I'll take a Raptor with a 5.0L please...

[smurfslayer]

I remember almost 5 years ago now (damn... that long) Raptor Assault was an all out dust storm. I’m talking we had to stop for minutes on end because we didn’t have enough sight line. That’s the kind of thing I’m thinking about.

Every gear head loves to add power and speed potential, but we also hate it when something gets lunched. I really have plans for the ~15k it would take for an early rebuild, so I’ll opt to not be the beta tester here.

 

[Christyle]

If the Gen 2 came with a 5.0 I would haver been in one in a heartbeat. Just never been a fan of more complexity than needed in an engine, IE twin turbos. Yeah, yeah, I've seen all the marketing on longevity and such, but give me a good N/A motor (esp a V8) any day.

There has to be more than 1 reason why Ford didn't offer this engine in the Raptor. I've driven the 5.0 l in the newer trucks, they sound good, but they don't get the gas mileage i thought they would get for a newer truck.

I swear my old company truck, a stock 5.0 4x4 would do low/mid 20s on the highway doing 70+....part of the reason I wanted one. What mileage were you seeing? Could have been the lame smaller/lighter base model tires they ran.

Depends on the intake I imagine. A volant with the Donaldson would be a great choice. Great filter. UMP also would be a good choice as well.

I have been looking at superchargers as of late, one of the items of concern for me is the filter. I have not been able to find a rating for a cotton gauze + pre-filter combo. Something like ISO 5011 testing.

I have noticed that some side x side performance companies make a cleanable dry filter element + pre filter for them. I have been looking there as well. They claim much better filtration when compared to a cotton gauze. Can’t find any details on it yet though.

Could relocate the battery and run dual UMP’s like HRD did. That was slick.

Companies like camburg run K&N’s + prefilter on their race trucks. They seem to like them pretty well. I would imagine race engines get tore down more frequently but I wouldn’t think you would want the scaring that comes along with dirt ingestion.

Kibbe tech seems to run them a lot on their builds as well.

Would be cool to move the filter to inside the cab. Might be able to make that work, oh well.

Back to more digging on the inter webs.

I remember almost 5 years ago now (damn... that long) Raptor Assault was an all out dust storm. I’m talking we had to stop for minutes on end because we didn’t have enough sight line. That’s the kind of thing I’m thinking about.

Every gear head loves to add power and speed potential, but we also hate it when something gets lunched. I really have plans for the ~15k it would take for an early rebuild, so I’ll opt to not be the beta tester here.

Be honest, how many times have you seen an engine failure due to excessive dust ingestion? I get the argument for this, but I can't say I've ever seen it truly cause an engine failure. If this happened all the time, and/or you REALLY spent a lot of time in heavy dust, and I mean exclusively....sure, I could see moving it to the cab or something, but do you have any idea how much intake noise that would transfer to the cab, to solve a problem that's really not there? Just my .02

 

[CoronaRaptor]

I drove my Dads extended cab f150. 5.0 with 3.55 gears and I couldn’t get better than 15 mpg out of it, wasn’t beating on it either, was mostly highway too.

 

[smurfslayer]

Be honest, how many times have you seen an engine failure due to excessive dust ingestion? I get the argument for this, but I can't say I've ever seen it truly cause an engine failure. If this happened all the time, and/or you REALLY spent a lot of time in heavy dust, and I mean exclusively....sure, I could see moving it to the cab or something, but do you have any idea how much intake noise that would transfer to the cab, to solve a problem that's really not there? Just my .02

Me? that would be zero. I also don’t want to and I’m not keen to do a routine teardown as a race team would.

In context, with stock hairdryers and boost levels, there just is not a good ROI. Even at +2 PSI, I question the need for less restrictive filtration. More than that, perhaps so and that’s something the tuners would need to answer, but again, I’m not keen on ingesting particulates into the engine to pick up a few horsepower --in this context--.

 

[Christyle]

Me? that would be zero. I also don’t want to and I’m not keen to do a routine teardown as a race team would.

In context, with stock hairdryers and boost levels, there just is not a good ROI. Even at +2 PSI, I question the need for less restrictive filtration. More than that, perhaps so and that’s something the tuners would need to answer, but again, I’m not keen on ingesting particulates into the engine to pick up a few horsepower --in this context--.

