Jump to content
Drew Dowdell

Ford News: Ford Cuts V8 Production

Recommended Posts

Bottom line--don't always trust google search results.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Bottom line--don't always trust google search results.  

I'm sure that's true to some extent..  Perhaps you didn't add the proper search criteria. I would lean more towards the bottom line being you can't trust what Potluck says in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, searched on ‘Chevy Silverado 5.3 towing capacity’ and got 6700...did that because the Chevy website was a pain to navigate via phone...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3.5 V6 makes more torque than the V8, so not surprised that more people are going for the V6.  Plus there is cost too, I don't know the pricing of F150s that well, but I imagine the V8 is a good bit more money than the base V6 or the 2.7 Ecoboost.  And for most people the 2.7 Ecoboost is enough power to get around and do what they need to do.  

This is that different than when 15 years ago maybe 50% of Accords and Camry were a V6, now it is like 10% V6 because the 4-cylinder meets the needs of most buyers.  V8 demand industry wide is down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recent discussion here was about the 2.7L, but I'll follow the jogging goalposts.

The 3.3L is rated at 290/265.
The 2.7L is rated at 325/400.
The 3.5L is rated at 375/470.
The 5.0L is rated at 395/400.

That said, you cannot get the 3.5L in the XL or XLT- you have to climb to the Lariat. There, the 3.5L is $1600, and the 5.0L is $1000. So if we're going to say the 3.5L has notably more TRQ than the 5.0L (and it does), it's still $600 more expensive.

I cannot find a logical way to cross-shop the option price of engine 1 and 2 with the torque of engine 3 and 4 all in one truck. 
 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

now it is like 10% V6 because the 4-cylinder meets the needs of most buyers.  V8 demand industry wide is down.

This is false.  This is a flawed way of thinking and a misrepresentation of several factors.

It only seems like the demand for 6 cylinders is down and a turbo 4 cylinder meets the demand for most...

A turbo 4 cylinder is making the SAME amount of HP for a midsized car 20 years ago that had a V6...

Technologiacl progress you say?

Bubkas I say...

A turbo just compensates for the lack of 2 cylinders and displacement.  Displacement is just how much volume of air could pass through an engine.  Forced induction forces air in the engine... 

Wanna make more power, feed the engine more air.  Reduce engine dispalcement...add forced induction to compensate...in essence, the displacement lost is gained by adding an additional EXTERNAL unit  to force feed the engine more air that was lost due to downsizing of engine...

And this just makes an over complicated solution to a problem that need not be....why?

A turbo requires extra plumbing, adding weight. Therefore, while reducing weight to going from a 6 cylinder to a 4, now we are adding it right back...

 A turbo is an external unit separate from the engine that it itself is another mechanical doodad that may go wrong...which also requires additonal computing power and sensors that also may go wrong...

Its pretty hard to buy a V6 Malibu when Chevy decided  when Obama strongly suggested after the bailouts that our cars should downsize its engines and NOT offer V6 powerplants anymore...forcing GM and others to just eliminate the 6 cylinder engine completely from its cars... Like @Scout keeps on saying in this thread. You cant buy what you cant find.

Because CAFE numbers...also...part of the bailout money was for GM and Chrysler, and Ford's loans from the Government, were for the Detroit 3 to invest in EVs and other forms of alternative fuels...

Therefore, since the SAME horsepower is made as it was 20 years, its not because of turbo 4 cylinders...its because engineers were forced to achieve this stupid goal...and on PAPER a turbo 4 uses less gasoline and has a less carbon footprint...reality is a whole different ball game...

The conusmer's demand has NOT changed...the consumer needs about 200 HP and 200 ft.lbs to get around.

If there was less marketing and governmental bullshyte about the truth for turbo 4 cylinder cars, and manufactures were free to continue to build medium displacement 6 cylinder engines, you would find that many people would continue buying those naturally aspirated 6 cylinder cars with the SAME horsepower and torque figures OVER the small displacement turbo 4 cylinder counterparts...

There are other things Id like to add, but I think I stated my case with enough points to make a solid argument against yours. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by oldshurst442
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

This is false.  This is a flawed way of thinking and a misrepresentation of several factors.

It only seems like the demand for 6 cylinders is down and a turbo 4 cylinder meets the demand for most...

A turbo 4 cylinder is making the SAME amount of HP for a midsized car 20 years ago that had a V6...

Technologiacl progress you say?

Bubkas I say...

A turbo just compensates for the lack of 2 cylinders and displacement.  Displacement is just how much volume of air could pass through an engine.  Forced induction forces air in the engine... 

Wanna make more power, feed the engine more air.  Reduce engine dispalcement...add forced induction to compensate...in essence, the displacement lost is gained by adding an additional EXTERNAL unit  to force feed the engine more air that was lost due to downsizing of engine...

And this just makes an over complicated solution to a problem that need not be....why?

A turbo requires extra plumbing, adding weight. Therefore, while reducing weight to going from a 6 cylinder to a 4, now we are adding it right back...

 A turbo is an external unit separate from the engine that it itself is another mechanical doodad that may go wrong...which also requires additonal computing power and sensors that also may go wrong...

Its pretty hard to buy a V6 Malibu when Chevy decided  when Obama strongly suggested after the bailouts that our cars should downsize its engines and NOT offer V6 powerplants anymore...forcing GM and others to just eliminate the 6 cylinder engine completely from its cars... Like @Scout keeps on saying in this thread. You cant buy what you cant find.

Because CAFE numbers...also...part of the bailout money was for GM and Chrysler, and Ford's loans from the Government, were for the Detroit 3 to invest in EVs and other forms of alternative fuels...

Therefore, since the SAME horsepower is made as it was 20 years, its not because of turbo 4 cylinders...its because engineers were forced to achieve this stupid goal...and on PAPER a turbo 4 uses less gasoline and has a less carbon footprint...reality is a whole different ball game...

The conusmer's demand has NOT changed...the consumer needs about 200 HP and 200 ft.lbs to get around.

If there was less marketing and governmental bullshyte about the truth for turbo 4 cylinder cars, and manufactures were free to continue to build medium displacement 6 cylinder engines, you would find that many people would continue buying those naturally aspirated 6 cylinder cars with the SAME horsepower and torque figures OVER the small displacement turbo 4 cylinder counterparts...

There are other things Id like to add, but I think I stated my case with enough points to make a solid argument against yours. 

 

 

 

 

And adding that Turbos simply don’t last as long for the general public. Yeah, they will hold up for a while, but neglect kills them much faster...

Willing to bet there will be more 11-17 Cruze 1.4’s in the junkyard before you see, say the NA 1.8s.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 years ago a V8 F150 had 231 hp and 293 lb-ft of torque.  And they sold over 500,000 of them and they towed boats and trailers and got people around.  Any turbo 4 of today can put out power like that.   The 5.4 V8 made 300 hp back then, which any garden variety V6 can do now.  Today's 2.7 Ecoboost is easily ore powerful than the big V8 2 generations back.  the F150 2.7 has a 0-60 around 6 seconds, vs 9 seconds for the 2004 F150 with the 5.4 V8, the base engine had to be over 10 seconds 0-60. 

So that 2.7 is more than enough power for probably 90% of F150 buyer, in fact it is probably more than enough.  The V8 in general is dying on all brands.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

The recent discussion here was about the 2.7L, but I'll follow the jogging goalposts.

The 3.3L is rated at 290/265.
The 2.7L is rated at 325/400.
The 3.5L is rated at 375/470.
The 5.0L is rated at 395/400.

That said, you cannot get the 3.5L in the XL or XLT- you have to climb to the Lariat. There, the 3.5L is $1600, and the 5.0L is $1000. So if we're going to say the 3.5L has notably more TRQ than the 5.0L (and it does), it's still $600 more expensive.

I cannot find a logical way to cross-shop the option price of engine 1 and 2 with the torque of engine 3 and 4 all in one truck. 
 

I imagine most F150 are XL and XLT, and I would guess 2/3rd of F150 are the 3.3 and 2.7 engines, especially factoring in fleet sales.  I think that 3.5 has outsold the 5.0 for years though.

