Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009+ F150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


2009+ F150 Discuss the 2009 through 2014 Ford F150 SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 04-04-2011, 05:09 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
2011 5.0L and Ecoboost Dyno Charts (Both Very Impressive)!

Hey everyone Pickuptrucks.com is doing a full review of the F-150 Ecoboost this week. So far they have only posted the Dyno results they have. I have to admit I was kind of shocked that the 5.0L has a very similer torque curve to the Ecoboost V6. I'll be sure and post their results later this week for you guys. They are going to a long distance drive with two Ecoboost trucks. One unloaded and the other pulling a tralier. Either way, both these engines are HOT!

(2011 F-150 Ecoboost and 5.0L Dyno Charts)
What We're Testing This Week: 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 - PickupTrucks.com News
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:21 PM
Rancheroracer Rancheroracer is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rodeo, Ca.
Posts: 616
Rancheroracer is starting off with a positive reputation.
Looks to me like their graph lines are skewed to the right, 50 to 60 ft.lbs at 2000 rpm? The truck probably wouldn't untrack!
__________________
2012 F-150 XLT SC Ecoboost Tuxedo Black, 6.5' bed, 4x4, 3.55s, SSI tunes, 4" Flo-Pro exhaust with Twister resonator
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phillipians 4:13
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:37 PM
jweidert's Avatar
jweidert jweidert is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: California
Posts: 184
jweidert is starting off with a positive reputation.
I'm only partially interested in the results and very disappointed it's not a 4WD with 3.73 gears. Granted, can't satisfy everyone's testing desires, but this is an apples to oranges comparison from a gearing and drivetrain (2wd vs 4wd perspective). If anything, this type of test will only confuse and/or frustrate prospective buyers because it's not going to show the real differences between both engines in a similar configuration.
__________________
2005 Ford Excursion Limited 6.0 PSD (RIP, Lemon Law)
Desire a 2011+ F150....trying to decide between EB * 5.0
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:04 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jweidert View Post
I'm only partially interested in the results and very disappointed it's not a 4WD with 3.73 gears. Granted, can't satisfy everyone's testing desires, but this is an apples to oranges comparison from a gearing and drivetrain (2wd vs 4wd perspective). If anything, this type of test will only confuse and/or frustrate prospective buyers because it's not going to show the real differences between both engines in a similar configuration.
I agree. The 5.0L they tested back in Feb was a 4X4 with 3.73 rear end. While this Ecoboost they are testing is a 2WD with a 3.55 rear end. So The Ecoboost should for sure have the advantage in fuel econmy over the 5.0L. But the 5.0L they tested came with a set of gears that will better exploit the power it produces. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

Personally its not changing my mind...I'm dead set on the 5.0L V8. I'm sure the Ecoboost is great and the one I test drove was plenty powerful. But the 5.0L is the one for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-05-2011, 07:36 AM
soonerjoe soonerjoe is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12
soonerjoe is starting off with a positive reputation.
I think the 5.0 would put down more power than the ecoboost if it were also 2 wheel drive. Ecoboost is a torque monster though!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-05-2011, 07:58 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
Considering that both engines are rated at the flywheel from the factory. Meaning they where on a engine dyno when tested. The ecoboost being rated higher means it will make more hp than th 5.0 in all similar conditions.
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-05-2011, 09:09 AM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
Considering that both engines are rated at the flywheel from the factory. Meaning they where on a engine dyno when tested. The ecoboost being rated higher means it will make more hp than th 5.0 in all similar conditions.
Except it is believed by many that Ford has sandbagged the 5.0 numbers. A 5 HP difference when the 5.0 was tested in a 4WD clearly shows the 5.0 puts out more peak HP. Parasitic driveline losses are usually considered to be around 30% for a 4WD and around 15% for a 2WD. In the K&N printout they are showing Parasitic torque loss greater with a 2WD , now who really believes that. Their Parasitic driveline loss numbers pretty much prove Ford sandbagged the published published 5.0 numbers IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-05-2011, 09:43 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.

I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.

Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-05-2011, 10:15 AM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.

I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.

Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_M9nViCiSYVM/TT...800/50vs62.jpg

Here is a dyno comparison of 2011 6.2 in a 4wd that edmunds reports showing"
  • Torque: 405 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
  • Horsepower: 385 hp @ 5500 rpm"
And yet the 2011 5.0 in a 2WD shows better Dyno numbers. This is with 5 Star Tunings Dyno Dynamics dyno Dyno Specifications that is a single wheel dyno. So apparently I am ON my rocks!

