Agreed. Ford's charts are trying to show what they want us to see. There's twice the distance from the 420 to 434 as there is from the 380 to 420. Makes no sense except that they do show the general curves and state the max torque of each engine. I don't believe the curves are truly representative against one another. There is no scale on that chart and that is curious to me. IMO the 5.0 torque curve from Ford does appear similar to that of the K&N dyno, just not as flat as the K&N dyno. From the website that published it the K&N dyno was simply used for the testing and there was no mention of performance parts. My opinion is that Ford is trying to show off the ecoboost torque curve in their own dyno chart. It would be cool to see the 5.4 and 5.0 dyno'd on the same day/same dyno. I have owned two 5.4's that I've put over 300k combined miles and driven at least five or more other 5.4's, probably closer to ten. My wife and I just test drove a 2011 5.4 Expedition a few weeks ago and I test drove a brand new 2010 F150 5.4 same day. I was disappointed as usual. I have yet to drive a stock 5.4 that felt snappy or powerful at any rpm. They are ok at low rpm and anemic at high rpm. It took Troyer, his dyno and some gears to get mine acceptable for me. I am just itching to test drive the new 5.0 and ecoboost. If the 5.0 doesn't have more the 5.4 at lower rpm I'm out. Not trying to rag the 5.4, it's been a durable engine and with a little work kind of fun. But compared to some of the other things out there it's weak and I'm ready for more from Ford.

 

Since when does a 4x4 full size pickup truck ONLY lose 13.45% of it power?

Ford are lowering the number big time to sale the EB or that dyno is really optimistic.

They normally lose close to 20% or more. 20% drivetrain lost = 390hp to have 311whp... and 405lb-ft to have 325lb-ft at the wheel...

 

Yeah I think you're right. I was thrown off by the K&N Intake mumbo jumbo at the top of the charts. Regardless, the 5.4 chart doesn't even begin until after 2000 rpm, which makes the comparo less than indicative of real world performance. That being said, I am impressed with the apparent low end on the 5.0

Not knocking the OP's efforts for the record. I do appreciate, and find the overlays interesting...

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone that has driven both the 5.0 and 5.4 can make any argument whatsoever that the 5.4 is better. The 5.4 is such a dog that I refused to even buy one. I was planning on waiting for the ecoboost, but after driving the 5.0 it had WAY more power down low and up high than the 5.4 so I went ahead and pulled the trigger.
5.0>5.4 by a long shot.

 

The 5.4L-2V and 5.4L-3V were great for what they were. The 5.0L is completely new and a step up from the 5.4L-3V. Test them back to back and make a decision based on your wants and needs.

The new 5.0L is here to stay.

 

Agreed on almost all points. There is no way a tune is going to raise the torque curve by 50 foot pounds. No way. There is also no way the 5.0 has a torque advantage below 3,000 rpm.

Don't get me wrong I have a 2011 5.0 on the way but I have realistic expectations for this engine. From 3,000 up I think it will smoke the 5.4 but down low the 5.4 is stronger.

Greg

 

Not hard at all. The 5.0L is just a slightly larger and tuned 4.6L SOHC 3 Valve engine. They share the similar torque curves and why neither is offered with the Max Tow package and both are only rated at 7700 lbs towing with the 3.55 axle that gives the 5.4L 9600 lbs of towing. Even with the 3.73 axle both the 4.6L 3 valve and the 5.0L are still under the 5.4L standard tow rating, offering 9300 lbs or 300 lbs under the 5.4L standard tow rating. Not hard to see why. Towing requires higher torque to move the trailer. If these engines can't make it right away, their tow ratings are going to be lower and are going to need shorter gears to get them into their higher rpms where their power is.

All I can think is that you drove a worn out 5.4L 2 valve because I woudn't even consider the 5.0L if the 5.4L was an option. Notice that Ford still uses the 5.4L 3 valve in the Expedition. Most likely because it's so heavy and needs the extra torque to get it moving. Remember the 5.0L is the F150's Screw base engine with 2 premium engines at a higher cost. The 5.4L 3 valve was 2010's premium engine with the 4.6L 3 valve being the Screw base engine just as the 5.0L is for 2011.

Hek the 4.6L 3 valve I had in my 2008 Sport Trac also felt stronger than Screw 5.0L.

Here's is a breakdown, my 2008 Sport Trac 4.6L 3 Valve 4WD 4' bed, weighed 5062 lbs according to the Tread Act Sticker. It had much smaller tires at 245/65/17 (29.5" tall tires) and had the standard 3.55 axle. This engine had a decent torque curve as it felt more powerful despite the similar torques lb ft per lbs of truck with the 5.0L F150 Screw.

The 2011 F150 XLT Screw 5.0L 4WD 5.5 Bed, had 18" inch tires 275/65/18" (32" tall tires) and had the 3.55LS axle. It weighed 5740 lbs.

