ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

I know there has been alot of discussion and controversy about everyone comparing our generations of trucks to that of the newer "square" style. Hence, I wanted to do a fair comparison; with nothing but specs and facts. Sure people can say they don't like the looks or its too curvy, but that is all opinionated. We also get alot of; its under powered, too light, too short, not enough payload, etc.

So here are the *FACTS*

Lets start off by stating the trucks we are comparing. The comparison will be done on 03 and 04 FX4 Supercab's. Picking these two as our candidates will match the best because of the standard options, and of course both having the 5.4 (the 2v, and 3v , respectively). Also each will have the 6.5 ft bed and a 3:73 axle ratio.

I would also like to mention the 04 has the option of 5.5 or 6.5 ft. bed. However, I cannot find that Ford even made a 04 FX4 style-side supercab. The only specs listed on the supercab with a 6.5ft bed is for 2wd and non FX4 model. Please don't tell me Ford took off some payload for more leg room.

These specs can be found on any ford brochure or adjoining ford sites.
Note: I will from now on refer to the different trucks by 03, and 04. (easy enough)

Lenghth:
03=225.8"
04=228.5 "
results: 04 is 3" longer

Width:= (widest part)
03 = 79.3
04= 78.9
results: 03 is wider by .4"

Height =
03= 75.5
04=75.0
results: 03 is taller by .5"

Wheelbase:
03= 138.8
04= 144.4
results: could be neg. or pos. for either depending on what you use the truck for. Considering they are both FX4's and are meant for off-roading enthusiast, shorter wheel base wins this one.

Weight:
03=4744 lbs
04=5471 lbs
results: 04 is much heavier, mainly due to the boxed frame and beefy chassis


Engine:
Torque
03: outputs around 475 n-m(350 lb-ft) of torque @ 2500 rpm
04: oupts around 494 n-m(365 lb-ft) of torque @ 3750 rpm
results: Unless you want to be pulling a trailer down the highway at 3750 rpm I think the 03 wins. It was purely irrelevant for ford to post those numbers on the 04. My reasoning behind the rpms(2500 vs 3750) was just to post a higher number than the previous 5.4 2v. It would be bad marketing for fords "COMPLETELY REDESIGNED" F150 to post the same POWER sepcs as the 03.

However, if you have an 04-08 model I assume you will disagree. So lets do some calculations using Fords Specifications; We will calculate the torque where the engines are both rated at max. HP.

The math(skip this part or double check if you want).

Horsepower =( 2Pi(RPM)(Torque))/33000
equivalently HP=(Torque* RPM) /5252
and Torque= (HP*5252)/RPM
so;

03 specs:
260 hp @ 4500
T:=(260*5252)/4500;
T= 68276/ 225
T= 303.4488889 ft lbs @ 4500rmp and 260 hp

04 specs
300hp @ 5000
T:=(300*5252)/5000;
T=7878/25
T= 315.1200000 ft lbs @5000 rmp and 300hp

Now lets assume the new block and internals of the 5.4 3v are efficient and the variables stay constant. Therefore, lets assume the 3v makes 95% (very unlikely) of its max torque at 2500 rmp like the 2v. Then we get the, 346.75 ft-lbs at 95%, which still falls short of the older 2v model at that rpm.

I really don't want to get into the size and radius of the crank vs angular momentum(diff. equations) with respect to time to put a graph up. However, the facts do show the new 5.4 3v has 15more ft-lbs of torque but at the risky and very unusable 3750 rpm. So in reality is the newer 5.4 that much stronger? You tell me

Towing Specs;

Max payload:
03=1725
04= 1670
results: The older "under-powered 03" has an advantage in payload by around 50lbs



GVWR:
03=6500lbs
04=7200lbs
results: 04 wins by by about 10%

GCWR:
Both the engines and 3:73 axle ratio
15000 each, without respect to body and bed design. So that should say something about the 03's powertrain.

True GCWR: with respect to our designated body and cab style.
03 = 8200lbs
04= 9300lbs
results: 04 wins by about 12%.

Interior:
This is no comparison unless you go with the bench seats. The 04 wins hands down in this category.

We won't get into suspension and other options this time.

And sure I've seen the safety videos on the 97-01 models. But this may surprise you, directly from Ford.

SAFETY AND SECURITY (This is off an 04 Brochure)
http://www.fordf150.net/specs/04f150over.php
The all-new Ford F-150 has been engineered with a focus on safety. Across the line-up, the new full-size truck from the Tough Truck leader has the strength, technology and know-how to protect its occupants.

The new F-150 helps to protect its occupants with a structure designed to absorb crash energy and dissipate it before it can reach the reinforced passenger compartment. In the U.S. Federal Government's frontal crash tests, the 2002 F-150 SuperCrew scored five stars for driver and front passenger protection.


And one last thing I will say ...............
The 18" machined FX4 wheels are terrible looking and look like a kid plasti dipped them in aluminum. While the 17"'s on the 03's have a nice aesthetic, aggressive look to them.

Conclusion; The 03 is taller, wider, makes max torque at lower rpms, and has more payload. The 04 is longer, weighs more, has 40 more hp at a higher rpm,can haul 10% more than the 03. Note: both the 5.4 2v, and 3v with the 3:73 axle are rated to haul the same MAX load.

Let the bashing begin.

2002QCFX4

Nice write up! I have always liked our gen of trucks, you just helped confirmed why.
Nice truck by the way.

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

Thanks man, I was grading my students Calculus test in my office and got overly bored.

Hopefully this will get a few people thinking straight.

2002QCFX4

So if you take the GCWR of 15000lbs, subtract the GVWR of 8200lbs, is this how you get the actual towable weight?

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

The 15000 was for the engine on a "payload" suspension, chassis, and axle. I believe the 15000 is for the 4:11, with the payload package.

If you look a litle further you will see the specs for our specific trucks (supercabs with 3:73) not the 4:11 axle.

The GCWR is:
The maximum allowed weight for a vehicle with all of its contents and passengers along with the weight of any towed vehicle and its contents.

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

So both, being heavier and lighter, can have its benefits.

BROWNINGFX4

nice write up!

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

Thank you.

I think it was an interesting, and fair comparison.

Buckshot482

I know Im a little late, but I really enjoyed reading this. Great write up as the others have said.

stx03

You should have posted this in the 04-08 section if you wanted to have some fun