[giddygoat]

I forgot to add that these mileages are from 4 x 4s.

[yak]

Originally Posted by bigunde

Whos facts are these? So you go to Dodge for "out of the box" performance???

well i know my stock 04 2500 with a 5.7 hemi would smoke any stock 04 ford f250 with a 5.4. and stock for stock no truck built by the big three will outperforn an srt-10 ram-505 horse and 21mpgs highway! and dont bother mentioning the lightning, in stock form they are slow

[yak]

Originally Posted by giddygoat

Interesting comparison of Ford and Chevy 1 tons going at it. I talked with a service tech the other day that works at a Ford dealership. He said he checks all the new diesels when the come in to see what they are doing for mileage, the 3/4 and 1 tons are averaging 23 mpg, and this is in the winter. Any one have any mileage numbers on the GM and Dodge?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...t=0&FORM=LKVR7

we service the highways dept f350s, they are 2010s to 2012s and when i get a chance i check the mileage reader on them. they are always 25 or more liters to 100kms-i'm not sure what the u.s conversion is on that. on a side note you should see where the f*7ktard engineers put the frame mounted fuel filter, they could have put the filter housing a foot or 2 farther back so it'd be easy to get to....

[bonneville Joe]

190k on my '04 Ram 1500 5.7 Hemi. No major problems. Replaced both front wheel bearing assemblies and the usual maintenance. I've towed cars all up and down the east coast with it. Just went to Charleston, SC yesterday and picked up a customer's '67 GTO. 500 miles round trip.

[giddygoat]

That would figure to be about 9.4 mpg, big difference... maybe due to extended idle time or towing? Recently read a comparsion on the 2012 models, they rated the GM as the best for road manors, but the Ford had a much better torque curve, the Dodge inline six was much lower in HP and torque, they complained the suspension was undersized for the weight. But the Dodge did not have to use urea, mileage suffered because of it.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by yak

my comment about all ford motors is based on fact- none of them perform well out of the box from ford , they always need something done to them to make them perform. i used to be a ford guy but after having to work on their 1997 and up sh&t i dont even waste my time with fords anymore

You're a bad liar: you said ALL FORDs

That would include Model T and A engines, Flatheads, Y block, Lincoln MELs, FE's (doub't you've ever touched a 427 or SOHC 427 in any highway truck)
429s and 460s suck too huh ? Tell me one characteristic about Fords SVO while you're at it since all Ford engines are junk.

Originally Posted by bigunde

Whos facts are these? So you go to Dodge for "out of the box" performance???

Neither he or Fisher-Price mallet have backed anything yet, why start now ?

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by yak

well i know my stock 04 2500 with a 5.7 hemi would smoke any stock 04 ford f250 with a 5.4. and stock for stock no truck built by the big three will outperforn an srt-10 ram-505 horse and 21mpgs highway! and dont bother mentioning the lightning, in stock form they are slow

And they stopped making those why? Couldnt have anything do with sales of ONLY 2000-2500 a year. Not bad on horsepower with TEN cylinders and 505 cubic inches.

Report: Slow-Selling Dodge SRT-10 to Bow Out After 2006
READ MORE: 2006, News, dodge, pickup, ram, srt, srt-10


The Dodge SRT-10 pickup may haul tons of ass off the line, but it sure is sluggish getting off the lot. A report, cited by Winding Road, indicates Dodge will discontinue the 500hp, V10-powered Ram at the end of the year, owing to sales of only 2,000 units. Dodge hasn’t confirmed the report, but we think we just heard a glacier weeping with joy.

or:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5020053AAen7yL


here is nice race with CURRENT production trucks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNd9...eature=related

[yak]

Originally Posted by bigunde

And they stopped making those why? Couldnt have anything do with sales of ONLY 2000-2500 a year. Not bad on horsepower with TEN cylinders and 505 cubic inches.

Report: Slow-Selling Dodge SRT-10 to Bow Out After 2006
READ MORE: 2006, News, dodge, pickup, ram, srt, srt-10


The Dodge SRT-10 pickup may haul tons of ass off the line, but it sure is sluggish getting off the lot. A report, cited by Winding Road, indicates Dodge will discontinue the 500hp, V10-powered Ram at the end of the year, owing to sales of only 2,000 units. Dodge hasn’t confirmed the report, but we think we just heard a glacier weeping with joy.

or:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5020053AAen7yL


here is nice race with CURRENT production trucks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNd9...eature=related

they quit selling them because there wasnt (and never has been) a huge market for 2wd sport trucks. they went the way of the lightning, little red express and the 454ss.. maybe if they offered the 6 speed manual in the quad cab or offered a awd/4wd option they would have sold more...

