0-40,50,60 and with a trailer 5.0 vs 5.4
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Yes- Dodge's tranny sucks......like I stated earlier. Sad that they can't space out gears to match a motor in this day and age!
BS - The 5.0 will not fall behind......The ECO and 6.2 will walk away
Show me your facts?.......I showed you that a Hemi with much deeper gears at 3.92 cannot tow 6500lbs as well as a 5.0 with taller gears at 3.73 can to 9000lbs
The Dodge is an under-performer!
BS - The 5.0 will not fall behind......The ECO and 6.2 will walk away
Show me your facts?.......I showed you that a Hemi with much deeper gears at 3.92 cannot tow 6500lbs as well as a 5.0 with taller gears at 3.73 can to 9000lbs
The Dodge is an under-performer! The eco-boost vs hemi video challenge backs up my claim. The eco-boost beat the Ram to 60 mph by something like 12 seconds but by the time they made their run up the hill the hemi was only three seconds behind. And that is against the 420 foot pound eco boost. The eco got off the line much quicker because it is geared lower. You think a 5.0 will do better than the Hemi in this same test? No way.
I drove a 5.0 and a Hemi same day and the Dodge was quite a bit quicker. The Ford had other selling points. Massive low end torque isn't one of them.
Max towing for the Dodge, 10,000 plus pounds with the Hemi.
Fanboys like you belong on a Honda Civic website.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/2011/ram...owing_payload/
Greg
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
whatever - not worth arguing with you.........I have driven them both as well. You are clearly a Dodge lover and in dreamland. Facts are facts.....and they have been stated by a third party (pickuptrucks.com) that has tested both trucks 0 to 60.
Dodge Laramie 1500 Crew Cab 4X4 - HEMI - 3.92 gears
0 to 60 = 7.64
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks....r-mile-dr.html
Ford F-150 XLT Crew Cab 4x4 - 5.0 - 3.73 gears
0 to 60 - 7.18
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02...liter-v-8.html
Trucks of "almost" same configuration.....(except Dodge has advantage of 3.92 gears) tested subjectively by a third party.
The little 5.0 clearly outperforms the overrated under-performing 5.7 pushrod Dodge.
Facts are facts if they are backed up by data to prove them - end of story.
Dodge Laramie 1500 Crew Cab 4X4 - HEMI - 3.92 gears
0 to 60 = 7.64
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks....r-mile-dr.html
Ford F-150 XLT Crew Cab 4x4 - 5.0 - 3.73 gears
0 to 60 - 7.18
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02...liter-v-8.html
Trucks of "almost" same configuration.....(except Dodge has advantage of 3.92 gears) tested subjectively by a third party.
The little 5.0 clearly outperforms the overrated under-performing 5.7 pushrod Dodge.
Facts are facts if they are backed up by data to prove them - end of story.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
Absolutely not. Those issues are in the past, Ford learned their lesson.
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: Webb City, MO
Automakers are notorious for under/over rating their power figures. I know several of us who had their Lightning's dyno'd and the Trq @ rears was almost what the engine was rated at. Within like 10-15lbs!
So yes, the 5.0 COULD be under rated. They would do this for a lot of reasons. Insurance ratings, gas guzzler taxes, and others. Just my $.01...
And seriously, if we want a FAST truck.....go find a used Lightning or a Raptor....or mod the fire out of the Eco!!! I am seeing adjustable wastegate, offroad pipe, CAI, alot of potential out there for forced induction!!!
So yes, the 5.0 COULD be under rated. They would do this for a lot of reasons. Insurance ratings, gas guzzler taxes, and others. Just my $.01...
And seriously, if we want a FAST truck.....go find a used Lightning or a Raptor....or mod the fire out of the Eco!!! I am seeing adjustable wastegate, offroad pipe, CAI, alot of potential out there for forced induction!!!
Last edited by svt450; Feb 18, 2011 at 03:41 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
From: Home of Crown Royal
Go to the Dodge website. The hemi is rated at 350 foot pounds at 2,000 rpm. The Ford 5.0 according to Ford puts out 315. That is a big difference.
The eco-boost vs hemi video challenge backs up my claim. The eco-boost beat the Ram to 60 mph by something like 12 seconds but by the time they made their run up the hill the hemi was only three seconds behind. And that is against the 420 foot pound eco boost. The eco got off the line much quicker because it is geared lower. You think a 5.0 will do better than the Hemi in this same test? No way.
I drove a 5.0 and a Hemi same day and the Dodge was quite a bit quicker. The Ford had other selling points. Massive low end torque isn't one of them.
Max towing for the Dodge, 10,000 plus pounds with the Hemi.
Fanboys like you belong on a Honda Civic website.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/2011/ram...owing_payload/
Greg
The eco-boost vs hemi video challenge backs up my claim. The eco-boost beat the Ram to 60 mph by something like 12 seconds but by the time they made their run up the hill the hemi was only three seconds behind. And that is against the 420 foot pound eco boost. The eco got off the line much quicker because it is geared lower. You think a 5.0 will do better than the Hemi in this same test? No way.
I drove a 5.0 and a Hemi same day and the Dodge was quite a bit quicker. The Ford had other selling points. Massive low end torque isn't one of them.
Max towing for the Dodge, 10,000 plus pounds with the Hemi.
Fanboys like you belong on a Honda Civic website.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/2011/ram...owing_payload/
Greg
Ram had 5 speed with 3.92s and the EB had 6 speed with 3.73s. Is that a big advantage???
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
The eco-boost vs hemi video challenge backs up my claim. The eco-boost beat the Ram to 60 mph by something like 12 seconds but by the time they made their run up the hill the hemi was only three seconds behind. And that is against the 420 foot pound eco boost. The eco got off the line much quicker because it is geared lower. You think a 5.0 will do better than the Hemi in this same test? No way.
