Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Ford Ranger vs Toyota Tacoma

124678

Comments

  • 09-2002 YTD sales / percent change / 09-2001 YTD Sales(calculated)

    Truck Market.2,154,233 -1.98% 2,197,762
    FullSize........1,629,681 0.24% 1,625,783
    Compact........524,552 -8.29% 571,979

    So, at least compared to all true trucks, the Compacts are generally not selling as well, BUT I didn't factor in the Avalanche, as it's too new.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    Well, I'd agree that that is definitely significant. However, if slacking sales are the reason for coming out with "bigger" compact trucks, then this decline must have been going on for some time. My feeling, though, is that the auto makers are forcing bigger vehicles on us as the profit margins are likely bigger. Call me a cynic. :)
  • which vehicle is the best. There's been a lot of talk about Jeeps in this conversation and I'll use them as an example. Far more Wrangler Sports and Wrangler Saharas are sold than Wrangler Rubicons. Nobody here (whoops, I may be wrong...) is going to argue that the Rubicon isn't the best, however.

    The same point applies to the Ranger vs. Tacoma debate. Like the Rubicon, the Tacoma TRD isn't a best-seller because it costs more - but it comes better equipped and has the better reputation.

    I personally don't care if the Tacoma places 5th in sales or 1st.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    dc is only building 8000 rubicon wranglers. it is a limited run. so to say it is better but doesn't sell as well really isn't a fair comparison. and just in your mind is the TRD better equipped and has a better reputation than ranger. in others, it's the opposite.

    however, sales numbers do obviously tell what the public wants in a vehicle. and for like 15 years in a row, that has been ranger. there is no argument about that.
  • It's 18+ years in a row... :)


    It think the Tacoma is a great truck, but not as many people are buying it for it's off-road abilities that has become the golden goose egg some make it to be.


    Tacoma Sales

    ..........2002YTD | 2001YTD | Pct Change

    4x2......71,080 . . . 70,946 . . . 0.6

    4x2......46,863 . . . 50,982 . . . -7.7

    Total...117,943 . . . 121,928 . . . -2.8


    Maybe everybody is turning towards TRD Pre-runners?


    http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id=20021001b

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    "dc is only building 8000 rubicon wranglers. it is a limited run. so to say it is better but doesn't sell as well really isn't a fair comparison. and just in your mind is the TRD better equipped and has a better reputation than ranger. in others, it's the opposite"

    And you think Ford doesn't manufacture tons more Rangers than Toyota does Tacomas. Someone find a statistic on the percentage of tacomas that are sold at their original value that Toyota wanted to make off of them vs. the same percentage of Rangers. It may just be me, but this time of year I hear WAY more ads from Ford stealerships about clearing off their lots and distributorships than that of Toyota's.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    no one is saying the ranger is better simply because it outsells the tacoma. we're just saying that more people choose the ranger for some reason......insert your reason here. if its saving money, more power to them. and i would assume that it takes a lot less to build a ranger than a tacoma. anything foreign built or with foreign parts is always more expensive. and don't ask someone else to do your dirty work. if you want a stat (what you want is impossible to get anyways), get it yourself.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    If I remember right one of the reasons that Toyota limits their production is that they have to pay an import tax on each vehicle (even though the trucks a "built" in the US).
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    hehe, OK.

    Otherwise, point taken.

    But I would like everyone to remember a time when you said the main reason why you dislike TRDs is that they are a "dime a dozen." Seems to me that Rangers are a dime a dozen, too, much more so than any other compact truck.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    does everyone remember that? okay, good. just wanted to make that clear. im sure i said that at one point or another in the last year. how many other things can we bring up again that's been rehashed several times in the last year?

    there was once a time when seeing ZR2 S10's, TRD tacomas, and off-road pkg. equipped rangers were somewhat of a rare occurence. now, all these trucks are all you see when you see a respective model. ZR2's especially. i had a reg. cab '97, and it was very rare. heck, they don't even make reg. cab ZR2's anymore, but back then a ZR2 was truly a hard truck to find (especially light metallic blue like i had). now, they're dime a dozen, just like the TRD tacomas and FX4 rangers (just a fancy new name for the past off-road pkg. rangers). but the cool thing is that the FX4 Level II is the most hard to find off-road pkg. truck now. you won't see many of them. now does that make them better? no, not in some minds. but i guarantee there aren't as many built as TRD's and ZR2's. and for me, that makes it cool. had they made a crew cab in it, i'd have one in my garage.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    here on campus, there are several TRDs, about 6 ZR2s and one FX4 ranger, a couple of FX4 f-150s, and about a million Z71s.

