Kit Sullivan

I have a strange hypothesis that I would like all of you to consider, and maybe chime in on. It is a little convoluted, but I will be as concise as I can:

Back in '87, Ford debuted the latest iteration of the venerable 5.0 H.O. "Windsor" small block and rated it then at 225 horses. It stayed that way, unchanged mechanically for several years.
Ford also had a non-H.O. version of the motor, but that 5.0 carried a different engine (VIN) code in any vehicle it was installed into. So...two versions of the motor: H.O. and non-H.O.

In '92, the 5.0 H.O. was suddenly and without explanation from then on rated at only 205 horses. No changes to the motor, yet a significant (about 10%) drop in rated horsepower.
No one could rreally figure out what Ford was up to at the time. Eventually thier explanation was that they were now rating horsepower more accurately.

When the brand-new 4.6 "modular" OHC engine debuted in the Mustang GT, and replaced the old 302 H.O, it was rated at 210 (or was it 220?) horses.
Conveniently, this allowed Ford to claim that the new 4.6, while being lighter in weight and with fewer cubes was actually more powerful than the larger, heavier engine it replaced.
Anyone who drove the new 4.6 could tell instantly that Ford was up to some skullduggery: There was no way that the new engine was more powerful than the old one...no comparison at all.
After a while, the gneral consensus amongst enthusiasts was that Ford re-rated the old 5.0 HO a couple of years in advance of the new 4.6, knowing full well that the new 4.6 was not in fact more powerful than the outgoing 5.0.
However, it would not be an easy thing to advertise that the new, improved "state of the art" engine was less powerful than the "old fashioned" engine it replaced. So, the horsepower trickery resulted.

It is fact that Ford has done similar tricks like this several times over the years:
1) Many of the so-called "Shelby" Le Mans 427-8v engines in 67 GT-500's were later revealed to actually be 390's with the Shelby intakes, carbs and engine dress installed. 75-100 horse difference by most accounts.
2) The famous 427SC Cobras supposedly came with (obviously) 427 engines. Several documented cars came with 428 PI motors instead.
3) The early 90's Mustang Cobra came with an all-aluminum DOHC 4.6 rated at 315 horse, while the standard iron-block-and-heads Mustang GT SOHC 4.6 engine was rated at 260. Somehow, the Mustang GT was a better performer that year. It was later discovered that the Cobra motor was in fact down about 75 horses, and Ford spent many millions of dollars retrofitting many Cobras to get them up to thier advertised power.

So, the point is; Ford has a well-known history of fudging the numbers to suit thier corporate purposes (as I am sure all the other manufacturers do too).

Now, the "new" Coyote 5.0 from the Mustang GT is ratd at 411 horses (I think), while the F150 version of the same motor is rated at 360. That is a significant difference.
I have done a little internet studying (not nearly as much as a lot of experts here, though) and the only differences i can spot between the two versions of this motor are:
1) GT: listed as 11.0/1 compression, F150 version: 10.5/1
2) GT: No oils sprayers for the underside of the pistons like the F150 version.
3) No oil cooler on the GT, like on the F150

If the cams are in fact different, I didn't find anything claiming this. And of course, I understand that the engine strategy is probably significantly different for the F150 vs the "Stang.

Here's what I'm thinking:

The 5.0 "coyote' in the F150 is (maybe) in fact the exact same 411-horse engine as in the Mustang GT, yet it has been artificially rated lower when installed in the F150.
Why would Ford do this? Why under-rate, and purposely make your own product look less attractive to potential customers than it really is?

Could it be that they are trying to maybe, just maybe give thier new darling, the awesome new, super-sophisticated state-of-the-art ......


...eco-boost engine a little help in the sales department? By showing and advertising that the new and technically sophisticated "small" 3.5 V-6 is actually MORE powerful than thier very-impressive new 5.0 V-8 would sure give it a good shot at being a sales leader, no?

As it is now, Ford only lists two seperate engine codes for a 5.0 liter engine:
"F"-code engines are listed and described exactly the same in Mustang GT and F150 installations.
"U"-code (BOSS 302) engines are listed only for the BOSS 302 (natch!) and the description of that motor is quire different from the description of the "F" code.

