HP and Touque for 3.5 and 5.0???
09-30-2014, 07:00 AM
#41
I was surprised that they didn't bump the 3.5L Ecoboost, too.
I was especially surprised they didn't at least list it as the same HP and torque of the 3.5L Ecoboost that is available in the 2015 Lincoln Navigator. The Navigator lists the 3.5EB at 380HP and 460 ft-lb. (http://www.lincoln.com/suvs/navigator/)
Shouldn't the 3.5EB in the F-150 at least be equivalent to the Navigator?
I was especially surprised they didn't at least list it as the same HP and torque of the 3.5L Ecoboost that is available in the 2015 Lincoln Navigator. The Navigator lists the 3.5EB at 380HP and 460 ft-lb. (http://www.lincoln.com/suvs/navigator/)
Shouldn't the 3.5EB in the F-150 at least be equivalent to the Navigator?
If you want that engine so bad, go get a Nav or get those numbers with the help of the aftermarket.....it'll be cheaper and you can even surpass them.
You'll have yourself quite the rice burner.
09-30-2014, 07:01 AM
#42
Seeing the power bump in the 5.0 redeems Ford a little bit in my eyes. I'll admit.... This is a positive gesture aimed towards the real truck guys out there. (Sorry but if you drive an EB you're not a real truck guy so don't even try to argue, you will be dismissed and ignored) However, it's not enough imo. Nonetheless, the weight loss will make it feel like more of a power bump. I still look forward to test driving one.
09-30-2014, 08:41 AM
#43
Senior Member
Seeing the power bump in the 5.0 redeems Ford a little bit in my eyes. I'll admit.... This is a positive gesture aimed towards the real truck guys out there. (Sorry but if you drive an EB you're not a real truck guy so don't even try to argue, you will be dismissed and ignored) However, it's not enough imo. Nonetheless, the weight loss will make it feel like more of a power bump. I still look forward to test driving one.
I'm really shocked that they let the 6.2L go. All of the other truck brands offer a large displacement V8 and I've heard the new GM 6.2L is a screamer. They could of at least provided the 6.2L on a custom order basis. That's just my opinion.
09-30-2014, 09:53 AM
#46
Senior Member
Take it easy Billy BA. It says regular octane for the 2.7L also, but it DOES NOT make the 325 on 87. I'm just trying to find out if Ford made this power off 93 octane for the 5.0L. Do you really think I give 2 ******s about EB vs. V8 ? All their truck engines use 87, but do they make the advertised power on it, NO. On their website it doesn't have (*) by either engine , but it does say this under "additional disclosures" in the engine section... "68. Achieved with premium fuel". They are not singling out one particular engine, just a general statement.
Last edited by hydro; 09-30-2014 at 09:56 AM.
09-30-2014, 10:04 AM
#47
Senior Member
The ONLY Mustang in 2014 that requires premium fuel is the GT500. All others are rated for 87. You won't get the advertised power, but it'll run just fine. That's what I'm afraid about the new F150 5.0 ratings. It makes better power except... you have to buy expensive fuel that only half of America can get. My BS flag is waving at Ford for re-rating all their engines off 93 octane 
.
.
The following users liked this post:
hydro (09-30-2014)
09-30-2014, 10:52 AM
#48
09-30-2014, 11:01 AM
#49
International man of Myst
Seeing the power bump in the 5.0 redeems Ford a little bit in my eyes. I'll admit.... This is a positive gesture aimed towards the real truck guys out there. (Sorry but if you drive an EB you're not a real truck guy so don't even try to argue, you will be dismissed and ignored) However, it's not enough imo. Nonetheless, the weight loss will make it feel like more of a power bump. I still look forward to test driving one.
09-30-2014, 11:59 AM
#50
Senior Member
Definitely not a fan of The Fast Lane truck reviewers but they seem to be out there doing a ton of reviews. They are admittedly big Dodge Hemi fans so they do seem biased. The 2.7 looked good in that review. One thing I noticed is that the 3.5liter was in the heavy King Ranch and the 2.7 in some version of XLT which would be significantly lighter again.
I'm not a Dodge fan but something seemed off on the RAM, like a hesitation about 1 second in to the run, the reviewer made a comment about the transmission. Maybe the fancy 8 speed was acting up?? Little surprised that the Hemi times were so slow on such a short strip.
I'm not a Dodge fan but something seemed off on the RAM, like a hesitation about 1 second in to the run, the reviewer made a comment about the transmission. Maybe the fancy 8 speed was acting up?? Little surprised that the Hemi times were so slow on such a short strip.