New Ford Motor- Megazilla?

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by s346k

so...which side are you taking? first it was a width issue. once proven invalid, it became a length issue.

Both, which is what engineers consider when determining these things.

and what ever happened to good old american competition? maybe ford should/would do it just for fun. i remember when car makers actually cared about (performance) image and had no problem making 1 or 2 models that were not useful for anything except burnouts.

Ok then so we agree the whole thing was ridiculous if this is the devolution of the conversation, no problem I thought you'd come around!

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

Both, which is what engineers consider when determining these things.




Ok then so we agree the whole thing was ridiculous if this is the devolution of the conversation, no problem I thought you'd come around!

Based on your responses there’s no logical reason to build the Bronco to begin with.

You don’t even seem to know what you’re getting at, let alone us

[NeverDie]

That's a comforting response in this instance, since you've suggested something wildly ridiculous as a necessity I'm quite proud we haven't come together on the right conclusion!

[cmitchell17]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

GM also has the 6.6 in their 2500 and 3500. Its direct injected like the 6.2. I think some guys are already hot rodding the 7.3. Its a big boy for sure.

So whatever happened to the 6.6 gas? I thought we heard how we were going to so easily be able to pick up cheap crank from these and make a stroker and how it was an iron block and all this. I have heard zero info on it since then. I am also surprised at the output, it seems very low when you look at the peak numbers.

Also does anyone know if it uses special heads and combustion chamber sizes? I would assume yes, since the compression would be to high if it used LT1 heads?

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

That's a comforting response in this instance, since you've suggested something wildly ridiculous as a necessity I'm quite proud we haven't come together on the right conclusion!

If it sells, it's not ridiculous.

FCA seems to be getting away with their Hellcat shinanagans so I don't see why not. Surely there are ways to get it past the regulations if enough money can be made.

Originally Posted by NeverDie

Interesting. I actually did the research instead of pretend betting with strangers on the internet:

Coyote: 30" wide, 21 3/8" length
Godzilla: 25.5" wide, 24" length

Since this is clearly a longitudinal configuration, the length matters far more for weight distribution as well as crash safety (which is why this won't ever make it into this chassis).

So, agian, why would Ford jump to this gas-guzzling 7.3L that makes less power than the 5.0L? the appeal of the redline being 1500rpm lower? Not giving themselves a chance to pass pedestrian safety regs?

Bigger displacement doesn't necessarily mean more fuel used, we went over this like 10 thousand times.

Is Mustang GT 5.0 particularly better on fuel than a Camaro 6.2?

And this isn't a sports car. Why does weight distribution and high redline even matter?

Sent from toaster or something

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Bigger displacement doesn't necessarily mean more fuel used, we went over this like 10 thousand times.

Maybe you can see where I said that was always the case and there was a direct correlation? No? Ok then, moving on...

Is Mustang GT 5.0 particularly better on fuel than a Camaro 6.2?

I forget: do they weight the same, have the same gearing, and carry the same coeifficient of drag? No? So how would this relate to choosing between two Ford drivetrains to put into the same chassis? Answer: it doesn't, at all.

And this isn't a sports car. Why does weight distribution and high redline even matter?

Because if I wanted a low revving engine, I'd get a diesel. Hey that's a good question, why doesn't Ford put thier 6.7L PowerStroke into this chassis? Obviously they NEED to do that! (they don't, the whole argument is dumb)

[gtfoxy]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

Because if I wanted a low revving engine, I'd get a diesel. Hey that's a good question, why doesn't Ford put thier 6.7L PowerStroke into this chassis? Obviously they NEED to do that! (they don't, the whole argument is dumb)

No, but Chevy has the Colorado with a diesel... & while I’m not fond of Cummins that horizontally opposed diesel they are working on sounds promising.

Ford had their chance when the company had it stuffed in a Ranger at an Expo a couple years ago.

[Crushin_LT1]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

Maybe you can see where I said that was always the case and there was a direct correlation? No? Ok then, moving on...



I forget: do they weight the same, have the same gearing, and carry the same coeifficient of drag? No? So how would this relate to choosing between two Ford drivetrains to put into the same chassis? Answer: it doesn't, at all.



Because if I wanted a low revving engine, I'd get a diesel. Hey that's a good question, why doesn't Ford put thier 6.7L PowerStroke into this chassis? Obviously they NEED to do that! (they don't, the whole argument is dumb)

That wouldn't be dumb, that would be awesome. Even a lower displacement diesel like a DuraTorq would be nice.

[6spdhyperblue]

How about the guy that swapped a lt4 in his zr2 Colorado

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by gtfoxy

No, but Chevy has the Colorado with a diesel... & while I’m not fond of Cummins that horizontally opposed diesel they are working on sounds promising.

Chevy has a Colorado with a 6.7L diesel? Wow.

Oh wait, you're moving these goalposts all over the field again.

Ford has been testing thier 3.0L PowerStroke in the midsize chassis, because that's what makes sense against GM's 2.8L in the Colorado (why dun they jus use tha 6.6 tho hurrrrr) and FCA's 3.0L. Just like the 5.0L V8 makes sense against the 392, and NOT the 7.3L that's reserved for F250 and above jumping down into the midsize chassis. Ford's 6.7L diesel nor the 7.3 appear in the F150, just like the 6.6 Duramax doesn't appear in the Colorado... there is a reason for that, and it's why the entire insinuation that ford NEEDS TO put the 7.3L gasser in a midsize chassis when they don't even offer it in the 150 is just plain idiocy.

[Crushin_LT1]

Originally Posted by NeverDie

Chevy has a Colorado with a 6.7L diesel? Wow.

Oh wait, you're moving these goalposts all over the field again.

Ford has been testing thier 3.0L PowerStroke in the midsize chassis, because that's what makes sense against GM's 2.8L in the Colorado (why dun they jus use tha 6.6 tho hurrrrr) and FCA's 3.0L. Just like the 5.0L V8 makes sense against the 392, and NOT the 7.3L that's reserved for F250 and above jumping down into the midsize chassis. Ford's 6.7L diesel nor the 7.3 appear in the F150, just like the 6.6 Duramax doesn't appear in the Colorado... there is a reason for that, and it's why the entire insinuation that ford NEEDS TO put the 7.3L gasser in a midsize chassis when they don't even offer it in the 150 is just plain idiocy.

I don't see the need to be so aggressive and negative.



Ford doesn't have a diesel in it, why not add one? sure it doesn't need to be the big daddy, but even their smaller powerstroke or duratorq or whatever they call it now would be great.


IT seems we all are in agreement here.

[Bhobbs]

It amazes me how often I come here and see people argue against more power. I don’t get why Camaro guys are against bigger and better engines. Maybe it’s because GM doesn’t do it for Camaro and this is how people cope.

[Crushin_LT1]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

It amazes me how often I come here and see people argue against more power. I don’t get why Camaro guys are against bigger and better engines. Maybe it’s because GM doesn’t do it for Camaro and this is how people cope.

If GM made a high-power, stump-pulling diesel camaro, that would be sick.

[95 imp]

The torque would be awesome on the street...

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

It amazes me how often I come here and see people argue against more power. I don’t get why Camaro guys are against bigger and better engines. Maybe it’s because GM doesn’t do it for Camaro and this is how people cope.

That was my point.....

Everyone is getting more factory power and GM has put us on hold/cutting us loose while playing with this electric car fallacy that no one really wants.