I get what you're saying and agree for the most part. But by the same token, if there isn't any big data showing the filters/intakes cause issues.....why not? I just see so many people on forums deathly afraid of a less restrictive air filter like it causes instant death, and I just haven't seen anything that supports it. Seems like plenty of other things would cause meaningful damage in the engine's lifespan you could worry about than something that never seems to materialize into an actual issue.

 

[Muchmore]

I just see so many people on forums deathly afraid of a less restrictive air filter like it causes instant death, and I just haven't seen anything that supports it.

If there are ever any of these people they just say...This POS is burning oil or this POS won't quit phaser knocking...I hate Fords.... @smurfslayer told me to touch it there.....blah blah blah.

 

[Richard Hinsley]

Ues the 5.2

Yes, adding F/I to an engine like the 5.0 offers a ton of power potential. The 5.0 upper end provides incredible airflow and high RPM power. The issue is that although it can pound out 700 at the crank, it can’t do so with anything close to OEM reliability. Hence why Ford developed the 5.2 Predator.

I’m sure you could get away with a supercharged 5.0 Mustang for a lot longer than an F-150, most of the failures I’ve seen have been in trucks.

The 5.2 Predator crate motor is a better option.

 

[sammy134]

No thanks. I’ve seen more than my fair share of 5.0’s melt down a piston with those aftermarket kits. 5.0 is 12:1 compression and the pistons are not designed for F/I, it’s simply a bad combination with poor long term reliability.

Notice you lose the factory 5/60 powertrain coverage; it only includes a 3/36, and that’s through Roush.

I dont understand how you can undermine an entire company's engineering effort that went into making this product. Ford performance DIRECTLY works with Roush to develop this.

Do you not think they have engine dyno's where their product is durability tested for hours? Also, full powertrain dyno's where it's not just the engine, and the transmission and axles connected to the dyno to test out this 700 hp. If somethings going to break, it's going to be the weakest link.

You also disagreed with my opinion on another thread where I thought the 5.0L would be a better application in the Raptor.

I am all about choice, and the 5.0L should absolutely be an option the raptor. The buyer should be able to choose between either the 3.5 HO or the 5.0L. This opens up a better solution to the noise complaints of the v6, and also fixes the 5.2L high cost and markup issues that the R will suffer.

 

[smurfslayer]

I dont understand how you can undermine an entire company's engineering effort that went into making this product. Ford performance DIRECTLY works with Roush to develop this.

Do you not think they have engine dyno's where their product is durability tested for hours? Also, full powertrain dyno's where it's not just the engine, and the transmission and axles connected to the dyno to test out this 700 hp. If somethings going to break, it's going to be the weakest link.

You also disagreed with my opinion on another thread where I thought the 5.0L would be a better application in the Raptor.

I am all about choice, and the 5.0L should absolutely be an option the raptor. The buyer should be able to choose between either the 3.5 HO or the 5.0L. This opens up a better solution to the noise complaints of the v6, and also fixes the 5.2L high cost and markup issues that the R will suffer.

But it doesn’t.

302 is a good choice for the Mustang, but less so for a 5700 pound truck. It doesn’t produces anywhere near as much peak torque as the 3.5TT and in N/A form getting it to produce that kind of torque would be a huge and certainly compromise the engine’s reliability. The 3.5 OTOH produces good, abundant torque and maintains it well.

FTO is pointing out that the 302 wasn’t designed from the jump to be forced induction, the 3.5TT was.

Do both engines have room for modifications to produce more power? sure. How much? Outside the “bolt on” window of relatively small increases in power, when you start replacing hard parts or putting on a power adder, reliability and durability is necessarily going to suffer.

Would it be nice if there was a 2nd power plant option for the Rap? Sure, but the 5.0 really isn’t an ideal choice. 7.3 could be, but it would depend on the tune given to it. You would have an easier time getting respectable torque out of the 7.3, but the top end in N/A form would be about where the 3.5TT is to maybe 500? - it has to run on regular gas, from Gnome, Alaska to Death Valley, CA hauling payload.

 

[Donovan]

Someone buy the kit, do it and then come back here talking about gas mileage. Thanks.

But in all seriousness. Its a no for me, this smells like, "damn why do it smell like burnt wires in here? OH SHIT your engine bay bro!" *Grabs fire extinguisher".

I've seen entire vehicles catch on fire on the highway, at the track and in garages due to a lot of "over engineering past limitations"