    Do you know how many styles of Alcoa wheels are offered with the FX4 rangers? I remember at first, they were those with about, what, 6 or 8 holes in them - good looking rims. The FX4 at school has some other rims (the look like some sold at Wal-mart), but they still had an "A" in the center. Are these aftermarket wheels?
  • Hey guys,
    I was in a bad accident and my Tacoma died. I got hit in the rear and the truck rolled and slid on the roof. I injured my hand pretty badly as well as lots of scrapes, however, the Tacoma kept me in my seat and the roof didn't collapse which is why I'm still around. The Tacoma was a good truck but it was light and had a high CG. A much heavier vehicle hit me and pushed the truck sideways. It didn't do well going sideways so it rolled. Anyway, I liked the Tacoma a lot but I'm going bigger next time and getting a Tundra. I'm just thankful to be alive. By the way tbunder, the Avalanche is one ugly and cheap looking truck in my opinion. I didn't even consider buying one. I just looked at the Ford and the Tundra and the Tundra was a better deal.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i never said the avalanche was a nice looking truck? what are you talking about? all i said is that it is selling 200% better than it was a year ago, and that for '03 gm is offering it without any of that plastic clad. basically it will look like a weird silverado with chrome bumpers.

    nice to hear you are still in one piece. but if i were you, i'd buy a super-duty or an F150 super-crew. no other truck is as tough or safe as a S-D. the tundra is just a tacoma with a bigger body. don't get reeled in. i guarantee a super-cab SD with a 5.4 can be had cheaper than any tundra access cab with a V8 and four-wheel-drive. i'd shop around if i were you. as i said, the tundra is just a glorified tacoma. to each his own.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Good to hear you're alive.
    What vehicle hit you?
  • Hope your hand gets better. Better the truck take the damage than your body.

    If safety's what your after, well, I'd rule out the F-150 for sure. The IIHS rated it by far the worst in its class. Of course, the NHTSA gave it good ratings but I believe the IIHS' ratings are more credible, as they're an independent entity, versus the federally-run NHTSA. Besides, the F-150 is just a glorified Ranger, hehe.

    The Ford SDs are good trucks, but a 5.4 isn't enough motor for them, IMHO. Can't comment of tbundy's claims of the SDs prices and safety - just keep in mind what his "facts" are worth. Of course, you've been around here long enough to be well aware.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I didn't start seeing any Avalanches until dealers started marking them WAY down. They were advertising Avalanches that stickered for $32K+ for $26K and the like. That could be why they sell so good.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    again, you are practicing selective reading. i recommended a super-crew to allknowing. not an ext. cab which is the model to receive poor marks from iihs. i won't research the model, but i would bet the super-crew got high marks. it does have a b-pillar separating the two doors, unlike the ext. cab. and as far as you saying the F150 is just a glorified ranger- it's not (i assume you were kidding, but we all know the tundra is just a glorified tacoma- and that's not saying much). big differences between an f150 and a tundra. big differences- i wont go into them, but the f150 has larger everything. and a 5.4 in a SD is plenty if one's not going to tow a 10000 lb. boat or haul 3000 lbs. of sheetrock. again, i won't research it's safety ratings, but i would bet it is way up there for trucks. my dad had a V10 SD 4x4, and it was built like a brick sh7t house. solid axled dana 44's all around and could pull a house. they're huge inside as well. and as far as being cheaper to buy than a tundra, that's a no brainer.
  • "my dad had a V10 SD 4x4, and it was built like a brick sh7t house. solid axled dana 44's all around and could pull a house. they're huge inside as well. and as far as being cheaper to buy than a tundra, that's a no brainer."

    Wow, you mean a Superduty v-10 4x4 is cheaper than a Tundra??!!

    "and a 5.4 in a SD is plenty if one's not going to tow a 10000 lb. boat or haul 3000 lbs"

    Bull. Even the 5.4 Expedition and its engine are known for being extremely underpowered compared to the competition. Read page 54 in Car & Driver's August 2002 issue:

    "Like so many Americans, it's overweight and underpowered...it's way more than the engine can handle...Ford's 5.4 liter lays claim to the lowest specific output, the lowest rev limit, and the least refinement in this test. This runs contrary to what one would expect from a large overhead-cam V-8..."

    Ford's 4.6 and 5.4 are weak enough that when these engines are offered in their upscale Navigator and Aviators, they employ different heads that use - GULP - 4 valve DOHCs (which you believe are worthless) to boost horsepower and torque.

    What I'm saying is the 5.4 is a weak engine (at least in its SOHC form), and the massive superduty is too much truck for it. Don't get me wrong, the superduties are great and I've said that before, but it deserves the diesel. Putting that 5.4 in it is like putting a 302 in a freightliner.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    this isn't really the place, but the 5.4 isn't a total dog. it makes 260 horse and 350 lb/ft of torque at an ultra low 2500 rpms. like i said, unless you're pulling an extremely heavy load or hauling something very heavy, this engine is more than enough to get the job done. i highly doubt they were just hauling motorcycles and pulling ski boats with the car and driver test you mention. sure, the V10 and diesel are better and more powerful, but that's why they cost more.

    and yes, i would say a V10 4x4 SD could be bought cheaper than any TRD tundra 4x4 loaded up. that's a no brainer. they're like over $32G's, whereas any ford truck can be bought cheap. they advertise these supercab SD 4x4's in des moines at charles gabus ford for $23999 every sunday. a 6-spd manual is also standard. they won't pull a house down with the 5.4, but with that much torque at such low rpms, it isn't a bad rig.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    the dohc heads got the navigator?
    it makes more horsepower yes, big deal. but we're talking big 4x4's here. the dohc heads only makes for 5 lb/ft more torque. woohoo. and READ clearly-it comes at the expense of the engine spinning 250 more rpms to make that 5 more lb/ft of torque (2750 rpms). so that just shows you right there. ford knows that low end torque is important, this is why they still use the SOHC you say sucks.

    research my man. research.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    do you make statements that aren't true pluto? show me where i have ever said that any dohc engine was worthless? if that were true, all my crotch rockets i have owned would have been "crap" imo. i also have a 2.0 zetec which is a dohc engine in my mercury mystique. it now has 110000 miles on it and runs like a top. i also have an old mercury capri 2.3 sohc efi turbo with 154000 miles and still running like a top. both designs are good.

    most generally with any dohc design, it's going to spin higher to get the torque. not all the time, but most of the time. the navigator 5.4 is a perfect example. it takes 250 more rpms to get only 5 more lb/ft of torque that you say is the result of having dohc. if this is the advantage, i think ill take the sohc design. a lot cheaper to maintain or repair.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    glad to hear you made it (relatively) unscathed. as Scorpio asked, what vehicle hit you?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    as well as Toyota?? How about we compare the 4.0L engines from both mfgs? Not trying to be ugly, just making a point. I will ride that horse anywhere!
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    obviously you have never ridden in a Lincoln Mark VIII or a '96 or newer Mustang Cobra. both have 32 valve all aluminun dohc V8's that will throw you back in your seat and not let you touch the dash. trust me, ford knows how to build them. it's just that they know for torque at lower rpms's, the SOHC works better in their trucks.
  • 4 valves do increase efficiency in the engine breathing, but it will increase cost to manufacture and cost to maintain. 2 valve engines are still capable of great amounts of horsepower, just ask the Ford Lightning. 4 valves can still produce matching torque, except you have to further invest in variable timing and variable length intake plenum runners to maximize airflow and valve lift at different RPM's. Also the debate should not be SOHC vs DOHC, but really 4 valve vs 2 valve.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I won't dispute that.

    And the Ford Lightning isn't even naturally aspirated. We know what is possible when you add s/c and stuff like that. I wish Ford would invest more in developing better engines for their special vehicles. Like the new Roush mustang -- just put a blower on it and be done. Come on, that is kinda cheap, an awesome car, but cheap. And then they claim it to be a Vette killer. Ok, then let em add a s/c to the vette. Don't get me wrong, it will flat out run and I love em, the Lightning too, but alot of folks really disagree with the way ford is going about SVO right now, including me.
  • "the dohc heads only makes for 5 lb/ft more torque. woohoo. and READ clearly-it comes at the expense of the engine spinning 250 more rpms to make that 5 more lb/ft of torque (2750 rpms)."

