Posted on 09/23/2010 6:21:41 AM PDT by wolf78
I wouldn’t buy a Ford even at half off the sticker.
_________________________________________
Of course not. You’d have to buy a Dodge to do that.
(Yes, I’ve seen them advertized for 50% off)
DEARBORN, Michigan — Ford's 2011 Mustang is posting some impressive numbers, both for power and for fuel economy. The EPA has certified the V6-powered pony car at 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city for the version with six-speed automatic transmission. The 3.7-liter DOHC V6 engine puts out 305 horsepower, making this the first production car ever to pair 30-plus mpg and 300-plus hp, according to Ford.
The Mustang with V6 has a six-speed manual or automatic transmission. With the manual, the car gets 30/19 mpg. The fact that the automatic betters the manual on fuel economy is “a shift in conventional wisdom,” Ford noted.
I presently own two Ford products: a 2010 Ford escape, and a 2007 Mercury Mariner—both fine vehicles.
I have previously owned several Fords, back to a 1950 Mercury.
Also had an RV, Class B with a Ford V10 in it.
I am especially happy to see the recent success of Ford, and that they refused to suckup to the stimulus bs, etc.
henry Ford, himself was an interesting American of bygone years worthy of our attention...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
Generally, the rule is the smaller the engine, the lower the gear ratio (numerically higher) so that you can actually use the smaller engine to get the vehicle going. This truck may very well have "truck gears" for the V-6. The transmission is really the key, here. Likely a 6 speed auto with two overdrives (with fourth being a 1-1).
All I can find on it is engine articles, but nothing on the transmission or rear gearing.
My 2001 GMC Sierra 4WD just turned 80,000. I need a truck but not as much as I did when I bought this one.
Also owned a 2004 Ford ranger w/V6 engine—great vehicle—would have bought another Ranger, but the little—”compct/crossover/suv”—Escape/Mariner just was too attractive w/the backseat, plus many of the features of a small pickup.
Aside from using it to haul manure, etc. it does most of what the ranger could do.
Well that’s reeeaaal nice, except that numbers don’t tell the whole story. Unless that torque value is available at a nice low RPM, then this is a hot rod, not a pickup. Likewise that HP number; if it’s up at 90% of the max RPMs, then no one will ever see it. Ford made the same mistake a few years back with the Triton V10. Neat engine, but the torque and horsepower peaks were all way above 3000rpm, but the motor was dropped into the SuperDuty line, which was built to spend its life pulling stumps and dragging three-axle horse trailers, of which neither activity involves high rpms.
Buy a Tundra
Why didn’t the put that technology on a high compression V-8. Then they really would have something. Or just use a high compression V=8, or use a turbo charged dieses as is now done in Europe? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Ford truck prices scare the bejeebers out of me. I am an old geezer and I hardly dare to look at the prices. My last truck was $3.700.
Unfortunately, with modern drivetrains, you may have to not only find a way for the engine to fit, but the transmission, as well. Many of the computers are designed for both the engine and transmission to be there working as a single unit.
The entire combination, with it being as new as it is, may run you between 7 and 10 thousand from Ford directly.
You'd be far better off to pull your 4.0 and have it re-built.
“Buy a Tundra”
**************
Bomb Tokyo
Here’s an easy equation for 2010 Ford Truck Pricing (any truck, really).
P(2010) = P(1970) x 10 + 5,000
P(2010) = 3,700 x 10 + 5,000
P(2010) = 37,000 + 5,000
P(2010) = $42,000
I'm not that old, and they scare me, as well. I always told my wife I'd never spend more on a car than we did our first house (bought a little house in 2000 for $37,000). It's getting harder to live up to that statement.
“Buy a Tundra”
**************
Bomb Tokyo
Thailand
Figures. I just bought (in May) a new 2010 F150 FX4 (due to a wreck totaling my half paid for 2006 GMC Canyon 4x4).
Oh well, I’ve got the 5.4L V8 and getting 16 MPG CITY (Houston) driving.
Interesting you say that.
My 2010 F150 FX4 was listed at $42,000 - but I got it for $36,000 with the 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. It wasn’t a planned purchase, as I was the meat in a dump truck/explorer sandwich in my 2006 GMC Canyon 4x4, so HAD to buy something.
Still liking it, 4 months and 9500 miles later.
High Compression + Turbocharging = Swiss Cheese pistons and Broken crankshafts on 93 octane fuel.
We don't use Diesels like they do in Europe because of Bill Clinton. In 1997, his EPA passed Emissions regs for Diesel Vehicles Weighing less than 6200lbs GVW that were to take effect in 2007, that were 10X stricter than the US standards and about 4X stricter than the European standards at the time...
So in 2005, when fuel prices went through the roof, no American Auto MFG wanted to build a Diesel that met the current standard, because they would be illegal in 2007 and their European divisions couldn't help, because they didn't have to meet the same standards until 2010.
So Bill Clinton single handidly caused us to lose at least 5 years of passenger car/light truck Diesel development in the US.
I wonder every day how many time bombs Obama is putting in at the EPA that will blow up in our face 10 years later, like this Clinton one did.
Yeah, but will it tow my 10,000 pound 5th wheel??? Just kidding. My 1990 F-250 Diesel does the job. I need a new P.U. though. Too bad I can’t afford one in this economy :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.