Which ones the BEST

bigsnag · February 2000

Bud:
You might want to check out the following topics before you get off too much about MPG. #571 6.0 gas mileage and #1470 Superduty. There is no huge disparity like you claim. There are guys in both topics getting up to 16 with 3.73's on the highway and there are guys in both getting single digits with 4.10's loaded. Some of the lowest numbers on the Fords are coming from guys with 4X$'s with 4.30's, obviously. The mileage is very, very close when it comes to comparably equipped trucks. Not 2 MPG, more like a 0.5 at most, if any.

mgdvhman:
You are right. 10 vs. 8 is not quite fair, but a win is a win. It is fair however when you consider that it is the biggest gas engine available from both, so it's biggest vs. biggest. At least until the 8.1. Then that wouldn't quite be fair the other way around, now would it?
What about 5.4 vs. 5.3? That's 8 vs. 8 and we know who the reigning champ is as far as that goes.

mgdvhman · February 2000

220,
EVERY engine Dodge has ever made in masses has been a joke...so don't even throw them into the pot here....The only contest to ever take serious is Chevy and Ford....the ONLY contestants.

This is just a case of the leap frog game...Chevy has no V-10...so therefore they suffer in that catagory....they kick [non-permissible content removed] right now in Cab size..4 wheel anti's..integrated belts...head restaints..blah blah blah...
It's been this game for years...one guy has this....next years...other guys have it...but also have that...next year all guys have that...etc..

Fact is the 6.0 is still the best Engine all around...hands down.
For the super tiny bit more advantage here of a V-10...(kinda a ripp of to get 20% more engine with so little advantage and so much gas sucking)...you spend more for it and more on gas to gain such a small amount.
There's the 5.3/6.0
then there is a 5.4...and...uhh..DOHHH!

Once again testing a truck in a 1/4 mile as you would a car is just too much laughter for me..

...Course I'm used to laughing....as long as you keep mentioning Fords...that's all I need for laughter.
You make yourself Blue now...

- Tim

mgdvhman · February 2000

The 8.1 will still be a V-8....

Ford just can't seem to make a V-8 worth a damn I guess?

V-10's and Diesels by nature have more torque...so i guess they chose that route due to the lack of knowledge to build a good V-8?

Must be the answer...

GRRRRRRRRRR

- Tim

jcmdie · February 2000

More people buying a 3/4 ton truck are cocerned with torque,towing capacity and payload. There may be a number of punk kids in the 1/2 ton trucks that think speed is important, but not in the 3/4 ton class. The only thing that silverado is winning right now is the record for number of consumer complaints in the first two years of a model year. Reading thru these boards I'd say we have a winner!

cdean · February 2000

bigsnag

biggest vs biggest? No, Chevy still has the 454 out there in the C/K 3/4 ton package. that's Chevy's biggest. that was a test between Ford's #1 and GM's #2. GM's current top gas dog is the 454. almost identical power and mileage as the ford v10.

in august, 8.1 with Allison 1000 behind it. then lets talk...

mgdvhman · February 2000

I have to hand it to you ford guys....You have watched the commercials real good. Seems you know every thing there is to know.
Kids....what ya gonna do with them?
And if you can find one post anywhere on this board where I give a hoot about MPG.....then you be da man. Also find a post where I say Power is no concern. You have a Bigsnag alright....in the brain somewhere!?

Me own a 6 banger?...that's a good one..

Ford fans too dumb to know the difference between a 6 cyl. and a 6.0.

..Can I say it once Blue??........Good luck on this one now!!

LOL

Run along now boys...

- Tim

mgdvhman · February 2000

Good call.....these kids get to be obnoxious ..eh?

Just set them back in front of the TV so they can learn about trucks..

They read it!!...Must be true!

- Tim

bigsnag · February 2000

It's called being facetious. Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word sometime. Remember F comes after E. I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. When I suggested that you must own a six cylinder, it was in reply to your statement about so little gain for such a gas guzzler. Fact is, it is a significant gain in exchange for minimal loss in MPG. "So much gas sucking", and I quote mgdvhman. I guess I am the man, now. Found that sentence only a few posts back. I think that bowtie cut off the circulation to your brain. "Good luck on this one now"??? Who are you, Rube?

mgdvhman · February 2000

I guess you Do know it all then?

TV's must work then...

I guess MPG is my biggest concern....even though I have always stated I don't care about it?

HMMM

Kids learn more from TV then I thought?

