I was on another forum and mentioned how much I LOVE my Ford, and this guy came back with all this as a reply, and I don't have the knowlege to make any sort of a comeback, I need some help!



Stored for ten not sat. The problems were not fuel related they were electronics related. The car had 30,000 miles on it and the electonic parts on it were just breaking. Like the massive ignition module. GM manages to make one about 1 1/2 inch by 1 inch, Fords is about 6 inchs by 6 inchs and cost about 4 times as much.

The problem with fords most of the time is the emmissions equipment as well. GM did a good job of using passive systems like EGR, ford likes to use smog pumps that have a billion vacuum lines and such.

Gm also used mass air flow sensors from 1985, ford used the air flow meter till 1994. MAF is alot better, still not great, but more reliable.

Ford didn't make decent cars till they started buying engines from Benz, and mazda. Even then mazda is a joke.

As far as older fords. they are alot more prone to rust, and the bodys are not as sound, they creek and rattle around town more than my chevy station wagon does at 100 miles and hour.

Another problem with fords, is design.

Compare an 80's malibu station wagon to the LTD station wagon. Where as the malibu wagon screams " awesome family car that looks like an elcamino" the LTD says "i was on america's most wanted".

Interior is clearly better in a chevrolet. Compare a 1989 chevrolet truck to an 1989 ford truck. The 1989 ford truck still has a 3 hole radio in it. THe 1989 chevrolet truck has a brand new design delco system with crossovers and equalizer. The ford looses in horsepower throughout the years. In the early eighties, ford outdid its self with.... guess what... the turbo 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. This was available in the mustang, and outdid their 5.0 fuel injected till 1989 when they finally started tuning them. (i'm not counting saleens and cobras, because noone counts the lingenfelter sp? corvette)

Meantime, general motors is selling the grandnational, the fasted street legal american car ever sold to that day. Then in the early nineties while ford was still robbing their mustangs of power, and started contemplating the early lightnings, gm produced the Cy/TY series of turbo v6 mini trucks/suvs. These are also a ridiculous creation that rivals that of the Grand national.

Even today. The redesigned ford 4.8 is a 281, it used to be a 289. This motor puts out just under 300 hp stock. Where as the chevrolet lt1 (93-96) put out 320, in 97 the lt4 put out 380, the ls1 in 98 created near 400, now chevrolet starts puting something like big blocks in their cars. The ls6 is a 427 ci motor with 450 horse power available in the z06 corvette. This beats the cobra mustang, and if you bring up the saleen package, it practically removes all of fords engine controll system and replaces it with grenelli and hypertech and saleen custom. The corvette can be simply reprogrammed to beat a saleen. The same is true of a z28.

Ford offers the marauder, released after the ss impalla was done away with. The marauder was a lame attempt to copy the 94-96 impalla ss. It was slower, uglier and more expensive.

I could keep going, but i think the numbers speek for them selves as far as stock purchased cars.
Racing is a little different, its about even when racing 1/4 mile with a mustang and camaro, true ford offers the lightning but for being a supercharged 281 its not very fast, if chevrolet were to offer the ls6 in their truck supercharged it would beat it by a ridiculous amount of beating. <STYLE type=text/css><!--td.attachrow { font: normal 11px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color : #00000; border-color : #00000; }td.attachheader { font: normal 11px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color : #00000; border-color : #00000; background-color: #E3E3E3; }table.attachtable { font: normal 12px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color : #00000; border-color : #00000; border-collapse : collapse; }--></STYLE>

what do I say to all that???

 

Regarding his rambling, why reply at all, everyone's entitled to their opinion. A non reply will probably take the wind out of his sails.

It's about your Ford and why you like it. Not GM vs. Ford.

 

Well my first question is what were you doing on ANOTHER forum??? Shame on you! You know we are the only ones who really love you! LOL!

As for this guy, I am prone to agree with War...this guy apparently is very convicted in his opinion, all you are going to do is argue with him. You won't convince him of anything so why bother. Just stay here where Ford lovers belong and don't bother with him anymore. Remember the old saying:

"Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

 

yeah well, what if he convinces somebody else that's maybe on the fence that GM is better? and if I don't say anything, they'll think I like my Ford cuz it's cute, and that I don't know anything about it to back up what I say. and it's a forum/arcade that some friends of mine made, I'll always stay here, check it out www.crapromedia.com

 

<!The guy is probablpy a blowhard so just say something like whatever....Why engage in a ****ing contest with a ****head?>

Edited for Content by FTE

 

you can't reason with someone who already has their mind made up. Most people like that just like to listen to themselves talk.

