Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
JUICEDMOTORSPORTS
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2013, 09:37 AM   #43
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Why no V8 in it?

Not sure I get the point of this truck...I mean I get the idea, but the F-150 Lightning wasn't much of a success, nor was the SSR. Trucks don't make good sports cars.
How was the Lightning not a success? It was a low volume SVT vehicle from the start and they sold everyone they could make. They were quick and handled well, were fun to drive, and could haul what you need in the bed and tow 6000 pounds.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:50 AM   #44
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Sun View Post
to be fair the SSR was ugly.
I liked the thing, but they did it all wrong. They should have never made it convertible, they should have had the LS2 from the beginning, had a real bed that could actually stuff, they needed to be able to actually tow something, and they should have been 10k cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikes SS View Post
the last effort that GM made at a performance full size was the 454SS in early 90's
Actually after that there was trucks i previously mention, the SS, the C3, and the SSR. All good ideas killed by making moves to drive the price up like making the SS extended cab only and AWD only (at least the latter was rectified in the last could years). SSR could have been much better but again they went too far with the convertible op and carpeted bed and no capability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sales @ CAI Inc View Post
I myself would love to see a SBRC truck with a good motor, gearing and performance stance coming right from the GM factory. Until they do, I'll stick with building my 5.3L S10
Had 2 older S-10s with carbed 355s in them, loved them both and aways wanted to do a 98+ ZQ8 Sonoma Stepside with a LSX.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:29 AM   #45
MikeSVX
The magic smoke genie....
 
MikeSVX's Avatar
 
Drives: Jewels (2010 RJT 1SS)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,294
All show and no go? At least compared to other upgraded Ford trucks. Will the new Ford SVT F-150 be call the "Quake" if this is just a little "Tremor?"
__________________
Support Search & Rescue.
Get Lost.
MikeSVX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 01:43 PM   #46
shaffe


 
Drives: 2012 Focus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Burr Ridge
Posts: 2,448
I think some people are slightly missing the point of this truck, its not meant to be a performance truck like the Lightning was. Its supposed to be a sporty looking truck with decent performance.

It looks good, looks sporty, good wheels and nice interior. If it comes in at a affordable price, sign me up.
shaffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:21 PM   #47
Silverlsinva


 
Silverlsinva's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Fiat 500 Abarth Grigio
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manassas, Va
Posts: 3,124
I was watching a youtube channel Tfl car did a quick vid of it and one of the people that I guess was a ford engineer quoted saying 6.5 to 60 in the tremor im guessing 2wd version but who knows that might be a lil bit of a sand bag number.
Silverlsinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:55 PM   #48
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverlsinva View Post
I was watching a youtube channel Tfl car did a quick vid of it and one of the people that I guess was a ford engineer quoted saying 6.5 to 60 in the tremor im guessing 2wd version but who knows that might be a lil bit of a sand bag number.

I hope that is a sandbagged number. motor trend ran the 2009 Ram R/T 0-60 in 5.7 and the 1/4 mile in 14.4@93.4. That was with the 5 speed, not even the 6 speed, automatic and it will have the 8 speed auto for 14, not to mention the 5.7 Hemi has picked up a little power.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:06 PM   #49
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex Chase View Post
CAFE. The EcoBoost is what Ford is using to pull up their average fuel economy. They are stuffing it into everything with 4 wheels.
Oh, that's right...the power of a V-8 with the efficiency of a V-7.9, for the cost of a V-10. Makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVmyZL1 View Post
Where do you come up with this stuff? I agree the SSR was not a success, and rightly so, IMO, but the Lightning was a huge win for Ford. They are still highly sought after trucks. Unlike the SSR, they were still trucks and had a payload capacity, towing package (I used to pull my car trailer to the track with one) and considerable aftermarket support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew View Post
How was the Lightning not a success? It was a low volume SVT vehicle from the start and they sold everyone they could make. They were quick and handled well, were fun to drive, and could haul what you need in the bed and tow 6000 pounds.
I can count on one hand how many Lightnings I've seen on the road in the last 10 years. So either everyone who bought one either scrapped them already, or don't care to ever drive them.

They may have been quick in a straight line, but they were heavy, inefficient, handled nothing like sports car, and didn't have near the capability of a regular truck. They were in all categories a compromise...a quintessential example of trying to do all things at the same time, and ending up doing no single thing particularly well.