Edited by smk4565
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the F-150 locator by me, I have to limit it to 10 miles radius, because there are so many the counter just goes to "100+". At 10 miles- the #1 model is the King Ranch at 76, then the XLT at 47. XL is 18 and Lariat is 7. So 'tier 4' is #1, then 'tier 2'.

Same source has the 5.0L & 3.5L basically running neck & neck: 15 vs. 19. 2.7L is at 32, but the 3.3L is only 6. Widen the search to 20 miles and the 3.5L, 2.7L and 5.0L all jump to "100+", but the 3.3L is at 49. Seems the 5.0L is still very popular and the pricing on the 3.5L is holding it back in volume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 2:07 PM, Scout said:

Different configurations do have a big effect on tow ratings.  I just wanted Potluck to explain how "the 2.7 can out tow the 5.3".  Because of our conversation I even provided the maximum 2.7 tow rating for him.  

Because the 5.3 runs out of breath when the 2.7 just gets more boost. Boost makes it easier to tow whether its 2.7 or 3.5.  the engine just doesn't strain as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 8:59 PM, Robert Hall said:

Yeah, searched on ‘Chevy Silverado 5.3 towing capacity’ and got 6700...did that because the Chevy website was a pain to navigate via phone...

There are versions of the Ford 5.0 that have only a 9000 rating too

Tow rating doesn't seem to coordinate with engine size and has more to do with gearing or cab size. A ranger is 7500, but I'm not sure I'd want to test that in a small pickup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Potluck said:

There are versions of the Ford 5.0 that have only a 9000 rating too

Tow rating doesn't seem to coordinate with engine size and has more to do with gearing or cab size. A ranger is 7500, but I'm not sure I'd want to test that in a small pickup.

Your back. Care to answer my question or would you like to keep digging the hole?

As long as we're at it @Potluck , when did we start talking about midsize trucks in this thread?  You have permission to reply now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good. I'm glad I have your permission. I only visit here once or twice a week. Don't have the time to watch your every reply.

I brought up the mid size trucks to point out that there are things other than engine that can determine tow rating. 

The 2.7 has more torque than the 5.3. it's simple as that. 400 > 385

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Potluck said:

Oh good. I'm glad I have your permission. I only visit here once or twice a week. Don't have the time to watch your every reply.

I brought up the mid size trucks to point out that there are things other than engine that can determine tow rating. 

The 2.7 has more torque than the 5.3. it's simple as that. 400 > 385

It's awesome that you decided to reply to me.  I don't post much either because I have a life.  But you still have not answered any of the questions.  there has been a few things that have come up and they research is done for you.  And now you're throwing in something else to the mix.

 

You still have my permission to keep digging. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you could just start answering questions starting with the first one.  And discussing your point of view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also have permission to have a life like I have, and blame your opinion on your life. 

 

 

By the way, since I also have a life I'm struggling to find where you brought up other things such as what you mentioned that affects tow rating. Perhaps you can clarify. or because I do have a life I can reread this thread and find exactly how and where you stated all of that, where it pertains to my first question. 

 

 

 

The ball is in your court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 12:57 PM, Scout said:

Are you going to explain this one?  I'm still curious.  You threw the bait out there and I swam by it.  I haven't decided if I'm actually going to take the bait because I have a funny feeling it was troll bait.  That or you honestly believe in your heart that the 2.7 can out tow the 5.3.  And in that case it's an entirely different discussion.

1. Tow rating is more than just engine power. It often has to do with gearing. Rear end gearing the comes with the 2.7 may be a weak point

2. The 2.7 has more torque than the 5.3. put 5000 lbs behind it and the 2.7 will have an easier time because it gets boost way down low while the 5.3 has to rev. 400 > 385 but it's also 400 at a low rpm.

The altitude comment was because people before were talking about towing at high altitude where turbos do better than regular engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Potluck said:

1. Tow rating is more than just engine power. It often has to do with gearing. Rear end gearing the comes with the 2.7 may be a weak point

2. The 2.7 has more torque than the 5.3. put 5000 lbs behind it and the 2.7 will have an easier time because it gets boost way down low while the 5.3 has to rev. 400 > 385 but it's also 400 at a low rpm.

