Update 1: 5.0-liter V-8 Confirmed for Mustang. What About Ford F-150?

Update 1: December 18, 2009 9:30 am Pacific
Autoweek reports that the new 5.0-liter V-8 will twist to the tune of 390 pounds-feet of torque. The engine will also feature an aluminum engine block with 4-valves per cylinder, vertical intake ports and twin independent variable valve timing. Fuel economy? It's a thrifty 25 mpg.


As we first told you in January, Ford is planning big changes to its powertrain lineup in 2010 for the 2011 model year, focused on giving buyers more power and greater efficiency. One of those changes is the addition of a new 5.0-liter V-8, developed under the codename "Coyote."

While the 5.0-liter V-8 hasn't been confirmed for the F-150 yet, we can tell you it's officially going in the 2011 Ford Mustang with a 412 horsepower power rating, thanks to a post on Edmunds.com. That's very close to the approximately 400 horsepower we told you the engine would produce. It's also beats the 411 horsepower figure for the new large displacement 6.2-liter V-8 that's going in the Ford F-150 SVT Raptor.


No real suprise as we expected @ 400 hp on Mustang form.

Real question is whats tq?

This post deserves a Drudge siren.

Power Kid,
If these numbers hold true for the F-150, 412 hp is considerably more than the "closer to 350 hp" you kept telling us it would be. And Mike was right all along.

I'd be surprised if the 5.0 in the F150 has the same tune as the Mustang.

365hp is what has been kicked around for the trucks.

I would be glad to be wrong though!

Glad to see ford bringing back the 5.0. There is a lot of history there with the mustang and the 150.

Ford would have an awesome line up of pickup engines if they offered the V6 twin turbo EcoBoost as the base engine, this 5L engine as the intermediate choice, and the 6.2L as the premium choice!

412 horsepower? What's the point of having the new 6.2L V8?

I doubt this engine would be seen in the F150 or at least in a detuned version.

although if torque is around 360 - 370 ft. lbs then I'd understand it being the mid level engine in the F150

@ Tony: Big "if" there. And yes IF they do I'll graciously apologize for being wrong. Not the first time, not the last. I still be shocked (just my opinion) if this 5.0 has 400+ hp in truck form.

@ Lou N: As mentioned numerous times the 3.5 EB will be premium offering above 5.0L in truck form. Thats from Ford, not me.

Hey I'm sure if Mike gets his way he'll line up three 2011 F150s (5.0/3.5EB/6.2) and get us the real answers we're all looking for.

I ask you this, if the 5.0L (truck form) is in the 400/400 range then why would a cash strapped Ford have continued development of the 6.2L? Wouldn't the 5.0L have done that job? You can ask the same question of the 3.5L EB and the answer there is that its a V6 and some guys don't want a "V6" no matter what it produces especially in a Superduty. Part B to that answer is the 3.5EB costs more to produce.

So heres my question: Assuming you can get all three offerings on the F150 trim level of yoru choice for 2011, which one do you go with:

5.0L @365 hp/ 365 tq base engine
Ford suggets similar to 5.4L re MPG

3.5L EB @ 400 hp / 400tq Add $1,500 retail
Ford says 25% better mpg than 5.4L

6.2L @ 411 hp / 434 tq Add $3,000 retail (as per Raptor)
Ford says as good or better than 5.4L mpg

Whats your vote.

@ Mike any of these questions going to be answered in Jan in Detroit Rock City?

As the saing goes "theres no replacement for cubic inch displacement". You can figure out my vote.

It should be noted that the coyote has a significant weight advantage over the 6.2. Correct me if I am wrong but some of the components are made out of ceramic. Where as the heavier 6.2 was made for hd applications with extreme duty in mind.

"Assuming you can get all three offerings on the F150 trim level of yoru choice for 2011...."

Power Kid,
That's a pretty big assumption. Do you really think all of the engines will be in all of the trim levels? Ford was testing the 5.0 with the heavy duty payload package. If it is good enough for the tow trucks, I don't believe the 5.0 is going to be as bad as you think it is.

Also, Ford said the Super Duty 6.2 mileage was as good or better than the mileage of the 5.4 in the Super Duty. Did they also say the 6.2 mileage of the F-150 would be as good? Please provide a link.

@ Dave I think you answered your own question.

Fairly safe to say if the 6.2L/6 speed is as good or better in SD it will also do the same in the F150. If the F150 was a lightweight.... perhaps not, but it is not light which is what always has hurt the 5.4ls F150 performance.

Ford has not commented on 6.2L mpg @ F150 as then they would have to confirm it would be available.

I guess one way to figure it out is what are the ratings on the raptor with either engine? Not sure thats out yet? Not totally fair either as the raptor is turning some heavy rubber and punching a much bigger hole given extra width.

You do make one point re the HD package & 5.0L testing. Who knows? Maybe they want to know if they can offer the 5.0L as a base engine in that pkg? We'll have to wait and see. Either way, we're going to get significantly better engine options in the F150 and thats win/win .

The smaller car motors have always made more power than same displacemant motors and larger motors in the thinks.
It's nothing new. Look at the 5.0/5.8, the 4.6/5.4 and now the 5.0/6.2. Everything gets done and the new motors really don't overlap each other in terms of performance. These new motors should make a great line up even better. Although I really don't see a need for a boosted sixxer unless it can pull off some great mileage.

Revamping their powertrain offerings is a really smart move by Ford. The one area where they have trailed some of the other truck makers has been in engine performance. Not bad, just not as powerful / efficient. It looks like these three engines will rectify that. Three choices for f150 buyers is smart. Truck buyers want choice. GM has understood that part of the equation for a while. I'm still really curious to see how the 3.5 EB performs.

