its back yee haw 2009 lightning

[Tatom Mack]

not sure if its been posted yet but here

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/15/lightning-fans-rejoice-a-new-svt-prepped-f-150-is-coming-this-f/

[Silver_2000]

Update: After hearing from someone at Ford and talking to Mike Levine from PickupTrucks.com (http://pickuptrucks.com/) this new truck will almost certainly not be called a Lightning. In fact according to Mike, this new truck is likely to be the new Harley-Davidson F-150.

The harley has been in the works for quite some time

[dboat]

we shall see... I would think that with gas this high.. it might have to be a wait and see mode.. unless its a hybrid..

Dana

[WA 2 FST]

If they actually build it, I will likely buy it. Looks like a great vehicle. But I have my doubts it will ever make production.

[Silver_2000]

but I Have My Doubts It Will Ever Make Production.

+1

No trucks or 8 Cyl are selling

[98Cobra]

Slap a Harley badge on ANYTHING and someone will buy it...

[03LightningRocks]

+1

No trucks or 8 Cyl are selling

+2

I can't imagine it either. I think the party is just about over for High HP, gas guzzling vehicles. Of all makes and models and trucks would have to be on the top of the hit list.

[dboat]

there is still a need for a high torque truck for work purposes. high hp will be relegated to sports cars, which I bet are taking a hit too... that market will shrink down a lot as well. If someone could make a 30mpg decent 6cyl work truck, I bet it would be bought up in a heartbeat, right Rocks?

[03LightningRocks]

Depends on how much weight it could carry. But generally yes...we need high mpg work trucks.

[SILVER2000SVT]

If Chevy could make a truck that got 20mpg hwy in 1980 why is it that almost 30 years later they are the most fuel efficient full size available and still only get 20mpg highway.

We had the oil crisis in the 70's that forced automakers to double the fuel mileage of cars in that 10 year period. Then for 30 years they make no improvements. Now we have another oil crisis. Does that mean in 10 years we should be seeing 40mpg trucks?

[tiffo60]

If Chevy could make a truck that got 20mpg hwy in 1980 why is it that almost 30 years later they are the most fuel efficient full size available and still only get 20mpg highway.

We had the oil crisis in the 70's that forced automakers to double the fuel mileage of cars in that 10 year period. Then for 30 years they make no improvements. Now we have another oil crisis. Does that mean in 10 years we should be seeing 40mpg trucks?

the newer trucks are putting out more power than they were in 1980, and getting better gas milage right? correct me if I am wrong


found some info on the 1980 blazers(same motor as would be in the pickups)

5.7L(350)
170hp
270tq

http://www.coloradok5.com/brochures/1980/blazer8.jpg

[03LightningRocks]

The government recently set new standards by which mileage is figured for sticker ratings. The old sticker ratings had about 10% Bullsh!t built in. The new sticker ratings are more realistic. This resulted in many vehicles loosing 2 or more MPG on the ratings they quote from last year to this year.

[L8 APEX]

The Smart car lost 3-4mpg on their stickers from 07-08. I guess that is why...

[Mark #2]

the newer trucks are putting out more power than they were in 1980, and getting better gas milage right? correct me if I am wrong


found some info on the 1980 blazers(same motor as would be in the pickups)

5.7L(350)
170hp
270tq

http://www.coloradok5.com/brochures/1980/blazer8.jpg


I have one of these high HP and TQ monster K5s:D
http://www.coloradok5.com/brochures/1988/blazer9.jpg
12.5 MPG

[L8 APEX]

I'd say the horse power is way up and the mileage is the same or less. My 88-95 TBI Chevy 350's were some of my favorite trucks. They only had 190-210hp but got decent mileage 14-16 in the 4wd and 15-18 in the 2wd. The new Silverado's with 5.3 have 325hp and do 14-16 in 4wd and 15-18 in 2wd. The 6L gasser gets 13-14 empty. That 6.2 with 400hp is a beast. The trucks are a lot heavier with all the safety gear and luxury. The stricter emissions has also crimped economy. The brakes are a lot better. Though GM keeps throwing old drum brakes on the rear axles here and there:bs.

The emissions restrictions have all but killed the diesel trucks. I don't know what to do after this truck. Between EGR valves and regeneration systems since 2008 models. Trucks have a towing economy of 6-8mpg and empty of 12-14mpg. That is a solid 2-4mpg loss from previous years. The old 12 valve 160hp Cummins would get 19-22mpg. The 300hp 24 valve versions are about 15-17mpg. So doubling the HP of the diesel did consume more fuel.

[dboat]

I'd say the horse power is way up and the mileage is the same or less. My 88-95 TBI Chevy 350's were some of my favorite trucks. They only had 190-210hp but got decent mileage 14-16 in the 4wd and 15-18 in the 2wd. The new Silverado's with 5.3 have 325hp and do 14-16 in 4wd and 15-18 in 2wd. The 6L gasser gets 13-14 empty. That 6.2 with 400hp is a beast. The trucks are a lot heavier with all the safety gear and luxury. The stricter emissions has also crimped economy. The brakes are a lot better. Though GM keeps throwing old drum brakes on the rear axles here and there:bs.

