Diesels are overrated atleast IMO unless you start talking about "modern" era diesels. A good 460/454 will out snort a 6.9/7.3Idi/early stroker/6.5/6.2 anyday. And as a bonus start on a -10* morning.
define a good 460/454 and out snort....
theres no stock anything of the obd1 era gonna out snort a psd gen 1. not even the cummins of the same yr... its the first 1 ton to crack 0-60 10 sec barrier.
as to the n/a 6.2-6.5 and 6.9-7.3....who ever bragged about those being great????...never seen anyone over rate a n/a anything...of course the 350 old base diesel really put diesel in the shitter...but these didnt help..its why diesels had such a bad name.
my n/a 660 hodge podge is down right embarrassing....if it didnt run on alternate fuels i would have thrown it away many moons ago.
is out snort how many trips to the gas station in 1500 miles?
when i say 6.5, i mean gep 6.5.
a duramax or cummins i assume are self explanatory.
The reason i say these things about the new trucks is this...
1- They sit stupid low to the ground.
earlier colorados? yeah those were ghey....but they are awesome now. i like them.
2- Way to many electronics to get wet/fry.
under what conditions are you referring?? this engine will run under water with a snorkel....none of the shit you listed will.
3- No manual hubs, no manual 4wd, no manual trans....you know...stuff i know is going to function when i need it to.
well well well....lucky for me.......i have a cure for that shit.
4-Fancy touch screens and other BS that is way to easy to screw up with muddy gloves, whatever....
Need i go on?
okay...now your just raw trolling
Plus, yes, 7500lbs is great. But lets look at this...
My 32Ft TT weighs 7200 lbs. So im gonna go buy a new ranger to tow it.
if it is a bumper pull...no dealer will let you do this if your going in there and arm them with that data with the expected tongue weight...depending on actual tongue weight...they will first try to sell you the right vehicle to do this if the ranger wont handle it... so the rest is moot...
First time out realize that i dont have nearly enough truck (b...bb....but the dealer said its rated for 7500), and whind up sideways on my side on. I75 because i thought i had enough truck (on paper, i did)
Now, behind the 85, it may be a little hairy. But i towed it with my 77 3/4 ton and other then the killer 3.07 gears it was pretty stable. So while the 85 is rated the same, the extra stability makes a better tow vehicle.
the 85 is a 1/2 ton?? for sure this ranger will be more stable then any 80's half ton...the difference between a slab of cement and a bowl of jello difference in stability.. did you look at any of the pictures???....you know the braking is insane right??
Power isnt everything. And like i said, at 185hp that old 351 can accomplish just as much (prolly more TBH) then thwt EB at 260.
Why? Because torque is just that other number that doesnt matter.
ohhhhh really?....the whole point here is torque use ..or rather usable torque.
i hope you read this. you definitely missed it earlier.
eco boost is not some cutesy name.
its very idea is
LOW END TORQUE ON ACROSS THE BOARD
and then...
OVER THE FAWKING HILLS AND THROUGH THE WOODS.
AND BACK!!!
it is now possible to make 351 ho power with a 2.3 l yeah yeah....pisses me off too.
the typical 351 ho, especially with its comparative parasitic losses...has less tq anywhere on the curve.
lets observe an application...this is a car setup... the rangers low end is better. and again...with just a tune it gets stupid.