BTW, the malibu makes up for any and all mistakes Ford ever made.

 

Considering half of what he said is wrong (what is a Ford 4.8?), I would think junior got on his mama's computer when she went out clubbing last night.

 

Ask him to explain the GM massive blunders, just a few being:
Converting a gasoline engine to a diesel
The Vega all aluminum 4 cylinder
The Cadillac V8-6-4
And the piston slap from all their newer V-8s (commonly referred to as the Heartbeat of America)....

 

I can see many errors in what he's said....he's not correct in everything he says...

Whenever someone argues with me about Ford vs Chevy/GM....I tell them....ok..well...regardless of your argument against me, Ford still manages to have the highest selling vehicle in America, the F-series...for the last 27 years or so....so when that changes....call me...cuz the way I see it...way more people are happy with their Fords over Chevy/GM....and I'll usually walk away or change the subject.

You will never convince a diehard to change brands unless his brand fails him enough. I wouldn't waste my breath (or fingers? ha) with that guy...

Ford has several devations in their EFI systems, so does Chevy. Ford mainly has their EEC stuff...and it's numbered 1-5. EEC I came out around 78', and as the years went by it was expanded to EEC II and III. In 84, Ford introduced the EEC-IV which went through til the mid 90s when they changed to EEC-V which is still currently being used. The most popular was the EEC-IV, it's used on many performance applications because it's extremely adaptable to performance modifications and you'll see it on many many mustangs and similarly equipped Ford vehicles. Ford's EEC-IV is arguably one of the best EFI systems used on a production vehicle.

I don't know what "problem" he's refering to....but....the size of an ignition module has nothing to do...with anything....just because GM's is smaller, does not mean it's better or more effective...it doesn't mean...anything....

OK...so they use slightly different emissions equipment....but Ford uses EGR and my truck has a handful of vacumm lines. The vacumm lines are necessary on these (older) models because it's run on Speed Density EFI, unlike Chevy/GM's crap TBI injection of the past.

Ford used Speed Density in the first real "generation" of EFI (EEC-IV)...Chevy used TBI...(throttle body injection). TBI stinks, it's basically a carb w/ 40psi of fuel pressure vs a real carb's 4-6psi. The Speed Density system Ford used, was multi-port (and on some cars, like mustangs, was sequential). Multi-port has an injector on each intake port, so there's 8 on a 8 cylinder engine. Chevy used 1-2 injectors in the throttle body. Multi-port is a more efficient way to deliver fuel. Sequential injection, takes multi-port a step further. Sequential injection sequentially fires each injector when the intake valve opens. With multi-port, it's fired 4 cylinders at a time on a V-8. The sequential injection is great because it shoots the fuel right at the back of the intake valve when it's open, this method is prefered because of it's better atomization of the fuel (more power/efficiency). Ford had MAF meters on cars in the late 80s, not 94. And part of the reason for the delay is not because they didn't have the technology, they were trying to not implement it until they started using modular motors in 91-92, like the 4.6L V-8s in the towncars, crown vics..etc etc...he states that MAF is "better" but doesn't say how or why...the only advantage to it is that it actually measures the amount of air coming into the engine, which helps when you make modifications....most racers don't use MAF, speed density is prefered as it is capable of making more power.

This is simply an opinion...no factual information here so I'll disregard this.

This is also opinion based on his findings...which...have no factual basis either...

Again...opinion...not fact or the overall opinion of others...

From the early 70s until the late 80s, America was crushed by the fuel crisis, this was detramental to ALL automanfacturers. Ford couldn't make a powerful motor because it would have ment less fuel economy, which people could not afford and would not buy at this time. The mustang dropped to under 200hp at those times, it barely survived the fuel crisis. It wasn't because Ford couldn't have done it, it was because they were reacting to customer desires...nobody wanted a gas guzzling V-8 because they couldn't afford it.

Ford had about 225hp and around 300ft-lbs outta the 5.0 in the 87-93 mustangs...these have proved to be excellent vehicles and anyone knowing cars, cannot deny this. They came from the factory with decent power considering these were built right after the fuel crisis was starting to end. They didn't dump a lot of money into the 5.0 redesigning it, because in 91 they started to make plans to put the 4.6L modular motor in place for 96'. It doesn't make sense to pour a lot of money into re-designing an engine, when it's ony going to be in production for another couple years. The model re-design came in 94, the 5.0L lasted until 95 in mustangs. 96 was the first year they swapped over to the 4.6L modular motor. Ford spent billions designing it.