Run along skippy..

- Tim

bigsnag · February 2000

It's "more from TV THAN I thought", not then. "Than" is for comparisons. You really do need to use that dictionary. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have time to follow all your posts. Why would I want to keep up on the opinions of someone who is so ignorant. You might want to look that one up, too, before you get all mad thinking I called you stupid, or less intelligent. I guess I can't blame you for being mad. I'd be mad too if I just found out that a Ford, which I hate so much, could eat my lunch.

mgdvhman · February 2000

....A Classic line to admit defeat. Thanks.

Anyone who knows me knows I don't get mad over this little stuff....Life is too short for that. You on the other hand seem upset.......Mission complete!!

Oh no!!...I've spelled something wrong!!...How can I live with myself??!!....The horror...the horror.....boooohooooooo.....wahhhhhh.....What will I do now...???

Next contestant Please.

- Tim

bigsnag · February 2000

It's not that you misspelled something. It was an incorrect use of the English language. The E is nowhere near the A on a keyboard. This was not a typo and you know it. Anyone who knows me, knows that I do not have time to go around following all of your posts. How did I admit defeat, by saying that I don't know all your stances on every given topic? I simply went by what you said in this thread and proved that you did say something about gas guzzling. You said it. I brought it to your attention. Who was the first to get "mad". Kids they just watch TV, think they know everything, yada, yada, yada. I am not mad. I know I have exposed your inconsistencies. You are mad because you got caught. End of story.

Rocles · February 2000

What's the argument here?? It seems as if this should be simple guys. Quit whining about HP figures since the bow-tie boys fall silent when the debate doesn't suit them. (ie:5.3 v 5.4)

The answer is easy: Ford outsells General Motors.

Not just Chevy---GM combined.

Yeah, keep whining. Where was the boasting of the 454 when Ford introduced the Super-duties?? I can't wait to hear silence when Ford offers a new truck for GM to be worried about.

PS: WHo mentioned Dodge? How dare you! LOL!!!

Roc

reddogs · February 2000

"TOYOTA TUNDRA" then...........:0)

reddogs · February 2000

...:0)

reddogs · February 2000

I had to eat crow (with a side of humble pie) over at the 'stang boys at www.boss302.com. I found all my papers for my 71 "BOSS 302" MACH I Mustang, and the long and short of it was:

1)It wasn't a factory mule as I thought

2) The label on the engine said 302 4V as in Holley 4 venturi, so it had ALL markings and components that make a "BOSS 302" engine.

but anyway here's the answer on the VIN #
":As promised, here is the VIN number for the MACH I, it's IT05F153844. If someone could decypher it I'd appreciate it, but from the Mustang reference info it seems the BOSS302 was put in afterwards. I would still like to know what the VIN gives us in terms of the original factory equipment, but again thanks for all the help.

p.s. From my research I found an interesting theory why Ford didn't continue the BOSS 302, they found it to be a very expensive setup/engine with all the specialized parts, parts made only for that block and not transferable. I'd be interested to know if that was the reason or part of it.
:
:
1 - 1971 model year
T - Metuchen assembly plant
05 - body serial code - Fastback Mach 1
F - engine code, 302 2v
153844 - Numerical sequence/schedule of assembly"

jcmdie · February 2000

Post #55 was to Tim and not a general post or to bud lite dude. I just wanted to see if I could catch him off guard and ruffle his feathers. He didn't even notice. Here I am just funnin' with Tim and you get all serious and bent out of shape. As a general rule I don't post neative generalizations (bashing) toward a manufacturer but if ever there was manufacturer that deseved it,.....

modvptnl · February 2000

didn't I tell you that like weeks ago? The thing that killed the Boss and all Cleveland heads for thet matter was the new smog laws.

cdean · February 2000

Roc

I'm not sure I understand. what do you mean by where was the boasting of the 454 when the Superduties. The 454 has been out for 30 years, they've never HAD to boast. why start now? the only boasting that gets done around HERE is when Ford folks, though yourself NOT included, like to compare the GM 6.0 vs the Ford v10. not fair, their not meant for the same duty.

we can argue all day 5.3 vs 5.4 or 6.0 vs 5.4, but step back and look at it like GM has given the public an extra option to choose from. You just have to pay few pennies more for the 3/4 ton chassis to get the power of the 6.0. you sacrifice mileage for the extra torque and hp. If Ford had done that, ya'll would be singing those praises. What if its the Ford owners that the debate doesn't suit?

