aai

Yes I will have to agree to that. I also hope we could agree that its hard to use the words "flat torque curve" and "5.0" in the same sentence. When there are clearly better options for that if thats what a person is looking for. That said, I'd have to stick to my guns and say the 5.0 wakes up at 4,000rpms from my personal experience..To be fair here is my dyno with my 5.0 to the wheels 4k-6k fairly flat and at that point all hell breaks loose with the hp taking over this light car

MatthewR

I'm happy so far. I've only had an ecoboost for 12 hours but the smile is plastered to my face!

Mike Up

Here's a list of Ford curves:







While the torque curve of the 5.0L suffers compared to the Ecoboost, it's the same if not just slightly worse than other's much larger displacement V8 with mileage that's better as well with similar performance.

Ecoboost does have a huge advantage at 3000 rpm according to Pickuptruck.com torque curve with 60 lbs more opposed to Ford's Flywheel result of 100 lbs more.

Here's a break down of torque vs rpm for each engine from Ford's Flywheel Torque curves.

3.7L

1500 rpm = 237#
2000 rpm = 250#
2500 rpm = 244#
3000 rpm = 250#
3500 rpm = 256#
4000 rpm = 275#
4500 rpm = 269#
5000 rpm = 262#
5500 rpm = 265#
6000 rpm = 262#


4.6L 3V

1500 rpm = 269#
2000 rpm = 275#
2500 rpm = 287#
3000 rpm = 287#
3500 rpm = 302#
4000 rpm = 320#
4500 rpm = 315#
5000 rpm = 300#
5500 rpm = 280#
6000 rpm = 255# (Redline)


5.0L

1500 rpm = 275#
2000 rpm = 302#
2500 rpm = 315#
3000 rpm = 327#
3500 rpm = 350#
4000 rpm = 362#
4500 rpm = 379#
5000 rpm = 356#
5500 rpm = 348#
6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)


5.4L

1500 rpm = 260# ?
2000 rpm = 315#
2500 rpm = 340#
3000 rpm = 356#
3500 rpm = 365#
4000 rpm = 365#
4500 rpm = 363#
5000 rpm = 350#
5500 rpm = 297# (Redline)
6000 rpm =


Ecoboost 3.5L

1500 rpm = 375#
2000 rpm = 381#
2500 rpm = 415#
3000 rpm = 420#
3500 rpm = 413#
4000 rpm = 413#
4500 rpm = 400#
5000 rpm = 390#
5500 rpm = 350#
6000 rpm = 275# (Redline)


6.2L

1500 rpm = 360#
2000 rpm = 372#
2500 rpm = 390#
3000 rpm = 387#
3500 rpm = 397#
4000 rpm = 406#
4500 rpm = 434#
5000 rpm = 413#
5500 rpm = 397#
6000 rpm = 372# (Redline)

Buck50HD

The Ford numbers are more applicable to towing since they are measured on a steady-state dyno. PU.com didn't even get accurate #'s below 3000RPM and the Eco peak is at 2500. The difference would be even larger there which is the reason I've never had to run my engine past 2700, even pulling 8k up a steep hill. Just a muffled growl, no screaming. Main reason I switched from my previous 5.3. The better V8 options would reduce the problem but still not eliminate it.

Still comes down to the characteristics you prefer.

Buck50HD

Also, the numbers are interesting. Never really cared about the 5.4 but I'm surprised they sacrificed the low end torque on the 5.0 that much. That's what pissed me off about GM and that 5.3. Keep revving the ***** out of it to get a few more HP for next year's advertising. Same 335TQ.

Mike Up

On an XLT, while the 5.4L numbers are better, the 5.0 with 3.73 performs better with the higher horsepower.

From a stop, the 5.0L always performed better but acceleration from a stablized speed is where the 5.0L faultered. Now with better transmission programming, the transmission gets to the correct gear to better match the 5.0L power. Previously it didn't do that in my early 2011 tester. It was slow to downshift to a gear in the correct rpms and quick to upshift into a gear that produced to low of a rpm for acceleration.

Also since the higher horsepower of the 5.0L helps maintain speed better under loads, the need to get back to speed, using torque, will be less frequent.

When I back to back test drove the 2011 5.0L against the 2010 5.4L, I was disappointed in the passing gear performance of the 5.0L.

In 2012 when I had my 2010 5.4L in for warranty work, I was give a 2012 F150 crew cab 4WD with the 5.0L but with 3.55 gearing. The most of the time accelerated better than my 2010 because the shifting was better tuned to the engine than the previous 2011. The 2012 5.0L felt like a different model from the 2011, the difference was so dramatic.

While people like to brag about engine performance, transmission performance can be the same importance or even MORE.

The largest drop in the 5.0L, from the 5.4L, is 29 lbs of torque around 3000 rpm. The lower 3.55 axle of the XLT (without the Max Tow package) diminishes that advantage along with the 50 lower horsepower against the 5.0L with a 3.73 axle.

The 5.4L shines when the trans keeps the rpms lower but the 5.0L shines when the trans is tuned for it's higher rpm torque output.

With the right transmission program, the 5.0L exceeds the performance of the 2010 5.4L in every way even with it's 6 speed auto. The 2008 and previous aren't even a consideration since they use the power robbing 4 speed auto.

The Eco is a beast in the lower rpm but at least to me, in normal driving without heavy acceleration, wasn't as life shattering with it's turbo lag as some would have you believe. While the lag is barely noticeable it's there until more acceleration spools up the turbos.

Buck50HD

Yeah, the trans can make a big difference, especially 4spd vs 6spd. If my 5.3 would have been a 6 speed and a crew cab, I probably wouldn't have this truck(yet, anyway). It was adequate but with the low torque, jumps between gears were too large with the 4spd.

I think this is also something that sets the eco apart from the V8's and doesn't get much attention. It is obvious that the converter attempts to stay locked a lot, minimizing heat and putting the torque to use. On a hot climb with a/c on, having an unlocked converter for more than a short time can spike trans temps in a hurry.

mrpositraction

The torque is amazing. I love how low it comes on strong, especially with a tune.

aai

definitely, the simple swap of a tune is the game changer

Lost In Sync

So happy it makes everybody smile.