The "4.8" (actually, its a 4.6L) DID NOT used to be the 289. It is not a re-design of it. The 289 is a pushrod style engine, with the cam in the middle of the block. The 4.6L is a modular engine, it's a 100% completely different engine. Ford started implamenting these engines in 91-92 with the crown vic and lincolns, other models as well. These engines have proven themselves in police cars...taxi's ...etc etc...they are extremely well built engines capable of lots of power. They're in the new Ford GT with 500 hp.

Ford's current Cobra, runs at 390hp out of a small 4.6L modular engine. The z06 has a 427ci to make 450hp. One is supercharged, one is not...it's compairing apples and oranges. If you ask any performance enthusiast, it's better to have a smaller (lighter!) engine in racing applications because it'll handle better. The old muscle cars of the past had huge engines, but they were too heavy and didn't handle well. Ford can make just as much power wiht the same size motor as chevy...that point is irrelivant...it's a different car marketed for a different crowd...like i said..its apple and oranges.


Once again, this is opinion not backed up by fact...they didn't copy the impalla...come on....

*This guy simply has too much opinion in his presentation of information. He knows a little about chevy but simply doesn't understand Fords. You'll never convince him he's wrong or get him to understand why parts of what he's said are wrong. He's just misinformed and simply does not understand what he is missing, and he won't understand until he becomes more educated on his own. He won't absorb information from someone trying to tell him he's wrong...

The major problem with this discussion you're having, is that it is WAYYY too general. You can't discuss Chevy/Ford as a hole....it would need to be broken down to a specific model within a specific year...or something of that nature....you can't talk about both companies history like this.....he's simply whipping out anyhting he can think of...he clearly has little experience with both makes and is going off what he's heard or read.

If someone wants to learn about Ford's EFI, buy books on it. I have a few, but the one I liked the most was "How to Tune and Modify Ford Fuel Injection" by Ben Watson.

 

Well said Justin... Woogs, don't lose any sleep over it... One test drive was all it took to steer me clear of GM... I own a malibu as a daily driver (1980 w/229 V6), but that's just because I sold the van to my little brother. I can tell you now, that I have more fords in the last 10 years with NO rust on them than any of our friends/family with GM products.

 

I could go on all day explaining that stuff and all the things that guy has wrong.

I didn't mention this above...but MAF is not more "reliable" at all....it's an example of how he is simply misinformed. MAF has nothing to do with reliability. MAF is simply a sensor which measures the amount of air coming into an engine. It's a little bit of a different "system" than something like a Speed Density system where it's based on engine vacumm to determine load. It gets complicated past here.

That post was 10,000 characters, the first I've ever been at the limit on (you can have up to 10,000 characters in a post here). I probably said enough, even though I left a lot of explaining out...it just simply can't be done over a computer like this.

He simply does not have very much experience, it's extremely evident, and he is going off of what he's heard or read in the past, which still seems to be very little and probably unreliable sources. It's human nature to do what he's doing, but until he understands that he is misinformed and uneducated in that respect....he won't change. He will probably not listen to anyone trying to tell him he's wrong or incorrect, people are subborn like that, and all he sees is that he's right....but....he thinks he's right but he's wrong/misinformed. He's more misinformed than anything....he is so misinformed that you couldn't easily correct him.

I wonder how old he is....I'm only 20 and it sounds like I have more experience then him...but I never bash chevy...I feel that both makes have their quirks and are of equal value. I simply prefer Ford, there are a lot of things I dislike about chevy/GM that I like about Ford. A level of maturity is also needed in these types of conversations....sounds like he doesn't have much of that either.....but....I think I've had enough bashing of the poor guy....

 

He's already lost the argument, he's a GM fan.

 

Everything is right, except that the GT motor is a 5.4L modular and not a 4.6L.

I know, they're similar, just wanted to clarify.

 

Just remember, this is FORD country, and on a quiet night you can hear a CHEVY RUST!!!

 

MustangGT sounds like you got your head screwed on straight, I dunno how old this guy is, but I think I'll prolly throw a few facts his way from your post to let him know that I've got enough info from my freinds at FTE to blow him outta the water, and leave it at that.
thanks for all yalls help
-woogs