i don't think you hear any 5.3 owners complaining about their inability to pull anything. maybe a lot of Ford owners justifying their decisions. I've driven a 2000 5.3 and a 1999 5.3, and there is a lot more hump on the low end of the 2000 model. i just drove it about 40 miles. stop and go, some freeway passing. i still say it feels stronger than my 5.7. great running engine.

btw, ford outsold GMC+Chevy by about 10K this year. It was almost 80K units last year. Silverado, despite production probs, made quite a jump in sales. any predictions about a smooth running third year and introduction of new diesel, new big block, new HD truck will do for GM?

modvptnl · February 2000

Yeah, just more first(and second) year teething problems for G.M. .....Just kidding!

reddogs · February 2000

Yeah, you told me, but I went over there and shot my big mouth off how I was 100% SURE it was a BOSS 302 mustang, and when the VIN showed it to be mustang WITH a BOSS 302 engine put in, I had to put my tiny little tail between my legs and yelp out of there....:0(

Rocles · February 2000

cdean,
You're right. The mighty GM juggernaut may finally recapture the sales crown this year but the overall Ford sales figures are a great indication of what they are doing right in the building of trucks.
The "boasting" I refer to is how GM fans try to argue for their inferior HD trucks by touting an old engine. I've had equal success with the old 460 and I have never, for the record, ever compared the V-10 to the 6.0. (btw-the 5.4v5.3 debate is an equal one)
It's a no-brainer that I prefer Ford. Guilty as charged! However, I do feel that GM makes a fine truck but were lacking focus during the past decade as it let Dodge and Ford pounce on sales that GM took for granted.
What I get tired of is the constant exaggeration on GM fans part about the truck debate being only about engines. Even you have to admit that although only a few grand separate teh half-tons versus the 3/4---they are world's apart for the actual consumer. Yes, I own many HDs for my firm but my personal ones are half-tons. (98 Ford and 89 Chevy) So in essence, teh half-tons have the same offerings when engines are an issue. (one six, two eights)
As always, only my opinion.
Roc

bigsnag · February 2000

I, too, was becoming tired of engine talk. In particular the constant berating of the Ford V-10. I do not own one and have no use for a HD truck. I was simply trying to refute claims that the 6.0 is superior to the V-10. I never claimed that it was an equal test. Obviously the Ford has two more cylinders and has more displacement. When I claimed equality, it was of the setup of the trucks, leaving the engines as the biggest variable, ergo a "good" test of engine vs. engine. I must admit, I was impressed with how well the V-10 did. However, for all these guys to come ranting and raving back about it's not a fair test, the 6.0 is still the best, yada yada yada, well, that just sort of proves my point. It doesn't come down to engines, it comes down to opinions. Which, sometimes, have no apparent basis. I'll climb off of the soapbox now.

bud_light_dude · February 2000

I don't think anyone here is claiming any superiority of the 6.0l over the V10. Like Cdean stated, they have totally different uses. I think "for any heavier than a 1/2 ton use", the 6.0l would be much better for me overall. Plenty of torque and hp for heavier loads than a 1/2 ton would do comfortably, and still get pretty decent gas mileage too.

I don't think anyone would argue that the V10 would be much better suited for lots of heavy use (continually and closer to max ratings).

I don't have anything against the Ford engines. They are as good as any. I just found the GM closer matching more of my likes than Ford doe...period. I never looked at Dodges. Not because I think they are a bad truck, but for the same reasons I chose GM over Ford.....preference.

cdean · February 2000

well, the 5.4 vs 5.3 debate is an equal one is debatable. One dyno test showed the 5.4 with hp and torque advantage thru-out the rpm range, while the same mag's performance towing tests show both engines with equal times pulling a load, fact remains, GM has another choice out there, a stronger one.
I'll guess will just have to disagree. 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton worlds apart for the consumer? How? I don't agree. Price is very comparable, less than the thousands you mention. same truck configurations available in 3/4 as in 1/2, except for engine and tire choice.
GM heavy duty inferiors? I thought all your GM troubles were half tons? Outdated engines? the current GM 5.7 and 454 put out equal or more power than the Ford 5.4, Dodge 360, and Ford V10 respectively. Is that outdated? it all changes in 6 months anyway.

