Raptor motor in a Lincoln

[MustangAndRaptor]

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.

Hit the nail on the head, nobody can deny that. Im sure everyone noticed in that Ken block video that the "host" is wearing Hoonigan apparel lol obviously that was a deal made in order to get Ken Block there. Same for Ford giving them a raptor "you must say at some point how much better the new one is compared to the old one"

Talking **** about a manufacturers product leads to them being last to get their hands on the new stuff. Top Gear was one of the few that could pull it off because they had the audience backing them.

 

[Truckzor]

Direct quotes:


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

So not every car you listed has been out of production for decades. Many of the examples you cited were and those are the ones I was referring to. It's all in writing, bro. Quit trying to weasel your way out of it.

My point regarding displacement still stands; there is no replacement for displacement if all else is equal.

We clearly do agree that there is no replacement for displacement.

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.

There's no chance on planet earth that the forthcoming 7.0 will have some sort of a major design flaw that would limit its power potential by more than half. You're dreaming.

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?

I cite top fuel as additional proof that there is no replacement for displacement.

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.

I'd put my money on the 6.2. Hands down. It's a much bigger air pump. Roush built one to 850 horsepower NA. Slap a couple turbos on that thing and the sky is the limit.

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

I didn't skip anything. I addressed this point previously. The origin of the design doesn't change what it is best suited and commonly used for.

 

[BurnOut]

Hit the nail on the head, nobody can deny that. Im sure everyone noticed in that Ken block video that the "host" is wearing Hoonigan apparel lol obviously that was a deal made in order to get Ken Block there. Same for Ford giving them a raptor "you must say at some point how much better the new one is compared to the old one"

Talking **** about a manufacturers product leads to them being last to get their hands on the new stuff. Top Gear was one of the few that could pull it off because they had the audience backing them.

Honestly, the Motor Trend guys aren't terribly shy about saying something sucks if it sucks. Watch some of the other reviews... they're honestly pretty snarky, and won't hesitate to call out when manufacturers do something poorly.

 

[Truckzor]

"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

The truth sometimes hurts.

 

[Bullishone]

The truth sometimes hurts.

Apparently

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Truckzor]

Apparently

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

What is this, like an I am rubber you are glue thing? How old are you?

 

[BurnOut]

So not every car you listed has been out of production for decades. Many of the examples you cited were and those are the ones I was referring to. It's all in writing, bro. Quit trying to weasel your way out of it.



We clearly do agree that there is no replacement for displacement.



There's no chance on planet earth that the forthcoming 7.0 will have some sort of a major design flaw that would limit its power potential by more than half. You're dreaming.



I cite top fuel as additional proof that there is no replacement for displacement.



I'd put my money on the 6.2. Hands down. It's a much bigger air pump. Roush built one to 850 horsepower NA. Slap a couple turbos on that thing and the sky is the limit.



I didn't skip anything. I addressed this point previously. The origin of the design doesn't change what it is best suited and commonly used for.

You're ******* hopeless. If you honestly think that you could stack a couple of turbos on top of an 850 hp 6.2L, you're nuts. You'd have to drop the compression and re-cam... and I'd be willing to bet that you'd lose a good 100+ horsepower in the process. Still... a couple of turbos on top of a 725 hp motor is nothing to sneeze at... just as a 3.x Liter motor on 35+ pounds of boost is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, if you can't comprehend that blocks designed for FI use have additional reinforcements, etc... vs. those designed for NA use... I got nothin' for you.

 

[Truckzor]

You're ******* hopeless. If you honestly think that you could stack a couple of turbos on top of an 850 hp 6.2L, you're nuts. You'd have to drop the compression and re-cam... and I'd be willing to bet that you'd lose a good 100+ horsepower in the process. Still... a couple of turbos on top of a 725 hp motor is nothing to sneeze at... just as a 3.x Liter motor on 35+ pounds of boost is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, if you can't comprehend that blocks designed for FI use have additional reinforcements, etc... vs. those designed for NA use... I got nothin' for you.

Good lord, you really are pathetic. Are you reaching way back into olden times again? Back when we had to *gasp* install 4 bolt mains in our 350 Chevys before safely exceeding 1 horsepower per cubic inch?

For ****'s sake man, we have had deep skirted blocks and cross bolted mains now for a long time now. Just like we've had billet caps, upgraded studs, billet cranks (lighter and stiffer for less flex and less pressure on the bearings and caps) to toughen things up when needed. Have you ever heard of these things?

Bottom line, the ultimate power potential of your dinky V6 is ultimately limited by its dinky size. Further, the more turbo boost you throw at it, the less reliable it becomes, and the less user friendly its power delivery becomes. Both of which are less than ideal in an offroad truck.

Bottom line, it's a shit motor in any application. But most of all in a Raptor.

 

[Bullishone]

I guess most of the people on this forum have never owned a turbo before. At least those with Gen2 envy.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[EricM]

Wait, can I join in this shit fest?

Shinyballs- I've not owned any turbo cars, but I've ridden in dozens and drove some daily for over a year or so. They are a total meh all the way around. Turbos just make up for lack of displacement and/or they are an attempt to save fuel. They are all dogs at low throttle openings, which is where an engine spends 99% of it's life. They all add a non-trivial amount of complexity to the oiling system, the air intake tract, and the cooling system.

As for reliability, I have picked up three different people I know who were the owners of turbo cars from the side of the road after the turbo/engine failed and had to be towed in for total engine replacements. One had a turbo spit it's guts into the engine, one had sludged oil on the pickup screen, the third just scrapped it and never found out the true cause. Can't say I've ever had to pick up anyone I know who had a non-turbo engine fail.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd happily own something like a turbo V8 Ferrari F40 without complaint, but for my daily driver F150- well, no thanks. I prefer simple and cheap/easy to repair when it comes to a daily driver. I drive my vehicles until they rust out or the A/C system craps out. If I was a trade it in when the warranty is up type of guy- I wouldn't be worried about having a turbo engine. Turbo engines have become much more responsive in the past 5 years or so with better compressor designs, variable pitch turbos, etc- so the driveabilty is *almost* on par with a larger non-turbo engine. Reliability will never be as good though. More shit, more shit to go wrong.