    Well, in THIS case, you seem to think an extra 5 lb-ft of torque is worthless, especially when you have to go 250 rpms higher to get it.

    But earlier, the fact your Liberty had to go a WHOPPING 800 RPMS HIGHER TO GET JUST 15 MORE LB-FT THAN THE TOYOTA'S 3.4 didn't bother you at all.

    800 rpms higher to get just 15 more lb-ft of torque? In a vehicle that weighs 600lbs more?

    You said it best - "woohoo."

    And so goes another entry into my fat "The Grand Inconsistincies of the Wishy-Washy Tbundy" notebook...
  • Hey all. It is good to see that you are all still arguing the same old points. As you know, I personally love my Tacoma and would never buy a Ranger. Just to rub it in, deer season starts this weekend and (since it is muzzle loader season) you can shoot both sexes this weekend (as we like to say in the Great North Woods, "If it's brown it's down!"). Furthermore, the weather forecast is for snow on Friday night so hopefully we'll have good tracking conditions on Saturday morning. Anyhow, I'm staying at camp with the boys and our camp is about 14 miles into the woods on a dirt logging road. Thankfully I'll have my 4-WD Tacoma to pull me through no matter what the weather conditions. Hopefully I'll bag a big buck. In any case, I'll be enjoying the great outdoors with no pollution, no traffic and definitely no noise. Eat your hearts out city slickers!

    Take care and I'll see you on the hunt for the big old gray buck...........Steelman.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    same old story. once you've been proven wrong, you TOTALLY change the subject matter. you're getting predictable. ill accept your white towel. once stang agrees with anyone, you know the other party is wrong since he is by far the most knowledgeable person about engines on this forum. i dont know crap, but i do know a lot of the common sense stuff.
    just look at the v8 in the tundra. you have to wind it up to get max torque. again, it's a dohc design, or 4-valver.
  • There is no longer a Ford SVO(Special Vehicle Operations), but there is SVT(Special Vehicle Team). Jaguar has a SVO group, but I cannot say if this is a reincarnation or just a relocation. They currently have the Jaguar XKR-R which sports a 4.0l 4 valve V8 with over 400 HP and Torque. (Compare that to your Toyota 4.0l! :)

    The current Lightning, Cobra, Contour(?), and Focus special editions are all by SVT. Sure some people might not like how they are coming out, but I would bet they are not in the majority.
  • Excuse me, can you point out exactly where you proved me wrong?

    "just look at the v8 in the tundra. you have to wind it up to get max torque. again, it's a dohc design, or 4-valver."

    >>Really?

    Tundra 4.7:
    245 hp @ 4800 rpm
    315 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm

    F-150 4.6:
    231hp @ 4750 rpm
    293ft-lbs. @ 3500 rpm

    No, you need to wind up the F-150 100rpms higher to get 23 lb-ft of torque less. You're confused.

    "i dont know crap..."

    Have to agree there...
  • "the Jaguar XKR-R which sports a 4.0l 4 valve V8 with over 400 HP and Torque. (Compare that to your Toyota 4.0l! :)"

    >>Even more humiliating would be a comparison with Ford's 4.0!
  • Go to http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/00tundra.htm and pay attention to the part that reads:


    "Tundra V6 models have a 3.4 litre DOHC 24 valve V6 engine which develops 190 horsepower @ 4800 rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm. The real muscle and the real market however, lies with the optional 4.7 litre DOHC 32 valve V8 engine which offers 245 horsepower at 4800 rpm and 315 lb-ft of torque at 3400 rpm. This is the only twin overhead cam engine in this class."


    "Toyota's V8 compares well with its competitor's standard V8 powerplants. Toyota's 4.7 litre V8 has more horsepower and torque than Ford's standard 4.6 litre V8 and Dodge's 5.2 litre V8 engine, but less horsepower than General Motors new 4.8 litre V8 - although, it has more torque."


