Mike, you have it exactly how the feel of my 5.0 accelerates from 0-40 mph compared to how my '04 felt with the 5.4. SLOW, same size truck but the '04 had 3.73 gear's. The 5.4 torque curve is better from a dead stop. Above 4000 rpm's is when the 5.0 start's working! F-150 Lightning it's not.

 

Motor Trend says the 0 - 60 time of the 2009 Screw F150 4WD is 8.1 sec. Other makers with their high output engines with 380 or more HP are 1 to .5 second quicker.

Car and Driver says the 0 - 60 time of their 2009 Screw F150 4WD is 7.9 second where the Dodge was .4 seconds quicker and the Chevy was .2 seconds quicker.

The torque is about the same with both engines, with only 15 more lbs of torque in favor of the 5.0L, the torque will likely not impact the 0 -60 sec test at all. That said, the full rpm ranged 'averaged' torque could be the same or lower with the 5.0L. The 50 more HP will undoubtedly impact the 0 - 60 sec significantly. Most likely by .4 - .6 second, putting it within reach of the Dodge or slightly slower to the more powerful Hemi.

 

That's how I felt, that this truck feels like the 4.6L 3 valve but on steroids. Same power curve just much more power.

The Ecoboost will feel like the 5.4L on steroids. Same flat torque curve but much higher torque and Horsepower.

I'm really excited about this Ecoboost. Once it's been out for a few years, I can see getting it after the bugs are worked out. I think this is a perfect engine for the F250. Finally a gasser with a lot of torque that won't make you go broke driving it. I'm really excited about this getting into the F250!

 

Can you show a link for these numbers?
I've never seen 0-60 times for the F150 anywhere near the other makes.
And if it was only .2 slower than a Chevy then it would have been a 5.3L,not the 6.2L...

 

Sorry it was Truck Trend not Motor Trend and the Chevy was .3 seconds quicker, not .2 sec .

Car and Driver review, look at the Powertrain Chart. Also the F150 used the poor taller 3.31 gears for this test. With the 3.55 gears, it'll likely be .1 seconds better .

Motor/Truck Trends review.

Also the 5.4L Screws they used for testing were loaded F150s that were heavy. Most F150s I've seen are about 150 lbs lighter than these. That'll get you at least .1 or .2 seconds more.

Yeh, if you want to compare to Chevy 6.2L or Dodges 5.7L, you'll need to compare apples to apples and use a bigger displacement engine that is now available in the Ford 6.2L. Chevy beat Ford with issueing another large displacement engine and Dodge's Hemis have always been impressive.

Also the Chebby 5.3L was quicker because the truck was about 300 lbs lighter.

 

Its interesting how every test has a different number for 0-60....from 7.9 to 8.9sec.
And the better 0-60 time is with 3.31 gears???
And it was comparing the 5.3L to 5.4L...

 

Here's another direct comparison. The 5.4L Screw 4WD is 7.6 sec 0 - 60 mph and the Dodge Ram is 6.9 sec 0 - 60 mph. A .7 second difference in this review. The quicker F150 in this round had the 3.73 gears opposed to the earlier post's 3.31 gears.

So it feasable for the 5.0L to be .4 to .6 sec faster.

Obviously temp, elevation, barometer pressure and the such affect each different test so this day was in favor of all the trucks. It's good to see direct comparisons on the same day.

Motor Trend 2009 Truck of the Year testing

Motor Trend 2009 Truck of the Year, F150

 

I think that it is stronger than the 5.4L even when maxed out towing. I was not bashing the 5.4L. I've put over 225,000 miles on my 04. I like it. But its now 2011 not 2003. Things change and get better.

 

I have to agree. I have owned 3 5.4L trucks and have no real problems with them but given the choice of a 5.0 or 5.4 I would take the 5.0 any day and twice on Sunday. The very first words out of my mouth after driving a 5.0 were "I'll never go up against one 'cause I hate losing." You can argue till you are blue in the face but I have owned them and considered buying one and the 5.0 is better IN ANY SITUATION!