The altitude comment was because people before were talking about towing at high altitude where turbos do better than regular engines.

In other words you are not going to answer my original question. 

 

 

But, after reading your reply, I bet you make one hell of a salesman. 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I forgot to give you permission to carry on. You may now carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I addressed it there. Repeat the question that I'm apparently missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that in some cases the 2.7 can tow better than the 5.3 but I wouldn't say it can out tow it. And under the same load the 2.7 isn't as efficient as the bigger engines either.  

Edited by Scout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about efficiency while towing. both engines will suck gas

Put 7,000 lbs behind a 2.7 and you'll have an easier time than 7,000 lbs behind a 5.3.  More torque at a lower rpm just does that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 11:14 AM, Potluck said:

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

No it can't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly suspect the 2.7L is rat d toward the high end of its actual towing capacity while the 5.3L is prob rated at its mid-range.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The COVID-19 pandemic has basically brought most of the world to halt. Orders to stay at home, businesses either having workers to their work from home or closing down, and unemployment skyrocketing is causing the economy to crater. There are efforts to try and jump-start the economy such as $1,200 stimulus checks. But an executive at Ford wants to see a return of a "cash for clunkers" like program.
      “We think some level of stimulus somewhere on the other side of this would help not only the auto industry and our dealers, which are a huge part of our overall economy, but will help the customers as well,” said Mark LaNeve, Ford’s vice president of U.S. marketing, sales and service to Bloomberg.
      “Cash for clunkers was very effective at that time. It would be nice to think we could have something equally as effective for 2020 when we get out of this because it was a great program.”
      According to LaNeve, internal discussions are taking place at Ford about doing a similar program and there are plans to bring the Government in to these talks.
      When asked by Automotive News about this, Ford spokeswoman Rachel McCleery said, "The auto industry is America’s economic engine.We are encouraging Congress to look at a variety of ways to drive job creation, increase demand, support customers and provide long-term stability for the entire auto ecosystem."
      A brief refresher on the Cash for Clunkers program. In 2009, the U.S. Government introduced a billion initiative called the Car Allowance Rebate System, which gave a voucher worth between $2,900 and $4,500 to anyone replacing a vehicle newer than 1984. Their old vehicle would be taken away and disposed of. The program was nicknamed Cash for Clunkers.
      On the surface, the program was a success. Within first month, all of the funds were exhausted. This prompted the U.S. congress infuse an addition two billion into the program, which would be all gone within 17 days. But begin to look deeper and the results are mixed. In 2012, a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics described the program as being a bit of a wash,
      "...the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 — only seven months after the program ended.”
      Other studies have come to the same conclusion.
      There's also the question of how many perfectly good used cars were taken off the road due to the program.
      Source: Bloomberg via Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Drive, The Truth About Cars

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The COVID-19 pandemic has basically brought most of the world to halt. Orders to stay at home, businesses either having workers to their work from home or closing down, and unemployment skyrocketing is causing the economy to crater. There are efforts to try and jump-start the economy such as $1,200 stimulus checks. But an executive at Ford wants to see a return of a "cash for clunkers" like program.
      “We think some level of stimulus somewhere on the other side of this would help not only the auto industry and our dealers, which are a huge part of our overall economy, but will help the customers as well,” said Mark LaNeve, Ford’s vice president of U.S. marketing, sales and service to Bloomberg.
      “Cash for clunkers was very effective at that time. It would be nice to think we could have something equally as effective for 2020 when we get out of this because it was a great program.”
      According to LaNeve, internal discussions are taking place at Ford about doing a similar program and there are plans to bring the Government in to these talks.
      When asked by Automotive News about this, Ford spokeswoman Rachel McCleery said, "The auto industry is America’s economic engine.We are encouraging Congress to look at a variety of ways to drive job creation, increase demand, support customers and provide long-term stability for the entire auto ecosystem."
      A brief refresher on the Cash for Clunkers program. In 2009, the U.S. Government introduced a billion initiative called the Car Allowance Rebate System, which gave a voucher worth between $2,900 and $4,500 to anyone replacing a vehicle newer than 1984. Their old vehicle would be taken away and disposed of. The program was nicknamed Cash for Clunkers.
      On the surface, the program was a success. Within first month, all of the funds were exhausted. This prompted the U.S. congress infuse an addition two billion into the program, which would be all gone within 17 days. But begin to look deeper and the results are mixed. In 2012, a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics described the program as being a bit of a wash,
      "...the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 — only seven months after the program ended.”
      Other studies have come to the same conclusion.
      There's also the question of how many perfectly good used cars were taken off the road due to the program.
      Source: Bloomberg via Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Drive, The Truth About Cars
    • By Drew Dowdell
      FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOURTH QUARTER 2019 U.S. SALES

