Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

The truck engine with highest horsepower and torque

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #31  
Old 06-11-2004, 02:45 AM
FordLariat's Avatar
FordLariat
FordLariat is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: pound
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ktmguy70
While mostly Ford is usally Smaller and Less powerfull I agree, Its really Stepping up to the plate as of late with the Cobra, 6.0 and going to the 3V design on the 5.4, HOWEVER, if your Stating that the Lightning, Smoked the Srt-Ram, Then Im afraid your smoking something?
As of right now, Every thing I have read has stated the lightning isnt even in the same class, In the next year or 2 that may change, and probably will, Ford doesnt like to be behind. Car and Driver tested the SRT at 4.9. The BEST a Lightning has ever done stock is 5.2. The Average Lightning is 5.5. 3 tenths of a second is huge in such a short distance . That truck corners like a car, when they compared the two at track racing the SRT also killed it.
HOWEVER, with the Price difference between the 2 You could certainly have a SRT killer lightning, WHich would be Kinda fun.
Please point me to a website that says that the SRT-10 kills the Lightning. I have seen two times when the SRT-10 beat a Lightning in a 1/4 mile race, and one time the Lightning wrecked, and the other time, the Dodge had a professional Viper driver. Other than that, please point me to another timeslip or video of a stock SRT-10 beating a stock Lightning. I don't care about magazine tests, please show me some real world figures. The SRT-10 also has very low quality components, such as the plastic door handles and the plastic slave cylinder. I would expect the SRT-10 to handle better due to it's IRS, but I have heard quite the contrary on several Lightning boards on the net. I have also visited some Dodge boys, and I haven't even heard their owners bragging about outhandling a Lightning.
 
  #32  
Old 06-12-2004, 03:59 AM
calgary_redneck's Avatar
calgary_redneck
calgary_redneck is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the chevy's win in all catagories
 
  #33  
Old 06-12-2004, 04:31 AM
Dalamatition's Avatar
Dalamatition
Dalamatition is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Goshen, Ohio
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Chevy SSR in stock form is weak in comparison to both the Lightning and SRT-10. It does however have potential like almost all others like it. GM doesn't really have any other truck designed to be in the same classification as the Lightning or SRT-10.
 
  #34  
Old 06-13-2004, 12:08 AM
archangel's Avatar
archangel
archangel is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Joliet, Illinois
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Ya know yur a redneck when---

Originally Posted by calgary_redneck
the chevy's win in all catagories


You go to a ford web site and say something like that without stating any (real) facts to back it up!

No, wait, there are no facts available to back it up!
Sorry.
 
  #35  
Old 06-17-2004, 08:26 AM
Logical Heritic's Avatar
Logical Heritic
Logical Heritic is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE=FordLariat]Please point me to a website that says that the SRT-10 kills the Lightning. QUOTE]
I guess the fact that the srt10 holds the world record for fastest stock truck means nothing.
Originally Posted by Saurian
Imagine yourself as a young man needing a new vehicle who doesn't have a brand-bias. Are you going to buy the Ford that is 1200 dollars more expensive but has 40 less horsepower and 25 less lb-ft of torque compared to a Chevy. No, you're going to try to get the most numbers for the least money.
.
I usually buy the lowest hp model available.
Originally Posted by SoCalDesertRider
I think the main reason we saw the demise of the 300-6, 302/351, 460 Ford, 318/360 Chrysler and 350 Chevy is due to emmissions and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency, or something like that). The earlier engines like 351M/400, 360/390, 427, etc were already gone for the same reasons. The tough emmissions and fuel economy standards can only be met with higher technology, electronic control, multiple valves, variable timing, etc. Those old motors were great motors, but they all have one thing in common, they are all overhead valve 2-valve/cyl iron motors and that design, although great for a truck motor, isn't efficient enough for today's and tomorow's emmisions/mileage standards.
.
I was starting to wonder if there was anyone on here who knew what they were talking about. There was some really accurate info in that post.

Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod
Anyway, you didn't mention the real long ranger--the 3.8 V6.

GM continued to develope that motor for many many years, cleaning it up and making it run quite well. The 4.3 version is still available.
Im not sure if were talking bout the same engine but the 4.3 was a 5.7 minus 2 cylinders. I have a 2.8, junk, and a 3.4 ht crate from chevy. The 3.4 is a decendent of the 2.8.
I have a supercharged 3.8. Man that thing is quick. Not cobra quick but faster than a gt.
Originally Posted by Dalamatition
I've seen some nice mods for the 300-I6 in Jegs like a intake manifold and a header. I'd really like to see how much power you can get out of that engine.
There is a company that builds em to 750hp. Turns out those things will spin like 7 grand stock.
Originally Posted by Ratsmoker
If the 300 I6 was still offered in the new trucks with the same amount of power as the old ones I would buy it .
You aint just a tootin. I really miss the 300 6.
 
  #36  
Old 06-17-2004, 08:28 AM
Logical Heritic's Avatar
Logical Heritic
Logical Heritic is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
  #37  
Old 06-17-2004, 10:49 PM
Dalamatition's Avatar
Dalamatition
Dalamatition is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Goshen, Ohio
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Logical Heritic
I have a 2.8, junk, and a 3.4 ht crate from chevy. The 3.4 is a decendent of the 2.8.
Maybe YOUR 2.8 was junk but I had a 1986 Camaro with over 246,000 miles on it. That's not junk. That's what you get when you take care of it. The 2.8 is a engine with untapped potential and if there were good aftermarket parts made for it then there would be ALOT less people out there trying to buy 5.7 camaros or trying to drop a 5.7 in camaros that originally came with 2.8's.
 
