SilverSurfer15

its more the turbo sizing, not the tuning thats moving your boost curve. I think he was just saying, the EB shined down low like it should, and the 5.0 sang up top like it should. It would be cool to see VGT type of system on the ecoboost though, open the vanes as the RPM goes up so it doesnt fall off so hard. But it would probably make too much power lol. #FordProblems

I think 100mph in the raptor seems AGGRESSIVE, and the 91 here seems more accurate. Its HARD to go fast in a giant parachute with heavy tires. 91 is nothing to scoff at in a truck like that IMO. Just look at the diesel guys....

J15

What’s your point? If the EB had a race-built engine it would be faster? I don’t see how any of this data is being incorrectly applied. There’s acceleration data for the entire reasonable driving range and it says what we all knew already. The EB is faster down low and the coyote is faster up high. Buy what fits your needs.

Rontbeamer

Well sort of, I think if you gave up a little low-end torque on the 3.5 EB they could make it quicker. If you have played with tuning at all, a motor has X available power and you can shift that power band around in various ways to achieve certain performance objectives. In the case of the 3.5 EB truck motors, Ford's objective is torque for towing and off-road performance. They could quite easily retune it for 1/4 mile times. Kind of pointless in a truck motor. What I really want to see is the 3.5 EB in a Mustang. I think Ford keeps it out of the Mustang because it would eat the 5.0 alive on that platform. I'm not opposed to the 5.0 V8, I love NA V8s, it's just yesteryears technology.

SilverSurfer15

460HP 8,000 RPM DOHC 302 inch v8 is not yesteryears technology lol. You slap ~10lbs of boost on these things, you are off in the mid to high 600s at the wheel. Its full tilt to make upper 600s on pump gas in a cobra (or 4v), almost impossible with a 2v. A basic supercharged 2v car makes 380whp.

J15

The trucks in this thread are intended to represent what an ordinary owner receives in stock form. You can modify any of them to yield better performance in a given category. Nobody’s saying otherwise.

Speed is relevant to many truck owners. Not everyone uses them to pull trailers or heavy loads. Some people had their needs change after buying, and others were never interested in using the vehicle as a truck to begin with. I’m on track to drive close to 40,000 miles this year. I’d say about 30,000 of those are spent in the left lane on the highway. That’s the bread and butter speed range for a V8. For the EB, not so much. Those turbos may produce extra power as they spool up, but they also kill your fuel economy at higher speed compared to their NA siblings. They’re also fighting to hide the natural disadvantage of lower displacement at high speed. You see, this is a matter of personal preference. No one powerplant is “the best”. It’s the best for a specific owner. One could just as easily say that they don’t care about speed when pulling a trailer and would prefer the engine braking capacity of a higher displacement engine. At the end of the day, it’s personal preference. Enjoy the truck you want to own.

Rontbeamer

It is what it is man. The reason HP is way up is because of computer control. The NA V8s days are numbered in production cars. And with your comment, how much horsepower does the 3.5 EB make in the Ford GT? Yeah, 650.

2015rubyFX4

Well the actual test had the eb's with a 3.55 gears and the 5.0 with 3.31's. So the 5.0 was at a disadvantage, but that was not noted by yourself.

SilverSurfer15

Yea, but thats a supercar with a supercar engine. And its an extreme version of what a 3.5 can do, the raptor engine would be a better example for the case you are trying to make. Agree to disagree on this, enjoy your ecoboost engines.

LSchicago

Yes, there have been V8 Ford GT's (last generation) producing over 2,000HP when built. You won't see a V6 Ecoboost hit those numbers.
On a side note, all of these times posted by the mag is a bit slow, but keep in mind the track they used was about 1/4 mile above sea level.

A Guy

Super crew. Bone stock. 91 octane. No wind that day. Did it 3 times with near same result. 14.4.

I have a loaded Lariat with tanneau cover and 1/4 inch thick rubber bed mat. I bet I’m the same or heavier than a stock platinum and still ran notably under those times at high elevation.