are reporting that the 5.4 only gets the 320hp and 390lb ft when using E85............... is this correct???

 

They show it getting only 310hp and 365lb ft on regular gas.

 

I looked around on Fords site, but could not find anything. Maybe someone can give me a heads up on this one.

[OHV 16V]

Other sites are reporting that the 5.4 only gets the 320hp and 390lb ft when using E85............... is this correct???

 

They show it getting only 310hp and 365lb ft on regular gas.

 

I looked around on Fords site, but could not find anything. Maybe someone can give me a heads up on this one.

 

I don't think that's right. I believe 320/390 are accurate regardless of the E85. Check this out...

 

http://www.fordf150.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57616

[V8-X]

Other sites are reporting that the 5.4 only gets the 320hp and 390lb ft when using E85............... is this correct???

 

They show it getting only 310hp and 365lb ft on regular gas.

 

I looked around on Fords site, but could not find anything. Maybe someone can give me a heads up on this one.

 

Those 310/365 figures were speculation from what I've read. All documents I've seen that look like they were Ford produced, display the 320/390 figures. Of course this 310/365 on 87 octane may be true, but Ford hasn't fully disclosed everything just yet. To me, I use E85 on a regular basis, so if I were to purchase an '09+ F150 I wouldn't really see much of the 310/365 figures anyways.

[akirby]

I use E85 on a regular basis

 

So you like getting 25% less mpg?

[jpvbs]

So you like getting 25% less mpg?

 

http://e85prices.com/

 

if it costs more than 25% less, why not?

[V8-X]

So you like getting 25% less mpg?

 

Dang, I've had this conversation too many times on too many forums with too many doubters of E85. But I'll try to post the short version.

 

I've been comparing E85 to 87 octane for the last two years I've owned my '06 F150. I will only use E85 in the city, as the highway drop in mpgs is too drastic, but for city driving it usually balances out. On average I get 10-13mpgs (300-390 miles) on E85, while I usually get 12-15mpgs (360-450 miles) on 87 octane. This is based on a complete 30 gallon tank which I always fill up when 20-25 gallons have been used. Of course these fluctuations depend on my driving style, how congested traffic is and the terrain I'm driving on (many hills/mountains here).

 

I only purchase fuel locally from two stations. The station I frequent for 87 octane is selling it for $3.60 per gallon the last time I drove by. The E85 station I frequent was selling it for $2.75 per gallon. That's a savings of .85 per gallon by 30 gallons would be a savings of $25.50. With that savings I can buy basically 9 more gallons of E85, which would get me another 92-120 miles. Which if you do the math, I'm saving using E85. Now if the price difference drops to a .60-.70 difference I try not to buy E85.

 

Other benefits of E85 is the green aspect, and I'm not a green type person. Also, the E85 comes from local CO facilities, so I'm paying my fellow Coloradoans. Plus you can notice an increase in throttle response and power (seat of the pants feeling) when using E85 over 87 octane.

 

Drawbacks are more frequent fill-ups and increased oil changes. With E85 you must change your oil every 3 months/3K miles. While on 87 octane it's recommended every 5 months/5K miles. Which the oil changes don't bother me, because either way I always change my oil every 3K miles, no matter what the manual recommends.

 

http://e85prices.com/

 

if it costs more than 25% less, why not?

 

Exactly. All depends on the cost of E85 vs 87 octane. Some days it's worth it, others not so much.

 

And my disclaimer: Results may vary. This is just what I have experienced here in the Denver CO area. Not sure the impact ion other areas.

 

Oh, also mpgs will fluctuate depending on the true amount of ethanol. E85 can vary from 70% to 85% ethanol.

[Hydro]

Dang, I've had this conversation too many times on too many forums with too many doubters of E85. But I'll try to post the short version.

 

I've been comparing E85 to 87 octane for the last two years I've owned my '06 F150. I will only use E85 in the city, as the highway drop in mpgs is too drastic, but for city driving it usually balances out. On average I get 10-13mpgs (300-390 miles) on E85, while I usually get 12-15mpgs (360-450 miles) on 87 octane. This is based on a complete 30 gallon tank which I always fill up when 20-25 gallons have been used. Of course these fluctuations depend on my driving style, how congested traffic is and the terrain I'm driving on (many hills/mountains here).

 

I only purchase fuel locally from two stations. The station I frequent for 87 octane is selling it for $3.60 per gallon the last time I drove by. The E85 station I frequent was selling it for $2.75 per gallon. That's a savings of .85 per gallon by 30 gallons would be a savings of $25.50. With that savings I can buy basically 9 more gallons of E85, which would get me another 92-120 miles. Which if you do the math, I'm saving using E85. Now if the price difference drops to a .60-.70 difference I try not to buy E85.

 

Other benefits of E85 is the green aspect, and I'm not a green type person. Also, the E85 comes from local CO facilities, so I'm paying my fellow Coloradoans. Plus you can notice an increase in throttle response and power (seat of the pants feeling) when using E85 over 87 octane.

 

Drawbacks are more frequent fill-ups and increased oil changes. With E85 you must change your oil every 3 months/3K miles. While on 87 octane it's recommended every 5 months/5K miles. Which the oil changes don't bother me, because either way I always change my oil every 3K miles, no matter what the manual recommends.

 

 

 

Exactly. All depends on the cost of E85 vs 87 octane. Some days it's worth it, others not so much.

 

And my disclaimer: Results may vary. This is just what I have experienced here in the Denver CO area. Not sure the impact ion other areas.

 

Oh, also mpgs will fluctuate depending on the true amount of ethanol. E85 can vary from 70% to 85% ethanol.

