2009 F-150 5.4L Preliminary Dyno Results!

***Power Hungry*** · #1 Thu, January 15th, 2009, 03:01 AM

Hey all...

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

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

Torque Only

Horsepower and Torque

Horsepower, Torque and AFR

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.

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.

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.

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...

jfuller5 · #2 Thu, January 15th, 2009, 09:31 PM

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*** · #3 Fri, January 16th, 2009, 12:50 AM

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.

Take care.

***Jackpine*** · #4 Fri, January 16th, 2009, 11:40 AM

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

- Jack

Chris74 · #5 Tue, January 20th, 2009, 10:34 AM

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 · #6 Thu, January 22nd, 2009, 07:53 PM

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

secondarychaos · #7 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 03:08 PM

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

***Jackpine*** · #8 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondarychaos

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!

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 · #9 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 03:45 PM

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*** · #10 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 05:44 PM

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.