30 OTT 6

Pimp'n ain't E-Z.

Sales are down because people that never needed a pick-up truck finally get that point. These incentives make for great deals for people that need a truck! I have a '97 F-150 that is needed for the farm. I was planning on soldiering the old girl on a little longer but I may need to keep my eyes peeled for a steal on a nice '08!

What's your address? I'd like to send you some cheese for your whine.

That may not be Toyota's license to give out!

No way is the Mod 5.0L V8 going to put out 400+ ft-lbs of torque. Not unless they turbo/super charge it or give it a wild tune/compression that requires racing fuel.

I re-read that section. I believe that is the displacement of the engines in cubic inches, not the horsepower.

This thread is mostly dead.

Edmonds now has a Challenger SRT vs. Mustang Bullitt test on-line. So there you have it. A 100+ HP advantage doesn't mean too much when you're driving an overweight slug. If that 4.6L had a 90 cid. Eaton blower on it the Challenger would be toast. The GT500 owners won't be loosing any sleep over this.

The 32 Valve 5.4L InTech engine was also used in the Lincoln Blackwood.This link leads to an article about the Blackwood and there is a good shot at the 5.4L InTech's intake manifold.. Man, that thing looks exotic!

Here's a look at the Pontiac Solstice: The Pontiac Solstice base model has a 2.4l I4 w/5M trans. Hp= 177 @ 6600 rpm and Tq = 166 @ 4800 rpm. EPA fuel economy numbers are 20/28. The Pontiac Solstice GXP model has a 2.0l DI Turbocharged I4 w/5M trans. Hp = 260 @ 5300 rpm and Tq = 260 @ 2500 rpm. EPA fuel economy numbers are 22/31. This comparison is close to what Ford is proposing Ecoboost engines will do in there vehicles, which is replace an engine with a smaller displacement DI and turbocharged engine. The only problem is the larger displacement engine in the Solstice doesn't come close to matching the power of the smaller DI and turbocharged engine.

I thought about Ecoboost too when I read the part about the CX-7. That 2.3L has all the parts that Ecoboost is suposed to incorporate: direct injection, turbocharger and variable valve timing etc. You can't say that the 2.3L is too small for that much vehicle either because that is the whole premise behind the Ecoboost program... smaller turbocharged engines replacing bigger displacement engines. It doesn't look too promising. On the other hand, the 2.0L DI Turbo in the Solistise/Sky does improve the fuel economy and performance of those vehicles over the larger, less powerfull base 2.4L engine. Mazda and Ford tend to use different tunings on the same engine architechtures so it may not be right to pre-judge what Ecoboost will produce. I guess we'll need to wait and see.

The only thing at Mercury worth investing in is Jill Wagoner.

You guys will probably run out of water before you run out of oil!

I read this thread right after the NAZCAR thread and I have to say that I'd rather see Ford sink money into a halo car then into their NAZCAR teams. Imagine Ford sinking R&D money into a Hi-Po spec Modular or Boss engine for a new Halo car rather than a new pushrod V8 block. Imagine R&D going into a new 4 valve head for the Modular or Boss engine instead of a 'new' cast iron 2 valve pushrod head. Better still, I'd like to see a revitalized SVT program producing hopped-up versions of the regular Ford models. The R&D that SVT can do on engines and chassis developement can directly benefit the "bread and butter" models.

In my opinion, I look at the Escape and the Edge and see two CUV's that have basically the same function and therefore overlap each other too much. The Escape should be modernized (by ditching that old Mazda 626 chassis) and remain Ford's 4+1 passenger small CUV offering. Also, this small CUV should not have a useless "token" third row seat (like the RAV4). The Edge is too heavy to be just a 4+1 passenger CUV. A new Explorer should replace both the Edge and the Taurus X and be Ford's 5+2 passenger mid-sized CUV. The Flex (terrible name) can be the "people mover", replacing the Freestar and the current Explorer. It can be Ford's 6+2 passenger large CUV. The Expedition should continue in regular and extended body styles and provide the people mover + excellent towing capabilities in Ford's model line-up. It can continue to be Ford's true BOF SUV built off of the F150 chassis. If Ford adds the Flex to their line-up there will be 6 CUV/SUV models. I think two of those models can be cut out of the line-up. Reducing the model count down to one small, medium and large CUV will reduce developement costs for Ford. The Expedition is justified because so much of it's development costs can be shared with the F150. You need only look at Toyota to see the same business plan and I have read that Alan Mulally has a high regard for the way Toyota operates.

