Raptor motor in a Lincoln

[Truckzor]

You can look up production numbers the same as I can. Have at it. Even if I go through the trouble of doing so, you'll just come up with some other ******** reason to avoid admitting that you're wrong... so why bother?

I still state that for an object the size and cost of a car, a million examples of a design/configuration precludes it from being "extremely uncommon". Additionally, you STILL have not reminded me what decade we're in, relative to the end of production for some of the FWD V8s that I listed earlier. Shocking.

And as for the origins of the 60 degree V6, it DOES matter, because you claimed that it was developed for use in FWD applications. That has been proven to be ********, and, big surprise, you came up with a silly, ******** reason to try to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

As for weed, I've never touched it in my life... you seem to know a fair bit about it, though... perhaps that explains why you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the truth. Fried a few brain cells over the years, have ya?

With respect to the alleged 1 million, I think you should be the one to support your own argument, don't you? As it stands, it's baseless. Like all of your arguments. Numbers clearly aren't your thing.

I didn't say the 60 degree V6 was originally developed for use in front wheel drive sedans. I said that's what it's best suited for and why it still exists. Words clearly aren't your strong suit, either.

I seem to have touched a nerve on the drug thing. Clearly I am not the only one who has noticed what a burn out you are.

 

[Bullishone]

Partially correct. The Navigator will use up the 3.5 ecoboost that was supposed to be for the Raptor. The Raptor will have two engine choices to help burn up 3.5 ecoboost inventory, and the migrate over to the new engine for the Raptor.

No.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Kngranch]

Anyone notice the footnote on the Lincoln brochure? "3. Horsepower rating achieved with 93-octane fuel"

 

[Bullishone]

Anyone notice the footnote on the Lincoln brochure? "3. Horsepower rating achieved with 93-octane fuel"

Yeah according to fools, octane doesn't matter.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[BurnOut]

With respect to the alleged 1 million, I think you should be the one to support your own argument, don't you? As it stands, it's baseless. Like all of your arguments. Numbers clearly aren't your thing.

I didn't say the 60 degree V6 was originally developed for use in front wheel drive sedans. I said that's what it's best suited for and why it still exists. Words clearly aren't your strong suit, either.

I seem to have touched a nerve on the drug thing. Clearly I am not the only one who has noticed what a burn out you are.

Again, why bother? I've proven several of your claims to be ******** already, and you haven't admitted that you were wrong on any of them:

• There's no replacement for displacement - I illustrated the fallacy of this statement with the example of the 3.5 EB vs. the 300/6
• "Guys, the whole reason the V6 exists is that it's the most efficient engine layout for front wheel drive sedans. Think Honda Accord." - That's a direct quote (with emphasis added by me), and I illustrated the fallacy of the statement with information regarding the Lancia V6; it was originally used in a front engine, RWD car in case you were curious
• "Out of production for decades" - a decade being a period of 10 years, and decades being more than one decade (so, a minimum of 20 years, for those playing at home), I illustrated the fallacy of this statement by providing information in regard the last production dates for FWD V8-powered models... less than one (1) decade ago, much less multiple decades ago

So, why should I bother researching and compiling production numbers for FWD V8s when you've shown a pattern of disregarding facts that contravene your statements? I could offer you all the proof in the world, and you still wouldn't cede the point... so why take the time to do it at all?

So now, I'm just going to take what I'll call the Truckzor approach; I'll make a claim, and if someone takes the time to refute that claim with facts I'll just ignore them and continue to push my point anyhow, rather than admit that there was something that I didn't used to know but now do. Man, this is gonna be great! Not being constrained by silly things like facts or the truth...

In fact, I'm going to take this new approach for a test drive right now: not many people know this, but in the Rouge assembly plant where my truck was made, they have an urn full of water that was blessed by Carroll Shelby himself before he passed away... and they sprinkle a little bit of it on each Raptor that comes down the line. When they run out of that water is when Raptor production will end. It's true. I read it on the Internet.

 

[Bullishone]

Speaking of facts, all reviews of the new Raptor from actual experts and professionals say it's light years ahead of the old one. All of them. Every single one.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[RAPTERRIER]

Speaking of facts, all reviews of the new Raptor from actual experts and professionals say it's light years ahead of the old one. All of them. Every single one.

This statement sums up the indisputable reason for the J1 butthurt.