[yak]

Originally Posted by giddygoat

That would figure to be about 9.4 mpg, big difference... maybe due to extended idle time or towing? Recently read a comparsion on the 2012 models, they rated the GM as the best for road manors, but the Ford had a much better torque curve, the Dodge inline six was much lower in HP and torque, they complained the suspension was undersized for the weight. But the Dodge did not have to use urea, mileage suffered because of it.

well if i ever was in the market to buy a diesel truck i'd be happy to know that since i'd probably pick up a 6.7 cummins that this same motor is powering my buddys fwa ford new holland tractor. you'll never see any dmax or ford built diesel in a ag or industrial application

[yak]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

You're a bad liar: you said ALL FORDs

That would include Model T and A engines, Flatheads, Y block, Lincoln MELs, FE's (doub't you've ever touched a 427 or SOHC 427 in any highway truck)
429s and 460s suck too huh ? Tell me one characteristic about Fords SVO while you're at it since all Ford engines are junk.



Neither he or Fisher-Price mallet have backed anything yet, why start now ?

around where i live you used to have to back up hills with those old model ts because they's run out of fuel before they got to the top. typical ford engineering. every engine you listed is sh)t built ford tough. have you never worked on ford heads before? i have 429 and 460 heads in a grain bin at the farm. they have huge exhaust ports at the manifolds but farther in the port you can barely squeeze a pinky finger in there. the only ford heads i've seen that could perform are maybe 351 cleveland heads but they are on too small of a motor. i've messed with 5.0s. whats with ford engineers puting those huge bumps in the exhaust ports? f%^k ford bunch ofdum f^&k engineers with there overpriced ecoboost s%&t. ya you can make a ford fast but a chev or dodge motor can be built to out perform it

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by yak

well if i ever was in the market to buy a diesel truck i'd be happy to know that since i'd probably pick up a 6.7 cummins that this same motor is powering my buddys fwa ford new holland tractor. you'll never see any dmax or ford built diesel in a ag or industrial application

Wow, that's as ignorant as your statement about all Ford engines being no good; I've seen plenty of Ford 401 cid inline diesels in Ford tractors

Put that Cummins next to a John Deere or an old International in ag use - they use something called liners for quick in frame overhauls.

Originally Posted by yak

around where i live you used to have to back up hills with those old model ts because they's run out of fuel before they got to the top. typical ford engineering. every engine you listed is sh)t built ford tough. have you never worked on ford heads before? i have 429 and 460 heads in a grain bin at the farm. they have huge exhaust ports at the manifolds but farther in the port you can barely squeeze a pinky finger in there. the only ford heads i've seen that could perform are maybe 351 cleveland heads but they are on too small of a motor. i've messed with 5.0s. whats with ford engineers puting those huge bumps in the exhaust ports? f%^k ford bunch ofdum f^&k engineers with there overpriced ecoboost s%&t. ya you can make a ford fast but a chev or dodge motor can be built to out perform itI a

You said engines. Now you're talking gravity fed fuel supply, which damn near every car used 100 + yrs ago. Guess you never heard of the Cobra Jet 429 or Boss 429, the heads your speaking of are for one ton pickups, so they're designed for low end torque. The bumps are to help with velocity. 351C did just fine; why don't you tell Bob Glidden who beat the beejesus out of everyone in the late 70s running Cleveland heads that they were wrong ?
427 Fords junk ? Yea, they ate Ferraris in Lemans and held up against Mopar Hemis in NASCAR. You have no experience with an Ecoboost, yet you're calling it junk ?

You sound more like a parts changer and certainly not capable of machining the engine and measuring for wear; your ignorance is shining well.