Gas prices are predicted to spike again by next winter.

is this going to be based off the Windsor block or a modular block? any guesses?

Funny Ford people are so excited about a 5.0,the old Mustang 5.0 302 ci,was actually a 4.9 L,it was technically not enough cc to be classified a 5.0 but they did but it was a 4.9...

DD the motor your referring to was the straight six which was 300/4.9.

I don't think Ford makes the Windsor engine as a production engine. They are all "modular" as far as I know. People get excited about the 5L or the 302 as there is a very long, and famous history with that engine. I remember the 289, then the 302. It's been around since the early 60's. Guys my age, especially Ford guys, get nostalgic about that stuff. Most of my friends had cars and trucks with 289/302 engines. I had a 68'Ford Galaxie 500 with the 325hp FE big block 390 (totally stock). That would be roughly a 6.4L engine. I got 22 mpg if I didn't work the 4 barrel carb. We are now talking about twin turbo V6 engines with more power and almost twice the fuel economy of those old engines. I'm pretty impressed by how far we've come. I am also impressed with how Ford has turned things around.
Diesels and the current emissions problems remind me of the early 70's when that stuff first came out in gas engines.

@ Jeff DD is correct the 302 was actually a 4.9L but they called it a 5.0L. (GM 305 was a 5.0L) In fact Car & Driver was so put off by this they always referred to it in print as a 4.9L.

I think vast majority of Ford guys knew this so its not really an inside joke. (the old guys just called it a 302 damn the metric)

300 I6 also a 4.9L just where the "conversion" took it.

For example a 350 was a 5.7L but a 351 was a 5.8L.

454 was a 7.5L and a 460 a 4.6L. And on and on....

Fuel economy? It's a thrifty 25 mpg.


What about the F-150? Tell us the fuel economy of the F-150.

@pk I know the metric eq. what I was referring to is the fact that the 300 6 is referred to a 4.9 and the 302 as the 5.0. Being a "ford guy" I know this and when you ask any "ford guy" about the 4.9 they will say the 300 6 because that was how ford and everyone else referred to it as. Show me a mustang with a 4.9 badge on it, explorer, and everything else with the 302 in it. My 94 mustang was a 5.0 not a 4.9 according to ford.

Yes I know, I had a couple myself. But what I'm saying is it wan't really a 5.0L, ford just called it that. Perhaps to sound bigger than the 300 I6, perhaps to not be smaller than GMs "5.0L" but it wan't a 5.0L and that is what DD was pointing out.

I wonder what CU is on the new "5.0L". Might be a real 5.0 this time?

Interesting Link:

Answer: 300 in³ = 4.91611 L
Answer: 302 in³ = 4.94889 L
Answer: 305 in³ = 4.99805 L
Answer: 327 in³ = 5.35856 L
Answer: 330 in³ = 5.40773 L
Answer: 350 in³ = 5.73547 L
Answer: 351 in³ = 5.75185 L
Answer: 379 in³ = 6.21069 L

As far as the EB 3.5L goes... you'd have to be out of your mind to use a turbocharged gas motor for any kind of towing, horsepower or torque numbers aside that's just asking for something to explode.

BIG, Big thumbs up for the 3.5 EB. I would order that engine in any car for virtually any use...especially towing. So long as it's either intercooled or direct injected to cool the air charge...and the 3.5 EB is both...that thing will be tough as nails.

When done right, a turbo gasser is every bit as durable as a N/A engine.

Here is what Ford says about the Ecoboost....

"Customers who tow and haul – and have long turned to more expensive diesel powertrains for their superior towing capabilities – can find the engine performance they need from an EcoBoost powertrain."

“Compared with the current cost of diesel and hybrid technologies, customers in North America can expect to recoup their initial investment in a 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine through fuel savings in approximately 30 months. A diesel in North America will take an average of seven and one-half years, while the cost of a hybrid will take nearly 12 years to recoup – given equivalent miles driven per year and fuel cost.”

@jon - given the emissions equipment on current diesel pickups, and the price of fuel - I doubt that you would ever recoup the costs of a diesel purchase. Was Ford talking about small diesels or HD pickup diesels? I wouldn't risk purchacing a hybrid. I read a test where the new Toyota Tundra with the 4.6 got 1 MPG less than a Chev hybrid. (real world - not window sticker fuel economy). A person is better off buying what they need as opposed to what they want, and then doing proper maintenance, and drive more smoothly.

I priced out a F250 diesel & gas same equipment and did some math. Even thought I drive more than avg (min 30,000 m/yr) it would take me 14 years to pay for the extra up front cost of the diesel. So unless you tow 80% of yoru miles, or cost be damned... diesel don't pay. The one x factor not taken into account with that calculation is the better resale value of the Diesel when your done.

The 5.0L in Mustang spec makes 412hp at 6500rpm and 390lb-ft at an undisclosed rpm (my guess is 4000-4500rpm). That doesn't sound like the makings of a good truck engine if you ask me.

However, the benefit of DOHC is that you can really tune the power curve. I'm guessing that in F150 form, the engine will be biased for more low end power and less top end power. My best guess is that the 5.0L will make about 360-375hp at 6000rpm and 390lb-ft at 4000rpm in the F150. That would a pretty good upgrade over the 5.4L and would be comparable to GM's 6.0L Vortec (which is gone for 2010).

I still think Ford should offer the 6.2L in most F150 trims, but there is very little doubt in my mind that the 5.0L will make up the vast majority of F150 sales.

The comments to this entry are closed.