       

       

       

      2019

      Q4

       

       

      2018

      % Cha nge

      Year-to-Date

      2019               2018

      % Cha nge

      SALES BY BRAND

      Ford

      568,507

      581,386

      -2.2

      2,310,494

      2,393,731

      -3.5

      Lincoln

      33,355

      28,307

      17.8

      112,204

      103,587

      8.3

      Total vehicles

      601,862

      609,693

      -1.3

      2,422,698

      2,497,318

      -3.0

      SALES BY TYPE

      Cars

       

       

      63,400

       

       

      107,491

       

       

      -41.0

       

       

      349,091

       

       

      486,024

       

       

      -28.2

      SUVs

      208,387

      217,343

      -4.1

      830,471

      872,215

      -4.8

      Trucks

      330,075

      284,859

      15.9

      1,243,136

      1,139,079

      9.1

      Total vehicles                                             601,862       609,693          -1.3             2,422,698      2,497,318          -3.0

      FORD BRAND

      Fiesta

       

       

      7,315

       

       

      15,212

       

       

      -51.9

       

       

      60,148

       

       

      51,730

       

       

      16.3

      Focus

      0

      13,078

      N/A

      12,480

      113,345

      -89.0

      C-MAX

      0

      213

      N/A

      38

      6,683

      -99.4

      Fusion

      32,137

      48,636

      -33.9

      166,045

      173,600

      -4.4

      Taurus

      769

      6,988

      -89.0

      9,924

      28,706

      -65.4

      Police Interceptor Sedan

      88

      1,762

      -95.0

      3,427

      7,382

      -53.6

      GT

      42

      24

      75.0

      229

      126

      81.7

      Mustang

      17,124

      14,223

      20.4

      72,489

      75,842

      -4.4

      Ford Cars

      57,475

      100,136

      -42.6

      324,780

      457,414

      -29.0

      EcoSport

      14,051

      16,038

      -12.4

      64,708

      54,348

      19.1

      Escape

      47,587

      62,178

      -23.5

      241,388

      272,228

      -11.3

      Edge

      37,621

      35,184

      6.9

      138,515

      134,122

      3.3

      Flex

      6,147

      4,150

      48.1

      24,484

      20,308

      20.6

      Explorer

      48,083

      56,316

      -14.6

      168,309

      227,732

      -26.1

      Police Interceptor Utility

      3,201

      8,385

      -61.8

      18,752

      33,839

      -44.6

      Expedition

      24,267

      14,140

      71.6

      86,422

      54,661

      58.1

      Ford SUVs

      180,957

      196,391

      -7.9

      742,578

      797,238

      -6.9

      F-Series

      233,952

      230,312

      1.6

      896,526

      909,330

      -1.4

      Ranger

      33,059

      0

      N/A

      89,571

      0

      N/A

      E-Series

      12,837

      11,387

      12.7

      45,063

      47,936

      -6.0

      Transit

      36,885

      31,331

      17.7

      153,868

      137,794

      11.7

      Transit Connect

      10,208

      8,705

      17.3

      41,598

      31,923

      30.3

      Heavy trucks

      3,134

      3,124

      0.3

      16,510

      12,096

      36.5

      Ford Trucks

      330,075

      284,859

      15.9

      1,243,136

      1,139,079

      9.1

      Ford Brand

      568,507

      581,386

      -2.2

      2,310,494

      2,393,731

      -3.5

      LINCOLN BRAND

      MKZ

       

