I noticed at www.F150forum.com and here at www.rv.net, there are people who aren't looking to go to an Ecoboost but wondering how the 5.0L will compare to the 5.4L when towing.
Honestly, the 5.4L has more torque at lower rpms, that's no secret, but the 5.0L has more horsepower. So under no load conditions, the 5.0L feels stronger except at accelerating at load, at lower rpms. I mean at load with truck already at a stabilized speed then trying to accelerate from that point. With better downshifting in recent trans programs, my disappointment with the 5.0L vanished to impressed, accelerating from a stabilized speed. Of course this will also improve towing but what about a steady pull from a stop up to top speed. Well downshifting would not improve that, but improved up shifts or should I say delayed upshift do as I've found with better trans programing in the 5.0L opposed to my early 2011 model I tested in 2010.
But holding upshifts is just one way to make sure that the 5.0L goes straight into a higher rpm when shifting.
With the 2010 5.4L I had previously, it was an XLT model that could only be purchased with the 3.55 axle unless I went to a Max Tow. Max tow vehicles were rare and much more expensive. Of course this relates mainly to the XLT but Lariats would fit into this as well. The FX series offers a standard 3.73 so those 5.4L would always benefit over the 5.0L down lower.
Well I did some math and thought some of you may like to see it. It's not the end all as there could be different driveline loss and the such but this is just a generalization off of "FORD's Torque Curves" measured at the Flywheel.
Here's the curves I've referenced:
Here's some results I've found from the pics above.
The 5.0L engine in the XLT does have the option to come with the 3.73 axle as to get towing up to 9300 lbs. The 5.4L w/3.55 axle was 9600 lbs. So the 5.0L needed the additional torque multiplier of the 3.73 axle to get tow ratings that were similiar. The torque multiplier is 5%, (3.73/3.55) - 1 = .0507 (5.07%) .
With the 3.73 axle on the 5.0L and the 3.55 axle on the 5.4L, torque is nearly the same at most rpms. Here's a break down I did so you can see it.
Of course the 5.0L extra 50 horsepower will help eliminate some of the need for extra torque so the 5.0L has additional power besides the torque obviously.
With the 3.73 axle, the 5.0L excels the 5.4L in torque except at 2500 rpm and 3000 rpm. Everywhere else the 5.0L exceeds the torque.
So for those coming from a new generation 5.4L w/6 speed transmission to a 5.0L, you can compare these numbers for "GENERAL" comparison.
Here's the numbers broke down:
5.0L w/3.55 axle
1500 rpm = 275#
2000 rpm = 302#
2500 rpm = 315#
3000 rpm = 327#
3500 rpm = 350#
4000 rpm = 365#
4250 rpm = 380#
4500 rpm = 375#
5000 rpm = 363#
5500 rpm = 348#
6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)
5.0L w/3.73 axle
1500 rpm = 289#
2000 rpm = 317#
2500 rpm = 331#
3000 rpm = 343#
3500 rpm = 368#
4000 rpm = 383#
4250 rpm = 399#
4500 rpm = 394#
5000 rpm = 377#
5500 rpm = 365#
6000 rpm = 331# (Redline)
1500 rpm = 253#
2000 rpm = 315#
2500 rpm = 340#
3000 rpm = 356#
3500 rpm = 365#
4000 rpm = 364#
4250 rpm = 362#
4500 rpm = 361#
5000 rpm = 327#
5500 rpm = 290# (Redline)
5.0L w/3.55 axle compared to 5.4L w/ 3.55 axle
1500 rpm = +22
2000 rpm = -13#
2500 rpm = -25#
3000 rpm = -29#
3500 rpm = -15#
4000 rpm = +1#
4250 rpm = +18#
4500 rpm = +14#
5000 rpm = +32#
5500 rpm = +58# (5.4L Redline)
5.0L w/3.73 axle compared to 5.4L w/ 3.55 axle
1500 rpm = +36
2000 rpm = +2#
2500 rpm = -9#
3000 rpm = -13#
3500 rpm = +3#
4000 rpm = +19#
4250 rpm = +37#
4500 rpm = +33#
5000 rpm = +50#
5500 rpm = +75# (5.4L Redline)
Of course the reference here is the 3.55 axle. So this is based only on that reference.
