Just read an article from motor trend posted on another site. It has the 2 valve 6.1 will be only available in the SVT raptor. The raptor will come out with the 3 valve 5.4 and the 6.1 will be available by next winter. The 6.1 will have no name like boss, or huricane, but be known as just the 6.1. It will produce 400 hp and 400 foot pounds. The rest of the uses for the 6.1 will be in the super duty as a V-10 replacement and in whats left of the expedition/navigator line. The raptor will have hill decent and a high speeed rear locker. In other words, the locker will stay engaged at high speeds unlike the low range only option on other vehicles.

 

It is a 6.2L, not a 6.1L. Pictures of it in the Raptor are up in the 2009 F150 forum. There is a large thread about the Raptor as well.

 

I stand corrected, a 6.2. It just sucks that you won't be able to get it in any other F-150. I know alot of folks were looking forward to a 6.2 powered F-150. They still have the diesel to look forward to, in 2010 I believ it is.

 

I'm still going to hope for the 6.2 in the regular F150. I don't see why they wouldn't.

I'm not sold on it in the SD if it only has 400ft/lbs. Sure you gain HP, but for a loss of 50ft/lbs, I'll pass.

Mike

 

that'll teach OPEC....

 

What will teach opec is for us to go after our own energy. Everyones not going to buy an econobox. This is a hard working country where people need and use trucks and cargo vans. The SVT raptor is a specialty vehicle like a shelby or vipper and won't count for large sales. You want to hurt opec, do as T Boone Pickens sugest and equip a 1/3 of our vehicles to run on natural gas, drill for more oil, impliment solar, wind and nuclear power. Build more alternitive fuel vehicles and hybrids. That will have opec drinking oil with thier morning egg's.

 

Likethe shelby and raptor it has exactly no use and every dime for tooling and production needs to be elsewhere.

this vehicle is EXACTLY why the big 3 are in deep doo doo and the market for this vehicle is EXACTLY why the US has an energy problem

 

Vehicles like that draw people into showrooms. When someone goes in to check out a Raptor, and gets sticker shock, they might buy a less expensive model.

99% of buyers will never opt for the high end specialty vehicles. But a lot of flareside regular cabs were sold to guys who tried to make look like Lightnings and a lot of V6 mustangs have been modified to look like GTs, Roushs and Shelbys.

Those vehicles are also test beds for new technology, even if it's just little things like brakes and suspension. People that buy them will bring them in for warranty work and Ford will see how the pieces work in the real world. They do the same thing with high end luxury cars.

So Ford will build a few thousand Raptors and some of those buyers will use the truck as intended. Ford will get feedback. Some parts may get chunked and some may make it to all Ford trucks. Even if it's just a new kind of shock, motor mount or weld technique.

 

And the asian makers accuse the domestic makers of not listening to the public. how dare they!

Right now the public, for the last 2 years wants fuel efficient vehicles. especially recently.

the drop in sales means ford is not going to sell the trucks it has already built, let alone the ones the union is going to force by contract to be built.

Sales of this vehicle wont even overcome the web advertising - let alone anything else. Ford has not learned you cannot create a niche market. GM learned a while back and dropped this silly 'hot rod truck' direction about 15 years ago.

the numbers show, anyone heading into the showroom right now for a truck/suv, are joe the plumbers looking for a new joe-the-plumber mobile.

 

Quaddriver you seem to be a little on the negitive side and a bit bitter. Our energy problems have nothing to do with the raptor. We have had an energy problem since the 74 embargo and no energy plan to combat it. We stopped drilling and started buying oil, so we could use there's up and still have ours left. I just don't think we planned on opec getting so greety. Never the less, cheer up, life isn't that bad, just the economy ha ha

 

The big 3 are in the toilet because they never figured out how to domestically produce a profitable, fuel-efficient vehicle. Instead, they put all their eggs in the Truck/SUV basket. When the price of oil started to skyrocket and people stopped buying large vehicles for commuter vehicles, they were left with no profitable market share. Sure, they produced small cars, but they did so only to meet CAFE standards, despite the loss they took on each one.

Jason

 

O ford knows how to build gas sipping cars, they've been building them for years for the european and asian markets. People wanted trucks and suv's and thats what they got. The 4.00$ a gallon gas hit like a bomb and shell shocked the nation. People still want trucks and suv's, thats why the escape is selling like crazy. This was also supost to be the last year for the ranger, but now that sells are up, it's been save untill 2011 when it will be replaced with a 4 cylinder based world ranger. People don't want small econo boxes, don't kid yourself. They still want thier trucks and suv's, they just want them to get 30 mpg, known as, "having your cake and eating to". Ford and the rest are working to meet new mpg standards on all thier vehicles. Ford is also going to be offering more small cars for the econo box crowd. The new ford fiesta will go on sell this comming year with more planned. People that buy super duty's do so to work them, not to sip gas, the same can be said for the F-150. However alot of folks also have to use thier F-150's as thier transportation along with being thier work horse and some want thier F-150's for play, so in comes the raptor which can also tow up to 6,000 pounds. Soocer moms may not need F-150's anymore, but there's still alot of hard working americans that due. So I say give them engine options to due the job whatever it might be.

