Hey Ford!!! Screw you guys!!!!

[Dirtman]

Lets all chip in to buy rusty an alexa.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I love old shit but bottom line, your talking steam engines vs nuclear power when you think 70s tech is the way to go...

Nuclear power uses steam to move things... Nuclear power plant, steam turbine. Nuclear ship... steam turns the turbines.

Lets all chip in to buy rusty an alexa.

And then if we could get a second one sneaked in the house so they start arguing with each other and him in the middle...

 

[G8orFord]

We're about to build a 460 (actually it will be 500ci). I'm a big forced induction fan, but I can guarantee none of these turbo 4's or 6's will hold a candle to what that naturally aspirated 500 will have. They will probably last longer though. LOL

 

[Dirtman]

Nuclear power uses steam to move things... Nuclear power plant, steam turbine. Nuclear ship... steam turns the turbines.

Nuclear fusion reactors don't need steam turbines to create useable energy... they also produce no radioactive waste. so yea... pfffft... again, old tech needs to die!

 

[adsm08]

Nuclear fusion reactors don't need steam turbines to create useable energy... they also produce no radioactive waste. so yea... pfffft... again, old tech needs to die!

No, they just emit massive amounts of heat and have the potential for big badaboom.

They also require somewhat unstable fuels IIRC. I suppose Hydrogen and Helium aren't any worse that gasoline though.

 

[Ranger850]

Submarines is go boop boop

 

[Dirtman]

No, they just emit massive amounts of heat and have the potential for big badaboom.

They also require somewhat unstable fuels IIRC. I suppose Hydrogen and Helium aren't any worse that gasoline though.

I've literally been inside the "core" of a plasma fusion reactor and I am fine. I've literally been inside the "core" of a plasma fusion reactor and I am fine. I've literally been inside the "core" of a plasma fusion reactor and I am fine. I've literally been inside the "core" of a plasma fusion reactor and I am fine.

I think starlings are most sparkly in spring....

How come, pants?

 

[Will]

We're about to build a 460 (actually it will be 500ci). I'm a big forced induction fan, but I can guarantee none of these turbo 4's or 6's will hold a candle to what that naturally aspirated 500 will have. They will probably last longer though. LOL

yeah...

So Rusty and I used to argue 15+ years ago and then gave it up. He mentions the Godzilla 7.3 gas motor a few posts back. I want one. Ford brought back a big pushrod gas motor. It's 430hp and 475tq.

The Raptor 3.5 is 450hp and 510tq. And it makes torque down lower than the Godzilla. A lot lower. If you haven't driven one of these direct injection turbo gassers, just don't talk about it. Like Jimmy Buffet sang about in Changes in Latitudes. You don't know what you are talking about so be quiet.

I have a Speed3, the car Ford stole all their Ecoboost technology from. It has Cobb Tuning stuff on it and a 3", open, stainless exhaust, but it's mostly stock. It has a real limited slip diff. This car has very thick torque EVERYWHERE, no turbo lag. It would probably tow a dead 80's 5.0 Mustang and beat a live 80's 5.0 Mustang in a drag race. It's violent.

Ecoboost is real stuff.

BUT, since it isn't in the Superduty, I have to edge one step toward Rusty and go with the Godzilla. It has pushrods, injectors in the intake manifold--no carb, though. It has industrial strength components so it is going to replace the 6.8 in motorhomes and such. And I think also get medium duty work. Ford says it gets worse gas mileage than the 3.5 ecoboost in normal driving, but better during towing and heavy loads. And I suspect it is more durable for heavy use.

 

[Snoranger]

I have a 3.5 Ecoboost in my ‘20 F-150... it will give my modified ‘94 Cobra a run for its money in a much heavier vehicle and gets almost the same fuel mileage.
I’ve yet to drive one of our new 7.3 trucks, but I’ll be sure to comment on them as soon as I do.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The neat thing about the Godzilla... and what I really like as someone who keeps vehicles forever... it freaking swims in that engine bay. Compared to a SOHC/DOHC/diesel it looks like it will be a dream to work on.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Nuclear fusion reactors don't need steam turbines to create useable energy... they also produce no radioactive waste. so yea... pfffft... again, old tech needs to die!

Hi. I love you, but....

Cite that

 

[Dirtman]

Fusion reactors turn hydrogen into helium... I'm 30% sure neither of those are radioactive.

 

[8thTon]

Nuclear fusion reactors don't need steam turbines to create useable energy... they also produce no radioactive waste. so yea... pfffft... again, old tech needs to die!

Viable fusion power is the energy source of tomorrow, and always will be. The only fusion power we have access to is the sun, and it's what powers the vast majority of everything. Fossil fuels are solar energy, just stored long ago. Everything we've built is just a windfall from learning to use that stored energy. We started with peat 400 years ago, then went to coal and then oil and gas. People like to think there must be some other source we can use next, but there is only the real-time flows of solar energy - which is what we always had before fossil fuels.

 

[Dirtman]

Viable fusion power is the energy source of tomorrow, and always will be. The only fusion power we have access to is the sun, and it's what powers the vast majority of everything. Fossil fuels are solar energy, just stored long ago. Everything we've built is just a windfall from learning to use that stored energy. We started with peat 400 years ago, then went to coal and then oil and gas. People like to think there must be some other source we can use next, but there is only the real-time flows of solar energy - which is what we always had before fossil fuels.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ive towed 4900 pounds with a 2.3 EcoBoost. It might as well been towing farts cause that little engine didn't care. Yea, 4900 pounds aint alot in big truck terms but a 4 cylinder from days past could not have done that. A 3.7 ecoboost can tow 10,000 pounds without missing a beat. So your 460 can do it... your 460 sucks ass. It truly does. Its a big slow iron peice of crap that makes no power, its true.. Its nostalgic but meaningless. Modern tech beats old iron every day. And as far as your theory of longevity, dohc vvt di turbo engines have been running for 250,000+ miles and more without a rebuilds. I love old shit but bottom line, your talking steam engines vs nuclear power when you think 70s tech is the way to go...

A 460 is a cool engine... it would have the frame ripped out of it by a modern v6... and the v6 will last longer.

Youre out of your mind if you think a "460 will have its frame ripped out by a modern V6"

What? An ecoboost? Give a 460 direct injection and 2 turbos and itll be a diffrrent story. Cubes win everytime.

That being said show me on NA V6 thats making the torque my EFI 460 is off idle. Doubt you can. If we are ripping frames, the one who builds the fastest wins.

I love the 460. It’s an absolute monster...

1979, 460,F150/250, 230 hp @4000, 362 tq @2500
1979, 460, F350, 239 hp@4000, 369tq@2500


Ok, maybe it isn’t always a torque monster, just a monster in size and weight.

I love how you pick the literal weakest version of the 460 to prove a point. Youre as bad as CNN.

94-97 were 245hp and 410ftlbs, torque is what matters anyways.

Its whatever...im not gonna sit here and mindlessly argue about it. We pulled the exact same shit (mostly) 30 years ago as you guys pull now.

Besides that power isnt all that makes a good truck. Durabilty, ground clearence, simplicity, serviceabilty, suspension, etc etc are all just as, if not more, important and thats where modern trucks really lack.