Fatmattyd

jeb99ta - I saw this original post, but didn't care for the charts. Too difficult to compare Ford's offerings directly. So, I took this data (from its original post), put it into Excel and made my own charts (attached).
I hadn't intended to share it, and probably should have quoted my source in my last post.
I think this chart is a much better way to compare the Ford engine performance.

-Matt

MKRanger

Looking closely, it is very obvious that the 5.0 and 6.2 are simply the same engine design at different displacement magnitudes. Their torque curves could overlay one another if not separated by the Ft- lbs value. The 4.6 and 3.7 have nearly identical performance; impressive for the smaller 3.7 considering different platforms and displacement. But the graph illustrates what most here have said: the 5.4 has been replaced not by the 5.0 but rather the 3.5 EcoBoost. That long, nearly flat torque curve is what those who tow and haul look for in a work horse.

fordfan77

They are nowhere near the same engine. The 6.2 has an iron block with 2 valve heads (2 cams). The 5.0 has an aluminum block with 4 valve heads (4 cams).

MKRanger

I am not stating that they are the same engine, I am suggesting that the dynamics of the engine were designed with very similar characteristics such as valve timing events, compression at those valve events(not to be confused with compression ratio) and total output per cubic inch.

You don't have to argue the physical differences; I recognize that. But anyone who can understand a simple line graph, such as the one I made my statements from, can see the torque output is dang near symmetrical between the 5.0 and 6.2.

Mike Up

Very very similar, but once again, the 5.0L in comparison, rolls off at a much steeper slope at the lower rpms. At least the 6.2L levels off a bit instead of continuing the steep descending slope that follows the 5.0L.

As I stated previously before, I feel the 5.0 and 6.2L are marketing engines with lofty peak numbers and so so average output numbers that roll off quick. Ford needed something to compete with the numbers of Dodge, Toyota, and GM even if these numbers are more deceiving than useful. Then again, to today's vehicle buying market, people are niave in thinking that the numbers are the end all, telling the whole story. It's been proven here , at least in a few threads.

It's always been a want to have an engine with the flattest torque curve, not the most sloped. I remember when the '97 Camaro was out with it's 5.7 overhead valve pushrod engine that made 325 lbs of torque around 2500 rpm and it's 275 horsepower around 5000 rpms. All the car rags boasted about it's awesome great torque that put to shame the Mustangs little 4.6L, that had weak torque from it's peaky, lofty rpm output.

Back in the day, tire roasting, throw you in the back of the seat performance, was the rage. Lofty, high rpm output engines were accepted, but not praised.

While the Mustang Cobras 300 HP/300 lbs of torque performance made great full throttle times in 0 - 60 seconds and 1/4 miles, they weren't as fun to drive as the instantaneous power output of the torquey GM 5.7L out there.

Funny how today people take lofty power over torquey power. Hard to understand in a muscle car, but really hard to understand in a truck. But then again, I guess by talking with the guys at work, if they really care about their true truck performance, they buy a F250 with the 6.7L Diesel. Most at work who have 1/2 tons, strictly use them as daily drivers with the infrequent use for home improvements/lawn care.

2 guys I work directly with, bought diesels to pull their car trailers. Once guy dropped about $58,000 on a 2011 F350 single wheel lariat truck to pull his race car.

I guess when I see these easy to tow car trailers that weigh maybe 6000 lbs with the car, it amazes me that they're being pulled with a diesel when a 1/2 ton would make easy work out of this open trailer.

Now pulling a travel trailer or high profile box trailer is a strain that would warrant a diesel if it's heavy. Most people pull 5000 - 6000 lbs loaded travel trailers easily with their 1/2 ton trucks when equipped with a larger displacement, low torque gas engine (or ecoboost).

jeb99ta

A lot of what you said is the reasoning for purchasing my truck with a 3:73 rearend. My intent was to dump the factory tune and put the shift point above 6500. I bought a handheld programmer which would do that. Didn't buy my truck to pull anything heavy with ... bought it for an all-around utility truck for speed and light hauling, but, I know nthere will be a time when I will need to pull something a little heavy from time-to-time. With the 3:73 rearend, I shift at 6600-6700 at the track and I'm high in my next gear when it does shift ... where the torque begins to really come on.

Under heavy load, it works, as well. Of course Select Shift/Manual along with (or without) Tow/Haul mode will allow me to tow/haul any way I feel comfortable with. As most of us know, it's all about personal choice and what makes yourself happy.

CDC5.0

I have to say that this thread has been very interesting to read. Lots of good information and lots of good opinions.

I do agree with some previous posts that the 5.0 was never intended to replace the 5.4. It was designed to replace and improve upon the 3v 4.6 which it does very nicely. The 5.4 was replaced by the ecoboost. The torque curve comparisons from all the engines seem to back that up.

2v 4.6 --> 3.7
3v 4.6 --> 5.0
3v 5.4 --> 3.5TT

and of course the 6.2 came out of a whole other bag of tricks.

Comparing the 5.4 to 5.0 has sparked some great discussion but its not really the most accurate comparison you can make especially from a towing performance perspective. The 5.4 is a great towing engine and in that respect a great truck engine.
Was it out performed by the competition? Yes.
Was it a solid engine with the 6 speed transmission? Yes.
Should you feel bad or inadequate for owning one? Absolutely not!

The 5.0 is peaky in its torque curve and in that respect does have to rev up higher to get at its peak torque. The heaviest load I've had behind my 5.0 was 3 atv's (1 in the bed, 2 on a trailer) and this plus all the people and gear amounted to around 3200lbs. Even with a 3.31 rear end it felt strong and controlled and pulled no problem, even held 6th gear on some flat sections of highway doing 110 km/h. I know that this isn't a large amount of weight but its all I have to make an opinion with.

I love my 5.0 and do not regret buying it at all. But would I have been equally as happy with a 2010 5.4? I believe I would have been in the long run. They are both great engines and have their own sets of pro's and con's.

Hondafan

Ahem, been there done, If you want a flat torque curve buy an E boost Only HD diesels tow better. No better truck gasoline engine, period. Though the discussion here is about the 5L VS the 5.4, its really immaterial, the Eboost is the best engine in the line up not to mention the whole market for gas trucks. FOrd offers the 5L for marketing reasons, simply to satisfy buyers that must have a v8, thus they have offered the 5L, a thoroughly modern and market competitive engine. Objectively, they could forsworn V8 since the Eboost is the superior all around. Truck buyers are a crusty lot, thus the 5L, a very good engine on its own right for those that are a little slow adapting to new technology.

MR.FX4

Or if those crusty truck owners want more than 5 mpg while towing. Truck owners aren't always as backwards as you think in your assumed superior and arrogant mind

smurfs_of_war

One thing that this particular crusty truck buyer is often far more concerned about than the paper tiger that is HP is how well fortified the bottom end of these V6's actually is. The v8's historically have always had a stouter bottom end to handle the torque requirements when pulling. Does the EB? Time will tell.