-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Which ones the BEST
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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
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
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...
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
Just set them back in front of the TV so they can learn about trucks..
They read it!!...Must be true!
- Tim
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
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
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
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"
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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!
So the trucks are pretty equal, eh? Wasn't that my point? Chevy playing catch-up until Ford comes out with a better truck.
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.
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.
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.
No problem here, you seem to have enough enemies with teh Toy owners! LOL!!
Quad,
I hear you. 32 valves would be sweet........
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.
Point well taken.
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.
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.
But they still have to all jump in my Chevy when we go to the lake!
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.
Don't insult my fuzzy dice...
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