Jump to content

SoonerLS

Member
  • Posts

    4,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

Posts posted by SoonerLS

  1. 19 hours ago, tbone said:

    While I don’t disagree there was pent up demand for Toyota customers, I drive by a Toyota dealer for work, and I have regularly seen representation of Fords, GMs, and Rams  in the trade in lot, so it’s not all Tundras being traded.  I know these are arbitrary observations, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I have seen a ton of new Tundras in my area. 

    Those “trade-ins” aren’t necessarily trade-ins. I’d wager that a bunch of them came from the auction. 

  2. On 10/18/2024 at 10:14 AM, DeluxeStang said:

    It's a doorway into truck utility without having to pay the truck tax. I have a truck bed now, but I'm not getting 12 mpg or having to pay 2 grand for maintenance items every so often. 

    In eleven years and over 200,000 miles, I’ve never paid “2 grand” for any maintenance items on my F-150. Even a full set of tires doesn’t come close. Heck, I just priced a set for my truck vs. a set for my Flex, and the Michelins for my truck are about $100/tire cheaper. The brakes are also among the least expensive and easiest I’ve ever done. Economies of scale will do that for ya—when they sell 500K-600K units per year with parts that cross multiple generations of trucks, parts become inexpensive and plentiful. 

    • Like 1
  3. 3 hours ago, akirby said:

     

    But it’s not connected to the drivetrain so RPM is irrelevant to driveability.  It can run at whatever RPM is needed or is most efficient.

    I’m not talking about drivability, I’m just thinking that an engine that’s designed to work higher in the revs is going to work more efficiently at a higher RPM than one that’s designed to earn its pay lower in the revs. 

    • Like 1
  4. 14 hours ago, Rick73 said:

    What’s interesting about the Ford modular engine family to me is that as far as I know Ford did not extend design to 4, 5, and 6 cylinder engines like other manufacturers have often done with their own versions of “modular” engine designs.

    That’s largely because Ford’s “modular” referred to the engine assembly line being modular, not the engines themselves being modular. 
     

    I suppose you could say that Ford did the modular thing when they married two Duratec 3.0 V6 blocks to make the V12 for Aston-Martin back in the day…


  5.  

    The Coyote part doesn’t really make much sense to me, especially when they have the 6.8 available. The Coyote is a big package and it’s more complex than the baby Godzilla, plus the 6.8 is already in the Super Duties, so you wouldn’t be adding more logistical complexity. Also, the 5.0 doesn’t really come alive until it’s up in the revs, and you’d think you’d want something that’s happier at lower revs, like a big ol’ pushrod V8.

    • Like 4
  6. 1 hour ago, Rick73 said:


    Doesn't “modular” designation also apply to 5.4- and 5.8-L V8s as well as 6.8L V10s?  I’ve always thought the entire engine family that shared the 100 mm bore center dimension is considered modular.

    As I understand it, “modular” isn’t really about the engines themselves as much as it is the manufacturing process for the engines. Any engines made using Ford’s modular engine building system could be considered a modular engine. The 4.6 was just the first engine made using that process, so it and the 5.4 got the Mod Motor tag. 

  7. 1 hour ago, ice-capades said:

     

    Connecticut gas prices are historically well above the national averages. State taxes and zone prices are a big factor. 

    Tulsa’s gas prices used to be among the lowest; back in the ‘90s, they were a good $0.20 lower than in central Oklahoma, but these days they’re usually a good bit higher. I would say that it’s because they shut down the refineries in/near T-Town, but Ponca City has the biggest refinery in the state, and its gas prices are usually close to Tulsa’s. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...