       

      4,080

       

       

      4,931

       

       

      -17.3

       

       

      17,725

       

       

      19,852

       

       

      -10.7

      Continental

      1,845

      2,424

      -23.9

      6,586

      8,758

      -24.8

      Lincoln Cars

      5,925

      7,355

      -19.4

      24,311

      28,610

      -15.0

      Corsair/MKC

      7,549

      6,971

      8.3

      25,815

      26,241

      -1.6

      Nautilus/MKX

      7,727

      8,687

      -11.1

      31,711

      28,573

      11.0

      MKT

      275

      540

      -49.1

      3,388

      2,324

      45.8

      Aviator

      6,424

      0

      N/A

      8,323

      0

      N/A

      Navigator

      5,455

      4,754

      14.7

      18,656

      17,839

      4.6

      Lincoln SUVs

      27,430

      20,952

      30.9

      87,893

      74,977

      17.2

      Lincoln Brand

      33,355

      28,307

      17.8

      112,204

      103,587

      8.3

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Rumor has it that Ford is working on a V8 powered version of their Ranger Raptor currently sold in overseas markets. Only available in other parts of the world, the current Ranger Raptor is powered by a 2.0-liter 4-cylinder diesel that produces 210 horsepower and 369 lb.-ft of torque, but a report in Wheels magazine says that Ford Australia is working with an external engineering company to swap the 2.0 diesel for a 5.0-liter V8 from the Mustang GT.  The odd thing about this is that the Ranger Raptor 5.0 would be still built with the 2.0-liter diesel under the hood and then later converted to V8 gasoline power.
      Expect power to be about the same as it makes in the Australian spec Mustang GT, a healthy 455 horsepower and 410 lb.-ft of torque. 
      If it all comes together, the Ranger Raptor 5.0 is expected to go on sale in Australia next year, sold by Ford dealers and backed by the full 5-year warranty. For now, the Ranger Raptor remains forbidden fruit to the U.S. no matter what engine is under the hood.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Rumor has it that Ford is working on a V8 powered version of their Ranger Raptor currently sold in overseas markets. Only available in other parts of the world, the current Ranger Raptor is powered by a 2.0-liter 4-cylinder diesel that produces 210 horsepower and 369 lb.-ft of torque, but a report in Wheels magazine says that Ford Australia is working with an external engineering company to swap the 2.0 diesel for a 5.0-liter V8 from the Mustang GT.  The odd thing about this is that the Ranger Raptor 5.0 would be still built with the 2.0-liter diesel under the hood and then later converted to V8 gasoline power.
      Expect power to be about the same as it makes in the Australian spec Mustang GT, a healthy 455 horsepower and 410 lb.-ft of torque. 
      If it all comes together, the Ranger Raptor 5.0 is expected to go on sale in Australia next year, sold by Ford dealers and backed by the full 5-year warranty. For now, the Ranger Raptor remains forbidden fruit to the U.S. no matter what engine is under the hood.
  • Recent Status Updates

    • trinacriabob  »  oldshurst442

      Liking that new av - a CP (Canadian Pacific) 747, IIRC
      · 0 replies
    • dfelt  »  A Horse With No Name

      Welcome back, so happy to see you back. You were missed!  
      · 0 replies
    • Robert Hall

      Reality is complex
      · 1 reply
    • ocnblu

      What's the frequency, Kenneth?
      · 0 replies
    • trinacriabob  »  balthazar

      It's not possible to message you.  At least, it wasn't possible to do that last summer.  So I'll post it here.  I had a crazy layover back in June at PHL ... for about 8 hours ... and wondered how far into NJ you were from Philly.  What I did is get the PHLash day pass and did the self-guided tour of Center City before heading back to the airport.  I stayed too close to the center because of time. I actually wasted time by going into South Philly.  I wanted to venture out onto the Main Line and see Villanova.  That rail line was included on the pass I bought.  I had to manage my time because of the late afternoon flight to the Coast.  Cheers.
      · 1 reply
  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...