 

[Truckzor]

Again, why bother? I've proven several of your claims to be ******** already, and you haven't admitted that you were wrong on any of them:

There really are no words for how pathetic you are being. You haven't provided proof of anything. Certainly not for your claims about the total volume of production. You are right about one thing, though, even if you were successfully able to prove your claim, which you have not done, I wouldn't necessarily agree that 1,000,000 units is all that much. There are hundreds of millions of cars on the road currently here in the US alone. Over a billion worldwide. Average age in the US is a little over 10 years. This means the total production of cars is well into the billions. So your puny little claim of 1,000,000, which is unsubstantiated, would put you out in the 0.000X range, at best. That makes them extremely uncommon. Statistically, they would not be considered significantly different from zero. The fact that you personally like poorly engineered cars that were sales failures doesn't change that.

With respect to the issue of decades. There are your words:

considering all of the Cadillacs in the 80s and 90s

Clearly out of production for decades.

and the Oldsmobiles of the same era (see: Aurora)

Out of production for 1.4 decades.

You *do* realize that the first mass-produced FWD car (the Oldsmobile Toronado) was *gasp* V8 powered, right?

The last V8 powered Toronado was produced 2.2 decades ago.

There's no replacement for displacement - I illustrated the fallacy of this statement with the example of the 3.5 EB vs. the 300/6

Actually, you only illustrated that specific outputs have increased over the last 2.1 decades (you know, since the last Ford inline 6 was sold here in the states). You did not illustrate that the new technologies responsible for that couldn't be applied to larger engines. It's simple physics. Engines are air pumps. The larger ones are going to move more air. Case in point, I take a 6.2 liter boss block to an engine builder, you take a 3.5 liter EB HO block to an engine builder... we both ask for them most powerful engine they can produce... which one is going to make more power? Be honest with yourself.

Follow up. Top Fuel. 3 second ETs at over 300 miles per hour. Large displacement supercharged V8s. Until recently we haven't even been able to reliably estimate their power output, let alone safely measure it. I suppose you think your little EB could keep up, because technology, and because marketing hype, right?

in the Rouge assembly plant where my truck was made, they have an urn full of water that was blessed by Carroll Shelby himself before he passed away... and they sprinkle a little bit of it on each Raptor that comes down the line. When they run out of that water is when Raptor production will end. It's true. I read it on the Internet.

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

Speaking of facts, all reviews of the new Raptor from actual experts and professionals say it's light years ahead of the old one. All of them. Every single one.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Easy now. I think it's a stretch to call today's bloggers professionals. And the magazine guys all take their paychecks from Ford so they basically just copy/paste what the marketing materials say.

In reality, the new truck falls short in braking, ride and handling both on and off road, payload, towing, real world fuel economy, reliability, repairability, longevity, sound... oh and pride of ownership -- we can't forget that one.

The new 7.0 liter DOHC V8 won't fix all of that. But it will finally make the truck cool enough to overlook its many shortcomings.

 

[BurnOut]

There really are no words for how pathetic you are being. You haven't provided proof of anything. Certainly not for your claims about the total volume of production. You are right about one thing, though, even if you were successfully able to prove your claim, which you have not done, I wouldn't necessarily agree that 1,000,000 units is all that much. There are hundreds of millions of cars on the road currently here in the US alone. Over a billion worldwide. Average age in the US is a little over 10 years. This means the total production of cars is well into the billions. So your puny little claim of 1,000,000, which is unsubstantiated, would put you out in the 0.000X range, at best. That makes them extremely uncommon. Statistically, they would not be considered significantly different from zero. The fact that you personally like poorly engineered cars that were sales failures doesn't change that.

With respect to the issue of decades. There are your words:



Clearly out of production for decades.



Out of production for 1.4 decades.



The last V8 powered Toronado was produced 2.2 decades ago.



Actually, you only illustrated that specific outputs have increased over the last 2.1 decades (you know, since the last Ford inline 6 was sold here in the states). You did not illustrate that the new technologies responsible for that couldn't be applied to larger engines. It's simple physics. Engines are air pumps. The larger ones are going to move more air. Case in point, I take a 6.2 liter boss block to an engine builder, you take a 3.5 liter EB HO block to an engine builder... we both ask for them most powerful engine they can produce... which one is going to make more power? Be honest with yourself.

