|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
6 |
| Average Score |
1.00 |
| Verdict |
Not Rice
|
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
 |
| #1 |
4-01-2010 @ 04:09:32 PM |
| Posted By : moparman |
Reply | Edit | Del |
All this needs is a tailgate and I'm sold. Although I hate white.
|
|
| #4 |
4-01-2010 @ 09:25:24 PM |
| Posted By : Driven_out |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#3, whatever they did, it just looks wrong, proportions are shit, etc. it seems too tall and narrow to be anywhere near as cool as the raptor.
|
|
| #5 |
4-02-2010 @ 05:49:40 AM |
| Posted By : moparman |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, Too bad the Raptor is so grossly underpowered, if it wasn't it may actually be cool.
|
|
| #7 |
4-02-2010 @ 11:52:35 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, 400 ft. lbs. of torque isn't that much for a 6.2 liter engine. Ford needs to get over this weird hangup they have about every engine needing overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder.
|
|
| #9 |
4-02-2010 @ 11:57:26 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#8, Exactly. Smaller displacement, yet more torque.
To be fair, though, the new gen Hemis don't even make as much peak torque as I'd like....and I have no idea what the dyno graph on this Ford 6.2 will be like. Though if it's anything like Ford's other (non-supercharged) V8s, I'm guessing somewhat lacking below 4000 rpm.
|
|
| #10 |
4-02-2010 @ 12:00:06 PM |
| Posted By : ricerocketboy |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, You'd be right. I think I read somewhere that it makes peak torque at like 4k :/
411 HP @ 5,500 RPM and 434 lbs./ft. @ 4,500 RPM.. and I was right :/
|
|
| #11 |
4-02-2010 @ 12:06:11 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#10, 434 is more torque than I expected....I'm just curious to know what the graph looks like up to that peak.
|
|
| #13 |
4-02-2010 @ 12:13:14 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, Actually, that's exactly the situation I'd be worried about.
Supras peak at only 3600 rpm....something their fanboys like to point out. The trouble is, the torque curve up to that point looks like Mt. Etna.
|
|
| #14 |
4-02-2010 @ 01:39:05 PM |
| Posted By : Driven_out |
Reply | Edit | Del |
the too big tires on this thing is going to completely negate any torque it may have. and even though it does have 25 ft lbs more, its not enough to make the ugly tolerable
|
|
| #17 |
4-02-2010 @ 09:51:06 PM |
Posted By : DiRF  |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Y'know... if the Raptor didn't do supercar numbers in the quarter mile, I wouldn't like it any less.
I mean, I think I've said this before, but I was never a BIG fan of the SVT Lightning... I mean, yeah, I respected it, but I personally never really saw the point. It's a big, high-riding truck... why try to decrease its aptitude at being a truck? (Though, for some reason, I love the Syclone and Typhoon... I can't justify that in my head, so I can't verbally here, sorry)
...but the SVT Raptor... I totally love that... SVT took an F-150, and just made it BETTER at being a truck. Trucks are meant to be driven hard in difficult conditions... and the Raptor excels at that, while still looking like 11 levels of evil at the same time, too.
|
|
| #18 |
4-03-2010 @ 12:03:20 AM |
| Posted By : moparman |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#14, Have you ever heard of gearing? Judging by your post I'd have to say no.
|
|
| #19 |
4-03-2010 @ 12:31:59 AM |
| Posted By : Maine-iac |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, For one, the tire height and the stance of the truck make it look narrow. It looks just as wide as any other dodge.
Power Wagon Width: 79.1 inches.
Raptor Width: 86.3
You can tell 7 inches in coolness from this pic alone? I'd have to guess it is the extra lift and bigger tires (along with it being a short bed regular cab) that makes it seem like it is too narrow. I'd like to see it next to some other car/truck/whatever to give it some better scale.
How ever, comparing those two trucks, a truck built to race in the desert vs. a truck built to drive in the mud and rocks... You can't really compare the two trucks when one is based on a heavy duty work truck, the other is based on a light duty that was purpose built for racing. To me this doesn't look like a truck built to try to compete with the raptor. It looks like it is built to go places the raptor isn't built for. Might not be high speed, but you don't want that going over stumps and rocks in the woods ;)
|
|
| #20 |
4-03-2010 @ 12:38:03 AM |
| Posted By : Maine-iac |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#19, Continued:
Basically, one truck is a fast moving sand/rally racer, one is a slower mudder/rock crawler. Both are cool in their own ways, so I don't see much point in arguing about which is better because from what I have read both have a strength and weakness when compared to the other.
|
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
View Stats