honestly, engines, diesels aside, why do you feel about the GM's is so inferior to Ford and Dodge one-tons. I'll give you brake performance, but not longevity. have I mentioned 500 times all the GM 3500s and 3500HDs with 200K + hard miles, as in ranching, oilfield, construction, contracting? Not saying the Fords aren't capable, but i've just seen the GM 3500HD's up close, underneath and all around, and I'm telling you its a LOT of iron on those trucks, nothing fancy at all. Have you actually seen/driven/worked one of the GM HD's. I think most of the bad talking around here is because of the currently inferior diesel. I've never heard anyone else say anything else about the Ford or Dodge advantage. What's your view??

cdean

Rocles · February 2000

I mis-spoke when mentioning "inferior". Wrong choice of words and I'm man enough to admit it. A better choice should have been "older" or "eclipsed".
The GM diesels have a notorious reputation. Do we need to dwelve into that? I think we can all agree that the new Isuzu diesel will be a blessing to GM.
Contracting in oil fields?? Yes, we have heard that about 500 times. Have I mentioned that I'm in construction as well? (Only about 300 times!) Yes, I've owned Chevy 2500s in the past and have had good luck with them. Most of my problems lie with their half-tons which I abhor.
Despite this, I still feel (only opinion) that Ford is leading in HDs when braking, bearings, tranny and diesels are taken in a debate. Alot better? No-but enough for me. Have you ever seen a Ford up close?? Plenty of steel--not much iron.

BTW: how do you compare an old 350 to a 330? Which would you want? I own both and I made my choice two years ago.
I disagree about the HD differences for the average consumer. How many want a super-stiff ride since they hardly fill the bed?? How many want a diesel? Most owners of half-tons rarely need them let alone a HD! Plus many states hike up rates for HD models (PA is one) and prices do vary. Most don't need a bigger truck than a half-ton; not all of us live in Texas.

bigsnag · February 2000

I never claimed that anyone, here, in particular was claiming 6.0 superiority. If you go back to my original post (and I hope most people would) you see that I simply say that I, personally, have had several people tell me about the great 6.0 and the dog V-10. I even said that acceleration is not even close to what makes a truck. The problem is, a couple of people just came completely off the handle, just because I mention an article that shows the 6.0 losing acceleration tests to a bigger engine. You'd think I insulted their mother or something. I never said the test was fair, just that the V-10 did in fact outperform the 6.0, which was in direct opposition to what may people have been claiming.

cdean · February 2000

Roc,
I've seen 'em all up close. I've crawled around underneath, on top and inside of 'em. '88 Ford ton and a half was pretty impressive at the time. '94 Chevy 3500Hd was bigger. '97+ F-Superduties even bigger. '99 Super Duty's even Bigger. And 2000 Chevy 3500HD, just as big as '99 and 2000 superduties. By that i mean, frames, brakes, dead axles, rear axles. the only real difference in the amount of "steel" is the way the frame is constructed. But that was my whole point. The GM frames on their HD's are just enormous, looks like 12-14 inch c-channel under there. (never measured) Fords frame are the same, I know. Transmission wise, I guess we'll just stick to our own guns, I see many more Ford auto's give out before GM's. My uncles has several in his company's fleet, V10/auto in around 12,000# trucks. Auto trannies in the '99 Fords aren't reaching 80K miles. Same size '97-'99 GM with 454/auto, are getting up to 150K on autos. Dad's had flawless service out of his 3500HDs ('94 and '99), other than the diesel troubles he had early in the '94. as far as the rest of the truck: drive it, maintain it, forget about it.

350 vs 330? 330 is the 5.4 right? (i'm an engineer, i'm damn near fully metric!) How do i compare an old 350? very well. its not old. its current technology (lubrication, bearing, induction, ingnition, combustion, exhaust tuning) used on a 35 year old displacement size. today's 350 ain't the same block, heads, rods, nothing compared to the one in '95. its not much older than the 5.4. and its got the power of the 5.4 and better mileage. remember when the 5.4 first came out, it didn't even compete with the 350. 3 years of tweaking it, and its now a couple % higher hp and torque across the board, but not until THIS year. I don't know if you read last years articles about the 5.4 and compared them to 1996 articles about the 350, but Ford did basically the EXACT engineering to the 5.4 as what GM did to the 350 in '96 when it jumped from 200 HP to 255HP.

