Topic Sponsor
Performance, Tuning, and (LEGAL) Racing Post discussions about increasing performance, capabilities, and racing. ****WARNING**** Street racing or illegal activities will be removed and potential bans will be handed out.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2018 5.0 potential

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-17-2017, 04:55 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
LSchicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,300
Received 197 Likes on 150 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by tuflehundon
Likely also because of emissions regulations as well.
That can't be. It gained less HP then the 3.5 going down to 3.3 Proportionately, while the 5.0 gained 5 cubic inches, 1.5 CR, and direct injection.
Old 10-19-2017, 02:31 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
WXman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,504
Received 310 Likes on 238 Posts
Default

The truck engine has to meet totally different requirements, which is why they purposefully detune it. Much like how the F-250 version of the 6.2 was weaker than the same engine in the F-150.

They're trying to make these F-150s as reliable as possible and as capable of high mileage as possible because fleets across the nation use them. I've seen 5.0 trucks with 375,000 miles or more on them, all original.
Old 10-19-2017, 03:12 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
LSchicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,300
Received 197 Likes on 150 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by WXman
The truck engine has to meet totally different requirements, which is why they purposefully detune it. Much like how the F-250 version of the 6.2 was weaker than the same engine in the F-150.

They're trying to make these F-150s as reliable as possible and as capable of high mileage as possible because fleets across the nation use them. I've seen 5.0 trucks with 375,000 miles or more on them, all original.
Yes it's actually 65HP rating difference now. Leads me to believe Ford is sandbagging to protect it's little V6 brothers.
Old 10-20-2017, 07:50 AM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
WXman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,504
Received 310 Likes on 238 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LSchicago
Yes it's actually 65HP rating difference now. Leads me to believe Ford is sandbagging to protect it's little V6 brothers.
Well, that part is obvious. Everybody knows that a V8 is capable of far more. But Ford purposefully wants to push the EcoBust stuff onto as many consumers as they can so that they can pat themselves on the back and say "look at what we accomplished!". Just imagine if they put those twin turbos on the V8 instead (which they may do next year for the GT500 car). Whoa.

I'm just saying that regarding the differences between the same engine in cars vs. trucks, it's always been that trucks are detuned on purpose to give them more longevity. This is even true in the medium-duty truck segment. As you go up in size of truck, power ratings go down. Look at a F-650 vs. F-250. Same diesel, big power rating differences.
Old 11-19-2017, 05:56 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 5,462
Received 1,556 Likes on 990 Posts

Default

Welp folks, 5star snuck some new numbers into their website. 400 rwhp. Boom. Stock was 345.
Old 11-19-2017, 07:02 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
TX-Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 1,713
Received 428 Likes on 336 Posts

Default

Old 11-19-2017, 08:27 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
RedsRock302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 189
Received 52 Likes on 33 Posts

Default

I posted this a few weeks ago, along with a video of that truck on the street running 0-100. Ive been following them like a hawk lol.

https://www.f150forum.com/f118/2018-...-video-398864/
Old 11-19-2017, 08:31 PM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
w00t692's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 2,229
Received 612 Likes on 439 Posts
Default

Video looks like somehwere around 13.5-14.0 seconds to 100 mph. I'm thinking in non rscb form that seems about right.
Old 11-20-2017, 04:46 PM
  #29  
Senile member
 
chimmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Sarasota, FL area
Posts: 3,633
Received 1,048 Likes on 732 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by engineermike
Welp folks, 5star snuck some new numbers into their website. 400 rwhp. Boom. Stock was 345.
why don't they ever do baseline 93 numbers to tuned 93 numbers? Instead baseline 87 stock tune to 93 performance tune. It's silly.

but 60whp is 60whp
Old 11-20-2017, 04:55 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
TX-Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 1,713
Received 428 Likes on 336 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by chimmike
why don't they ever do baseline 93 numbers to tuned 93 numbers? Instead baseline 87 stock tune to 93 performance tune. It's silly.

but 60whp is 60whp
sales



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 AM.