2009 F-150 5.4L Preliminary Dyno Results!

[Power Hungry]

Hey all...

Finally got back from Utah and needless to say, I AM EXCITED! :2thumbs:

The new 2009 F-150 is running awesome and actually looks to be making a bit more power than the earlier 2004 to 2008 versions.

From what we've found so far, the only major difference under the hood is that the air filter housing has been relocated directly behind the driver's headlight and now uses a LARGE 12" x 12" pleated panel filter. This is definitely helping airflow.

As you well know, the new platform sports a new 6-speed automatic transmission which now has its own controller which is separate from the ECM. The ECM itself has been updated to a new, faster processor as well. Fortunately, the tuning is quite similar and we were able to get the base tuning done without any difficulty. Here are the preliminary results:

Test Conditions:


Vehicle - 2009 F-150
Engine - 5.4L
Transmission - 6-Speed Automatic
Gear - 3.73
Fuel - 85 Octane
Altitude - 4500 Feet
Ambient Temp - 76º F.
Barometric Pr. - 26.65 In. Hg.

Here are the dyno plots (Click on the images to view full size):

Horsepower Only
http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp_sm.jpg (http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp.jpg)

Torque Only
http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_tq_sm.jpg (http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_tq.jpg)

Horsepower and Torque
http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp_tq_sm.jpg (http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp_tq.jpg)

Horsepower, Torque and AFR
http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp_tq_afr_sm.jpg (http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/stock_tow_perf_hp_tq_afr.jpg)

As you can see, the biggest gains were not on the top end but in the midrange... which is where you really need it! Notice that the stock AFR curve does not allow any WOT enrichment until about 4500 RPM! And you wonder why the trucks are always so sluggish off the line. :eek: The AFR stays right at 14.6:1 throughout most of the acceleration. Now add a Cold Air Intake which in most cases cause a slight to moderate lean condition and suddenly you have a situation that could be very detrimental to the engine. :yikes2:

I also included an additional dyno plot which show without question that removing the snorkel does, in fact, improve the performance of the vehicle, particularly above 3500 RPM. Based on calculations, removing the snorkel picked up 7.5 HP and 7.6 Ft./Lbs. These figures are very respectable, especially considering that we had already made a significant gain with tuning. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to retest the vehicle with the Performance calibration, but I would certainly expect to see similar improvements with the same modification.

http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/tow_vs_snorkel_hp_tq_sm.jpg (http://www.phptune.com/images/2009_f150_dyno/tow_vs_snorkel_hp_tq.jpg)

Needless to say, we are really excited about the results, especially since we only ran 85 Octane fuel. We will be doing some (relatively) sea-level testing here in the next week or two along with 93 Octane fuel testing and fully expect to see even better results.

We'll keep everyone posted on the results as development progresses. Stay tuned... :2thumbs:

[jfuller5]

Hey Bill, I am really impressed now that i can see the results on paper, are the 08 5.4 curves respective of these? Much smoother power and torque curves and also a huge gain in the midrange. Hats Off to your abilities . Jim

[Power Hungry]

Jim,

The 04 to 08 dyno curves are similar, although are a little bit lower than the '09. I'll try to see if I can dig up some of the older plots we did on the 2004 and 2006 trucks for comparison.

:2thumbs: :D :1party:

Take care.

[Jackpine]

Great information Bill! I too, would like to see the curves for 2004-2008 engines!

- Jack

[Chris74]

I thought the 07-08's are a bit stronger than the 04 thru 06's? I know they have more free flowing exhaust manifolds!

[oysterbone]

where do i put my foot on it ? Hey, Bill & Corey do the kids need any coconuts?

[secondarychaos]

That's a nice improvement...
but that AFR graph of stock is a bit scary...

[Jackpine]

That's a nice improvement...
but that AFR graph of stock is a bit scary...

Kind of like falling off a cliff, isn't it? But wouldn't everything be better if all the A/F curves stayed closer to the ideal 14.08 value (for E10) throughout the envelope? Or, does the engine really HAVE to run rich under load to prevent damage?

I remember a certain brand of model airplane engine I had when I was a kid that was very good at destroying itself as the fuel in the tank ran out. It would suddenly start running quite lean, the RPMs would increase then drop slightly and it would sound "weak". Then, the crankshaft would fracture! :mad2: I learned the only way to prevent this from happening was to run the thing at a richer than full-power setting for the entire flight.

- Jack

[secondarychaos]

LOL that's an interesting design...
run out of fuel? Bang LOL

I'm thinking this was ford's engineer's idea to help fuel economy...

[Power Hungry]

Despite the fact that 14.64:1 AFR is stoich for gasoline, this is NOT where peak torque is made. Under full load, peak torque occurs around 11.8:1 and peak HP is closer to about 12.6:1. Cruise conditions are quite a bit different and can run upwards of 15.0:1 without technically being "lean", although again this doesn't necessarily equate to the best fuel economy or performance.

[Jackpine]

Thanks, Bill - makes perfect sense to me. And, I can see how your A/F curves smoothly adopt that strategy, rather than having the sharp "bump" at 4500 rpm.

But, now I've started "thinking" again (which I know is dangerous). The stock curve seems to hold the A/F ratio near 14.08 (the ideal for E10). And, I have to imagine the older trucks like my 2005 and earlier tried to hold it at 14.64 (for REAL gas ;) ), so did Ford put out a flash to the PCM to "adapt" them to E10 when it sort of became the "standard"? As I recall from the f150 forums, the 2004-2005s were already lean running when they came out. E10 would just make things worse, right?