I restate my earlier argument. Trucks do not make good sports cars. Ford had the right idea with the SVT Raptor. If you are going to make a high performance truck, make it excel specifically at doing truck things, not mediocre at doing sports car things.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:08 PM   #50
Apex Motorsports
 
Apex Motorsports's Avatar
 
Drives: 2000 Camaro SS
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 25,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Oh, that's right...the power of a V-8 with the efficiency of a V-7.9, for the cost of a V-10. Makes sense.
You can thank Uncle Sam.
Apex Motorsports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:16 PM   #51
turboguy327
Banned
 
Drives: 2011 Chevy Camaro
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Tremor huh?? Do big worms chase it all the time or something?
turboguy327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:23 PM   #52
05stram

 
Drives: 2013 RS - 2013 2SS/RS - 1971 RS
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Oh, that's right...the power of a V-8 with the efficiency of a V-7.9, for the cost of a V-10. Makes sense.





I can count on one hand how many Lightnings I've seen on the road in the last 10 years. So either everyone who bought one either scrapped them already, or don't care to ever drive them.

They may have been quick in a straight line, but they were heavy, inefficient, handled nothing like sports car, and didn't have near the capability of a regular truck. They were in all categories a compromise...a quintessential example of trying to do all things at the same time, and ending up doing no single thing particularly well.

I restate my earlier argument. Trucks do not make good sports cars. Ford had the right idea with the SVT Raptor. If you are going to make a high performance truck, make it excel specifically at doing truck things, not mediocre at doing sports car things.

Raptor does truck things? Flying across bumps is not a truck thing that is a Baja thing. The Raptor sucks at towing I had to endure the bounces of that "truck" suspension for over 500 miles one trip and never again.
05stram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:26 PM   #53
05stram

 
Drives: 2013 RS - 2013 2SS/RS - 1971 RS
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,027
DP Sorry
05stram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 12:20 AM   #54
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex Chase View Post
You can thank Uncle Sam.
You just did. Your every comment will be permanently saved in a 100 zetta-byte data center in Utah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 05stram View Post
Raptor does truck things? Flying across bumps is not a truck thing that is a Baja thing. The Raptor sucks at towing I had to endure the bounces of that "truck" suspension for over 500 miles one trip and never again.
Well, yes, actually. If what you are looking for in a car is a cushy ride for long highway trips, an F-150 Raptor is probably not the best choice. An Impala would be wiser.

That was my point. If you want the driving characteristics of a car, you don't want a truck.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 05:27 AM   #55
Apex Motorsports
 
Apex Motorsports's Avatar
 
Drives: 2000 Camaro SS
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 25,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
You just did. Your every comment will be permanently saved in a 100 zetta-byte data center in Utah.

Apex Motorsports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:53 AM   #56
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Oh, that's right...the power of a V-8 with the efficiency of a V-7.9, for the cost of a V-10. Makes sense.





I can count on one hand how many Lightnings I've seen on the road in the last 10 years. So either everyone who bought one either scrapped them already, or don't care to ever drive them.

They may have been quick in a straight line, but they were heavy, inefficient, handled nothing like sports car, and didn't have near the capability of a regular truck. They were in all categories a compromise...a quintessential example of trying to do all things at the same time, and ending up doing no single thing particularly well.

I restate my earlier argument. Trucks do not make good sports cars. Ford had the right idea with the SVT Raptor. If you are going to make a high performance truck, make it excel specifically at doing truck things, not mediocre at doing sports car things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVmyZL1 View Post
Really? What capability of a real truck were they lacking again? I agree, a truck is not a sports car, and should not try to be. I would say a ponycar built on a sedan platform shouldn't try to be a sportscar either, but they still do it and people buy them.
You have to remember the towing abilities were not what they are today. a tow rating over over 6000 pounds was close enough to what a regular truck could tow at the time it was useful, lets look at performance stats.

The slower 99 model from motor trend. 0-60 5.6, 1/4 mile in 14.1@96, 131 ft 60-0 (remember it is 99 and this is inline with a lot of cars), No handling numbers in this test though.

2001 0-50 5.5, .87g on the skidpad (eclipsing a number of performance cars of the day, 59.2 skidpad, again comparable to cars of the time. The thing is, being a truck, it did ride rough to get those times.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...g/viewall.html

Finally they had an 03 Lightning do 0-60 in 5.2 and the 1/4 mile in 13.7, unfortunaltly the short paragragh on Motor Trends website didn't go ino anymore detail.

For it's time it was right in line with performance cars, hauled and towed like a light truck, and they sold everyone they could.

Also just because you don't see many on the roads now does not mean they weren't a success, when they were on the market they were everywhere. I don't see many early 90s Tauruses on the road either, but i know they sold as many of them in a few months as the lightning did it's whole production run.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.