| Author | Message | ||
     Roadcouch98 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyrhspHaJa8 | ||
| Brinnutz |
A 365 HP / 420 ft-lbs Twin Turbo V6? NICE. BUT, I would much rather have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUP00Wpj5yI | ||
| Iman501 |
i'm with brinnutz on the raptor!!! I really like this review/video of the raptor, its kinda funny! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3DPkGSOK7M&feature =related | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
those raptors are cool I seen one the other day, though I still want one of the old ford lightnings. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
Driven one. (I work at a Ford dealership) Absolutely amazing. This next spring I'm pulling the trigger. Going to order one. Already got it built. Silver, without the "Digital Mud", a few options, not slam loaded. Then paint a dark shadow grey 2-tone that matches the bumpers and flares. Nothing else like it. Going to have a bumper sticker made that says "Don't try to keep up. You'll break something." F O R D means>>> Fastest Over Rough Dirt! R | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
since your screen name is carbon big foot are you going to put a big for flag on the back of it like the old bigfoot? | ||
| Crackhead |
the 6.2 is a heave beast. the 3.5 with some work has to be 200lbs lighter and have the same power. | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
There is no replacement for displacment... If you can put that much work into a 3.5 and have the same power emagine if you put the same amount of work in the 6.2, just saying. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
last time ford had 500 hp, with 500 ft/lb torgue was the original Shelby Cobra. A Cobra for the mud and dirt.... yummmm | ||
| Rasta_dog |
F-150 with 3.7 Eco boost = Taurus | ||
| Fast1075 |
Original Shelby Cobra....427 cross-bolt..awesome engine..the toughest engine Ford ever built...Back in the day Buddy Baker (for one) humbled the Mopar boys with their 426 hemis using the 427... | ||
| Crackhead |
Having that much weight so far forward is going to be a recipe for nose dives coming off of jumps. boost is the replacement for displacement. V8s belong in the 90s. | ||
| Ridenusa4l |
i believe the reason ford didnt put the 3.5 in the raptor is becuase of the turbos, between the dirt, mud, sand, etc...there is FAR more likely-hood that the turbos would clog and fail, hence why the 6.2 is superior, from a reliability and consistency stand point...its just ALOT simpler engine when compared to the twin turbos AND direct injection... i think if ford made it all aluminum and 3V or 4V that thing would be unstoppable...FORD is here bigger and badder than ever since the 60's, everyone else is playing catch up! I LOVE THE RAPTOR and if i ever win the lottery or come into some BIG money, it WILL be mine...as well as a new super duty and 5.0 mustang (new boss 302) Jake | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
Google "hennessey raptor" 800 hp twin turbo 6.2 Displacement AND Boost!!! R | ||
| Ridenusa4l |
  Jake | ||
| Geforce |
V8s belong back in the 60s and 70s... Turbocharging smaller displacement engines to exceed the expected power output and maintain reliability has been a joyful practice for a couple of decades now. This Ford might be the first mega-production truck to have a small V6 with turbos... but it wasn't the first. GM has tried this a few times. Buick is well known for turbocharging it's 231 CI V6. Sounds really cool though. I enjoy having a big turbocharger on my 2005 Silverado SS. It makes for fun times. | ||
| Boltrider |
As someone whose bike features a 1960's tech air-cooled twin, you won't hear me say that V8s should be extinct. I love V8s!! Also, Ford finally phased out the 5.4 iron block boat anchor in the Shelby. The new ones use an aluminum block. (Message edited by boltrider on October 29, 2010) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I was very suspicious of turbos until I started talking to people that actually owned modern ones. I finally put my money where my mouth is and bought a Saab 9-3 SE (higher boost turbo version) with 90k miles on it. 130k miles on the thing now, and not a hint of turbo problems on it. And when it does go, I think it's "only" about a $600 part. Not cheap for sure, but not a disaster if I have to replace it every 150k miles. I like the power characteristics as well... not as much power down low (where it generally just breaks traction anyway), and lots of power up top (where the car needs the extra ooomph). It makes the little Saab feel like a nice little light sporty thing for normal driving, and when you whack the throttle at about 50 mph it just about leaps up past 70 mph. And it'll still get 33 mpg cruising at 70 mph. So I'm a turbo believer now. | ||
| Chadhargis |
I'm still VERY disappointed that Ford has not put a turbo diesel in their F-150 or Explorer. My Jeep Grand Cherokee turbo diesel put out 433ft/lbs of torque at 1600rpm out of a 3.0L engine. I got 26mpg on the highway and 20 around town. Even when towing, I'd get 24mpg on the highway. It never smoked or smelled bad. A marvelous engine. I really miss it. | ||
| Roadcouch98 |
If there are any turbo non-believers here, look at what was being done 25 years ago. Buddy Ingersoll running a V-6 BUICK IN 1986, NHRA PRO STOCK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuZQEVAkV9U  | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
I have nothing against turbos or super chargers but to me they just don't feel the same as raw natural horsepower. I personally hate 4 bangers in both cars, trucks and motorcycles(except v4s). Give me a v8 v2 or at least a v6 any day over a IL4. (Message edited by firebolt020283 on November 01, 2010) | ||
| Xl1200r |
Having that much weight so far forward is going to be a recipe for nose dives coming off of jumps. Give Newton a call and see what he thinks about that, lol. V8s belong back in the 60s and 70s... Turbocharging smaller displacement engines to exceed the expected power output and maintain reliability has been a joyful practice for a couple of decades now. Yes, true, but being a first-time turbo owner as of now, I can say with certaintly that I'll never buy another. My car has a small turbo and doesn't take long to spool up, but the wait time between pressing the pedal and the car going fast is just way too long. It's annoying to drive, I can't imagine having to deal with that in a truck. Now, supercharging I'm all about. My supercharged Cobalt SS was git-up-n-go as soon you pressed the go fast pedal. | ||
| Daggar |
I'm with you, Xl1200r. I've got the Saturn version of the supercharged Cobalt SS. Instant power when you put the pedal down. It's awesome. I keep thinking about selling it, cause I don't really need the car, but it's so much fun I can't. | ||
| Arcticktm |
You cannot judge any turbo application by any other turbo application. How well it works, the perception of lag, etc, etc, is all individual to how well that specific turbo(s) and engine were matched together. 2 small turbos is a great (though expensive and tough to fit in) way to take away the "turbo lag". That is what the 3.5L in the F150 uses (twin small turbos). It is a very different engine than the Taurus twin turbo. The turbos are even made by different companies. There is a replacement for displacement. It's called "boosting"! Sure you could turbo the 6.2, but then it would cost a big pile more, burn a ton of fuel, even when you are not getting on it, and you need to put even more space and weight under the hood. It will be interesting to see if truck guys are willing to get on board with turbos. I give Ford credit for putting it in a mainstream truck. I hope it succeeds. Then again, one of our best Design Engineers designed the turbos for the F150 Ecoboost, so you could call it a pretty selfish hope. He also designed a new series of aftermarket turbos being launched at SEMA over the next week, so maybe you could put those on your trusty 6.2L and REALLY tow a trailer! | ||
| Geforce |
Excellent post Arkticktm! The problem with any forced induction application is expense and tuning. Turbochargers can be "lag free" with a little extra cash. Some of the variable vain turbochargers can spool as quickly or quicker than superchargers. The amount of boost produced by the compressor wheel can be adjusted inside the cockpit of the car if needed. With a supercharger it requires a little more breakdown and part swapping. It's all a matter of money and attention to detail as to which one works best for any given application. You'd think my Silverado SS with a 67mm turbocharger mounted above the REAR axle of the truck would have enormous amounts of lag... not so. EFI Live has cut the majority of the lag out, along with a nice stall converter, fuel system upgrades and simple ceramic coatings to the exhaust. A good wastegate never hurt anything either especially when I can flip a switch and go from "grocery getter" at 6 PSI to "stomp @ss" at 12 PSI. Take that and apply it through an AWD vehicle... nice 4 wheel burnouts. My 87 Buick GN can spool 28 PSI at 3200 RPM faster than most NA or SC applications can downshift into a lower gear with a built automatic transmission. By the time you hear the compressor wheel going into 747 mode, the car is gone. When car companies incorporate excellent and durable technology into their product line they have to take a lot of different things into account before releasing the product. MOST of the turbo lag on "off the lot" vehicles is there for a reason. Namely economy, emissions and longevity. All it takes is a simple reflash or live tune to tweak the spark and fuel maps. In some applications additional hardware is needed. I think Ford is doing a great job right now, I really mean that. Ford has earned a lot of kudos from me in the past year or so and I like where they are going. Here's some more information. Understand, I'm a gear head and performance enthusiast. I like all walks of fast and cool cars, trucks and bikes. Turbocharging to me, just makes sense. If you can get the costs down on the product it's worth it for a big motor company to do the R&D and produce a well built and engineered powertrain. When STS came out, people laughed...until they started to see that these guys weren't playing around. Squires Turbo Systems http://www.ststurbo.com/turbo_vs__supercharger | ||
| Roadcouch98 |
I've watched several of the STS videos, and they are nothing short of amazing. Running the tubing looks like a pain, but it does make sense that putting the turbos out back would have a cooler charge, making more power. Expensive, but that's to be expected. | ||
| Toona |
If there are any turbo non-believers here, look at what was being done 25 years ago. Buddy Ingersoll running a V-6 BUICK IN 1986, NHRA PRO STOCK. And then NHRA "conveniently" changed the rules making the V6 turbo illegal in Pro Stock. | ||
| Roadcouch98 |
Yeah TOONA, but it was so Funny to watch him come from behind, and kill 'em on the big end. | ||
| Xbjelly9s |
I did the ride along here at SEMA in the Raptor. It was awesome for a factory built offroad vehicle. I'll post the video of the jump later. | ||
| Crackhead |
Having that much weight so far forward is going to be a recipe for nose dives coming off of jumps. Give Newton a call and see what he thinks about that, lol. Watch the videos of any truck jumping. The nose lands first. The more the truck weighs the tougher it is on the suspension and drive train. If the turbos were mounted up high, then normal river crossing wouldn't be an issue. If a snorkel is required, then you need a Jeep.} |
