It fits just fine in the SN95 Body

 

To aspire (hehehe) for a naturally-aspirated engine to produce 100+ hp per liter is a VERY high aspiration for a domestic engine gasser. Yup, I don't need corrections or examples~~I know they exist, but commonly in *rather* elite vehicles, comparitively speaking.
Having a 5.4L NA (nat.-aspir.) engine producing 500+hp will require a HUGE increase in price for the final product. A factory-installed turbo or supercharger is a great answer to increase output of ANY "smaller" engine. ALL-engine output is always impressive, but duh......the displacement (as part of the ingredients on a performance-viper engine) is obviously quite a large margin of difference.
What I'm trying to say, is in agreement with a PRODUCTION Truck...the Lightning's final output is rather impressive for the truck you'll get and the price you'll be required to pay to own a title of one. (or atleast hold onto it for the bank while you drive their truck )

I KNOW you have all heard of "no replacement for displacement".
I think that's what is being said by everyone, but some may not know it yet.

 

Why is the record Bogus?? Did not Dodge beat the Lightning in a top speed test?

 

What Gm Plant you work at ?

 

This was straight for the ford engineers that built the prototype Shelby Cobra. They showed it on "Rides" recently, the actual engine they used was put in a 99 mustang and then tested before it was used for the concept.

 

Me??

 

I think the story is pretty credible, saw on Nascar.com that Brendan Gaughan drove the truck. For those that don't follow Nascar, Brendan will be driving the Penske/Jasper #77 this yr in Nextel Cup.

http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/head...gan/index.html

 

Original poster SVTranger, sorry I shoulda been more specific

 

Gotcha! Cool.

 

but the lightning is still faster in the 1/4 mile than that mopar wanna be bad azz truck. heck wait till i get my 5.0L (built up of course) in my ranger. can you say 160mph......1/4 times in the high11s low 12s

 

Two different magazines have run 1/4 mile times of 13.19 & 13.12. This is slower than the Lightning?

 

It seems that for the most part, the SRT is slower in the hands of the average driver due to the difficulty in launching the stick shift. The lightning is more consistent and often quicker because of it. However, the trap speeds of the SRT are always higher than the lightnings, which points to it definetly making more HP. Both are great trucks, but if I were in the market for one right now, the nod would go to the SRT due to it having a manual. I hear that is changing with the next lightning though. I also like the looks of the new style Fords better as well.

 

Next gen L-trucks won't be getting a T-56...that was just for show. Supposed to be getting an upgraded version of the 4R100. Given the output of the V-10 I'm pretty sure the SRT can hit a higher top speed. But given that it's only a 7 mph difference for 120hp you can see what a brick that Dodge is. Arguing which one is better is too early to tell...both engines if built have exhibited tremendous power making abilities. Overall I think the current Lightnings have the advantage due to less weight.

 

Originally posted by otto
Not to mention the price difference will land the lightning with more sales and more on the road, A used L can be had in nice shape with decent miles for 15K for a 99 or 00, thats affordable and many Ford Enthusiasts like them and buy them and mod them


I was looking for a used Lightning in the fall here in Michigan and everything I saw was $22-28K. I was going to make it a combo street machine/drag truck and possibly, tow vehicle. Instead, I bought a highly impractical 94 Z28 Stroker.


What a horsepower war, the 60-70's aint got nothing on today, my uncles used to say I missed the muscle car era, since I was born in 79..............I didnt miss a thing

I thought the same way up until my son started looking at cars to race. When he bought his stock 94 Z28, added a 2800 stall TC, headers and CAI and ran mid 13's, I was impressed. I can remember the good ole days when Chevelle SS396's, Road Runners, Mach 1's, etc. were running high 13's to low 14's with similar mods and getting way worse gas mileage. Fuel injection made a world of difference once it was perfected. It's now very possible to have 9 second street cars with good drivability. I guarantee you that couldn't have been possible in my day.
I love the new technologies that are making good HP with improved drivability AND good fuel economy. :-staun

 

I think your confusing the terms quickest (as in in the 1/4) with fastest (as in top speed). So - doesn't appear to be bogus. Haven't seen realistic 1/4s on a SRT-10 yet. Actually haven't even seen real live one.