I belive that if the GT engine and the F150 engine were in fact different enough from each other to reflect a 51 horse difference, then they would probably have different engine codes.
The intake and exhaust differences between the F150 and the Mustang GT alone could well explain that much of a horsepower difference on an otherwise identical engine.

All this started today: I was at the dealership today were I bought my truck, and asked the salesman to let me drive an eco-boost truck, same configuration and axle ratio as mine.
My seat-of-the-pants drive convinces me that there is no significant difference in power. Mind you, this is just driving, not towing. It certainly isn't noticeably more powerful at any RPM range.

I'm not saying I actually believe this to be the case, just that if it was true, I would not be a bit surprised, knowing how Ford plays kinda loose-and-fast with numbers to suit thier needs.

NOTE: This is NOT...I repeat: NOT a knock on the eco-boost, so please don't all you eco-boosters get all bunched up and offended.

Anyone have an opinion or comment on this?

11screw50

At one time, I had a similar theory however, the dyno charts I've seen since say otherwise. from a hp standpoint, the only one I've seen showing the EB lower than the 5.0 is 5Star's.

I will add that its impossible to compare the F150 and the mustang and for some reason, I doubt I'd be able to convince my step-father to swap the engine from my truck with the one in their 2012 Mustang. (technically, he would be capable of such an action)

borjeb

Good write up. There has been alot of talk of sandbagging the 5.0, even a few dyno comparisons that hint the ecoboost was sandbagged. One thing I can tell you is it wouldn't surprise me if the stang is over rated, I drove an 11 and it didn't feel 111hp stronger than my dads 07.

Commander316

they would not rate the 5.0 higher than the 6.2 for obvious reasons.. the 3.5 is faster when equally compared, to all three other engines..

terryj

disregard

jswd60

I posted this a while back in another thread but look at the 5.4
Started out as 2v at like 260 hp, no changes and increased in power
then switched to 3v and then no other changes and it increased several more times.

Hypothetical example
engine makes 400 hp
so this year ford says 375, next year or two 385, then finally the real 400 when engine is several years old. Just a way to get some people to trade the 375hp truck in for the "new and improved" 400

11screw50

there are theories that the 5.0 in the mustang is underrated. my mother had an '07 and now has a '12 and the difference is huge (my step father didnt think so when he drove the '12 but he hadnt driven the '07 all winter...when he drove the '07 to pick up the '12, he noticed a huge difference) the '07 is a dog compared to the '12.

Kit Sullivan

Yes, I quoted that in my post.

ClaySlayer

The GT & the F-150 have the oil squirters...this was done so they could use a cheaper/lighter piston and still run crazy timing advance to get a lot of the benefit that DI provides. You are correct on the compression. The F-150s peak HP is at 5,500rpm...the GT's is at 6,500rpm. More than likely this is different cams that move the F-150s power curve south a little compared to the GT in order to perform towing/hauling duty better...I don't think just tuning alone could accomplish this. The GT is in fact underrated at 411hp. The real number is said to be closer to ~430hp since there are a lot of cars putting down ~360 to the wheels. After the cluster with the ~99-00 Cobras Ford has had a habit of underrating the mustangs (the 03-04 Cobra was advertised at 390 but like the current GT a lot of them were putting down ~360rwhp so the real number at the flywheel was ~430hp). That is weird about the engine codes though. I believe the 360 rating on the F-150 is pretty accurate though given the trucks times compared to the EB & 6.2 and the umpteen dyno sheets posted. If anything the EB is the underrated one...

Oh no did a 5.0 owner just say say the EB is underrated?

engineermike

If they knew the 4.6 would be shy of horsepower and didn't like that, then they would have had plenty of time to fix the lack of hp, rather then deceive customers.

Add to the list tubular headers, different cams, and something with the exhaust valves. I would have to do some searching, but someone posted the specific differences to the cams and heads several months ago.

I did some digging a while back and found where an automatic 5.0 Mustang dyno'd 360 rwhp stock on a dynojet. The 5.0 trucks on the same style dyno are making around 285. I actually thought the difference was a lot more than the advertised 51 hp.

If the difference in hp is 5-30 hp, then I sure can't sell the difference SOTP. For me, the difference has to be 50+. However, the EB torque is measuring up to 100 ft-lb higher than the 5.0 at the lower rpm's. This should be easily to sense.