Well that is a fact, I do like fords, but nowadays, all of them are pretty even. SO NOW, I DECLARE PEACE BETWEEN OUR TWO RACES!!
The Ford 6.2L V8 was meant to replace the outgoing (and desperately tired) 5.4L Modular as the "big engine" in their half ton pickups. This engine is still used as the base engine in the 3/4 ton and 1 ton F-250/F-350. It made 411 horsepower in Raptor trim, or 66.29 hp/L. The current "HO" V6 in the new Raptor makes 450 horsepower, or 128.57 hp/L. This is an incredible engine. It's specific output is much higher than the 6.2L V8 in the Ram Rebel TRX. And that has a great big honkin' 'Murican freedom-ain't-free supercharger bolted to the top of it. If torque is more your thing, the HO V6 makes 510 lb-ft, while the old 6.2 made 434 lb-ft. Now, the numbers for the 6.2 aren't aneamic in any way, far from it in fact. However, when you look at everyone else's offerings, it's not that great of an engine. Sounds better than the V6, but that's the only it does better.
The thing that bothers me about the new raptor is the auto gearbox. Why do we need a 10 speed gearbox?
I don't mind Ford. They're no worse than GM or Chrysler. Both of my Crown vics have been damn reliable. I drove an 08 or 09 or something 4 door Jeep Wrangler yesterday. It fucking sucks. It's slow as hell, the interior sucks, the visibility sucks even worse, the suspension is hard as a rock, and it drives like shit. Those things are terrible. I really enjoyed beating on it for a bit though.
I think it's for fuel mileage, and not having enough power. You have more optimal ratios for different speeds.
I've had a few Fords, with the newest being a 95 F-150, And while the interiors may seem pretty cheap and flimsy, I do like the older Ford trucks, and I'd very much like to find an 87-97 4wd F-350 with 460 or 94-97 with a 7.3. Though honestly, the only engine I didn't care for was the small block, (302/351) and my favorite probably being the 300 6 Cylinder. Then in 97-98 on into the present, it seemed as if they did a complete fundamental flip, going from cheap trucks with good engines, to good trucks with crap engines, with only notable, non-fluke exception being the 6.7 Powerstroke. While I personally have never owned one, I have spent quite a lot of time around them at work, Including a pair of 2000 V6 F-150's, a 2000 V10 F-450, a 2004 5.4 F-150, a pair of 2007 6.4 Diesel F-250's, a 2013 6.2 F-150, and a 2016 6.2 F-350, and a 2007 5.4 F-150. (Keep in mind all these trucks belong to the state of Illinois and are on the same maintenance program, and go to the same shop that police cars do.) The pair of 4.? V6 Half tons are extremely crappy, no power whatsoever, both had tons of timing problems, and both of them died within a week of each other, at 150,000 miles. I put over 5,000 miles on the V10 F-450 over a year's time,running around a state park. I'll be the first to say that I absolutely love the Super Duty, and I could find one with a decent engine I'd love to own it. The 6.8 V10 in this particular truck only had around 58,000 miles on it when it let go. First at around 45K, the coil packs started going, one by one, then the manifolds started pulling away from the heads. Next it starting spitting spark plugs out, at the worst it had to go to the shop three times in a month for it. But what finally killed it was the timing chain jumping, and the valves and the pistons started hitting each other, and that was the engine done, at 58,000 miles. We got the 2004 F150 as a replacement for an old 2001 318 Dodge with over 300,000 miles we had. While the Ford looks a lot nicer, With all of it's ticks, rattles, hisses, knocks and squeaks, it sounds like it's about 3 seconds away from going into full nuclear meltdown mode. In the 9 months we've had it, it's had more problems than the old Dodge ever did. Right now it's in the shop getting a whole new transmission, and the beat up old Dodge is back in the field. The 6.4 Crewcabs, aren't terrible, but one of them has been having turbo problems lately. The 2013 6.2 F-150 has plenty of power, but has developed a bottom end knock in the last few months, only after it got past 100,000 miles. the 6.2 F-350 hasn't had any real mechanical problems, (It shouldn't, it doesn't even have 10,000 miles.) And having a 6.2, has plenty of power, But it's problems have all been electrical, lighting problems, battery problems, computer problems. Then there is the 2007 F-150, the exception to the rule, it's got 80,000 miles and feels like it's got just as much power as the 6.2's, runs like a swiss clock and hasn't skipped a beat since we got it. The only thing I can think of to say bad about it is the interior, It feels cheap and It's not very comfortable, But all the Fords that body style feel that way to me. Then there is my brother in law's 2005 5.4 2wd F-150, It's got around 130,000 miles, and in the last two years they've put over $11,500 into it, and it's still having shifting problems and timing chain problems.