Greg[/QUOTE]
How can you claim to get anything from the two measurements? One is a time to distance measurement, the other is a time to speed measurement? Are you thinking that by the time the ecoboost got to 60 MPH it was 12 seconds ahead of the ram and by the end it was only 3 seconds ahead? I think you are getting confused with the two. Yeah i am sure the hemi was running quite good when it got up to speed, but to get up to speed the eco had it covered by alot.
Greg[/QUOTE]
How can you claim to get anything from the two measurements? One is a time to distance measurement, the other is a time to speed measurement? Are you thinking that by the time the ecoboost got to 60 MPH it was 12 seconds ahead of the ram and by the end it was only 3 seconds ahead? I think you are getting confused with the two. Yeah i am sure the hemi was running quite good when it got up to speed, but to get up to speed the eco had it covered by alot.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: Outaouais, Quebec, Canada
<
How can you claim to get anything from the two measurements? One is a time to distance measurement, the other is a time to speed measurement? Are you thinking that by the time the ecoboost got to 60 MPH it was 12 seconds ahead of the ram and by the end it was only 3 seconds ahead? I think you are getting confused with the two. Yeah i am sure the hemi was running quite good when it got up to speed, but to get up to speed the eco had it covered by alot.
How can you claim to get anything from the two measurements? One is a time to distance measurement, the other is a time to speed measurement? Are you thinking that by the time the ecoboost got to 60 MPH it was 12 seconds ahead of the ram and by the end it was only 3 seconds ahead? I think you are getting confused with the two. Yeah i am sure the hemi was running quite good when it got up to speed, but to get up to speed the eco had it covered by alot.
All the numbers are here.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/12...challenge.html
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 432
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Area
Not hard to see why this pickup.com's tests are hard to believe.
Maybe they are part of Fords new engine lineup promotional committee.
Last edited by Mike Up; Feb 18, 2011 at 06:39 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
From: Home of Crown Royal
I don't think the 5.0L will "out pull" a new hemi. (apples to apples) but there is a wide margin between the 5.4L and the hemi and the 5.0L is a lot closer to the hemi side than the 5.4 side. And while Ram has no other options, Ford offers the EB and the 6.2L. Good job Ford.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: Ontario, Canada
We already covered the apples to apples comparison....except the hemi actually had the advantage with a deeper rear-end at 3.92 and was only towing 6500lbs.
The same "third party" performed the subjective tests!
If you compare the numbers from this recent towing road test from pickuptrucks.com to the numbers in the 2008 shootout........it says that the 5.0 with 3.73's towing 9000lbs is as follows.....
0 to 40 = 8.94
0 to 60 = 16.85
Dodge Hemi 3.92's towing 6500lbs
0 to 40 = 8.60
0 to 60 = 16.48
So much for a "hemi" being impressive! \
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: Outaouais, Quebec, Canada
Just for fun.
Do you have ''Ford 3V 5.4L V8'' tattooed on your heart?
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Bay St. Louis, MS
Read my post on the torque curve of the 5.4L. The difference is only what Ford rates. The elevation was so high for the dyno testing on the 5.4L, it took about 45 HP and Torque away when compared to sea level.
The differences eveyone claims are inaccurate because no one took the time to make the correction factor for a more apples to apples comparison.
When using a 3% correction factor for every 1000' of elevation, the torque output of the 5.4L comes up to about 300 lbs where the 5.0L peaky torque output is 325 lbs. At 2600 rpms the 5.4L puts out 98% of it's max torque where the 5.0L only puts out ~85%. So the 5.4L will have more torque output at lower rpms.
The differences eveyone claims are inaccurate because no one took the time to make the correction factor for a more apples to apples comparison.
When using a 3% correction factor for every 1000' of elevation, the torque output of the 5.4L comes up to about 300 lbs where the 5.0L peaky torque output is 325 lbs. At 2600 rpms the 5.4L puts out 98% of it's max torque where the 5.0L only puts out ~85%. So the 5.4L will have more torque output at lower rpms.
F150 5.0 4V? 311 rwhp, 326 rwtq.
Compare graphs...
5.4 3V - 5.0 4V
1600 - n/a/n/a - ~90/260
2300 - ~90/220 - ~135/280
2500 - ~110/230 - ~140/290
3000 - ~140/245 - ~160/290
3500 - ~160/250 - ~190/300
4000 - ~190/250 - ~240/320
4500 - ~220/260 - ~290/310
5000 - ~230/240 - ~295/305
5500 - n/a/n/a - ~310/305
The RPM at which peak output occurs mean nothing when the "peakier" engine is still slaughtering the other engine on HP/TQ output at low RPM, like the 5.0 does to the 5.4. The 5.4 3V does not have a single, solitary advantage over the 5.0. Not low rpm torque, not mid-range torque, not high RPM horsepower, not a broader torque curve, not better fuel economy, not weight, absolutely nothing.
The 5.0 4V simply blows the 5.4 3V away, hands down, in every way. IMHO, had Ford not screwed up by building the 3V engines to being with the 5.4 could have been fairly competitive with the current 5.0 back in 2004. Ford could have spent the money they wasted on the 3V into a revised 5.4 4V, revised 4V heads with improved/raised intake ports, improved intake manifolds and VCT on the intake cam... they could have had offered a 350-370 HP, 380-390 lb-ft 5.4 4V in 2004 instead on the comparatively lame 5.4 3V.
Thank God Ford finally wised up and built a real medium displacement V8, the 5.4 3V has been the F150's glaring weakness for years.
Last edited by Ben99GT; Mar 29, 2011 at 02:54 PM.