bluebullitt01

The days of "no replacement for displacement" are gone. Engineers are downgrading but producing more power. Sorry ill take my 2011 ecoboost over my old 2007 5.4 any day. Everyone was upset when the 5.0 went away for the 4.6/5.4 but it brought about a new wave of generating power through over head cams instead of over valves now here we are again evolving. Building motors with direct injection at smaller bores, strokes and boost.it will only get better... 5.0 vs 5.4
5.0 hands down.

11screw50

and I see you gave the 5.4 every benefit by rounding up while rounding down the 5.0 in your analysis if the torque curves. so yeah, there is a difference, but not as large a difference as you would have us believe.

I did notice that you made no mention at 1500rpm, 5.0: 275, 5.4: 255, guess it didnt support your argument well enough. In fact, you claim the 5.4 makes substantially more torque below 3000rpm. guess not.

Fatmattyd

Going to have to add this topic to the forbidden list!

At least folks seem happy with what they have?

I like my 5.4L. It's my first truck, and I haven't driven the 5.0L or the 3.5L. The 5.4L tows my boat just fine, takes garbage to the dump, hauls kids around... what can I say?

Here's the torque curve data I have... for what it's worth.

-Matt

Bosro

I owned 3 5.4L....I finally went away from them for a few years because of their performance and reliability and wouldn't own an F150 now if the 5.4L was the only engine choice.
That people who have them like them is great but not me...

minnemike

Looking at that torque chart it seems obvious the 5.0 was meant as an equivalent replacement for the 5.4 and the EB as an entirely new beast.

However, does anyone know if the 5.0 is much smaller (real estate wise) under the hood than the 5.4? How 'bout in weight?

IF it is smaller and less weight, I tend to think that the 5.0 development was mainly for cross platform use in several models.

Really, if there was anything so seriously wrong with the 5.4, it wouldn't have continued on for so long. The reason for the 5.0 has to be more than just the slight performance gain.

fordfan77

I think the 5.0 was based on the 4.6 block, which means the deck height would be smaller, since the 5.4 is taller than the 4.6. The four valve heads might make it wider though, I'm not sure.

I still think the 5.0 was developed mainly for the Mustang to be a 5.0 again, and bring back a name popular with performance enthusiasts. It worked for Dodge, bringing back the hemi name.

I do know the 5.0 has aluminum block and heads though, and the 5.4 is an iron block. So it is lighter.

jeb99ta

Well, here's Ford's data directly from which Mike Up posted on this forum. I think it's accurate as to the vehicles being more on a level playing field, i.e. rearend gears, etc.

'Ford released the torque curves for all the motors in 2009 - 2011 in their marketing booklet. I took pictures and have the results:









Here's the breakdown:


3.7L

1500 rpm = 237#
2000 rpm = 250#
2500 rpm = 244#
3000 rpm = 250#
3500 rpm = 256#
4000 rpm = 275#
4500 rpm = 269#
5000 rpm = 262#
5500 rpm = 265#
6000 rpm = 262#


4.6L 3V

1500 rpm = 269#
2000 rpm = 275#
2500 rpm = 287#
3000 rpm = 287#
3500 rpm = 302#
4000 rpm = 320#
4500 rpm = 315#
5000 rpm = 300#
5500 rpm = 280#
6000 rpm = 255# (Redline)


5.0L

1500 rpm = 275#
2000 rpm = 302#
2500 rpm = 315#
3000 rpm = 327#
3500 rpm = 350#
4000 rpm = 362#
4500 rpm = 379#
5000 rpm = 356#
5500 rpm = 348#
6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)


5.4L

1500 rpm = 260# ?
2000 rpm = 315#
2500 rpm = 340#
3000 rpm = 356#
3500 rpm = 365#
4000 rpm = 365#
4500 rpm = 363#
5000 rpm = 350#
5500 rpm = 297# (Redline)
6000 rpm =


Ecoboost 3.5L

1500 rpm = 375#
2000 rpm = 381#
2500 rpm = 415#
3000 rpm = 420#
3500 rpm = 413#
4000 rpm = 413#
4500 rpm = 400#
5000 rpm = 390#
5500 rpm = 350#
6000 rpm = 275# (Redline)


6.2L

1500 rpm = 360#
2000 rpm = 372#
2500 rpm = 390#
3000 rpm = 387#
3500 rpm = 397#
4000 rpm = 406#
4500 rpm = 434#
5000 rpm = 413#
5500 rpm = 397#
6000 rpm = 372# (Redline)

3.7L has an impessive torque curve and the Ecoboost has the best low rpm torque curve.

4.6L 3V has a decent torque curve while the 5.4L 3V has a good torque curve.

5.0L and 6.2L have the worst torque curves in the low rpms.

The 3.7L, while having a good torque curve, had lower outputs.

The Ecoboost Looks to be the best motor to tow with a side of any current overheating/transmission problems.

While the 6.2L has a terrible torque curve, it's output is high enough to get past that.

All motors have the curve start at 1000 rpm while the 5.4L starts at 1500 rpm. Curve below 2000 rpms on the 5.4L looks inaccurate as the curve just starts off at 1500 rpms. Don't know why they started testing so late in the rpms on the 5.4L 3V.
__________________'

Mike Up

I have to disagree, the way I see it with the torque curves, the 5.0L most definitely is the 4.6L 3 Valve replacement as the 'base' engine for most trims and the Ecoboost is the optional engine taking the place of the 5.4L for even a better torque curve with a much higher "average" torque output.

After the Ecoboost matures, I think this will be the best truck 'gas' engine available until a bigger displacement Ecoboost comes along.

MKRanger

The 5.0 was not put in the F-150 lineup as a replacement for the 5.4L; the 5.0 is there as the base V-8 to replace the anemic 4.6 that graced the gap between the inner fenders for 14 long years. The 3.5 EcoBoost is the replacement for the 5.4 as strange as they may seem for some. The 6.2 may seem like the logical engine choice to supersede the 5.4, but the 6.2 isn't available in all trim levels. For entry level torque and horsepower coupled with MPG, the 3.7 is there. The EcoBoost family of engines will soon have rivals among the other manufacturers and their vehicle offerings; it's just a sign of things to come.

My 2 cents is the 5.4 was a great engine once the 3 valve head came along and mated to a 5 speed tranny. The 1st gen Triton motors were ahead of their rival counter parts at their inception but low on performance. OHC motors in the mid 90s didn't have the same out the hole torque and feel that OHV motors created. For those lucky enough to remember the Fox chassis 5.0 know that the SN95 chassis 4.6 had nothing compared to feel and true straight line performance even though the 4.6 posted higher HP and torque.

minnemike

So yeah, if the physical dimensions are smaller it makes total sense to save on production and move forward with an engine that can be used cross platform with fit (mustang and more) and lower weight for mileage issues.