Notices
2009 - 2014 F150 Discuss the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ford F150
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Moser

Performance difference's between rear end ratios.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 09-27-2011, 01:45 AM
640 CI Aluminum FORD's Avatar
640 CI Aluminum FORD
640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Fleet Mechanic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,311
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Performance difference's between rear end ratios.

I've been keeping up with the latest in 2011 F-150 road tests and all that stuff. Here recently I've noticed something that I found a little intriguing. Recently there have been two fairly major road tests and comparison's that a 2011 F-150 was involved in. The particular truck I want to you take notice of in the first test ''which only includes F-150s'' is the one with the 5.0L V8. In the second test the only F-150 that was there to compete was one with the 5.0L.

The thing I find interesting is that the 2011 F-150 5.0L that was tested by Truck Trend ran a 0-60 of 6.9 seconds. Keep in mind that it was a 4X4 Crew Cab with a 3.73 rear end.

Now the one tested by Pickuptrucks.com was a regular cab 2WD 5.0L with 3.55 rear end...And it ran the same 6.9 second 0-60 as the much heavier Crew Cab 4WD F-150 with the 3.73 rear end.

Considering the weight difference I would have expected the 4X4 F-150 to noticeably slower perhaps 1/2 a second or so to 60? But instead it runs nose to nose with the lighter 2WD model...Does making the jump from 3.55 to 3.73 really yield that much extra performance?

I personally own a 2011 F-150 FX4 Supercab with the 5.0L and 3.73, and I even test drove an XLT 5.0L Supercab with 3.55's before I made my purchase. To me my 3.73 equipped truck maybe feels a little more punchy off the line...But really any real world difference seems negligible. Let me know what your thougts on the subject are.

#1
5.0-liter V-8 XLT SuperCrew 4x4 - 2011 Ford F-150 Comparison Test - Truck Trend

#2
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2011-30k-
shootout.html

Here's the spec's for the trucks tested in the order I've placed the tests above this.

#1
2011 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCrew 4X4
5.0L V8
3.73 Rear End
Curb Weight - 5640lbs
0-60 = 6.9 seconds
1/4 mile = 15.3 @ 93.30

#2
2011 Ford F-150 XLT Regular Cab 2WD
5.0L V8
3.55 Rear End
Curb Weight - 5,110lbs
0-60 = 6.9 seconds
1/4 mile = 15.4 @93.31mph

(530lbs difference in curb weight)

''Note''
For some reason Pickuptrucks.com neglected to include the spec's for the trucks used in their test. So I had to look up the curb weight online for a Regular Cab 2WD 5.0L F-150. The numbers may not be exact to the F-150 used in their test...However they are very close.

What do you think? Why did the almost 600lb heavier F-150 run the same 0-60mph time and almost identical 1/4 mile time and trap speed? Could this be due to gearing alone? Did the Crew Cab just have a hot engine or in vice versa the Regular Cab had an underachiver engine?

I've never personally run my 5.0 Supercab FX4 in a 0-60 or 1/4 mile so I can't speak for myself...But I did however watch a factory stock 5.0L regular cab 2WD F-150 run a 14.5 1/4 mile @ 95mph (Speed Limiter) and that particular truck had a 3.73 rear end.
 
  #2  
Old 09-27-2011, 05:46 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 38,132
Received 1,219 Likes on 802 Posts
Different trucks, different locations and different drivers.

One only needs to look at the super duty line-up to see what a powerful engine and a six speed transmission do to truck capability and fuel economy.
 
  #3  
Old 09-27-2011, 06:33 AM
todd230's Avatar
todd230
todd230 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gilbert Arizona
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd believe it - gearing is a huge part of straight line acceleration. Think of timing 0-20 MPH from a stop in 1st gear vs starting in 2nd gear. It's about getting to and keeping the motor in it's power band. I would think the 5.0 would be more gear sensitive than the EB simply because of the power band - 5.0 makes peak torque and HP higher in the RPM range so that first to second gear time would probably account for a good chunk of ET not running in the ideal power band - then at the end of the run where wind resistance plays a larger part the 3.73 is also helping.
 
  #4  
Old 09-28-2011, 04:49 AM
FORD FRED's Avatar
FORD FRED
FORD FRED is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The super crew would have more weight on the back axle helping it to get traction and get out of the hole faster. Also if the 4x4 was engaged it would also help it to get out of the hole faster. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
  #5  
Old 09-28-2011, 10:13 AM
cartmanea's Avatar
cartmanea
cartmanea is offline
Lead Driver
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 6,757
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Gearing makes a huge difference in acceleration; I'm not sure why you're wanting to debate this so much...
 
  #6  
Old 09-28-2011, 10:55 AM
shortride's Avatar
shortride
shortride is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: 46th State
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
One consideration is that these late model engines have the ability to adjust the ignition, valve timing and fuel control under different conditions. This could explain some of the performance characteristic differences.
 
  #7  
Old 09-28-2011, 11:03 AM
cartmanea's Avatar
cartmanea
cartmanea is offline
Lead Driver
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 6,757
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by shortride
One consideration is that these late model engines have the ability to adjust the ignition and maybe valve timing and fuel control under different conditions. This could explain some of the performance characteristic differences.
The gearing explains it... Lower gears apply more torque at a lower speed to the rear wheels, which will provide more acceleration. Pair that with a heavier vehicle and the lower gears will attain similar acceleration to a lighter vehicle with taller gears, though at the cost of highway mileage and top speed.
 
  #8  
Old 09-28-2011, 11:39 AM
shortride's Avatar
shortride
shortride is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: 46th State
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by cartmanea
The gearing explains it... Lower gears apply more torque at a lower speed to the rear wheels, which will provide more acceleration. Pair that with a heavier vehicle and the lower gears will attain similar acceleration to a lighter vehicle with taller gears, though at the cost of highway mileage and top speed.
Absolutely!

This is the only reason for my post.

Originally Posted by 640 CI Aluminum FORD
Now the one tested by Pickuptrucks.com was a regular cab 2WD 5.0L with 3.55 rear end...And it ran the same 6.9 second 0-60 as the much heavier Crew Cab 4WD F-150 with the 3.73 rear end.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bbshriver
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
18
05-14-2018 11:31 PM
jabberwoki
2009 - 2014 F150
1
02-04-2015 04:53 AM
BlueOvalBud
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
1
04-10-2011 08:14 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD
2009 - 2014 F150
38
01-18-2011 04:53 PM
Milwaukee1979F150
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
9
10-15-2008 12:43 PM



Quick Reply: Performance difference's between rear end ratios.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.