[sleepy]

So you're saying all turbo engines are junk? You wouldn't buy one?

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

So you're saying all turbo engines are junk? You wouldn't buy one?

that's what you took from that?

[sleepy]

No way you would own a duramax? Even though it's a GM?
You don't spend any time in the boosted forum, do you? They would run you out with that attitude towards turbos. A LOT of members here have turbos on their old Pontiac's.
And If turbos are junk, why are they used(without the so called problems) so extensively in semi's? WE go over a million miles without problems.
If cars have problems with turbo's it's only because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't know how to drive it.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

No way you would own a duramax? Even though it's a GM?
You don't spend any time in the boosted forum, do you? They would run you out with that attitude towards turbos. A LOT of members here have turbos on their old Pontiac's.
And If turbos are junk, why are they used(without the so called problems) so extensively in semi's? WE go over a million miles without problems.
If cars have problems with turbo's it's only because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't know how to drive it.

i still have no clue where you're coming from on this one.

[big hammer]

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by big hammer

ford engines are junk to work on and maintain. the only thing the egayboost offers is much increased complexity with "v8 like performance" with piss poor resale off warranty because nobody in their right mind would own one without warranty.
turns out all you have to offer is 3rd grade insults with no facts to back anything up

any of this look familiar?
You have NO CLUE what the resale value will be OFF warranty because NONE are OFF warranty yet.
Talk about 3rd grade insults. eGAYboost?
What are you GM sticklickers going to do when ford comes out with a 5.4 twin turbo? If they can match your precious 6.2s performance with a little 6 banger half the size of chevys best, how bad will an ecoboost engine of equal size kick you in the sack?
BTW, Ford DIDN'T steal BILLIONS from the taxpayers OR their investors. GM did BOTH.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

any of this look familiar?
You have NO CLUE what the resale value will be OFF warranty because NONE are OFF warranty yet.
Talk about 3rd grade insults. eGAYboost?
What are you GM sticklickers going to do when ford comes out with a 5.4 twin turbo? If they can match your precious 6.2s performance with a little 6 banger half the size of chevys best, how bad will an ecoboost engine of equal size kick you in the sack?
BTW, Ford DIDN'T steal BILLIONS from the taxpayers OR their investors. GM did BOTH.

LMLO!!!! what a massive fail of a reach. that is the dumbest thing in this thread yet.

were talking about a DI twin turbo ford. the resale off warranty will be hilariously bad. like the 6.0.

i have no issues with turbos, they can be fun. i have an issue with fanbois claiming the ecgayboost is the greatest thing ever when for the most part it is a piece of historical junk.



it's ecgayboost. you're doing it wrong.

the 3.5 is still 40 hp behind the 6.2 which has no turbos. i'm not really sure you know how boost affects engines. were talking about fords latest and greatest engine still falling behind an engine design that came out in 1997. you think that gm doesn't have alot on the table? ford is just catching up to 1997!

ford certainly did take money. they took nearly 6 billion from the DOE and asked for a line of credit, as well as some monies from CPFF.

gm saved thousands apon thousands of jobs, and all ford did was come out with a truck for soccer moms.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by big hammer

LMLO!!!! what a massive fail of a reach. that is the dumbest thing in this thread yet.

were talking about a DI twin turbo ford. the resale off warranty will be hilariously bad. like the 6.0.

i have no issues with turbos, they can be fun. i have an issue with fanbois claiming the ecgayboost is the greatest thing ever when for the most part it is a piece of historical junk.



it's ecgayboost. you're doing it wrong.

the 3.5 is still 40 hp behind the 6.2 which has no turbos. i'm not really sure you know how boost affects engines. were talking about fords latest and greatest engine still falling behind an engine design that came out in 1997. you think that gm doesn't have alot on the table? ford is just catching up to 1997!

ford certainly did take money. they took nearly 6 billion from the DOE and asked for a line of credit, as well as some monies from CPFF.

gm saved thousands apon thousands of jobs, and all ford did was come out with a truck for soccer moms.

1. How do you know what the resale value of these trucks will be? Crystal Ball?
2.Again, How do you know it WILL be a piece of junk? Crystal ball again?
3. Getting 40hp more with twice the cubes is nothing to brag about. and, No, After 30+ years of driving semi's, I don't have a clue how a turbo affects an engine.
4. Wrong, GM didn't save ANY jobs. THE TAX PAYER DID. GM shipped even MORE jobs to Mexico and China. What are the soccer moms suposed to drive? Pile the team in an electric turd(volt)?

[68gtoMN]

Sleepy, in situations like this you must remember the old adage which is timeless:

Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Ecoboost 3.5 was not designed to BEAT the Chevy 6.2 or any other engine purely on HP AND be expected to deliver better mileage in all situations. Nope. The goals were more modest. What Ford accomplished was to develop a compact and lightweight engine that produced great Torque (you know...the force the actually moves an object) from a very low RPM and maintain it across a wide RPM band. As a by product of the engine size, when not being called upon to tow heavy loads (twice the payload and towing of the Chevy hybrid 6.0), it would deliver great mileage. In addition, the smaller package and lighter weight would provide better weight distribution, better suspension tuning, better turning, better braking all without having to upgrade these ancillary systems (cost).

Ecoboost provides the equivalent (better) torque, sooner in the RPM range AND across a wider RPM range, from a smaller package all the while delivering equivalent or better fuel consumption figures. The engine was tested, on camera, through more severe duty cycles than most engines can imagine seeing in two lifetimes and it still maintained factory specs upon tear down.

Ford did a great job with their Ecoboost engine line. Perhaps not all will like the styling or brand or colors Ford offers. So be it. GM and Chrysler also make good trucks. The issue here is that Ford has effectively shifted the paradigm and some can't come to terms with it. Just like computer controls would spell the death knell to performance cars...er...oops - that did not happen, people can't grasp smaller, boosted engines replacing cubic inches...

The facts tell the true story. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost delivers equal or better performance than the 6.2 Chevy or the 6.0 Hybrid without sacrificing it's work credentials (towing/payload).

There is another old adage to follow - don't spit into the wind.

With twin turbos, Ecoboost is blowing hard in Chevy's direction...

[bigunde]

Well if you are gonna run twin hair dryers. Here ya go. LOL

http://www.lingenfelter.com/engine-p...emorative-edit

Not bad with 2 valves per cylinder and some pushrods. LOL

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by big hammer

man are you ever living in the past. stock LS bottom ends have been pushed past 4 hp\ci without machenical failure. 5.3's can be bored out to 5.7 with room to spare.

ls engines are cheap, economical hp with fantastic modability. how often do you hear that about ford modulars? never.

ford couldn't even figure out how design cylinder heads for their 5.4's without spark plug issues.

ford engines have always had HORRIBLE compatability with any of their other lines. they are more pricey to build with usually less output. there's a reason that gm engines have always been WAY more popular in the hotrodding community.

if you had trouble beating a 6.0 you wouldn't come close to a 6.2. there is a mile of difference between the two engines.


you can bore an old 283 into a 350 bore. pretty sweet hey?

why are you crossing your fingers and hoping i'm gay? that's weird.

why do you assume i can't build an engine? given your love for fords you don't know very much.

Some 283s can be bored .125 over. But, have you ever heard of rust in the cooling area ? Bore a 50 + yr old block and it's common for the rear cylinders to "break thru" because the rust has ate into the cylinders.

And any old engine you can bore .125; it's because the casting techniques were not as good as todays. You ever hear of core shift ?

Better re read what I stated regarding your 6.0 comment:

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Shame you're too far away, I'd enjoy running your 6.2 V8 with the 442 FE I built out of a pile of parts laying around. The truck did shut down/outhaul my cousins 6.0 -

Where does the above say I had trouble beating a 6.0 big hammer ? Please point that out.
Not saying I'd win: but it would be interesting.

Yes, Ford made alot of different engines ; so what ?

Bad cylinder heads ?
Yes, the 5.4 did have those issues. Does that erase all the head cracking problems Chebby had with their "light" (1975 - later) castings that were notorious for cracking between the intake/exhaust valve ?
Didn't Pontiac look at Ford heads in the 60s for further development or lightly copy them ?
Why not mention bad Ford cylinder heads to Bob Glidden ?
Case in point : 351 Cleveland: it had the best breathing heads from the factory of any small block.
Bob Glidden cleaned house in the pro stock class with that engine. Obviously the NHRA changed the rules after that.

4 hp per cid ? They've done that for years in Europe. Nothing new.

Ive never heard of boring a 5.3 roughly .120 over to a 5.7 on a late LS. I could be wrong, but I'm calling BS on that: with todays modern casting techniques I somehow doubt any manufacturer will waste that much material on each block. I know the earlier ones were very thin in the walls and I was told not to go more then .020 and on the aluminum blocks the liners were so thin you were not supposed to go .020 over without replacing them.