The EcoBoost is all the rage these days. I've heard of little in the way of faults with them, both 2.7 and 3.5 liter. I love the 3.5 in my mom's F-150, I've become a sucker for the turbo whistle. Sure, the injectors are extremely loud, but I've found that's a quirk of all direct injected vehicles, not so much a problem with the EcoBoost. The venerable 4.2L Essex V6 in those old Modular-era F-150's were complete crap. However, it made more power than GM's 4.3 Vortec (somehow) and Ford's own 4.0L Cologne V6. It was literally a stroked out version of the 3.8L Essex they shoved in the SN95 Mustang and Thunderbird. That engine design sucked there too. A couple years ago, my dad and I looked at a '95 Mustang with that engine in it. We would have bought it, if it actually ran. Seriously, that hunk of crap was running fine, then just randomly died. We left it.
well we already concluded it has more torque and power than your beloved, so its really not for not having enough power
More power, more torque, more fuel economy. What does the v8 have? --- Post updated --- You are an idle troll and you know it
It's lighter, more advanced, higher specific output.... Your Hemi uses pushrods. Your argument is invalid.
His hemi is an antique with the performance of an antique. its only selling point is noise so he can be a child sitting in his cot crying because hes thrown the toys out of the crib
You yell to be heard, because your engine is less powerful. Turbos are for the weak, and should be used for good fuel mileage, not for performance vehicles. In the 80's they were good, now they are used to prop up under-powered engines
This is what you sound like. Turbos are used to add power to engines. This is why they're considered a "Power Adder". Superchargers behave the same way. Or I could be an idiot like you and say "OH, SUPERCHARGERS ARE USED TO PROP UP UNDER-POWERED ENGINES!"
You clean your dirty mouth out with soap. Turbos have almost always been a performance item, and they continue to be a performance item. -Owner of a turbocharged Subaru
i really like v8 engines and cars over a v6 because of the sound the experience and the cars they are put into dont care about power just if it runs great and a smooth or roaring sound i am happy dont get me wrong a v6 is great and the car they are put into here in europe but i dont need a fast loud salloon i'd rather have a nice, big, comfi, slow to mid powered cruiser as a dailydriver and i am saving money for a classic american car from the 70's at the moment
To distract from the current trucks/specific output/technology flame war, here are a couple things I've found out about Mulholland Drive, that infamous racing road in LA. I heard of it some time ago, but couldn't believe people raced on it, because I went to Google and turned on the overhead view and saw houses everywhere. I did, however, find a video about it that greatly cleared up my understanding of this road. 1. The houses weren't always there. It was originally built for "road enthusiasts", and there is a record of street racing occurring on it from very early on (Actors Gary Cooper and John Carradine had Deusenbergs that they tuned to race on that road). The McMansion failnado that Mulholland now is didn't come until later. 2. Legit race cars were sometimes seen on that road, as professionals occasionally used it to tune and practice for sanctioned events. 3. The "racecourse", the section between Skyline and Coldwater Canyon that people actually raced on, is doing a lot better than the rest in terms of suburban/residential contamination, probably due to running along a ridge that's too steep for driveways. 4. Mulholland racers were not double yellow cutters. The lead-follow or "cat-and-mouse" style of mountain battle, where the victory is decided by whether the lead car gains or loses ground, was apparently invented on Mulholland Drive so that competition could take place without the need to cross the center. Whether Japan's use of that ruleset for races on narrow roads was inspired by Mulholland racers or developed independently, I don't know. 5. Before setting out for the race he ultimately never got to, James Dean burned over 1,000 miles of practice runs on Mulholland Drive, so I think it's safe to say that mountain racing in California significantly predates mountain racing in Japan. Conclusion: Americans who refer to mountain racing as "touge" and associate it with drifting and Keiichi Tsuchiya and the AE86 are stomping on their own country's rich history of car culture. And speaking of the AE86, it was probably not a common sight on Mulholland and its ilk, even when it was new. America is fundamentally a horsepower country; our mountain roads are wider and faster than Japan's on average and we as a country see very little shame in winning on the straightaways. Also, it's one of the "dirty little secrets" of car culture history that certain muscle and pony cars could hang with foreign competition in the curves even then, at least with the right suspension modifications and setups (an early GTO with the NASCAR road-racing suspension upgrade could out-turn the Ferrari it was named after). The AE85 and AE86 were apparently going for Camaro money on this side of the pond, but even by the standards of the time, with the Camaro and Mustang struggling to climb back above 200 HP when they ran at all, they were slow. Thus, from a street racer's perspective at least, the RWD Corollas were a terrible value proposition. Nobody had time for a 112 HP, 1.6L economy car with little aftermarket support in this country when first-gen Mustangs and Camaros could still be had for reasonably sane money and even the disgraces rolling out of America's factories around the same price point were much faster and more tuneable.