There are more torque multipliers obviously but this is just a generalization.
WOW your into it! I get my 5.4 up to 58 or 60 mph and just drive along.
1995 35 ft Holiday Rambler, Never again a new RV.
2001 Dodge 5.9
2003 25 ft Majestic Class C, Old rental Beast, Traveling machine. But gets "small" on long trips.
2013 Arctic Fox Trailer, great snowbirding trailer.
if you want to compare them using gearing multiplication you also have to factor in transmission ratios and tie it to road speed, not just rpm.
Yes, but he did say the 2010 5.4 had the new 6 sp, so it should be close. He also said these were flywheel numbers in the graphs. Good info anyways Mike, thanks for taking the time to post it. My old 2V 5.4 will have to do for now.
"Of course the 5.0L extra 50 horsepower will help eliminate some of the need for extra torque so the 5.0L has additional power besides the torque obviously"
The 'extra' horsepower is only going to come into play over 4K RPM's and at 1500 RPM according to your numbers.
HP is a derived value based on a measured torque at a particular RPM.
Nice info. Always suspected that the 4 valve 5.0 would be quite a good engine for towing.
Notice the HUGE drop off in power on the EcoBoost at high RPM.
It never has to rev that high so I don't see it as a problem. Actually, how often does anyone really run even the small V-8s higher than 5k? The torque differences between the 5.0 and 5.4 is like splitting hairs. But, you will notice the 100 ft-lb more that the eco has below 3000 RPM.
The aftermarket tuners carry that high torque out a little further and can achieve 450hp quite easily. The eco hardware is not even close to maxed out in stock form.
Above 5,500 RPM, yep, drops off. But check out that curve at 2,000 RPM, when all the big V8's are still trying to get going.
I'd not say that, as the Eco can't be compared to a regular engine.
Pickuptrucks.com had this to say:
After all the dyno finessing, our impression is that EcoBoost may not grunt out its full torque potential at low rpm in lower gears in full auto shift mode. It may do this so it doesn’t overwhelm a driveline component if a tire slips and then finds traction again. We might see full torque only at higher speeds, as we did in our original dyno runs on the Dynojet. However, we're not saying that EcoBoost doesn't make its published torque on the road in the real world because we've consistently seen EcoBoost F-150s outperform closely configured 5.0-liter F-150s when we've put both against the clock measuring zero to 60 mph times empty and pulling a heavy trailer (with identical and different rear axles). But in our tests, we've also repeatedly clocked the 5.0 with faster zero to 20 mph starts before EcoBoost really turns on the power from 20 mph to 60 mph. Slower zero to 20 mph times could also be caused by turbo lag, not torque management.
As also mentioned:
it took six hours to dial-in the GTDI truck for best power. The same setting was copied for the 5.0, which might not be ideal for a naturally aspirated engine.
I think the previous dyno was best as a true comparison with the new dyno tailored to read power below 2000 rpms.
I'm not sure how pickuptrucks.com does their 0 - 60 mph and 1/4 mile times but I don't think they do any power (brake) torqueing like Motor/Truck Trend and Car and Driver magazines do. Motor Trend and Car and Driver magazines had faster 0 - 20 mph times as they defeated the turbo lag by brake torqueing the engine and getting the rpms up to create boost.
When I test drove a few Ecoboosts, the turbo lag is definitely there as it feels slow off of the take off, then turbos take off and tires break loose. Not a comfort when pulling a trailer when your tires break loose and this problem has been spoke of in some reviews in magazines and posts in the forums. However, a great engine and I would had gotten one if the intercooler issues would had been solved earlier with a proven use period. I'm confident the new redesign and/or repair kit for older designs is the fix but only time will prove. 2014 may be the best year for the Ecoboost.
Ford will get the 'twin' turbo motors corrected for sure as Ecoboost motors seem to be taken over their entire line of cars, SUVs, and trucks. They have to work and I think Ford will make sure of it.