That being said, I have an Ecoboost on order. It is even better than the 5.0 and soo much better than the 5.4 they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. I was able to drive with a loaded trailer on the same roads I live on the EB+ trailer would run with a tuned 5.4 unloaded! I know, I'm going to be paying for both.

 

Also remember that you're not doing an apples to apples comparison because the earlier 4 speed trans was not the greatest. I know, because the dealer had a 2008 5.4L Screw 4WD 6.5' bed on their lot and they let me test drive it for comparisons. While the truck definitely had good torque, the transmission was slow at getting all of the power out of it. Also the new 5 speed and 6 speed transmissions have been the equivalent in performance to the manual offerings where 4 speed auto transmissions and 3 speed auto transmissions were usually 1 whole second slower than their manual counter parts.

Driving my 2010 5.4L with the 6 speed and the 2008 5.4L with the 4 speed is like having 2 different motors even if 10 horsepower is all that separates them. My truck has so much more get up and fast acceleration from any holding rpm, it was like adding a more powerful engine.

It's hard to compare unless you have driven them all.

I have driven a 2008 XLT Screw 4WD 5.4L w/6.5' bed (had 26,000 miles), a 2010 XLT Scab 4WD 4.6L 3 Valve 3.55LS axle w/6.5' bed , 2010 XLT Screw 4WD 5.4L 3.55LS axle w/5.5' bed, and a 2011 XLT Screw 4WD 5.0L 3.55LS axle w/5.5' bed.

For low end power from a stand still or from a holding rpm, the 2010 5.4L with 6 speed offered the best acceleration obviously from it's better gearing and it's closer gearing, along with it low end torque output.

The 2011 5.0L started to get quicker as it ramped up the rpms, and did have a lot of power up top, but I usually don't drive in the higher rpms.

Without test driving an Ecoboost, I can say without doubt this is the best engine offered because of it's power without the need to go broke on fuel. Plus it's offered in the XLT trim level I prefer, where the gas hog 6.2L is not.

 

Spot on. I traded in my 08 5.4 3.73 4spd AT for a 2010 5.4 3.73 6pd AT and everything about the truck is nicer. It's really hard to believe it's the same 5.4 that was in the 08. With the 6sp AT it feels like a 4.10 or better rear end. The 5.0 just doesn't have the tow rating or payload that the 2010 does. And I would like to let some one else test the 3.5EB. The 6.0 PSD was suppose to be the best thing since sliced bread and look at what happened there. The 5.0 may have more HP and TQ but it is at the exspence of higher rpms. Most driving is done in the lower rpms. If someone is towing you want your TQ at lower rpms. Not up at 4200+. that's why the 3.5 has the high tow ratings. It all boils down to your needs, if your just driving to work then whats the point of having more TQ and HP at higher rpms. If you towing, TQ at lower rpms is prefered and if your into hot roddin around then go for the higher rpms.

 

If they were to put an ecoboost in a F-250, at a minimum it would have to be the 3.7 V6! Just too much weight in a F-250 for that motor!....

 

Mike, maybe I missed it, but where'd you hear about this? Or are you crossing your fingers and legs really hard while sending Ford telepathic thoughts?

 

At that altitude, all it needs is 85 octane. That's why they have it - 85 at that altitude is equivalent to 87 at sea level.

 

RIsupercrewman, not looking for an argument but my 2cents :-) The superdutys until 2010 had a 5 speed and 5.4, the new 6 speed + ecoboost would crush the old combo. I don't see why the ecoboost wouldn't be a good combo with the f250? Numbers wise it only comes up a tad short of the 6.2's numbers. IIRC the superduty's can be had with 4.10 and 4.30 gears? Ecoboost + 4.30's in a superduty may prove to be a great fit and it wouldn't surprise me if Ford tries it out for 2012/2013. Time will tell.