 

Wendell's right....Ford and GM already build economical cars. They just don't want to sell them here because the profit margins aren't high enough. If you look at their international web sites (.mx, Mexico), they build and sell some pretty neat little cars, and they aren't all boring little econoboxes either. Even got a little front-driver pickup.

Ford built one of the most popular cars for years, the Escort. It still sold pretty well when they dropped it to build SUVs. It's got nothing to do with whether they can or not, the only question is if they want to or not. I do think the EPA needs to be pulled in line though....whatever emissions rules they have that keep out 50 MPG diesels, needs to be dumped at least for now. A 50 MPG diesel is worse for the environment than a 15 MPG SUV? I don't think so.

As far as HP vehicles....build 'em. People know what they cost, what gas costs, and (hopefully) what they can afford. If someone wants one, wants to feed and insure it, and they can, then sell them one. The folks that don't want one, don't have to buy it.

 

bwahahahhaha

Ok now on to the real response...

Bitter? I have been calling out the truck SUV craze for what it is: a clear example of people concerend about pee pee size, for over 15 years.

The big 2 sold large wagons for large familes for many decades. They sold every single one without ever a rebate or other incentive and ZERO advertising. But the market was not enuf and the minivan came out.

The minivan came out but it was not powerful enuf (if you recall, the first minivans were powered by 2.2 and 2.5L fours) so while the minvan has evolved into vehicles capable of getting only 18mpg highway, the SUV got 'nice'. And it had big engines and sat up and became popular among people with large families and/or psychological problems.

During the 90's, the mpg average of the american fleet DROPPED.

Never mind that the fire breathing 260hp impala of 1996 got 25mpg highway. Never mind that its replacement got 30mpg. IT was not 'masculine enough'

I asked a month or so ago in another thread if people learned their lesson as gas prices started to drop.

The concensus was essentially - no. One person even used the expected 'Im a 'murrican and its my god given right to buy big and waste gas if I want to' (I paraphrase a little - a little)

Which goes to illustrate: just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD (yeah ok, I borrowed that from Jurrasic park)

For decades our fuel was low cuz we were the only users of oil in the world (we used 25% yet have a fraction of the population) and our government never added a 3-400% tax on it to pay for socialist crap.

Well guess what - OPEC learned neat things like 'supply and demand'. They learned that while $3 gas had a little - but not lasting effect, $4 gas changed habits - JUST AS IT DID IN EUROPE FOR DECADES.

Europeans drive Lupos and Minis cuz gas has ALWAYS been $4. They ride motorcycles - PROPER 100-150cc bikes, ride trains, walk (shudder! the horror!)

And also guess what: the 3rd world such as china and india decided that pulling carts with oxen sucked. When you have the majority of the worlds population learning to drive - its gonna have an effect on demand.

The big 3 have only one obligation to the shareholders: build what people buy. YOU (the royal you) bought the wrong vehicles "cuz Im a 'murrican!"

GM as I mentioned, sold massive Impalas getting better mileage than accords and camrys. They sold cavaliers getting even better, ford as you pointed out sold escorts (I have owned *3* of them and loved my 41mpg 89 GT) The cars did not sell at a loss - they sold at slim profit - 500-1000 per car was the net profit, yet a truck might bring in 10000 per unit, an SUV even more. But overall numbers are what face the profit - the union costs and bennies cost is a FIXED amount and requires a certain sales level.

I pointed out that fords redesign took away most of the profit - I said most, not all. GMs fixed bennie cost rose with the pre-and current boomers. As sales dropped (50% is not an unreliable number) there ya go.

Neither company can sell what they make now. That is why the very idea of even continuing a project like this is a waste - and for it ford should be penalized - they should suffer the same consequence CPD did when Lido got bailout loans: CPD was forced to destroy the dies for the big engines and was forced to drop the big models.

but lets look at the future: you have one party control of the executive and both legislative branches.

Fuel, like it or not, WILL be taxed to $4 a gallon regardless of price. It has been shown that this is the point where people react.

The loans WILL be granted, but as Reid and Pelosi pointed out friday (you had better damn well learn who these names belong to) in exchage for loans, the US is now gonna own the companies or at least part of them.

The only person that can be blamed for this is YOU and YOU alone. (yes its a royal you so dont think I am sitting here saying "dagnabbit its wendels fault")

Those 2 new vehicles you bought? you woulda done better good all around if both were escorts or foci or whatever small car ford still builds. Better good to best of all your pocketbook - you enjoy the larger cost and higher gas? Those factors ALSO contribute to people not buying OTHER stuff, including mortgage payments and new houses etc. At an average of over $30K, vehicle purchases no longer exist in a vaccuum

 

Might want to find another forum for this.