ImSofaKingWeToddId

Stock 2wd SuperCab 3.31s. Couldn't get a good launch, tried locking differential and still spun. At 97.8 mph it should go 13.8 with a 1.9-2.0 60' time. 2.29 is a poor launch. Any recommendations? Tried easing into it, same result. 10 years drag racing experience when younger. Drag radials? Getting a tune, intake and exhaust. Wanted to see what it would run stock.

ecoboost clark

A tune would really wake it up. My last eco was 4wd so I had no problems launching.
I would say Drag radials would also make a huge difference.

JHFoutz

For my own curiosity, you ran in 4WD the entire run up to 100 mph? I worry about forgetting to take my truck out of 4WD and running at highway speeds. If you did that with no damage, that is encouraging.

zx12-iowa

you can run 4wd at any speed. this has been discussed many times. i run 4wd fir hundreds of hwy miles at a time (70 mph)

ImSofaKingWeToddId

It's a 2wd

LTNBOLT

I see you have the Cecil Mod. That is usually worth 2 tenths compared to other tracks on the northeast coast.

ImSofaKingWeToddId

If that's the case, all the guys in the 5.0s running mid -high 14s prob were disappointed. I went down once more after that run. Didn't post timeslips because I still couldn't break a 13, and was extremely dissappointed because I pulled a 99.1 mph through the traps on a much colder night. Still a 2.2 60' with the elocker and dropped air pressure. Both tires spinning, and with 3:31s . I think the 3:31s are what allow me to pull up top on the higher hp engines. I get a ton of arguments on here, and I don't have an answer myself. Maybe this truck came out of the factory a little loose, idk but stock for stock I pull away from 5.0s. And have so for the last year a dozen or more times. I wish we'd get a little more feedback from other guys with this engine. I'm buying a new truck in the next few weeks, I've driven them all. I'm going to go with the 3.5 eco, then mod it. The 5.0 pretty much felt like my 13' and my 15' 5.0. with a little more pull. Just isn't as quick as the ecoboosts. The new 2.7 with the tq increase felt much faster than the 5.0 and even the 3.5. Don't make any sense, but car and driver and others tested em, numbers dont lie. I'm at a 14.04 @ 99.1 with a 60' 2.24. SuperCab 20" wheels. Only a 2.7 L with 325hp. I'm not posting anymore timeslips or data because the bsers come out with their 13.9 stories on their stock 15 sec ram or tundra. It's funny how their all 13.9s.

engineermike

Technically, the stock tundra 5.7 is the only one that ran 13.9. The stock rams were quicker. I've seen stock f-150 5.0 15-17's run 13.8 and of course Maurice running 13.2 in an '18. I'm not aware of any stock f-150 before 2015 that ran in the 13's, other than the 2nd gen lightning. Mine ran 13.5.

w00t692

I think all the trucks should be tested for their performance data with 87 octane and 91 octane, since they pick up performance on 91 (all of the engines gain power from it) i'd be curious to see the difference it makes in the numbers and possibilities for why things vary so much.

LSchicago

Why not 87 & 93? Too bad the EB's can't run E85. They would gain more than the 5.0's do.