    "The Tundra's towing capacity ranges from 2336 kg (5150 lb.) to 3265 kg (7200 lb.). This is comparable with the F-150's maximum trailer weight of 7200 lb. with the 4.6 litre V8, and the Ram's maximum towing capacity of 7400 lb. with the 5.2 litre V8. (Towing capacity for the Silverado was not available.)"


    "The Tundra's payload capacity ranges from 633 kg (1396 lb.) to 863 kg (1902 lb.), again comparable with its half ton competitors with base V8 engines."

    Research, my man. Research.

  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    So what you are saying is that a fully optioned out Tundra is COMPARIBLE to a base F-150, Ram or Silverado?
  • One thing to remember when comparing power characteristics of motors is
    Bore Vs Stroke. The relationship between these two dimensions certainly would
    effect where a motors sweet spot is.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Actually the XK Jag is a 4.2L V8 and is supercharged. Its 390 Hp comes at a whopping 6100 RPMs and its 399 lb-ft torque comes at 3500 RPMs. Seeing as it has 2 extra cylinders, 5% more displacement, and a blower -- I think Yotas 4.0L 6 is not far behind.

    However, I still like plutos idea: if you want me to compare the Jag engine to Yotas 4.0L, then I want you to compare it to Fords 4.0L. Hehe, its only fair.

    Also, here is another example of FMC, just slamming a blower on it to make more power. I respect it and as a power junky its cool, but accept a challenge and build a real engine. As a hotrodder, stang, you should be able to appreciate what I am saying.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    pluto- you always change the subject back to the jeep once you have been proven wrong. you just did. and even then, you were wrong as my SOHC design V6 makes more torque and HP than your DOHC design 3.4.
    i proved you wrong in your thesis that the 5.4 in the ford f150's and expeditions was weak so ford uses DOHC heads for their lincolns. i pointed out that you only gain 5 horse at a higher rpm. you said that ford puts these heads on lincolns to raise horsepower and torque. well, look where your theory took us on the higher torque? a whopping 5 more lb/ft and at a higher rpm. and what do you do? you don't even acknowledge that and change the subject to my jeep again. pretty sad if you ask me. face the facts, toyota will never match ford in the engine departments. you can't even accept the fact my jeep's 3.7L has more power and torque than your tacoma, let alone the ranger's awesome smooth as silk 4.0 stomping it. get over it my man!

    and ill ask again, WHAT are you saying... that a fully optioned out Tundra can only match up with a standard 4.6 F150? that's pretty sad. nice thing with the ford is that there is an engine, the 5.4 to be exact, the one you slammed yesterday looming in the option box- that will anhilate any engine offered by any toyota truck.

    sad- let's compare the ford 4.0 to the new toyota 4.0. wait, the new toyota 4.0 isn't even available yet am i not correct? so seems to me that there is no comparison.

    also, if you want naturally aspirated ford engines, like i said, go drive a Mark VIII or pre-'03 mustang cobra. and then tell me your DOHC toyota engines are powerful. LMAO
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Motors are designed for certain applications a 300hp engine @ 5000rpm but only generates 150hp @1500rpm will be great on the highway but not so good towing or hauling heavy loads at low speeds. On the other hand a 300 hp engine @ 3000 rpm may be great for towing and hauling but be very winded at feel like a 4 banger on the highway. Personnaly I like the low end grunt I very rarely rev my engine above 3000RPM and love having the ability to cruise up and down hills towing my boat in OD and not listen to the engine noise.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    why is all of a sudden slamming on a blower to make more power a bad thing, when that's what you toyota lovers do just to beat the ranger's horsepower and torque numbers? when ford does it it's bad, but if you guys do it to bring the wimpy 3.4 up to speed it's god's next creation. whatever. again, LMAO.
  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    "why is all of a sudden slamming on a blower to make more power a bad thing"

    I don't think Sad is saying it is a bad thing to put a supercharger to add power, but when you are building a street rod like the mustang, and lightning you would think there would more to it than just add a supercharger.

    "let's compare the ford 4.0 to the new toyota 4.0. wait, the new toyota 4.0 isn't even available yet am i not correct? so seems to me that there is no comparison."

    But the new 4.0 is out. I saw it last night at the Toyota dealer in the 4runner.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    He means it's not in Tacoma yet.