3/4 ton Silverados: Have you driven a For., i mean silverado lately? I think the 3/4 tons ride BETTER than the half tons, (wheel base and susp. package depending). And i'm talking about GM's light duty 3/4s, there IS NO diesel. just the 5.3 and 6.0 (originally they planned offering the the 6.5, then scrapped it, probably knowing how many they would probably sell in that config).

and by the way, if these half ton owners are rarely filling the bed are towing anything at all, then why in the hell are they worried about the %5 torque advantage of the Ford, especially if acceleration times are the same?

i talk too much, see ya!

Rocles · February 2000

I don't know why--I'm not the one NOT using a truck.

(damn double negative)

So the trucks are pretty equal, eh? Wasn't that my point? Chevy playing catch-up until Ford comes out with a better truck.

bud_light_dude · February 2000

No foul here.

bud_light_dude · February 2000

I think we mainly agree in most cases, but the comment about GM playing "catch-up"??? I don't see how unless you are referring to not having a 4 door. Everything else, as far as technological advances, it has always looked to me that Ford chases GM's technology, even though Ford sells more numbers.

I still don't think that going to an overhead cam design is a real technology break through. I always have gone on the premise that if something works best, don't try and fix it. I am not going to go into a Ford/GM comparison, but IMHO, GM has always had a little bit of advantage in the powertrain technology. Can't state that as anything but an opinion.
I think the main reasons Ford went to the overhead cam design was because it is easier to meet EPA regs. My opinion is that the overhead cam designs are more expensive to build, more complex in all the parts, take more to make the torque where it is needed most, and are hendered by less fuel economy. Again, just my opinion. Please don't shoot me for my opinion like them Tundra finatics.

quadrunner500 · February 2000

Ford has the better concept.

GM has the better execution.

My point about Ford, is they've got the overhead cams. Why not finish the job with 32 valves as the original modular design intended? Didn't stop them from doing it on the Lincoln, right?

The GM gets no respect since its simple pushrod design loses in power contests to the new 99 and up Triton in the F150's. That doesn't keep the 5.3L from being all new, and an over-achiever when it comes to "best in class" fuel economy from a V8.

I know what I'm talking about. I once owned one of those HO 5.0L Mustangs, and anxiously waited for Ford to get that 32 valve engine in the Mustang. If they had done that by '94, they would have been saved from losing me to the Z28 owners, which have been crushing the Mustang faithful for years with lower tech, but bigger and faster engines. The irony is that the same LS1 pushrod design that beats the modular V8 in the Mustangs lose out to the Fords when adapted for truck applications. But they only lose on power, not fuel economy where the Vortecs reign supreme at this time.

modvptnl · February 2000

Being a '97 DOHC Mustang owner(Cobra) I will concur the LS1 Camaro is a tad quicker and faster. The problem is the Mustang outsells the F-body twins(Camaro and Firebird) like 2to1. I sort of wish the sales race was a little closer so Ford would be forced to upgrade. But then they would take money away from their SVO or FRPP divisions who sell the high performance parts. Truck sales being much closer really brings out the competitiveness in the companies.

quadrunner500 · February 2000

No question about the Mustang being the sales winner. No production scheduled for F-body GM follow-ons after 2001 either. When Camaro gets resurrected, if ever, it may be (yuk) front wheel drive.

modvptnl · February 2000

they were skipping a year and moving production to Bowling Green(along with the Corvette)I hope it remains RWD.

Rocles · February 2000

Quad,

But that's teh problem with GM and Ford. Ford generally fails to excite on the engine side but enhances the entire vehicle: Mustang today. GM generally excites and invigorates people with their engines but fail with the entire product: Camaro today. This is why Ford crushes GM in sales in that subject--also why Ford rose over the years to eat away in trucks.

Rocles · February 2000

Bud,

No problem here, you seem to have enough enemies with teh Toy owners! LOL!!

Quad,

I hear you. 32 valves would be sweet........

modvptnl · February 2000

Even though the current Mustang Camaro comparo says otherwise I have to disagree on your engine comments. Besides the current 5.4 and 6.8 holding their own don't forget Boss 302's, Clevelands, Cobra Jets, and even the lowly '82 Mustang GT with a 2bbl 302 that restarted the horsepower wars with G.M. Remember G.M. had their share of 140 horsepower smallblocks also.

Even though it sounds like a cop out the current top of the line Mustang motor is very close(less than a 1/2 second in the 1/4 mile) giving up nearly 70 cubic inches. And taching one to 7000 rpm is something to behold. Ford motors are fine.