- Jack

[Power Hungry]

To some degree. Keep in mind that the vehicle tested was a FlexFuel vehicle and had the ethanol sensor. Also, don't forget that those are WOT runs. The fuel strategies are a little bit different at WOT than at cruise where 15+ AFR is not uncommon.

[chappy]

That is pretty Fricken sweet.nice job.

[secondarychaos]

at cruise where 15+ AFR is not uncommon.

Really? I thought this was a recipe for disaster. I always heard how leaning a motor out could wreck any number of parts, most notably the pistons. is there any truth to this? is it only under certain conditions?

[Jackpine]

At cruise, there's very little load on the engine. I imagine that's how you get away with a lean A/F setting.

- Jack

[Power Hungry]

At cruise, there's very little load on the engine. I imagine that's how you get away with a lean A/F setting.

- Jack

Exactly. Running a tad lean (lean being a relative term here) during light cruise (minimum load) is not uncommon for most auto manufacturers. In fact, I've seen as high as 15.8:1 under light cruise. Under acceleration or load, fuel curves will richen up as necessary to keep things safe.

[secondarychaos]

Ok, so it's Lean + Load conditions that can cause issues.
thanks for the clarification!

[Power Hungry]

Ok, so it's Lean + Load conditions that can cause issues.
thanks for the clarification!

Couldn't have said it better myself! :2thumbs:

[AgentOrange]

Bill,
I do not have a Gryphon yet, hopefully soon...that being said, because of the air intake mod I have, do you think it would be detrimental to my engine (stock 5.4 3v with stock air filter) to make WOT runs? Should I cap off the ram air section and just let it breathe through the fenderwell until I get a Gryphon?
I haven't made any WOT runs yet, and based upon your explanation of A/F ratios it's probably a good thing I haven't.
Thanks for any guidance.

[Jackpine]

Bill,
I do not have a Gryphon yet, hopefully soon...that being said, because of the air intake mod I have, do you think it would be detrimental to my engine (stock 5.4 3v with stock air filter) to make WOT runs? Should I cap off the ram air section and just let it breathe through the fenderwell until I get a Gryphon?
I haven't made any WOT runs yet, and based upon your explanation of A/F ratios it's probably a good thing I haven't.
Thanks for any guidance.

Let's see if I can get this right before Bill chimes in: :)

I think, because you've done no modifications to the intake system past the intake tube (the filter box and filter are all stock), you're not going to fool the MAF sensor into thinking there's less airflow than there really is. So, I don't think you have to worry about running lean.

But - and here I don't really have a clue how to proceed - at high speeds, your "ram" air intake is going to have a little bit of the effect of a blower (although I doubt it will be TOO significant). That COULD upset things a bit.

(BTW - the only reason I jumped in here was to test my understanding of this concern).

- Jack

[Power Hungry]

Correct, Jack. :2thumbs:

As long as the relationship between the MAF sensor and the intake tube is not disturbed, the MAF sensor *should* correctly calculate the amount of air entering the engine. Of course, this is under N/A draw-thru conditions. The ram-air effect of the snorkel on AO's truck may have a slight effect on AFR, but based on other ram-air kits I've seen in the past, the effect is not enough to be concerned about.

This coincides with what we've seen on the dyno with a 60 MPH fan blowing directly into the engine compartment. There is occasionally a slight AFR shift (.1 - .2) with air blowing into the intake tube (with snorkel and bellows removed) but think that this may be more related to the turbulent conditions cause by the high speed fan and not necessarily because of the removal of the snorkel itself.

Hope this helps.

[AgentOrange]

Thanks guys! :thumbsup:
I didn't want to hurt the motor before I'm able to enjoy the benefits of a Gryphon.

[secondarychaos]

Bill- with the turbulence in the intake you speak of, is it going richer or leaner?

[Power Hungry]

It could go either way, actually. It depends on how the air density is affected and whether the air flowing through the sample tube of the MAF Sensor is more or less dense than the air going around it.

Obviously, the closer the MAF sensor is to the opening the worse the effect of turbulence will be in regards to sensor fluctuations. The farther downstream, the more chance the air has to stabilize and the less likely there will be inaccurate readings.

[68galxl]

where is the snorkel on the 09? there is a air box mounted on the inner fender wall. its not like the 05 I had

[Power Hungry]

The snorkel is attached to the airbox itself.

Remove the top of the airbox and the the filter. There are two 13mm bolts that hold the airbox in. Remove them. "Pop" the airbox up and pull away from the fender. The snorkel will come out with the airbox.

The whole thing takes about 5 minutes. :2thumbs:

[68galxl]

thanks for the info

[Tylus]

The snorkel is attached to the airbox itself.

Remove the top of the airbox and the the filter. There are two 13mm bolts that hold the airbox in. Remove them. "Pop" the airbox up and pull away from the fender. The snorkel will come out with the airbox.

The whole thing takes about 5 minutes. :2thumbs:
sorry to revive an old thread...but I'm curious


I have a 2008 Epxy EL with 5.4 3v


From what I can tell, my Expy is almost 100% identical to the 09 F-150. The only obvious difference physically seems to be the radiator shroud.


I know the tuning is different since I have the 300 HP version, and they have the 310 HP version.




but since I have the same airbox...would I possibly see the gains you've posted if I remove my Snorkel? 7 HP for nothing would be awesome...and I'd love to see if it's possible

btw, any update if the Gryphon will be available for the 07+ Expy anytime soon?...or ever?

[Jackpine]

Sounds to me like you can. Really, as long as you don't remove anything that looks like it DOES something (i.e., you remove nothing more than a tube), there shouldn't be any problem at all.

- Jack

[ticopowell]

So I assume that fairly close to these same results will be expected from a 2010?