[bigunde]

[QUOTE=yak;4570192]well if i ever was in the market to buy a diesel truck i'd be happy to know that since i'd probably pick up a 6.7 cummins that this same motor is powering my buddys fwa ford new holland tractor. you'll never see any dmax or ford built diesel in a ag or industrial application[/QUOTE]

Really???

http://www.exergyengineering.com/doc...x_brochure.pdf

[hurryinhoosier62]

Well,

I guess that rules out the Ford 6.6, 6.6 phase II,7.8 and the 200 found in MOST Ford and New Holland tractors and backhoes built in the 60's,70's and 80's. All of these are DDEs(Damn Durable Engines)!! As a matter of fact, the 6.6/7.8 family of engines were ag engines adapted for truck use. The 200s were always ag engines. I know one thing for sure: you can't bore a 4B/4BT/6B/6BT Cummins .180 over to install sleeves when the cylinder bores are worn out
because the engine is on its 4th OVERHAUL.

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

Well,

I guess that rules out the Ford 6.6, 6.6 phase II,7.8 and the 200 found in MOST Ford and New Holland tractors and backhoes built in the 60's,70's and 80's. All of these are
DDEs(Damn Durable Engines)!!

There you go with those pesky FACTS again guys.

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by yak

around where i live you used to have to back up hills with those old model ts because they's run out of fuel before they got to the top. typical ford engineering. every engine you listed is sh)t built ford tough. have you never worked on ford heads before? i have 429 and 460 heads in a grain bin at the farm. they have huge exhaust ports at the manifolds but farther in the port you can barely squeeze a pinky finger in there. the only ford heads i've seen that could perform are maybe 351 cleveland heads but they are on too small of a motor. i've messed with 5.0s. whats with ford engineers puting those huge bumps in the exhaust ports? f%^k ford bunch ofdum f^&k engineers with there overpriced ecoboost s%&t. ya you can make a ford fast but a chev or dodge motor can be built to out perform it

Oh the irony. Why all the anger???

[Matt T]

I pick Ford.

I only read the first two pages of the thread, and it was turning into a "mo powa" p!ssing match. I like the looks of the Ford better, and I like the direction they are going with EcoBoost, but I'll take one with LESS power and MORE fuel economy, please.

To the OP--knowing you "needs" would have helped.

Personally, I think they are all overpriced, overweight, overpacked with luxury, and have more horsepower and torque than the average person has ANY need for. I grew up with basic work trucks. I like trucks with rubber floor mats (and I don't mean the kind that protect the carpet underneath).

The simple fact that you can't get a standard/manual transmission in a light truck anymore is my single biggest reason for not wanting one. Despite the advances they have made in automatics, I'm still certain that if you gave me two identical vehicles, one auto and one 5-6 speed manual, I would get better mpg in the manual. I know I'm happier driving it (yes, even in stop & go traffic).

As far as hp and torque, If I could tow the equivalent of a full size car plus a bed full of gear from New England to Georgia through the hills of PA with an anemic mid-80's GMC 2500 (350 4-speed "bus" tranny) crew cab and four big people in it, any truck out there today has more power than I need.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matt T

I pick Ford.

I only read the first two pages of the thread, and it was turning into a "mo powa" p!ssing match. I like the looks of the Ford better, and I like the direction they are going with EcoBoost, but I'll take one with LESS power and MORE fuel economy, please.

To the OP--knowing you "needs" would have helped.

Personally, I think they are all overpriced, overweight, overpacked with luxury, and have more horsepower and torque than the average person has ANY need for. I grew up with basic work trucks. I like trucks with rubber floor mats (and I don't mean the kind that protect the carpet underneath).

The simple fact that you can't get a standard/manual transmission in a light truck anymore is my single biggest reason for not wanting one. Despite the advances they have made in automatics, I'm still certain that if you gave me two identical vehicles, one auto and one 5-6 speed manual, I would get better mpg in the manual. I know I'm happier driving it (yes, even in stop & go traffic).

As far as hp and torque, If I could tow the equivalent of a full size car plus a bed full of gear from New England to Georgia through the hills of PA with an anemic mid-80's GMC 2500 (350 4-speed "bus" tranny) crew cab and four big people in it, any truck out there today has more power than I need.

UM, Have you looked at dodge? Most people get the stick with the diesel because dodge OD auto trans in trucks are notoriously weak.

[hurryinhoosier62]

bigunde,

I make statements based on my experience as an engine machinst. Like I have previously stated, the Big Three plus all the engine manufacturers ALL build their share of junk. To label one worse than the others is folly.

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

bigunde,

I make statements based on my experience as an engine machinst. Like I have previously stated, the Big Three plus all the engine manufacturers ALL build their share of junk. To label one worse than the others is folly.

Agreed.!

[Big Banger]

IH