    I hope it'll be placed in a Taco, but that does not mean that Tacoma will be bigger, wider and in the midsize truck class. New 4Runner is based not on Tacoma, but on Toyota Prago, which is good news for Taco owners because that no longer means Tacoma and 4Runner will go hand-in-hand. So.....next year we'll see what engine Toyota puts in the Taco. Hopefully it'll be a 4.0L, but if it isn't, it'll be something decent anyway, that'll last another 8 years (while competition catches up).
  • I think everyone in here has WAY too much time on their hands!!!

    I wish I had time to read all these posts, but alas, they all talk about the same thing over, and over, and over again....

    But yes, it amuses me to read all this jibberish on my lunch break, so please continue!!
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Like the sign on my desk says.... "Please continue, I am somewhat of a bull!@#$$er myself but every once in a while I enjoy listening to an expert"
    That statement definitely applies to this board.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    First of all, the new 4.0L is available.

    Next, I am not slamming blowers. kb hit it right on the head. I know I have bragged on em for Tacomas. But there is a difference. Ford uses them as std equipment so that they can have some bragging rights - which they get hands down, except with the new Stangs. But with the resources that Ford has, as a car fan, I WOULD LIKE to see them try harder to make a real ENGINE and not just put a blower on an already strong one. Again I have buttloads of respect for these blown behemoths of Ford's, its just that they could be so much more.

    And who cares if the 4.0L is in the taco yet, none of Ford's engines discussed in the last 30 posts are in a Ranger either.

    Lariat---> What do you drive, bud?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i think you misunderstand. if these engines that are blown could be so much more, what exactly could they be? is 320 horsepower not enough? because that is what the cobra before the blower had. that alone is right up there with WS6 ram-air pkg. firebird. and only 20 behind the vette engine at the time. making an all new engine would be much more expensive, thus driving retail prices up. and to be honest with you, i would bet that most of these svt vehicle buyers love the blowers. take the '89 to '94 thunderbird super-coupes which came with a 210 horse 3.8 supercharged V6 with 315 lb/ft of torque (more than anything 'cept vette at the time). this car was way ahead of its time because it could cruise down the highway and get nearly 30 mpg, but in an instant with no lag could top 145 mph plus with the help of the supercharger. you can have your cake and eat it too with a S/C. now with the ultra powerful engine behind the S/C in the new fords, i can just imagine what it feels like when you hit it with already 320 horses behind you before the blower kicks in. now is this necessary in a ranger or tacoma? imo, no way. 210 horse is plenty for the size of these trucks. if you need more, you need more truck and more torque. but to a hot rodder, this is the new millennium, and with that comes cheap power which a S/C makes.
    also, you need to go drive a Lincoln Mark VIII with the 32 valve all aluminum 4.6, and then tell me ford doesn't build an ENGINE. this engine is the cobra engine w/o the s/c. it is faster than h4ll and sounds meaner than a 302 flowmastered mustang when revved.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    They run 0-60 in 7.0 secs. At WOT, from the drivers seat you can barely hear a burble from the dual exhaust. Now I'm not sure if we're talking about the same MarkVIII cause I'd hope hell was a lot faster and a BOSS 302 sounded no where near as quiet as this Lincoln.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    4x4 SC stepside just turned 74,000 reliable miles!! And... not ONE problem!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    and have no idea what I am talking about. Even my opinions are wrong. Holla.
  • ...doesn't think ford SVT just slaps on superchargers to make fast cars. I do understand that supercharging is just one method of squeezing in more air than the current atmospheric pressure allows. Most engines should be able stand 3-8 pounds of boost and still run fine. In the future you will only see more and more supercharged engines, as fuel economy and emmisions becomes more strict. The ford SV0 mustang wasn't just a 2.3l with a turbo. It was a completely different block (with same bore x stroke). SVT and SVO vehicles also have significant chagnes in suspension which any lead foot driver will appreciate.

    I don't think anyone can say Ford doesn't make real engines, when a majority on the road are from the ford fleet. Maybe not every engine is the pinnacle of technology, but every engine does fill a niche.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Sorry to put words in your mouth.

    Its just that domestic car makers like Ford and GM have a lot of the muscle influence that Toyota has never been apart of, so I look to them to make some neat powerhouses. I guess it comes down to what you said, though, stang, about the emissions and fuel economy that is becoming the real issue. Gone are the days of real muscle.
This discussion has been closed.