Follow up. Top Fuel. 3 second ETs at over 300 miles per hour. Large displacement supercharged V8s. Until recently we haven't even been able to reliably estimate their power output, let alone safely measure it. I suppose you think your little EB could keep up, because technology, and because marketing hype, right?

Direct quotes:

The Cadillac DTS through 2011.
the FWD Impala SS was available through the 2009 model year

Clearly not even a single decade, let alone multiple decades.

My point regarding displacement still stands; there is no replacement for displacement if all else is equal. That last part is the part that you seem unable to grasp; thus my illustration using the 300/6 as an example that shows that just because displacement is greater (vs. the 3.5 EB) doesn't mean that power potential is greater.

As for the concept of V8 vs. all, I've never stated or even implied that smaller displacement V6s somehow have more power potential than V8s. I stated that just because the (at this point hypothetical) 7.0L DOHC V8 had more displacement than the 3.5L EB doesn't mean that the 7.0L has more potential. That's it.

As for Fuel cars, I am well aware of them... and well aware that the 3 second ETs only began in the 1000-foot era (in other words, when they stopped racing for a full quarter mile; but that's neither here nor there). So, remind me... other than the number and configuration of the cylinders (and the material from which the block/heads are made), what are the commonalities between the 7.0L DOHC (or the 6.2L) and Fuel motors? By your reasoning, a Top Fuel car has four wheels, and a Prius has for wheels, so that similarity means that the Prius is a hot rod, right?

Regarding the max effort 6.2L block vs the max effort 3.5L block, I honestly wouldn't know where to put my money. The 6.2 obviously has a significant displacement advantage, but the 3.5L is going to be able to take more punishment (relative to displacement)... so, at this point, there's no telling which block would give up first. The 6.2L block is iron, so that's a plus in its favor, but the 3.5L block is smaller (read: smaller spans between reinforcements, etc...), so that's a plus in its favor. Experimentation would be required.

Also, nice job skipping the response relative to the history of the V6. Don't think I didn't notice.

 

[Bullishone]

There really are no words for how pathetic you are being. You haven't provided proof of anything. Certainly not for your claims about the total volume of production. You are right about one thing, though, even if you were successfully able to prove your claim, which you have not done, I wouldn't necessarily agree that 1,000,000 units is all that much. There are hundreds of millions of cars on the road currently here in the US alone. Over a billion worldwide. Average age in the US is a little over 10 years. This means the total production of cars is well into the billions. So your puny little claim of 1,000,000, which is unsubstantiated, would put you out in the 0.000X range, at best. That makes them extremely uncommon. Statistically, they would not be considered significantly different from zero. The fact that you personally like poorly engineered cars that were sales failures doesn't change that.

With respect to the issue of decades. There are your words:



Clearly out of production for decades.



Out of production for 1.4 decades.



The last V8 powered Toronado was produced 2.2 decades ago.



Actually, you only illustrated that specific outputs have increased over the last 2.1 decades (you know, since the last Ford inline 6 was sold here in the states). You did not illustrate that the new technologies responsible for that couldn't be applied to larger engines. It's simple physics. Engines are air pumps. The larger ones are going to move more air. Case in point, I take a 6.2 liter boss block to an engine builder, you take a 3.5 liter EB HO block to an engine builder... we both ask for them most powerful engine they can produce... which one is going to make more power? Be honest with yourself.

Follow up. Top Fuel. 3 second ETs at over 300 miles per hour. Large displacement supercharged V8s. Until recently we haven't even been able to reliably estimate their power output, let alone safely measure it. I suppose you think your little EB could keep up, because technology, and because marketing hype, right?





---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------



Easy now. I think it's a stretch to call today's bloggers professionals. And the magazine guys all take their paychecks from Ford so they basically just copy/paste what the marketing materials say.

In reality, the new truck falls short in braking, ride and handling both on and off road, payload, towing, real world fuel economy, reliability, repairability, longevity, sound... oh and pride of ownership -- we can't forget that one.

The new 7.0 liter DOHC V8 won't fix all of that. But it will finally make the truck cool enough to overlook its many shortcomings.

"In reality, the new truck falls short in braking, ride and handling both on and off road, payload, towing, real world fuel economy, reliability, repairability, longevity, sound... oh and pride of ownership -- we can't forget that one."

In reality you are full of shit. Haha this is the biggest pile of trash anyone has written on this forum.

Envy is killing your credibility. You have none left.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk