Are you new to Ford?

The 5.4L left the F-150 at the end of the 2010 MY and the EB arrived in MY 2011 WITH the 5.0L.

The 5.4L WAS the only engine that Ford offered in the F-150 that was rated for max tow capabilities. In 2011, Ford offered the 6.2L and the EB as max tow engines.

Have I missed anything? Are we on the same page sir? This isn't an opinion, this really happened.

 

So it is your belief that since Ford only offered max tow in 5.4 and EB, that therefore EB replaced 5.4. That is not fact, that is more like a leap. Both the 5.0 and EB tow more than the 5.4. Your designation of "replacement" is purely your opinion. I hope you will reconsider this and realize that you created you own box to think into.

 

You are wrong sir. The 5.0L in the 2011-2014 was not rated to tow more than the out going 5.4L, which carried a max tow rating of 11,300 LBs in the proper form. If you read what I've pasted below from Wiki, you'll note that the 5.0L is a direct descendant of the 4.6L family.

The 2015 trucks with the 5.0L are rated to pull more.

Copied from Wiki:

5.0 L Coyote[edit]
The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid)[11] "Coyote" V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine.[12] Ford engineers needed to design a V8, specifically for the Mustang GT, that would compete with the GM 6.2L LS3 used in the new Chevrolet Camaro, and the new Chrysler 6.4L Hemi ESF in the Charger and Challenger. This engine had to remain close to the same physical size of the outgoing 4.6, and share other specifications with it such as bore spacing, deck height, bell housing bolt pattern, etc. in order for the engine to utilize existing Modular production line tooling. The result was the 5.0 Coyote, which produced roughly the same amount of power as its competitors, but with a much smaller displacement. To strengthen the block enough to handle increased output, webbing was extensively used as reinforcement in the casting, rather than increasing the thickness of the walls. The intake plenum was also situated low between the two cylinder banks to meet the height constraint, thus the alternator traditionally placed low and center was moved to the side of the engine. It shares the 4.6 L's 100 mm (3.937 in) bore spacing and 227 mm (8.937 in) deck height,[13] while bore diameter and stroke have increased to 92.2mm (3.629 in) and 92.7mm (3.649 in), respectively. The engine also retains the 4.6 L's 150.7 mm (5.933 in) connecting rod length, which produces a 1.62:1 rod to stroke ratio.[14] The firing order has been changed from that shared by all previous Modular V8s (1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8) to that of the Ford Flathead V8 (1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2).[14] Compression ratio is 11.0:1, and despite having indirect fuel injection (as opposed to direct injection) the engine can still be run on 87 octane gasoline.

The Coyote features all new 4V DOHC cylinder heads that have shifted the camshafts outboard, which allowed for a compact roller finger follower setup with remote hydraulic valve lash adjusters and improved (raised) intake port geometry. The result is an intake port that outflows the Ford GT intake port by 4 percent and the Yates D3 (NASCAR) intake port up to 0.472" (12 mm) lift, which is the maximum lift of the Coyote's intake cams. Engine redline is 7000 rpm.[14]

The Coyote is Ford's first implementation of its cam-torque-actuated (CTA) Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (Ti-VCT) in a V8 engine, which allows the power-train control module (PCM) to advance and retard intake and exhaust cam timing independently of each other, providing improved power, fuel economy and reduced emissions. The engine is assembled in Ford's Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ontario, using existing Modular tooling.[15]

 

I researched this and could not confirm the tow ratings. You many be right about that. However, the "leap" I referred to was your belief that max tow ratings prove "replacement". That doesn't make sense, because it is not the reason most people buy an f150.

 

Numbers be dammed, I've driven 5.4L F-150's and I now own a Coyote 5.0L F-150, and I will say without a doubt, the Coyote is a much stronger engine than the 5.4L was...Both towing and not towing.

I think the main reason Ford waited to add max tow to the 5.0L is simply because they wanted to promote the idea of the Ecoboost being the top dog engine in the F-150's.

 

There are two types of people:

1. The people who believe what you do.

2. The ecoboost promoters lurking on every sight.

 

Yes, if it was like this one:

"...C4ISR electronics suite, fully-independent Dynatrac independent suspension, 4x4 system with transfer case, Allison 6-speed transmission, and a 4.5-liter 4-cylinder Cummins turbo diesel engine with 250 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque."

That's from a news article I read today about a kind of generic truck used in dangerous places in the world. 590 ft lb of torque?!?! Yep, that'd pull what I need pulling.

 

Yes. It can be done and Cummins is the way to go. When I was in the Marine Corps our amphibious assault vehicles would run 55mph with turbo diesels and those things weighed 50,000 pounds. I think it was a 400 v8 too. They controlled the torque by restricting the fuel because the engine could produce more power than the transmission could handle.

 

I Am having trouble getting a 6 let alone a 4 banger

 

or...we could get big 2 cylinder engines and supercharge them

 

Nothing wrong with 4-bangers. My wife's little SUV has a twin-turbo'd one that puts out 365 lb-ft of torque at 1600 R's. On cruise it'll climb any hill or mountain we've found and never shifts down.

 

The 2.3 is an awesome engine but no, it would be on boost all the time hauling all that weight around. Now, put two of them together in one block and you would have a 4.6 twin turbo V8 with about 550 HP. That's more interesting.

 

An in-line 4 would not run smooth, power strokes are to far apart, they would be adding balance shafts and all kinds of other crap which would cutdown on power and increase friction, making the engine overly complicated.

 

no its just not right and how small would it be!?\

 

Didn't Ford try this in 1941, then drop the little engine for the next model year. I know, I know different technology. Ford was attempting to make a truck with considerably better gas mileage. No one bought it, or very few did.