http://jalopnik.com/391114/2009-ford-f+150...-on-to-internet
320 horses at 5,200-rpm and 390 lb-ft of torque at 3,500-rpm
Igor
320 horses at 5,200-rpm and 390 lb-ft of torque at 3,500-rpm
Igor
2009 F150 5.4l POWER LEAKED !!
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
And the pushrod 5.3L makes 315 at 5200 and 338 @ 4400, and yet costs significantly less to build, takes up less engines space, weighs significantly less, and gets FAR better gas mileage.
OK .....
when as GMI allowed 5 year olds in?
and let's note:
Ford: 390ft.lbs
GM: 335ft.lbs
hmmm....
Igor
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
Yes, because having a less powerful engine is what all of us truck people truly want.
Good job for Ford. Its amazing how much torque they are getting out of that engine.
I saw the new F150 Platinum on I-65 the other day when I was coming home from school. Looked like Ford was doing long range testing (Michigan plates, testing equipment all inside). It looks really big but still not sure if I like the new chrome grill design or not.
If you all want to compair engines that get the same fuel economy, you have to compair the 6.2L to the 5.4L. In that comparison, the 5.4L looks like total ****, and still costs more to produce, weighs more, takes up more engine space, etc.
AND IF ANY OF YOU WERE REAL CAR GUYS (or belonged on a GM forum in the first place) You'd note the fact that you can increase the performance of the Chevy motor much easier and much cheaper than ANYTHING on the Modular Ford.
5 year-old? Shoot, The 5 year-olds are the only praying to the DOHC "gods." LOL!
PS- I'll take my Silverado over any of your Lightnings in a race, too.
AND IF ANY OF YOU WERE REAL CAR GUYS (or belonged on a GM forum in the first place) You'd note the fact that you can increase the performance of the Chevy motor much easier and much cheaper than ANYTHING on the Modular Ford.
5 year-old? Shoot, The 5 year-olds are the only praying to the DOHC "gods." LOL!
PS- I'll take my Silverado over any of your Lightnings in a race, too.
Joined
·
80 Posts
Those are decent numbers, but the new F-150 will still be shamed by the engine's of the rest of the competitors. Hopefully the EcoBoost V6 will be able to put out somewhere near 400/400 in order to provide actually competitive performance.
I like the look of the new F-150, but I am sick of Ford lagging behind in the powertrain department with every redesign lately.
I like the look of the new F-150, but I am sick of Ford lagging behind in the powertrain department with every redesign lately.
I do not see how it will be shamed - the meat of the market is still in the 5.4/5.3l engines. The 400hp engines are nice to have as option, but they are not the key to the segment. Moreover, the recent Expedition reviews show what the 5.4l can do with 6 speed. 390ft.lbs and 6speed will provide plenty of go.
However, you are right about the power train redesigns - Ford is still scrambling with that - but the Truck 5.0l (340hp/380ft.lbs and way better mileage), 6.2l (400hp/400ft.lbs (at least)) and the 4.4l Diesel are finally just around the corner ... It took for long enough, but finally, they are almost there. And hopefully with the new management and PD system in place, their power trains will keep working consistently, not just in spurs of panic when they realize they are 5 years behind competition,
Igor
Joined
·
15,663 Posts
Thats a strong number. FE might end up decent enough as well.
Joined
·
8,657 Posts
You mean 4.4 diesel right because its GM with the 4.5?
Joined
·
5,015 Posts
Considering that gas prices are at 4.00 a gallon you not much people will use their trucks to race but rather to work, I would pick a Ecoboost F150 if it gives me about the same hp than the v8s and if you have read older threads the new Ford V6 and V8 will start arriving by spring next year and that means the 5.0 and 6.2 and ecoboost v6
I'm not going to be convinced of the Ecoboost's fuel economy until I see real world numbers. Being a Ford Service manager, I see explorers with v6 engines consistantly get worse fuel economy than v8's, and I see 4.6L engines consistantly get worse fuel economy than 5.4L ones. Furthermore, seeing as the dealer I work at also has Mitsubishi, I consistently see turbo 4 cylinders get significantly worse fuel economy in sports cars than v8 engines do. Don't get me wrong, I definately see how direct injection is helping, but, I think shooting for large horsepower figures with these motors is going to sacrifice the fuel economy that is supposed to be their goal.
I think Ford is going to regret the whole "ECOBOOST" marketing ploy. Let me clarify before I get crucified for saying that: I think the "ECOBOOST" marketing is dumb, but I think Turbo's are a WISE decision.
I think the above because, simply stated, unless you drive a Turbo very easily and don't drive it like it has 350 HP....it isn't going to get the superior gas mileage that people think it will. Just look at the CX-7...gas mileage on it is nothing better than most of the V6 competition (real-world numbers show it lower!) and it is a 4-cylinder!
Once people see that Turbo's are not going to give them the holy grail of fuel economy answers, I think "Ecoboost" will mean little in the form of marketing. That is just my opinion.
Again, I'm not knocking the technology, I'm just not seeing Ecoboost marketing working out like Ford thinks it will.
Sounds like Ford is making a much needed improvement to the weakest powertrain lineup out there. Many reviews I have read about the previous 5.4 say that the transmission was what held this engine back. I think that this is also the problem with the GM offerings and the 4 speed. Luckily they are fixing that problem even if it is 4 or 5 years late.
I like the fact that the new 5.4 makes it's peak torque at 3500rpm. There was a time when low end torque defined truck engines. My 96 Sierra 5.7 made its peak torque at 2800rpm. Nowadays they make you wind these things over 4000 rpm, so essentially most of these torque numbers are just numbers not useable torque. The horsepower is only available at redline. What is the point of that? GM and Dodge make you go up to 4400 for peak torque? Who does that? Is this due to the four speed and the widely spaced ratios? Toyota, Nissan and Ford all peak at 3500 which is better than 4400 but still seems a little high to me. I guess they do this for gas mileage????
I like the fact that the new 5.4 makes it's peak torque at 3500rpm. There was a time when low end torque defined truck engines. My 96 Sierra 5.7 made its peak torque at 2800rpm. Nowadays they make you wind these things over 4000 rpm, so essentially most of these torque numbers are just numbers not useable torque. The horsepower is only available at redline. What is the point of that? GM and Dodge make you go up to 4400 for peak torque? Who does that? Is this due to the four speed and the widely spaced ratios? Toyota, Nissan and Ford all peak at 3500 which is better than 4400 but still seems a little high to me. I guess they do this for gas mileage????
Joined
·
928 Posts
Ya this engine will actually have the most HP with about 340, in a V6! I dunno, gas wont stop Americans from buying these trucks, and I think theis just proves that HP numbers arent everything and the F-150 will still be sales king.
This is from the Explorer/ Mustang right? I dont really see the purpose of this engine
Joined
·
928 Posts
Oh, you mean like the new GM full sized pickups with the SAME HP (320) and their 4-speed automatic, I think people are justing hating on Ford as usual because they knocked GM out of the park with torque numbers and a better transmission. -Sorry i included this in the original first quote, my bad
Joined
·
8,969 Posts
Got a question for you Ford guys...
Does the F-150 need torque management like the Silverado does? I fail to see why these companies make an engine that has to get reduced in power so the tranny will hold up. If the tranny can't handle more than let's say 300 lb/ft, why even make the engine with the higher output? It doesn't make sense to me.
Does the F-150 need torque management like the Silverado does? I fail to see why these companies make an engine that has to get reduced in power so the tranny will hold up. If the tranny can't handle more than let's say 300 lb/ft, why even make the engine with the higher output? It doesn't make sense to me.
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