[The Boss]

You guys need to stop.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Bob Hall

Like I typed earlier, he wanted a larger engine. Driving from the Raystown Lake area to Gettysburg I averaged 18.5 mpg. I thought that was pretty good considering I had 5 mountains to cross on the way home. The active fuel management system on the 5.3 I think will work out well for me. I did look at the ecoboosts a few weeks ago at the auto show in Harrisburg. Wasn't impressed with the price marked on them. My neighbor has one and he says he isn't getting any better than 16 on the highway. To be fair, I think he likes hard acceleration.

For the situation and price I paid, I think (hope) I made the best choice yesterday.

You bought a nice truck.
My error: I should have specified that didn't apply to you. Friend bought a 5.3 about 10 years ago. I can say it was very impressive in power compared to the 350 V8s trucks of the 70s.
I would have never bought a new truck, but at work there's an monthly allowance benefit towards what they call a "company car" or you can keep the money. Honestly, as good as my Ecoboost has performed I'd rather go back to socking the money away. Call me paranoid, I just don't trust this economy. Especially with 4 kids.

Originally Posted by The Boss

You guys need to stop.

You're right time for ignore -

[Bob Hall]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

You bought a nice truck.
My error: I should have specified that didn't apply to you. Friend bought a 5.3 about 10 years ago. I can say it was very impressive in power compared to the 350 V8s trucks of the 70s.
I would have never bought a new truck, but at work there's an monthly allowance benefit towards what they call a "company car" or you can keep the money. Honestly, as good as my Ecoboost has performed I'd rather go back to socking the money away. Call me paranoid, I just don't trust this economy. Especially with 4 kids.



You're right time for ignore -

Thanks. It is a very nice truck. The nicest I've ever owned. I hope I get many years out of it. I hate the 20" wheels on it. I think they look stupid on a 4x4. To be honest though if I would have had time to shop I would probably ended up with something different. Heck, if Monte would have waited to give me trouble near home and not 2.5 hours away, I probably would've just fixed the Monte since I really liked that car.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Do you and Champ even get your hands dirty or do you guys take your cars to Jiffy Lube for an oil change ?

Speaking for myself only, I was pulling engines out of race cars before you were done pooping in your diapers.

No, I've never built an engine by myself. I'm not sure that's a critical thing to be considered a car guy. But if it makes you feel any better, I helped assemble a 327 while stationed in Germany before you started first grade.

Have a wonderful day.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by sleepy

I wouldn't classify that Hybrid 6.2 a full size truck when it has HALF the towing capacity of the little 6 banger ford.
I'd be asking GM why twice the engine will only pull half as much.

You might want to check your facts. It's a 6.0L (not a 6.2) in the Hybrid with a 6100 pound towing capacity with 3.08 gears. The Ford 6 cylinder that I was comparing it to is only rated for 5500 pounds with the standard 3.55 rear gear. If you substitute 3.73's in that Ford, you're still less than the GM - only 6000 pounds with the 3.73's...

Don't let the facts get in the way of your story, however...

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Sleepy, in situations like this you must remember the old adage which is timeless:

Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Ecoboost 3.5 was not designed to BEAT the Chevy 6.2 or any other engine purely on HP AND be expected to deliver better mileage in all situations. Nope. The goals were more modest. What Ford accomplished was to develop a compact and lightweight engine that produced great Torque (you know...the force the actually moves an object) from a very low RPM and maintain it across a wide RPM band. As a by product of the engine size, when not being called upon to tow heavy loads (twice the payload and towing of the Chevy hybrid 6.0), it would deliver great mileage. In addition, the smaller package and lighter weight would provide better weight distribution, better suspension tuning, better turning, better braking all without having to upgrade these ancillary systems (cost).

Ecoboost provides the equivalent (better) torque, sooner in the RPM range AND across a wider RPM range, from a smaller package all the while delivering equivalent or better fuel consumption figures. The engine was tested, on camera, through more severe duty cycles than most engines can imagine seeing in two lifetimes and it still maintained factory specs upon tear down.

Ford did a great job with their Ecoboost engine line. Perhaps not all will like the styling or brand or colors Ford offers. So be it. GM and Chrysler also make good trucks. The issue here is that Ford has effectively shifted the paradigm and some can't come to terms with it. Just like computer controls would spell the death knell to performance cars...er...oops - that did not happen, people can't grasp smaller, boosted engines replacing cubic inches...

The facts tell the true story. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost delivers equal or better performance than the 6.2 Chevy or the 6.0 Hybrid without sacrificing it's work credentials (towing/payload).

There is another old adage to follow - don't spit into the wind.