Apparently, it's not a conspiracy after all. ADM has their hands in so many Agri-business sectors that they don't need to be a "major distiller" but just for shits and giggles, they already are a world leader in ethanol production. And, if you don't think that ADM is the major contributer to the FARM lobby then you sir, are out to lunch. I think that you, like so many other "city slickers", associate the farm with images from the Green Acres TV shows. The farm today is a big corporate business. The traditional family farm is going the way of the horse and buggy.

Wow, I hope the Coyote isn't a 5.4L block with a decreased bore size! If that's the case... Go, Bobcat, Go!

There's no doubt in my mind, FoE's "Kinetic Design" language is lightyears better than FNA's hodge-podge plus three bar (or two) grill design language (more like gibber-jabber). The only thing that worries me about the Verve is it's reported engine choice. It's supposed to be an SOHC 8 valve design where as the compitition (Yaris, Fit, Versa) all use a 16-valve design. If that 8 valve engine is isn't up to standards, the auto reporters are going to let everybody know about it.

I worked at Navistar Chatham Assembly Plant in the late 90's. In 1999, the Canadian Dollar was typically in the $0.70US to $0.60US range. Navistar wanted to use a $0.75US dollar as a basis for the contract discussions that year. The CAW wanted to use a $0.65US dollar, so they could maximize the currancy advantage in their favour. The propaganda the CAW brass fed the rank and file made it sound like the Canadian dollar would never gain ground on the US dollar, typical us vs. them bullshit. My, my, how the worm has turned! I voted yes to the contract, collected my $500 signing bonus and proceeded to get laid off the following year. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

I got my learners permit a few days after my sixteenth birthday down at the Ministry of Transportation office. It was too late to take drivers ed. through my highschool so I waited until summer to take a CAA drivers ed. class. In the mean time I learned to drive with my dad in our '78 Olds Delta 88 coupe (403cid 4bbl - 180hp!) and '80 F-150 (302cid 2bbl - 133 hp!). I took my drivers test in one of CAA's Plymouth Lancer. It was a piece of cake parallel parking that car compared to the Olds. My only mistake on the test was that I used my mirrors too much instead of turning my head. I guess they had to put some fault on the test sheet. I got my license in July of 1988. A lot of my friends had later birthdays so I did a lot of driving that summer. We took a road trip to Windsor and for fun we decided to go across to Detroit. We went across at the tunnel and proceeded to get lost. We ended up at Tiger Stadium and one of my friends new how to get to the bridge to get back to Windsor. It is funny to look back on that trip now but it wasn't at the time. My parents decided to buy a new 1989 Grand Marquis that fall and I talked them out of trading in the Olds. I drove the Olds for about three years after that.

Well, after years of producing crap, Ford is currently making decent cars. Maybe one of the next generation of car models will be good enough to make the C&D Top Ten. Laugh at the Focus all you want. It belonged on the C&D Top Ten list because no other car on the road could handle like it for the price. Like alot of Ford products, it was left on the vine to rot.

No, it would not look anything like the Five Hundred, it would look like a bigger Mondeo.

In my opinion, the next Taurus should drop the three bar grill theme and use the Ford of Europe Kinetic Design theme. Those new European Fords are sharp!

I just read an article about the 2008 Viper and was surprised to read that the V10 has separate variable cam timing for the intake and exhust valves. The V10 is a cam in block pushrod engine but it uses a two piece cam! Dodge calls it cam-in-cam. The intake cam lobes are pressed onto a hollow shaft and the exhust cam lobes are pinned to a solid shaft slid inside the hollow shaft. These two pieces are connected by a phase adjuster and can phase shift by up to 40 degrees. The whole unit then has another phase adjuster which esentially adjusts the intake valve timing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hemi V8 series gets this feature too. You can bet that GM will develope this for their cam in block engines in the near future. Ford could also benefit by using a two piece cam on their SOHC 3-valve V8's. Although it would be interesting to see what the cost differance is between a DOHC head with dual VCT and a SOHC head with a two piece cam system.

I thought threads like this one died when someone put a fork into the School of Free Thought page. Can we bring back the "Ignore Posted in Error" thread too!