Gear heads

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

I have had two Grand Cherokees, so Ishould know better, but the commercial for the new JGC is hitting all the right notes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0SbrrGaiw

Saw the commercial on TV, and I can't find anything on their website about it. Dumbies.

From the ad
"it is well made, and it is designed to work"

So...... it's not a Jeep?

Originally Posted by rob_s

From the ad
"it is well made, and it is designed to work"

So...... it's not a Jeep?

Exactly! Nothing is perfect, but I have seen so many shortcuts and engineering problems in the JGCs... Maybe it has some good Diamler bones in it.

Also- of all the things that Americans have invented and they bring up the cotton gin? I'm not a big race baiter or anything, but I think they could have come up with something else.

Gotta love the power of a slow clap in a song. Almost sounds like Johnny Cashes last song, or the one that came out after his death.

Interesting segment from Top Gears newest season. They take one of the Toyota Hilux's from their polar expedition and try to drive it on the hot lava at the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad6Cm...layer_embedded

400/800 is freaking impressive.


http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07...ke-diesel.html

The envelope for diesel power in heavy-duty pickup trucks continues to expand. In 2005, Dodge and Cummins broke the 600 pounds-feet of torque barrier. Earlier this year, 700 pounds-feet was shattered by both Ford and General Motors. Now, sources say 800 pounds-feet could fall before the end of 2010.

The 2011 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra HD pickups are the current kings of the hill with their 397 horsepower and 765 pounds-feet of torque 6.6-liter 'LML' Duramax V-8 engines. But as we first reported in March, Ford is said to be working on a major power boost for the all-new 390 horsepower, 735 pounds-feet 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel.

According to new details we've received from our sources, a high output version of the 6.7 is expected to produce approximately 400 horsepower and at least 800 pounds-feet of torque, when production of Job 2 2011 Super Duty pickups starts later this year.

Interesting link, but a lot of those guys have no idea what they are talking about. It's interesting to have worked in the diesel industry for the last 7 years, for two different engine companies, and see all the crazy stuff people say...

Originally Posted by Left Sig

Interesting link, but a lot of those guys have no idea what they are talking about. It's interesting to have worked in the diesel industry for the last 7 years, for two different engine companies, and see all the crazy stuff people say...

Considering that Ford is at 390hp/760 something tq I can see them hitting the 400/800 mark, both of which are impressive power figures. I see no reason to do it for a couple years to be honest, let the new driveline get some consumer time and abuse on it before they start pushing it. The timeframe is the only real issue that I have with the report.

I would not pay to own one, actually I would have to be paid to take one, but that has more to do with my complete and utter disgust with the electronics getting stuck on these newer motors.

Originally Posted by Nathan_Bell

Considering that Ford is at 390hp/760 something tq I can see them hitting the 400/800 mark, both of which are impressive power figures. I see no reason to do it for a couple years to be honest, let the new driveline get some consumer time and abuse on it before they start pushing it. The timeframe is the only real issue that I have with the report.

I would not pay to own one, actually I would have to be paid to take one, but that has more to do with my complete and utter disgust with the electronics getting stuck on these newer motors.

I'm not saying Ford won't hit 400/800, I was referring to a lot of the reader comments at the end of the article. Lot of crazy ideas there, and people who have no idea what they are talking about insisting on things that aren't true, or aren't likely to happen. But that's the internet for you.

The Navistar 6.4L was rated at 650 lb-ft of torque but it could hit 750 ft-lb on a dyno easily. The problem with Ford has always been that their transmissions suck and can't handle what the engines can really put out. Ford has crippled many of their vehicles due to weak transmissions. That may have changed lately though.

I have little confidence in the long term durability of Ford's new diesel engine, or even the manufacturing quality. Ford's lack of experience with diesels, the clean sheet design, and their overall arrogance makes it likely there will be major issues for the first year or two, or even longer. Happens every time Ford tries to do something new, after telling the people who've been doing it successfully for decades that they are wrong.

Investing in a new plant to build a new engine in a down economy when high diesel prices have been killing sales, and when Navistar had the capacity to build a 2010 compliant engine without anywhere near the investment cost is a business mistake of colossal proportions. But Ford Powertrain Engineering never like the fact that someone else made their diesel engine...

Originally Posted by Left Sig

I'm not saying Ford won't hit 400/800, I was referring to a lot of the reader comments at the end of the article. Lot of crazy ideas there, and people who have no idea what they are talking about insisting on things that aren't true, or aren't likely to happen. But that's the internet for you.

The Navistar 6.4L was rated at 650 lb-ft of torque but it could hit 750 ft-lb on a dyno easily. The problem with Ford has always been that their transmissions suck and can't handle what the engines can really put out. Ford has crippled many of their vehicles due to weak transmissions. That may have changed lately though.

I have little confidence in the long term durability of Ford's new diesel engine, or even the manufacturing quality. Ford's lack of experience with diesels, the clean sheet design, and their overall arrogance makes it likely there will be major issues for the first year or two, or even longer. Happens every time Ford tries to do something new, after telling the people who've been doing it successfully for decades that they are wrong.

Investing in a new plant to build a new engine in a down economy when high diesel prices have been killing sales, and when Navistar had the capacity to build a 2010 compliant engine without anywhere near the investment cost is a business mistake of colossal proportions. But Ford Powertrain Engineering never like the fact that someone else made their diesel engine...

Ah, misunderstood you thought you were saying the original report was doubtful. I tend not to read comments on most things anymore, so I missed that bit of entertainment.

I love the SD chassis, have owned 3 trucks and now have an Excursion. Liked my 7.3L with the ZF6 backing them. Despise the 6.0 backed by the 5r110. I have very little love for a transmission that is supposed to be on a work chassis, but requires near clean room procedures to swap fluid.

I wish Ford luck as the non-bailout takers of the bunch, but I have to agree, I do not see them having a great deal of luck with their engine. Not going to be Oldsmobile diesel bad, but likely 6.0 bad. I am already seeing people defending Ford in regards to some failures. "It is an incredibly complex machine, there will be issues in the first 10k. That is what your warranty is for" has been seen on a few diesel threads on a couple forums. I have been polite and not mentioned how complex my departed '08 Toyota LandCruiser was and how it had no manufacturer issues (did have a dealer caused issue).

I have gotten to the point of making comments along the line of "Buy an f150 for your daily driver and get a used 4700 or 4800 series IC with a DT for your hauling" as it is less money and the IC would be better for hauling some of the loads these idjits are putting behind their light duty trucks.

On the Ford diesel engine choices. I still say that back in the day FoMoCo screwed the pooch when they didn't pick up the DT360 as their engine of choice. Much better engine than the 6.9 (IIRC that was the size of the V-8 that grew into the 7.3PS) and a bit better than the Cummins.

On the transmission front. They need to either step it up or suck it up and start putting Allison transmission in their trucks. There is a reason that ~90% of medium duty trucks run the AT's.

All this diesel talk is sooooo entertaining and all, but I have to say that the 2011 V6 Mustang I drove yesterday has got to be the most fun V6 car I've ever driven. I liked it so much that I was trying to find ways to justify buying one...lol. 31 MPG and 305 HP in an aluminum V6 car that's lighter than they've been for years AND now come with a 6-speed and optional 3.73's....

I haven't been in the new 5.0L's yet, but they are supposed to be beast as well. Road and Track's testing puts it ahead of the 2010 Camaro SS in EVERY test figure EXCEPT price.

They've got to be fun... we had that 1990 GT with the 302 in it, and it was quick (with some help)... but it's hard to imagine today's technology in that car with the new 6-speed, big brakes, I can't contemplate the difference 30 years has put on it. The old 302's weren't even actually 5.0L of displacement, but fell just shy.

Has anyone had any hands-on with the new GT Mustang?

And BTW, the "car search" that started several pages ago continues, and I saw a Convertible Lambo in North Myrtle Beach when we were down there last week... saw it multiple times, and once even in the RAIN!!!! That was sweet. Something you don't see every day I guess.

AND +1 to the 7.3 over 6.0 Ford Diesel, but it's hard to beat a good, strong Cummins. I loved driving my brother's '05 Ram 2500... 6-speed and very firm feel to the stock clutch, BUT that stock clutch would NOT hold all the extra power from his BullyDog programmer, especially with the 5" straight exhaust and aftermarket engine mods. He couldn't run in "extreme" because the clutch would slip horribly at launch and any time you really got into it. Once he bought the aftermarket clutch and flywheel, that truck was tough to beat.

Another problem with that Dodge was some sort of suspension issue, where the truck would bounce tremendously front to rear AND left to right if you hit any moderate bump at any speeds over about 40 MPH. It wasn't as bad until he put on the 5" lift, but was still noticable before the lift. My cousin had a similar issue with his 2005 Ram 2500.

Maybe you guys can answer this question for me. What is the difference in the transmissions between '05 models? My brother's was "Over and Down" into Reverse, but my cousin's was "Over and Up"... Everything else was identical. Same color even! lol...