Progress

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 08/10/2015 at 18:15 • Filed to: Progress

5

12

Just a reminder that in 1996 your top dog truck engines were:

A 454 (7.4 liter) V8 with 230 hp and 385 lbs-ft (upgraded to 290/410 in ‘97)

A 444 (7.3 liter) turbodiesel with 210 hp and 425 lbs-ft.

A 488 (8.0 liter) V10 with 300 hp and 450 lbs-ft (optional cummins 12v 6BT - 180hp/420 lbs-ft)

Meanwhile in 2015:

GM’s smallest V8 (5.3 liter) puts out 355 hp and 383 lbs-ft

The smallest Ford engine ever put into a truck (2.7 liters) does 325 hp and 375 lbs-ft

Ram’s tiny 3 liter Ecodiesel does 240hp and 420 lbs-ft

EPA mileage for all the new engines is about double that of the old ones.

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 18:20

2

old trucks were/still are way cooler

HammerheadFistpunch > EL_ULY 08/10/2015 at 18:21

3

AND last longer, and weigh less...but in terms of hp and mileage...the future looks bright.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 18:21

0

I still don’t see any of the big three’s modern big diesels becoming the legends that are the 7.3 Powerstroke and the 5.9 12V, though I won’t deny the impressive power from the factory.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 08/10/2015 at 18:26

0

the 7.3, 5.6 12v and to a lesser extent the 6.5 were all of the same mindset - economy & durability. They weren’t doing the wind assisted pissing contests that they do now, it was about saving you money in the short and long haul. A 12v 6bt with nv4500 80 series a-la jonsies is still a dream to me.

EL_ULY > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 18:28

0

true true

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 19:22

0

The current crop of compression ignition engines *could* be just as reliable, if not more so, than the International IDI, Cummins 6BT, and 6.5 Detroit Diesel. Instead, since numbers sell trucks, it’s all about posting dyno numbers.

All they would need to do is dial the tunes back just a smidgen.

HammerheadFistpunch > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 08/10/2015 at 19:23

0

The trouble wont be with the mechanical, the trouble will be with the emissions systems and high pressure fuel systems.

desertdog5051 > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 19:30

0

Model T , 2.9 L, 20 hp.

My ‘99 F-150 5.4 rated at 250 HP. Newer 5.4’s rated over 375 HP. I have 3.55 ratios in the differentials. Newer ones have like 3.20 ratios or lower. (if I remember correctly.) I can still haul stuff. The new ones are made to haul groceries and 4 sheets of plywood or Quikrete (with the tailgate down) and because of the crew cab, the weight is all distributed behind the rear axle. Ford says 84% of its truck sales are crew cab/short wheelbase models.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 19:42

0

Fuel systems? That’s not too unreliable. The CR pump (Bosch CP3) tends to not be any more complex than the injection pump on a Mercedes OM603. In fact, the pump itself (not the rest of the HP circuit) is less complex than the injection pump on an OM606 (I had a 99 Benz E300 at one time)

Emissions? *Does happy jig* As long as you are pre-2006, you tend to only have an oxidation catalyst and EGR. EGR is able to be blocked without a CEL on federal emission trucks, and can be programmed out on California and NE emission trucks (at least in GM land. Ford and Dodge land may be similar).

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 20:04

0

And in 1970 you could buy a 450 hp El Camino...

which is kind of a truck.

RallyWrench > HammerheadFistpunch 08/10/2015 at 22:37

0

New trucks do have incredible figures, but I’ll keep my ‘95 5.0. It’s good for 195/285 or thereabouts, enough for my purposes, and my average fuel economy is only a couple mpg off what the 3.5l Ecoboost seems to get . Also, blessed simplicity.

jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > DipodomysDeserti 08/11/2015 at 00:04

0

That is the world I want to one day live in...