Those reports are all based on dyno testing. That's how you compare engines - back to back on a dyno, measuring fuel consumption, in a lab. Not according to what two mpg "window stickers" say for two different vehicles, different weights, different engines, different years. Seriously, give me a break.

And the Ford engine is a smaller engine. Or are you saying 5.4L vs. 7.0L is apples to apples now? Why do you want to ignore vehicle weight and engine displacement? Again - give me a break. I mean, in your previous post, you wanted to compare an Impala (though we dont' know what year) with a 5.7l engine to a new S Class with a 4.6l, and is 1000 lbs. heavier, different transmissions, different gearing... Give me a break. If you want to compare vehicles, then compare vehicles. But if you want to compare engines, it's done with dyno data.

If you want to be scientific, then be scientific. If you want to be a clown, then be a clown. But you know the difference. What you're trying to do is like saying the tires on a Cadillac must be less efficient than those on a Neon, because the Cadillac gets worse fuel economy. It's just a little more complicated than that.