  #38  
Old 06-18-2004, 12:02 AM
FordLariat's Avatar
FordLariat
FordLariat is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: pound
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Logical Heritic
I usually buy the lowest hp model available.

Hey, if you want less truck for the same money, go right ahead.
 
  #39  
Old 06-18-2004, 03:31 AM
Logical Heritic's Avatar
Logical Heritic
Logical Heritic is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FordLariat
Hey, if you want less truck for the same money, go right ahead.
Hp makes a truck more or less? Tis news to me. I never felt the need to overcompensate for percieved inadequacies. I really liked the 240. I would own another. It was no 460 but got me where I was going with 24+mpg. It was safe and reliable. Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miles without repair.
I have owned many 200s 240s 250s and 300s. Hp is not always the answer. Hp is just an expression of rpm(distance). Sufficient torque will get the job done. Just not as quickly. 180hp will do more than you would think. 220hp is more than most of us will ever need. Anything beyond that is just excess fuel consumption. I have not had the need for a big block(technically I think the 300 IS a big block but that is another thread).
 
  #40  
Old 06-28-2004, 04:32 PM
04F250CC60's Avatar
04F250CC60
04F250CC60 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the proper abreviation for Foot pounds of torque? [/QUOTE]


lb/ft TQ
 
  #41  
Old 06-28-2004, 06:11 PM
Logical Heritic's Avatar
Logical Heritic
Logical Heritic is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We hear foot pounds but that is incorrect. It is actually pound feet. Like the previous poster showed. Foot pounds and pound feet can interchange but its not quite the same thing.
 
  #42  
Old 06-28-2004, 07:42 PM
FordLariat's Avatar
FordLariat
FordLariat is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: pound
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Logical Heritic
Hp makes a truck more or less? Tis news to me. I never felt the need to overcompensate for percieved inadequacies. I really liked the 240. I would own another. It was no 460 but got me where I was going with 24+mpg. It was safe and reliable. Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miles without repair.
I have owned many 200s 240s 250s and 300s. Hp is not always the answer. Hp is just an expression of rpm(distance). Sufficient torque will get the job done. Just not as quickly. 180hp will do more than you would think. 220hp is more than most of us will ever need. Anything beyond that is just excess fuel consumption. I have not had the need for a big block(technically I think the 300 IS a big block but that is another thread).
Blah, blah, blah, more hp=more possible work done faster. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean people who are doing REAL work with their trucks don't. I agree, more torque is better than more hp, but I wouldn't go buy the lowest hp available like you claimed that you do. If you can upgrade your engine, then why not? And yes, I think it makes it less of a truck, if you have two identical truck and one has over 200 hp more than the other one, then I'd say that the higher hp truck wins.
 
  #43  
Old 07-20-2004, 10:55 AM
NorthGaExpediton's Avatar
NorthGaExpediton
NorthGaExpediton is offline
Freshman User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 150ford
Right on towboat. Durability dependability that what really matters in a truck. All of my trucks have enough power for me Dont need anymore. Hey fords been known for those two D words for years. Nothing has changed.
I've been a ford man my entire life! 64 1/2 mustang, 66 mustang, 93 mustang, 74 f100, 89 bronco, 2001 expedition.
But i also have a 72 International Scout II with a 304 big block(no it is not an AMC engine, totally different)! If you want to talk about Durability/Dependability these are the trucks!

HP from 800 - 4000 (24 - 146) Max@ 4000 was 146hp
Tourque 800 - 4000(160 - 185) Max@ 2000 was 245ft lbs

I won't win any races with it but for off roading and towing it works great!

HP is for the strip, Tourque is for the trails!
 
  #44  
Old 07-20-2004, 11:06 AM
NorthGaExpediton's Avatar
NorthGaExpediton
NorthGaExpediton is offline
Freshman User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FordLariat
Blah, blah, blah, more hp=more possible work done faster. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean people who are doing REAL work with their trucks don't. I agree, more torque is better than more hp, but I wouldn't go buy the lowest hp available like you claimed that you do. If you can upgrade your engine, then why not? And yes, I think it makes it less of a truck, if you have two identical truck and one has over 200 hp more than the other one, then I'd say that the higher hp truck wins.
Wins what?
A dragrace? Yes!!!
A towing contest? Probably not!
Rock crawling at 3000 Rpm to get your max HP doesn't work well!
If you gain HP there is usually a trade off somewhere.

Higher HP engines can't produce the higher number of torque at lower rpms to be useful in that range.
 
  #45  
Old 07-20-2004, 06:33 PM
jroehl's Avatar
jroehl
jroehl is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lafayette, IN
Posts: 6,473
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Logical Heritic
We hear foot pounds but that is incorrect. It is actually pound feet. Like the previous poster showed. Foot pounds and pound feet can interchange but its not quite the same thing.
Sorry to digress from the original topic, but the difference is...?

Either way, it's (pounds of force) x (feet from pivot). Since it's multiplied, does it matter which comes first? I've seen it written many times in tech literature both ways.

BTW, lb/ft is NOT correct. lb-ft, ft-lb both are. Or we could go metric and talk about newtons (N)....

Jason
 


Quick Reply: The truck engine with highest horsepower and torque



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.