With twin turbos, Ecoboost is blowing hard in Chevy's direction...

ford did not re write the laws of physics. they simply put turbos on an engine which dramatically changes it's volumetric efficency. nothing new here, it has been done for decades.

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Better re read what I stated regarding your 6.0 comment:



[I]

i'll race anyone one. i dont care aboot losing. loser buys beer and helps the winner drink it.

it makes it very difficult for locating and mating parts.

Bad cylinder heads ?

no but it seems you are using it as an excuae for ford. especially with all the modern development tools at hand. were talking about fords heads having massive issues 20 years later.

Didn't Pontiac look at Ford heads in the 60s for further development or lightly copy them ?
Why not mention bad Ford cylinder heads to Bob Glidden ?

and look at them now--- people put them in EVERYTHING! oh wait...

factory ls3 heads flow more than a 4v cleveland.

Bob Glidden cleaned house in the pro stock class with that engine. Obviously the NHRA changed the rules after that.

you missed the point. you said gm uses weak materials. but if a stock 4.8 bottom end can handle over 60 dyno pulls and make over 1200 hp, it can't be all bad.

Ive never heard of boring a 5.3 roughly .120 over to a 5.7 on a late LS. I could be wrong, but I'm calling BS on that: with todays modern casting techniques I somehow doubt any manufacturer will waste that much material on each block. I know the earlier ones were very thin in the walls and I was told not to go more then .020 and on the aluminum blocks the liners were so thin you were not supposed to go .020 over without replacing them.

you can actually bore a 4.8 into an ls1 (5.7) bore. it's a walk in the park for a 5.3. it's pretty common actually

You can order a fully assembled stroker short block for not much more than the cost of machine work and piecing together a stroker. That said, most 4.8 blocks can be bored to 3.900 or 3.905 (basically 5.7 LS1 bore).

http://ls1tech.com/forums/generation...ker-motor.html

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Here's the deal, Champ - lighten up. Seriously - your skin is way too thin. Here are a couple thoughts for you[LIST=1][*]On forums like this there will be some Sh*t talking and mostly it is done in fun. In my case, I have fun with screen names - all in fun. No nasty names, no foul language...[*]I do not instigate with caustic language, I react to the posts of others. Because of your invective, I pushed you a bit. It's funny to me because you react so strongly (see first comment).

Oh, how you try and backpedal...

FWIW - I can enjoy good natured "Sh*t talking" when it's done in fun. From experience with you, it appears to me that you only resort to name calling and "Sh*t talking" when you're frustrated.

Just to clarify, on page 7, you posted:

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Calling you by your name is certainly name-calling...you got me there. Trash talking?

Didn't you change my board name to "The Chump" when you quoted me on page 2 of this thread? You actually had to make an extra effort to change it from "The Champ" as the automated quote system does it. And you did it several times in one post...

Or was that your alter-ego that did that?

It was also in that post on page 2 of this thread that you did the trash talking while using still another name -

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Hey Lendon...did you forget to take your meds again

One sentence - another name and a lame personal attack.

So despite you're claims that you don't "instigate" anything you may want to reconsider.

Towards you, the only thing I did was to ask you on page 6 to "stop with all the BS name calling, trash talking, etc..."

Continue to try and live in denial of the facts if you want to. It's obvious to any reasonable person that you are refusing to accept responsibility for your actions by denying what is plain to see.

[The Champ]

Now, back to the topic...

The Best Big 3 Truck

Our poll shows that Chevy is the clear leader (and that is without the votes that could have been had if the poll were Chevy/GMC).

Ford, as of now, is closer to Dodge in votes than it is to Chevy.

Dodge trails Chevy by 41 votes.

Now it's no surprise to me that the Dodge is trailing like it is. But I expected that with all the vocal Ford apologists and the vocal GM bashers on this board that Ford would be closer to the top than the bottom.

Some here claim that we shouldn't say negative things about Ford products (some even say that we shouldn't do it because we have members that work for Ford). I'd just like to remind folks, that we have GM employees on this board also.

And at least one of those individuals has much involvement in a product that has been attacked profusely on this board.

This is a Pontiac board. Pontiac was part of GM. Yes, I like many here, am sad that Pontiac's are not still being made. But life goes on...

I'm just glad that it's public knowledge that Chevy builds "the longest lasting, most dependable truck" in this country.

[sleepy]

You were expecting a different outcome to that pole here? I wonder what the results would be on a dodge or ford site? You're still a three year old in walmart screeching because his parents wouldn't buy the toy he wanted.