Rocles · February 2000

modvptnl,

Point well taken.

cdean · February 2000

1/2 second? i'm not a racer, but I though that was a lot?

is it the new 4.6 that tachs to 7000? surely there are different components in that engine than in the truck version of the 4.6. valve trains and rods need to get lighter at those rpms.

modvptnl · February 2000

I realize this is a truck forum so I'd understand your lack of knowledge concerning the 4.6 in the Cobra. it is a 32 valve DOHC aluminum block jewel. When Chevy attempted something this exotic it had to have Mercury Marine actually build it(ZR-1 Corvette) Yes 1/2 second is an eternity in racing and I concede off the showroom the new F-body G.M. cars are faster. But there is more to a car than 1/4 mile and top speed which is proven by sales #'s. Of course I'd rather have it both ways, overall better car AND the better performance. There is always that Vortech that will put me into the 11's when the time comes.

bud_light_dude · February 2000

I am not arguing the quality of either car. I don't have the facts or the exact knowledge as it sounds that you have about them anyway. But, sales volume has very little reflection on which is higher quality.

I good salesman can sell a pile of [non-permissible content removed] in an icecream parlor........
Marketing can do the same.

Again, I am not saying the Ford is a pos, just that the sales volumes don't reflect too much factual info about quality. The Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega sold in outrageous numbers, but both were pieces of junk.

modvptnl · February 2000

Your points are all valid. But we are talking Chevy vs. Ford. There has to be a reason why the Mustang outsells the Camaro/Firebird together; why G.M. is taking a year off to revamp them. Sorry for being redundant but I wish the sales #'s were closer so that Ford would up the performance on the Mustang. Right now there is no reason to. Pinto, Vega camparo is funny because of the fact the Pinto motor is still around and has been turboed, built up for off road use including sand rails and kicks butt in pony stock all over the country. The Vega motor was a sleeveless aluminum block that lasted maybe 40,000 miles. People used to put the iron duke Pontiac motor in the Vega and it actually wasn't too bad. The iron duke was also used in Jeeps as the base motor. (I had to throw in some truck info in.)

cdean · February 2000

overall, i guess the 'stang has the better package than the F-bodies. I've never even been in either car (at 6'8", i'd be a tough fit), but i've heard a couple of folks tell me the Camaro sits too low and is an uncomfortable car. I have several friends who are Mustang owners and I must say Ford has put some very nice touches and additions to the car.

But they still have to all jump in my Chevy when we go to the lake!

quadrunner500 · February 2000

I think Modvptnl shows good Chevy knowledge. How'd he end up in a dang Ford? Seriously, I have to concede his point about GM never making a really exotic engine, although the Cadillac Northstar 32V has been around quite a while. And Ford has not been remiss in private labeling the Yamaha heads on the Taurus SHO either.

I think Cdean made a good point about sitting lower in the F-body. I think that has turned off many people, although I love it. There's not much space in either, but the narrow, taller Mustang seems more practical for hauling groceries.

But remove the t-tops from the F-body, and enjoy the superior cornering and braking of the wide-track stance versus the comparatively nervous, spooky handle on Mustang.

I know Modvptnl's Cobra is much improved over that stiff riding '91 LX 5.0 I used to have.

Rocles · February 2000

Ahhh...You forgot the cheesy looks of the F-bodies and cheap interiors that scream for the fuzzy dice!

modvptnl · February 2000

The newer Camaro ('98 and up?) has that hideous giant plastic grill. The previous one had a subtle grin that I thought was cool. Now that Firebird...what a beak. Oh well, too each their own. Oh yeah, the LS1 is a direct relative of the G.M. truck motors.(I don't want Meredith saying we don't talk about trucks!)

modvptnl · February 2000

I think the Northstar is a world class motor. Unfortunately it's hindered with a front wheel drive set up. There was a CAR CRAFT letter and answer section that basically said there is not a whole lot of hop up parts for them. Shelby is using the Olds version in his new car so that might change. Damn, no truck info.

quadrunner500 · February 2000

What are you talking about, Rocs? Ford is too cheap to put numbers on the gauges!

Don't insult my fuzzy dice...

mgdvhman · February 2000

Oh yeah..

A WS6 or a Camaro SS look so Non-Bad [non-permissible content removed]...

They RocK!

...Lay off the cheap Miller Lite Roc...and get some Good Dunkel or Guinness!

LOL

- Tim

Which ones the BEST

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles