3rd Gen Ram Tech 2002-2008 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 2002 through 2008 Rams Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Got my butt kicked by an F150

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 4, 2010 | 05:26 PM
  #31  
southernbnb's Avatar
southernbnb
Captain
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
From: JACKSONVILLE NC
Default

truckin if your truck was black you would have stomped all over him!!! its all that ugly azz silver slowing you down!!!! lmao!!
 
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2010 | 05:29 PM
  #32  
dirtydog's Avatar
dirtydog
Moderate User
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 17,003
Likes: 21
From: Albany, NY
Default

Originally Posted by 98cherryram
Can you say stall converter?


not good enough. what happens when your truck shifts from 2nd-3rd? The rpms drop a bit and so does the power. When that ford shifts, the power it there all the time. There is just no comparison between a twin screw style supercharger to that of N/A. It's just totally cheating...lol...and freakin awesome. Nothing like full power between shifts. Def puts your head back.
 
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2010 | 06:46 PM
  #33  
Matt99's Avatar
Matt99
Champion
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,210
Likes: 0
From: Shreveport, LA
Default

Originally Posted by mbaseball3
sorry to break ppls bubbles here but last time I checked the old lightenings handed the srt10s *** on a platter. check YouTube for those vids. I hate to say it and hated even more to see it but its what happened. oh and the furd raptors a butt f'in ugly. saw an stx one yesterday and even my fiancee laughed her *** off.
are you serious? You are completely wrong.

SRT....Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 500@5600
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 525@4200
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 5000
EPA fuel economy (mpg) 15-Sep
Edmunds observed (mpg) 10.4
Performance
0 - 60 (sec.) 5.4
1/4 mile (sec. @ mph) 13.8 @ 104.2
60 - 0 (ft.) 126.2

Lightning....Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 380@4750
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 450@3250
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 4670
EPA fuel economy (mpg) 16-Dec
Edmunds observed (mpg) 13
Performance
0 - 60 (sec.) 5.8
1/4 mile (sec. @ mph) 14.2 @ 98.5
60 - 0 (ft.) 126.2

And how is this butt fn ugly?
Name:  2010-Ford-F-150-Raptor-SVT-3.jpg
Views: 87
Size:  67.4 KB
 
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2010 | 08:09 PM
  #34  
00z28bubba's Avatar
00z28bubba
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: las vegas
Default

im surprised they use 3v in the newer vehicles with all the success of the 4v engines. saleen is getting cheap.

Originally Posted by dirtydog
I hate to say it but, the terd would take an SRT ONLY because with the twin screw, it makes it's power almost instantly. With Peak power at like 2500rpms vs the SRT needs to wind up to like 6k before peaking out, the F150 supercharged would walk all over it.

My mustang had a centrifugal s/c'er that put down 473rwhp and 468rwtq. When i went up against a modded '03 Cobra with 471rwhp and 455rwtq he annihalated me because I had to rev up to 6k before i peaked the HP where as he hit peak HP immediately at 2300rpms. So, from 2300rpms until his 6500rpm shift he was at max power. My power at 2500rpms was like 260rwhp??? something low like that.

You just cannot compare a twin screw to a N/A engine, but you CAN compare a centrifugal to a N/A engine because of the above.
roots set ups are nice. i like the idea of power on demand. but hell a stroker will give most whipple's and kb's a good run for their money. when the termis go turbo then it is time to fight boost with boost. what year was your stang? if it wasn't a mach 1 then i would put my money on the termi. 2v and 3v 4.6s will never hold a candle to the forged from the factory 4v 4.6 in the termi. the 4v also came in the mach 1 but it wasnt boosted factory.
 

Last edited by 00z28bubba; Mar 4, 2010 at 08:11 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2010 | 08:24 PM
  #35  
dirtydog's Avatar
dirtydog
Moderate User
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 17,003
Likes: 21
From: Albany, NY
Default

Originally Posted by 00z28bubba
im surprised they use 3v in the newer vehicles with all the success that the 4v engines. saleen is getting cheap.


roots set ups are nice. i like the idea of power on demand. but hell a stroker will give most whipple's and kb's a good run for their money. when the termis go turbo then it is time to fight boost with boost. what year was your stang? if it wasn't a mach 1 then i would put my money on the termi. 2v and 3v 4.6s will never hold a candle to the forged from the factory 4v 4.6 in the termi. the 4v also came in the mach 1 but it wasnt boosted factory.
2v's lacked power. 3v's have noticeable gains and are smoother than 2v's. The 4v's are just not needed with the invent of 3v's it makes production costs more efficient although the "modular" design is genious and parts are pretty interchangeable anyways.

root style blowers they used were Eatons aka "heatons" because that's all they are good at producing. lots of heat. Twin screw hands down for performance, they drastically reduced the robbed power and provide a much cooler intake charge.
Mach 1 and Cobras had identical motors other than the cobra's were forged and were strapped with a heaton. I had a 97gt with a 98 cobra based 32v motor that was fully forged. It was nearly identical to that of an 03/04 cobra with the exception of the heads/intake which only provided minimal power gains. (15hp stock & upwards of 25hp boosted)
Mach's had the older '01 Cobra motor and were glorified by badges and a shaker hood. They weren't anything special really. I raced a Mach, destroyed it. Wasn't even a contest.
As far as the internals in Machs, Automatic Mach's had cast crank along with hyperuetectic pistons and cast rods, manuals had forged crank with same other components...i could go on and on and on...lol
 
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2010 | 01:47 PM
  #36  
00z28bubba's Avatar
00z28bubba
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: las vegas
Default

Originally Posted by dirtydog
2v's lacked power. 3v's have noticeable gains and are smoother than 2v's. The 4v's are just not needed with the invent of 3v's it makes production costs more efficient although the "modular" design is genious and parts are pretty interchangeable anyways.

root style blowers they used were Eatons aka "heatons" because that's all they are good at producing. lots of heat. Twin screw hands down for performance, they drastically reduced the robbed power and provide a much cooler intake charge.
Mach 1 and Cobras had identical motors other than the cobra's were forged and were strapped with a heaton. I had a 97gt with a 98 cobra based 32v motor that was fully forged. It was nearly identical to that of an 03/04 cobra with the exception of the heads/intake which only provided minimal power gains. (15hp stock & upwards of 25hp boosted)
Mach's had the older '01 Cobra motor and were glorified by badges and a shaker hood. They weren't anything special really. I raced a Mach, destroyed it. Wasn't even a contest.
As far as the internals in Machs, Automatic Mach's had cast crank along with hyperuetectic pistons and cast rods, manuals had forged crank with same other components...i could go on and on and on...lol
from a performance view there is really no reason to shy away from a 4v especially in the mod motor comparison. all i know is the mach's and 01 cobra's are a drivers race vs an ls1 f body with top end in favor of the ls1, stock vs stock. no 3v's can say that with both cars in good running order. modded sure a 3v can get past a stock ls1 or mach. but when all cars are bolt ons the mach and ls1 leave 3v's behind with little effort. 4v's respond to mods just about as good as any ls 5.7. from a mass production view i fully understand going with 3v. but a saleen charged f 150 isn't a mass produced vehicle whi is why i mentioned 4v's in the first place. judging by saleens normal prices there really is no reason not to use a 4v.
 
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2010 | 04:54 PM
  #37  
jes2561's Avatar
jes2561
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Goldsboro NC
Default

Originally Posted by mbaseball3
sorry to break ppls bubbles here but last time I checked the old lightenings handed the srt10s *** on a platter. check YouTube for those vids. I hate to say it and hated even more to see it but its what happened. oh and the furd raptors a butt f'in ugly. saw an stx one yesterday and even my fiancee laughed her *** off.
I agree. The old lightnings with very minor mods like a chip and higher pressure pullies will smoke any truck in its path. The drag strip is full of lightnings giveing *** kickings. They are fugly but they sound so sweet at the strip.
 
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2010 | 06:04 PM
  #38  
hemiguy0302's Avatar
hemiguy0302
Record Breaker
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton Ab Canada
Default

I think I might be the only one to say this but a non boosted SRT 10 really did not impress me much with acceleration. I thought it was kind of a turd. Boosted they are pretty fun hard to hold on to but good. If I wanted a go fast truck gotta say old lightning or something with the 4th gen GM small block.
 
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2010 | 05:14 PM
  #39  
mbaseball3's Avatar
mbaseball3
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NobZn85F6jY

I'm not a furd lover but the old lightnings are quick. regardless, id still rather have the srt. much better looking truck.
 

Last edited by mbaseball3; Mar 9, 2010 at 06:12 PM.
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM.