Finally! Another 2018 5.0 1/4 mile time. (Crew Cab)
04-16-2018, 01:47 AM
#171
04-27-2018, 10:49 AM
#172
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, it is what it is.
Stock 2018 5.0s are pretty consistently making over 340 rwhp on a Dyno Jet, stock 2015-2017s pretty consistently make under 300 rwhp.
The 2018s at 345 rwhp vs the 2017s @ 295 rwhp is basically what it boils down to on average.
A 2015-2017 5.0 will a need a couple mods and a tune to make stock 2018 power.
04-27-2018, 03:56 PM
#173
I dont recall to many people saying they were slower. I recall them always being neck and neck in the same configuration which appears to be the case. There is a video of a bone stock 2017 3.5 EB CC 2wd running a 13.75(i assume not on E85).
There was a time when the 2.7 was as quick as the 3.5. Ford underrated them and they seemed to make within 10hp and 20 ft-lbs of the 11-16 3.5. They were generally a little lighter due to the truck they were in(less options) an would run very solid times. I wouldnt be surprised if a 2.7 was neck and neck with stock 5.0 prior to 2018.
Now if you wanna compare a 4000 lb RCSB 5.0 to a 5000 lb crew cab EB like some people like too, then it obviously wont be a contest. most of us buy our trucks for utility, not speed.
There was a time when the 2.7 was as quick as the 3.5. Ford underrated them and they seemed to make within 10hp and 20 ft-lbs of the 11-16 3.5. They were generally a little lighter due to the truck they were in(less options) an would run very solid times. I wouldnt be surprised if a 2.7 was neck and neck with stock 5.0 prior to 2018.
Now if you wanna compare a 4000 lb RCSB 5.0 to a 5000 lb crew cab EB like some people like too, then it obviously wont be a contest. most of us buy our trucks for utility, not speed.
Last edited by mass-hole; 04-27-2018 at 04:00 PM.
04-28-2018, 01:57 AM
#174
I dont recall to many people saying they were slower. I recall them always being neck and neck in the same configuration which appears to be the case. There is a video of a bone stock 2017 3.5 EB CC 2wd running a 13.75(i assume not on E85).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzltyfSNGKo
There was a time when the 2.7 was as quick as the 3.5. Ford underrated them and they seemed to make within 10hp and 20 ft-lbs of the 11-16 3.5. They were generally a little lighter due to the truck they were in(less options) an would run very solid times. I wouldnt be surprised if a 2.7 was neck and neck with stock 5.0 prior to 2018.
Now if you wanna compare a 4000 lb RCSB 5.0 to a 5000 lb crew cab EB like some people like too, then it obviously wont be a contest. most of us buy our trucks for utility, not speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzltyfSNGKo
There was a time when the 2.7 was as quick as the 3.5. Ford underrated them and they seemed to make within 10hp and 20 ft-lbs of the 11-16 3.5. They were generally a little lighter due to the truck they were in(less options) an would run very solid times. I wouldnt be surprised if a 2.7 was neck and neck with stock 5.0 prior to 2018.
Now if you wanna compare a 4000 lb RCSB 5.0 to a 5000 lb crew cab EB like some people like too, then it obviously wont be a contest. most of us buy our trucks for utility, not speed.
04-28-2018, 09:28 AM
#175
The 6-speed truck had 35s, they'll eat about 15 rwhp on a dyno.
But, it is what it is.
Stock 2018 5.0s are pretty consistently making over 340 rwhp on a Dyno Jet, stock 2015-2017s pretty consistently make under 300 rwhp.
The 2018s at 345 rwhp vs the 2017s @ 295 rwhp is basically what it boils down to on average.
A 2015-2017 5.0 will a need a couple mods and a tune to make stock 2018 power.
But, it is what it is.
Stock 2018 5.0s are pretty consistently making over 340 rwhp on a Dyno Jet, stock 2015-2017s pretty consistently make under 300 rwhp.
The 2018s at 345 rwhp vs the 2017s @ 295 rwhp is basically what it boils down to on average.
A 2015-2017 5.0 will a need a couple mods and a tune to make stock 2018 power.
04-28-2018, 11:50 PM
#177
That's insane. Only a 3% loss on advertised crank torque and and 12% loss on HP.
Were these #'s with 93 octane?
Were these #'s with 93 octane?
04-29-2018, 12:44 AM
#178
Senior Member
I guess Maurice's times weren't a fluke:
13.4x at 102.x stock, 4x4 rcsb.
Also note his dyno graph at the end. Looks like 369/406 stock and 415/426 tuned, could have been e85 for both.
FWIW, ID motorsports stock 5.0 f-150 made 368/388 stock and 389/409 tuned, both on 93.
13.4x at 102.x stock, 4x4 rcsb.
Also note his dyno graph at the end. Looks like 369/406 stock and 415/426 tuned, could have been e85 for both.
FWIW, ID motorsports stock 5.0 f-150 made 368/388 stock and 389/409 tuned, both on 93.
Last edited by engineermike; 04-29-2018 at 12:51 AM.
04-29-2018, 08:43 AM
#179
Senior Member
04-29-2018, 03:00 PM
#180
Senior Member
Thats Atco too. My local track(where I called out Sofaking but he backed out) and notice a HUGE diff in short times before and after the tune. 2.0 to 1.7? hmmm. Ill bet the tune run was in 4wd and the non tune run was not
I guess Maurice's times weren't a fluke:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rW8dsTugGqM
13.4x at 102.x stock, 4x4 rcsb.
Also note his dyno graph at the end. Looks like 369/406 stock and 415/426 tuned, could have been e85 for both.
FWIW, ID motorsports stock 5.0 f-150 made 368/388 stock and 389/409 tuned, both on 93.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rW8dsTugGqM
13.4x at 102.x stock, 4x4 rcsb.
Also note his dyno graph at the end. Looks like 369/406 stock and 415/426 tuned, could have been e85 for both.
FWIW, ID motorsports stock 5.0 f-150 made 368/388 stock and 389/409 tuned, both on 93.
Last edited by 2015rubyFX4; 04-29-2018 at 03:03 PM.