5.4 vs 5.0 Torque/Hp Curve Overlay
#46
#47
And just for fun. Here's a 6.2 Raptor on 5star dyno and tuning.
292.4whp on 93 perf. tune for the 6.2
279.4whp on 93 stock for the 6.2
290.8whp on 93 perf. tune for the 5.0
Close to 270whp on stock tune for the 5.0
Would Ford be lowering the 5.0 number... Hum i don't know...
There's 51hp diffenrence between the 5.0 and 6.2, but only ''9hp'' on the dyno.
292.4whp on 93 perf. tune for the 6.2
279.4whp on 93 stock for the 6.2
290.8whp on 93 perf. tune for the 5.0
Close to 270whp on stock tune for the 5.0
Would Ford be lowering the 5.0 number... Hum i don't know...
There's 51hp diffenrence between the 5.0 and 6.2, but only ''9hp'' on the dyno.
Last edited by °°Pat°°; 02-10-2011 at 01:32 PM.
#48
Different engine, not really. 2009 and 2010 only gain 10hp over the 2004-2008 5.4. Torque was the same at 365lb-ft. The only place you gain power was with E85.
But yes, the tranny do chance something. Enough to make the difference between the 5.0 and the 5.4... I don't know.
But yes, the tranny do chance something. Enough to make the difference between the 5.0 and the 5.4... I don't know.
#50
And the 5.0 at 270.
But the 6.2 have the 35'' BFG AT. It's a Raptor.
Reading low for the Raptor, but way high for the 360hp 5.0...
I want to see an Ecoboost on 5star dyno.
#52
#53
The dyno read low and Ford are lowering the 5.0 number to sell the Ecoboost
Last edited by °°Pat°°; 02-10-2011 at 03:23 PM.
#54
#55
Like i said before, those 5.0 are making more power then Ford say.
They're closer to 390hp/405lb-ft then 360hp/380lb-ft like Ford say.
With 5star tuning, they're make more torque with the 5.0 then the 6.2...
Last edited by °°Pat°°; 02-10-2011 at 03:31 PM.
#57
Not 'could be' ... you are.
Prepare to be edumacated
==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/ch...-see-dyno.html
Specifically posts 15, 16, 17.
For you other folks - there is some info on dyno numbers in general, if yer interested - just FYI. Might help you put the numbers presented so far into some sort of perspective. Or not
Enjoy - I know I did
Any further questions - Mike's contact info is in my sig.
MGD
Prepare to be edumacated
==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/ch...-see-dyno.html
Specifically posts 15, 16, 17.
For you other folks - there is some info on dyno numbers in general, if yer interested - just FYI. Might help you put the numbers presented so far into some sort of perspective. Or not
Enjoy - I know I did
Any further questions - Mike's contact info is in my sig.
MGD
#58
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Katy, TEXAS/ Laramie, Wyoming
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not 'could be' ... you are.
Prepare to be edumacated
==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/ch...-see-dyno.html
Specifically posts 15, 16, 17.
For you other folks - there is some info on dyno numbers in general, if yer interested - just FYI. Might help you put the numbers presented so far into some sort of perspective. Or not
Enjoy - I know I did
Any further questions - Mike's contact info is in my sig.
MGD
Prepare to be edumacated
==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/ch...-see-dyno.html
Specifically posts 15, 16, 17.
For you other folks - there is some info on dyno numbers in general, if yer interested - just FYI. Might help you put the numbers presented so far into some sort of perspective. Or not
Enjoy - I know I did
Any further questions - Mike's contact info is in my sig.
MGD
Well I stand corrected! Im used to atv world where 30% power train loss is a lot.
#59
Don't care what the torque curve shows but I do know that that my 5.0 running 1900 rpms at 70 mph does not downshift on the very same hills that a 2009 with the 5.4 running 2000 rpm does.Don't know about other rpms but around 2000 rpm the 5.0 is stronger.I drove both running cruse control.Same hills and same speed.
#60
Don't care what the torque curve shows but I do know that that my 5.0 running 1900 rpms at 70 mph does not downshift on the very same hills that a 2009 with the 5.4 running 2000 rpm does.Don't know about other rpms but around 2000 rpm the 5.0 is stronger.I drove both running cruse control.Same hills and same speed.
And if the 5.0 really made 390/405 then the 6.2 is a complete waste of Ford's time seeing as the 6.2 makes horrible gas mileage and hurts the overall mileage rating of the company. A 6.2 on 31" tires would make excellent dyno numbers compared to the 5.0 engine.
Last edited by mSaLL150; 02-10-2011 at 09:12 PM.