meyeste Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 So the 5.0L is making 444hp / 380 ft-lbs torque in the BOSS, 420 HP, 390 ft-lbs torque in the GT, and a suspicous 360 HP / 380 ft-lbs torque in the F150. Now first of all the F150 spec engines' numbers are nothing to scoff at and I understand current owners are pretty happy with them, however being 5 HP down to the EB six is awfully convienent. Now I will own a 5.4L F150 4x4, I will say that by simply installing shorty headers and a cat back dual exhaust my truck has noticably more HP and will now average 15+ MPG HWY while running ~ 75 mph, prior to the update exceeding 70 while cruising on the highway meant 12 mpg. Therefore it seems to me a more cost efficient fuel saver would be a 5.0L engine with improved exhaust and DI. More or less the GT version of the 5.0L would do it, let the engines stand on their own vs. purposely handicapping the spectacular engineering Marvel that is the 5.0L (taking nothing away from the 3.5L EB). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 There is a reason for restricted air intake and exhaust. What worked for you doesn't work for all. After all, if a dual exhaust was the simple, no downside answer to a 3mpg gain, don't you think Ford, GM and Didge would have done this 15 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The answer is fairly simple: longevity while towing, and more low-end torque for towing. And maybe a little to keep it under the EB... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) There is a reason for restricted air intake and exhaust. What worked for you doesn't work for all. After all, if a dual exhaust was the simple, no downside answer to a 3mpg gain, don't you think Ford, GM and Didge would have done this 15 years ago? First, yes you make the same mods you'll get the same results. I did more the put on dual exhaust, also ford racing shorty headers. The downside to this setup is that because it'll rev up much quicker, it can get much worse mileage. I am sure cost is part of the answer, it's far cheaper to put on single exhaust and cast exhaust manifold. All the same it took an effort to drop sixty hp from the 5.0, especially considering the true output of the GT spec engine is over 430. All I'm saying is the EB engine should stand on it's own, why hobble your V8 to make it look better? Edited September 10, 2012 by meyeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 The answer is fairly simple: longevity while towing, and more low-end torque for towing. And maybe a little to keep it under the EB... Actually the GT engine has more low end torque than the F150 spec, check any published data. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) That is almost word for word Ford's official answer, if your worried about the durability of extruded exhaust pipe vs. a cast manifold just put skid plates on the bottom, if it's an FX4 it has them anyway. Edited September 10, 2012 by meyeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Actually the GT engine has more low end torque than the F150 spec, check any published data. Including the flatness of the torque curve? Just asking, because I haven't compared the two... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Not that I am upset about it, I would rather see a 5.0l EB than the 6.2l. Not that the 6.2 l isn't awesome, but I do think cast iron blocks should be saved for the super duty series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Including the flatness of the torque curve? Just asking, because I haven't compared the two... C&D had a good comparison at one time, I can't seem to find it though, if you do you, I had a few words there and the author actually emailed me about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The tune is different so that the engines longevity is intact while under heavy load. I think this is similar to the idea that you can retune a diesel, but can not tow as much when the power is cranked up on the diesel due to the EGT overtemping under load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If torque numbers are similar at lower RPM, then the peak ratings really don't make a hill of beans difference in something like the F-150. You're not going to be operating it at the RPM those peaks are at anyway in most cases as you would be in something like the GT or Boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The tune is different so that the engines longevity is intact while under heavy load. I think this is similar to the idea that you can retune a diesel, but can not tow as much when the power is cranked up on the diesel due to the EGT overtemping under load. Yep, which is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If torque numbers are similar at lower RPM, then the peak ratings really don't make a hill of beans difference in something like the F-150. You're not going to be operating it at the RPM those peaks are at anyway in most cases as you would be in something like the GT or Boss. Precisely. Peak numbers don't mean much in a truck, it's the area under the curve that really matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Not to mention the 3.5L EB in AWD applications is being held back due to durability concerns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The F-150 5.0L has a lower redline (7,000 > 6,000 rpm), lower compression (11.0:1 > 10.5:1) and shorter duration cams, and a different tune. Also consider the top horsepower and torque numbers for the Mustang mill are based on running premium fuel, not regular fuel as in the F-150. The Mustang's 5.0L is only rated at 377 ft-lbs on regular. The lower redline explains the major drop in horsepower. The torque is not an issue when similar fuel grades are used, in fact its greater than in the Mustang. When you consider the lower compression it's easy to see that there are other things designed into F-150 5.0L that favour torque production. In short, the F-150 5.0L is built for torque and is not giving up much on the Mustang 5.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 In all honesty, this was a dumb topic I put out, I don't have an issue with the 5.0L in the F150. And I do know the cam is different, compression is lower, exhaust manifolds are used vs. headers, all of which makes for a better truck tune. I do see at least one other person finds the 360HP number being down 5 HP from the EB engine is convienent, perhaps a coincidence. What I do wonder is, if Ford didn't have a 3.5L EB, how do you think the 5.0L would have been tuned for the F150? Would they have made an effort to get it to at least match the 5.3L in MPG's, or would it have been tuned to complete with the 5.7L engines from RAM and Toyota? Ford typically ups the performance numbers of engines 2-3 three years after their initial release, I'm curious what 2014/2015 will bring for the coyote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbmstng Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) The engine is made for a truck, that's why. If you look back at the 4.6L 2V's the Mustang made 260hp and the F150 was something like 225hp. I haven't seen the torque curves, but I would assume the F150 would have its curve skewed to the low to mid range. Horsepower is overrated in trucks. Torque is where it's at. That's why the EB kicks most V8's ass's. Oops. Only the original post showed until I posted. Doh! Edited October 16, 2012 by dbmstng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Any way I can remove this topic? I'm not sure why I posted it to begin with, I knew the answer when I posted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Any way I can remove this topic? I'm not sure why I posted it to begin with, I knew the answer when I posted it. Don't comment on it and it won't show up in the 'new posts' list... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.