Using the weight divided power factors of the Sport Trac and then dividing by the weight of the 5.0L Screw would give a 2011 5.0L Screw F150 331 HP and 357 lbs of torque. Since these numbers come in with lower RPMs plus the torque curve feels better, then adding the shorter tires would make the F150 5.0L Screw feel like it had 3.85 axles. The Sport Trac simply felt faster than the 5.0L Screw F150.

Now the new 2010 5.4L feels faster because of the great torque compared to the Sport Trac. Even when converted for weight, the 5.4L has gobs more torque at the lower rpms than the 4.6L 3 valve did and therefore feels much more powerful. As with the 5.0L, if I held into the pedal for a while, the build up of power would eventually take the 5.4L by a bit but the 5.4L is going to smoke my old Sport Trac when accelerating from a standing stop or from constant speeds.

That's why the 5.4L feels so much more powerful than either of those 2 trucks, Sport Trac or 2011 F150 5.0L, when both of these has better power/lb than the 5.4L does. They simply have to be given time to make their power where the 5.4L does not.

Since I don't race it and usually only need harder acceleration from stops and constant speeds (for passing), the 5.4L truck is much more powerful for these situations. Situations that I actually see alot. I don't see situations where I have to lay hard into the pedal from 0 mph to 60 mph while building up high rpms. I'm not racing to 60 mph, I'm using my truck for daily driving. For daily driving where you're not high revving the engine, this 5.4L smokes my previous Sport Tracs 4.6L 3 valve and the new 5.0L F150.

I guess we just drive differently.

 

Thanks for not bustin my chops over the post. It was done on a smart phone with Swype technology that still has it's flaws.

It should read as follows:

I don't believe those charts one bit. They were made by someone trying to profit off of the product to make these charts look better. I seen these charts long ago and found them erroneous.

Anyone driving a 2010 5.4 and a 5.0 will noticed the huge improvement in the low rpms with the 5.4 over the 5.0. The 5.0 felt anemic compared to the 5.4 .

When driving the 5.0, I had to give it half pedal just so it would pick up power. Even then, it did it much more slowly than the instant power of the 5.4 . The 5.4 had so much more power in the range you need it, that I have to back off off the pedal because it makes power so easily and fast compared to the 5.0 .

The 5.0 has 50 more horsepower but is slower to make it from at rest or a constant speed. The 5.0 has to build up to it, while keeping your foot into it, while the 5.4 power is instant. That is why the 5.4 is better at towing.

 

Ummm... hi 'Dawg ....

That graphic was meant ONLY to depict the shapes of the torque curves for each engine - and yes - to presumably highlight the superiority of the EB's ruler-flat output. There is no scale intended - just overlaid on one placard. The numbers are just peak torque values from the specs for each.

My purpose of posting that was to refute the representation in the OP's post. The fundamental 5.0 shapes are too different. Again - I do not trust ANYTHING with a K&N involvement.

My 5.0 test drive - with my supremely calibrated butt-dyno, confirms the 5.0 is weak down low (at least relative to my tuned truck). On top though - wow. Just like Ford's curve suggests it would.

Great sport-truck engine - not so great (without a tuning shop 'massage' involved) as a work truck / tow platform. IMHO, of course.


MGD

Shame on you

 

Anyone figure out why the tow ratings are lower for the 5.0 than the 5.4?

 

Yeh, because the 5.0L's torque is poorer at lower rpm where torque is needed for towing. Hense why the 5.0L needs the 3.73 axle compared to the 3.55 axle for the 5.4L. Its all about the loss of torque at the lower end.

 

Wow - this is disappointing. I like my torque.... I hardly ever exceed 3k rpm. Even towing. Only time was up mountains towing 6k lbs at 70 mph....

 

Meh, for your everyday around town F150 that rarely tows the 5.0 will be perfect. If you tow a lot, look for a 5.4 or ecoboost.

 

I hear ya MGD. I just see a similar curve for the 5.0 in both the K&N and Ford dyno. Scale not considered and one or the other is a little skewed, but similar. In don't see where K&N had any dog in the hunt except a little advertisement in exchange for dyno time. I do like what Mike Levine at PUT.com is doing and believe he tries to keep a level field. I also hear half the guys say the 5.4 is better down low and half say it's the 5.0 better all over. Seems like the ones that favor the engine have said engine. The dyno's I've seen to date seem to show the 5.0 same or better up to 4k. I'm awaiting my local dealer to get some in so I can test drive so my highly calibrated but dyno can finally answer the question for me. Hey it's a good debate until we can all drive them or dyno side by side. I hope all the new engines suck, I have a lot of money and time into and I still prefer my 2007 body style better but I have a feeling one or two of the new engines will sway me.

 

Does this statement come directly from Ford engineering or just your personal thoughts?

Until someone Dyno's both back to back on the same Dyno with a 6 spd transmission, same wheelbase, differential and ODO reading there is no way to know for certain.

Just my thoughts.