I am not knocking the 3.5, it appears to be a great engine, but it is not the only engine to consider especially if you are considering modifications. I am waiting for a TRUE & FAIR Dyno comparison, I have yet to see one.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:05 PM
dkf's Avatar
dkf dkf is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 9,262
dkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.
I've seen drivetrain losses as high as 35% in the SDs (2wd or 4wd in 2wd) so twenties in the 150s is very reasonable. Dynos vary a LOT. The graph in the original link does not look right to me.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-05-2011, 04:56 PM
soonerjoe soonerjoe is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12
soonerjoe is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
You are saying that a 4wd picup in 2wd mode will have 30% drive line loss. You are off your rocks buddy.

I agree that 2wd drive train can be safley assumed at 15%. I would guess that the addition of a transfer case would carry an additional 3% loss at most.

Regarless of the Peak HP and Tq numbers. The ecoboost in equivilant trucks is going to out accelrate empty and towing a 5.0.
3% may be about right, or it may be 5-10% more than 2 wheel drive. Either way it looks like the 5.0 has more peak power. Obviously the Ecoboost would win from a stop with all that torque. I was just pointing it out that 5.0 has more peak power. 4x4 get about 10% worse mpg, so it is obviously creating more drag as well as some more weight.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-05-2011, 05:09 PM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins tseekins is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampton, Virginia
Posts: 19,492
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Looks to me as tough the 5.0L will hold it's own in any working environment.
__________________
Tim
SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired
2011 F-150 XLT 4x4 Ecoboost
2010 Ford Focus
2004 Expedition XLT 4x2

FTE Guidelines
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-05-2011, 05:10 PM
LCPullman LCPullman is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 56
LCPullman is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Smedley123 View Post
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_M9nViCiSYVM/TT...800/50vs62.jpg

Here is a dyno comparison of 2011 6.2 in a 4wd that edmunds reports showing"
  • Torque: 405 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
  • Horsepower: 385 hp @ 5500 rpm"
And yet the 2011 5.0 in a 2WD shows better Dyno numbers. This is with 5 Star Tunings Dyno Dynamics dyno Dyno Specifications that is a single wheel dyno. So apparently I am ON my rocks!

I am not knocking the 3.5, it appears to be a great engine, but it is not the only engine to consider especially if you are considering modifications. I am waiting for a TRUE & FAIR Dyno comparison, I have yet to see one.
Its not really accurate to compare a 4wd Super duty to a 2wd F-150 and conclude that 4wd has twice the loss of 2wd. The Super duty has a very different drivetrain with substantially higher loss numbers.
I agree with you though that there hasn't been any fair Dyno comparisons of the 5.0 and the 3.5 yet.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-05-2011, 07:22 PM
NASSTY's Avatar
NASSTY NASSTY is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ME
Posts: 1,738
NASSTY has a great reputation on FTE.NASSTY has a great reputation on FTE.NASSTY has a great reputation on FTE.NASSTY has a great reputation on FTE.
I'll take torque over horsepower in a heavy truck.
__________________
2014 F150

92 Bronco
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-05-2011, 07:23 PM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCPullman View Post
Its not really accurate to compare a 4wd Super duty to a 2wd F-150 and conclude that 4wd has twice the loss of 2wd. The Super duty has a very different drivetrain with substantially higher loss numbers.
I agree with you though that there hasn't been any fair Dyno comparisons of the 5.0 and the 3.5 yet.
I would be interested in any F150 4X4 numbers that support your assertion that drivetrain losses are substantially lower than the SD. I was unable to find any.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2011, 07:23 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009+ F150

Tags
150, 2003, 2011, 50l, coyote, curve, dyno, dynos, ecoboost, engines, f150, ford, harley, lubbock, truck, tx

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 XLT 5.0-liter V-8 - PickupTrucks.com News Fomoko1 Manitoba / Saskatchewan Chapter 25 11-02-2013 10:00 PM
Fastlane tuned EcoBoost F-150 powerstroke72 EcoBoost (3.5L, 2.0L) 2 05-13-2011 08:55 AM
Good offer from pickuptrucks.com powerstroke72 EcoBoost (3.5L, 2.0L) 2 05-07-2011 07:59 PM
(2011 F-150 Ecoboost Full Review Towing Included) 640 CI Aluminum FORD EcoBoost (3.5L, 2.0L) 7 04-16-2011 11:04 PM
16/22mpg Ecoboost Figures out jpeters1 2009+ F150 36 01-11-2011 02:37 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup