Ford releases fuel numbers for the new F-150

DarkBlack · Dec 3, 2014

Anyone know why the Ford with all it's aluminum, had a worse brake distance than the Dodge which is 1,000 heavier?

roadhunter · Dec 3, 2014

CHDinCT said:
Gees, Roadhunter, give it a break. Here's most of your posts from the past three or four pages of this thread. Who's the one with a broken record? I was enjoying reading this thread and the mostly honest debate going on but your constant ranting about who's a Ford fanboy is getting old. We get what your point of view is by now. Enough already.

So is the problem the Ford fanboys who derail every thread with the bashing or me for pointing it out? Get real.

If I stop pointing out the bashing it still does not fix the problem of bashing. Only the Ford fanboys can fix the problem by stopping their worn out act. Focus your energy on them if you want to help fix the actual problem. I am not the basher.

TomSeller · Dec 3, 2014

deerefan said:
Grow up people. It is just a @^&* truck. Every year someone will come out with a bigger and badder model. Some of you act like a bunch of @^&* juvenilles over a piece of metal with a motor. It is a shame because it overshadows the good info in the thread and turns the moderators into a bunch of babysitters because a few of you can't have a mature, civilized discussion over a stupid pickup truck. Get a grip people. Rant over.

This is least civilized, most hostile post in the thread in my opinion.

jejeosborne · Dec 3, 2014

DarkBlack said:
I see in the Motor Trend comparison back on post #78 that the Ford 2.7L has to be wound up to 5,750 RPM's to make 325 HP.
I can only speak for myself as a truck owner, but I'll say, I like my highway cruising rpm's to be under 2,000, as I think 99.9% do.
Going down the highway in a truck screaming 6k RPM's to make 325 HP isn't a relaxed cruising setup, nor is it a good towing setup... but that's just me.
I guess it's good for a promotional ad showing racing full RPM's up a hill. I personally don't do that with my truck, and don't care.

You'll notice the RAM makes 420 ft/lb of torque at a quiet, pleasant 2,000 rpm's. That's nice for relaxed towing and highway cruising.
You can also see on the chart that the Ford 2.7 has to be run 1,000 rpm's faster, and still only makes 375 ft/lb torque at that higher RPM.

I have only experience with the 3.5 liter version ecoboost and as I said earlier, it is the lowest revving gas motor in any pickup truck built today. It makes peak torque at 2500 rpms and 90% of that peak from 1700-5000 rpms which is why it makes for a great motor for towing.

Towing my camper at 70 MPH, it stays in 6th gear with a locked torque converter even cresting some sizable hills. My previous truck was a Ram with a 4.7 liter V8 and it was as you describe, vibrated soda cans in cupholders when tackling hills. Ecoboost is complete opposite and so would be the ecodiesel.
Here is the torque curve and I included GM's new direct injection 5.3 liter as well.

Do a quick Youtube search and watch a couple videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-gMWRzvOg

sd455dan · Dec 3, 2014

deerefan said:
It's funny- those trucks were faster than the vette in their day. I think they were the fastest american made vehicle on the road at that time.

Faster than a 1971-1976 Trans Am running a stock 455... ?? ... I would buy it if the dodge was available with a 440- maybe

it is a fact- that the fastest American production vehicle built between 1973 and the release of the Buick grand National (X) model was the SD455 and that was a time span of over 10 years... but I will admit I am biased

tcartwri · Dec 3, 2014

Mid 70's 455's were rated at 200 HP, and wouldn't pull past 4 grand... Thread derail...

jejeosborne · Dec 3, 2014

sd455dan said:
Faster than a 1971-1976 Trans Am running a stock 455... ?? ... I would buy it if the dodge was available with a 440- maybe

it is a fact- that the fastest American production vehicle built between 1973 and the release of the Buick grand National (X) model was the SD455 and that was a time span of over 10 years... but I will admit I am biased

Amazing what was considered fast back in those days. Keeping it truck related, current stock 5600 lb trucks are besting the 1/4 mile times from the quickest stock cars from the early 80's.

sd455dan · Dec 3, 2014

jejeosborne said:
Amazing what was considered fast back in those days. Keeping it truck related, current stock 5600 lb trucks are besting the 1/4 mile times from the quickest stock cars from the early 80's.

They have come a VERY LONG WAY indeed-

I for one, am impressed with the 3.5 Eco boosts power and flatness of its torque curve.

It is indeed more powerful than many muscle cars of the 60s.

A stock 67 gto was rated at 335 hp and 445 ft.lbs. of torque-and that was a GROSS rating...

The new trucks are net- which makes the rated numbers even more impressive.

Sorry about the de-railment.

dodge man · Dec 3, 2014

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the quickest vehicle in 1976( not highest top speed) was the Lil Red Express truck made by Dodge with a 360 non smog motor.