 

Good info, Thanks. We don't have any E85 stations in los Angeles but it's good to read up on it in case we ever get any.

[PWR Kid]

What about this link:

 

http://media.ford.com/products/press...398&make_id=92

[V8-X]

What about this link:

 

http://media.ford.com/products/press...398&make_id=92

 

Linky no worky for me.

[StevenCaylor]

Good info, Thanks. We don't have any E85 stations in los Angeles but it's good to read up on it in case we ever get any.

 

There's one at 11699 San Vicente Blvd (Conserv Fuel).

Edited October 1, 2008 by StevenCaylor

[Hydro]

Steven, what city is that in? Just curious, none of my vehicles are E85 capable.

[PWR Kid]

Fresh from new Ford F150 Brochure today:

 

5.4L 3-valve V8 (gas) 6-speed auto. O/D 310 @ 5000 365 @ 3500 14 mpg 20 mpg 14 mpg 18 mpg

5.4L 3-valve V8 (E85) 6-speed auto. O/D 320 @ 5200 390 @ 3500 10 mpg 14 mpg 10 mpg 13 mpg

[OHV 16V]

Fresh from new Ford F150 Brochure today:

 

5.4L 3-valve V8 (gas) 6-speed auto. O/D 310 @ 5000 365 @ 3500 14 mpg 20 mpg 14 mpg 18 mpg

5.4L 3-valve V8 (E85) 6-speed auto. O/D 320 @ 5200 390 @ 3500 10 mpg 14 mpg 10 mpg 13 mpg

 

Ridiculous...

Edited October 6, 2008 by OHV 16V

[atomaro]

Ridiculous...

 

 

Ford's website is claiming 310hp and 390 ft lbs on 87 octane while the brochure you can download is claiming 365ft lbs. E85 number is 320 / 390. Since it is a VCT engine, I would be interested in seeing what is does on super unleaded.

[OHV 16V]

Ford's website is claiming 310hp and 390 ft lbs on 87 octane while the brochure you can download is claiming 365ft lbs. E85 number is 320 / 390. Since it is a VCT engine, I would be interested in seeing what is does on super unleaded.

 

You make a very interesting point. The 10 horsepower isn't that big of a deal, but a 25 lb.-ft. difference on 87 unleaded is. 25 is a large enough number that some folks can tell the difference in seat-of-the-pants feel. I wonder which is correct? Either way, to me personally, those numbers are still kinda crappy in light of the competition.

[Hydro]

Do the Dodges or Toyotas need 91 octane to make the 390 & 385 hp numbers?? If not, it's getting real hard to find the plus' over the new Dodge. Hell, A programmer with 91 octane, CAI, and exhaust might barely net the competitions numbers.

I'm not too worried about towing numbers on a 1/2 ton. IMHO anything over 6,000lbs just get a 3/4 ton and never look back. 1/2 tons are city runners that are used mostly for spirited driving by people who will RARELY take them off the pavement. I'm sure the Fleet numbers will be fine, but lots of "seat of the pants" folks are going to be dissapointed.

[atomaro]

'm sure the Fleet numbers will be fine, but lots of "seat of the pants" folks are going to be dissapointed.

 

Lets see what the truck will do with super unleaded and the 6 speed.

[Hydro]

Lets see what the truck will do with super unleaded and the 6 speed.

True, but minus the 91 octane. These are pick-up trucks not high compression sports cars, they should make good power on 87. Let's also hope they have worked the bugs out of the 6 speed. I ventured over to the Expy and Navi section and it's scary how bad those tranny's are.

[suv_guy_19]

True, but minus the 91 octane. These are pick-up trucks not high compression sports cars, they should make good power on 87. Let's also hope they have worked the bugs out of the 6 speed. I ventured over to the Expy and Navi section and it's scary how bad those tranny's are.

 

Consumer Reports numbers don't show a huge problem with the Expedition transmission. There are, if I recall correctly, an average number of minor problems and a smaller than average number of larger problems.

[V8-X]

True, but minus the 91 octane. These are pick-up trucks not high compression sports cars, they should make good power on 87. Let's also hope they have worked the bugs out of the 6 speed. I ventured over to the Expy and Navi section and it's scary how bad those tranny's are.

 

From what I've read, the 6spd in the Expy/Navi did have its issues during the first 6-8 months of production. Since then the problems have decreased significantly. Of course this is just what I read, so how true that is, I'm unsure. But they have had roughly 2yrs or so to work out the majority of the bugs in the Expy/Navi prior to dropping it into the 150.

 

Who knows, guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[4d2]

I sure hope all the bugs have been worked out of the 6-speed transmission.

I plan on buying a 2009 F-150 sometime early next year to replace my 2001 F-150 XLT, 4x4, 5.4, 4 speed auto, which has been trouble free. But I am now ready for a new truck.

[DUCKRACER]

Fffffffft.

 

Okay, here's what's wrong with you, you cheerleader:

 

1) The displacement is the same, therefore, Ford didn't do JACK with the 5.4L. It's the same engine!@!!!!!!

 

2) I won't believe those numbers. Ford PR has been known to lie.

 

3) 390lb-ft of torque? Dodge makes 407. That's over 4% more!!!!!!!!

 

4) Torque doesn't count, horsepower does. That's what you do brake stands with.

WRONG. Ford usually under estimates the HP. eg. Ford earlier touted that the new V6 in the 2009 escape would have 220 hp. When it actually wen on sale, it had 240 hp

 

Torque means everything in a truck engine.

 

You must be a Democrat.