The emissions restrictions have all but killed the diesel trucks. I don't know what to do after this truck. Between EGR valves and regeneration systems since 2008 models. Trucks have a towing economy of 6-8mpg and empty of 12-14mpg. That is a solid 2-4mpg loss from previous years. The old 12 valve 160hp Cummins would get 19-22mpg. The 300hp 24 valve versions are about 15-17mpg. So doubling the HP of the diesel did consume more fuel.


buy an older truck and fix it up.. maybe put on one of those Banks systems too..

Dana

[L8 APEX]

I work on cars every weekend of my life. The last one I want to work on is my own...

[dboat]

I work on cars every weekend of my life. The last one I want to work on is my own...

ok, only a suggestion.. but with all the great aftermarket stuff there is out there.. you could build a killer diesel that could get decent mileage..

[GoldLS1]

I'd say the horse power is way up and the mileage is the same or less. My 88-95 TBI Chevy 350's were some of my favorite trucks. They only had 190-210hp but got decent mileage 14-16 in the 4wd and 15-18 in the 2wd. The new Silverado's with 5.3 have 325hp and do 14-16 in 4wd and 15-18 in 2wd. The 6L gasser gets 13-14 empty. That 6.2 with 400hp is a beast. The trucks are a lot heavier with all the safety gear and luxury. The stricter emissions has also crimped economy. The brakes are a lot better. Though GM keeps throwing old drum brakes on the rear axles here and there:bs.

The emissions restrictions have all but killed the diesel trucks. I don't know what to do after this truck. Between EGR valves and regeneration systems since 2008 models. Trucks have a towing economy of 6-8mpg and empty of 12-14mpg. That is a solid 2-4mpg loss from previous years. The old 12 valve 160hp Cummins would get 19-22mpg. The 300hp 24 valve versions are about 15-17mpg. So doubling the HP of the diesel did consume more fuel.

I had a 92 TBI ext cab 4x4... thing was slower than shit, but it could always get the job done. 6" lift and 35s it usually got around 13mpg mixed. Damn 700r4s are a piece of shit tho, with no power, lift, and tires it was killing the converter. LOL at the drum brake comment!!

Yep emmissions for diesels is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. I know why they did it but look at what it costs the consumer with an already bunk deal on the diesel prices. Not sure why dodge went from the 5.9 to a 6.7!! OF couse its going to be thirsty!! IMO they need to make a big 4 or 5L diesel. Ease back on TQ leave the HP around the 300 range. make it diesel efficient, make it lighter, and hope for a descent work truck that can get in the 20s in town and 30s highway. Not sure if its possible I'm just saying that would a good selling vehicle IMO.

[L8 APEX]

Cummins increase displacement to keep a competitive HP rating with the new emissions controls. It is all the idiots that think a puff of black smoke a source of pollution. So what is burning TWICE as much a little cleaner worth?

[GoldLS1]

Cummins increase displacement to keep a competitive HP rating with the new emissions controls. It is all the idiots that think a puff of black smoke a source of pollution. So what is burning TWICE as much a little cleaner worth?

I dont see why they bumped CI for HP when they could have tweaked the old one's tune... and still got around the same mileage??? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know mine now is faster than my dads 6.7s. His was stock, and mine as it sits now (6" lift, 35s, intake, straight pipe, and smarty on level 3 (which is the lowest level besides stock). I raped him from a stop no boost, a stop with as much boost at the tires could hold, a stop with however we thought it would take off the fastest, low roll, high roll, both in 2wd (his is a 2wd). 4wd woulda been bad!! I do have to admit the new tranny in those 6.7s are nice!!

[dboat]

I dont see why they bumped CI for HP when they could have tweaked the old one's tune... and still got around the same mileage??? Correct me if I'm wrong.

it has to do with reliability and lower warranty claims..

[L8 APEX]

The old 5.9 would not meet the performance goals and pass emissions for 08 up. Ford did the same thing going to the 6.4 and TWO turbos. The new Cummins are not doing well at all on the boards. Dodge chose a passive DPFE system and it has been clogging left and right. Ford and Chevy use an active DPFE system and are managing to stay running minus horrible fuel economy. Dodge also went to the horrible VGT turbo and have had problems with those.

6.7 guys are looking to go back to the 5.9...
http://www.thedieselgarage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71936

[GoldLS1]

it has to do with reliability and lower warranty claims..

Not sure how much you keep up with or know about the 5.9s... the motor is built to rock!! The auto trannys are not, and the manuals aren't much better off. So changing to a larger displacement motor wasnt the right answer IMO for more power as far as being a reliability issue. The 5.9s turned way up have proven to be reliable... its always the trannies that give out!! Warranty claims not seeing that really either... how much hp and tq difference from the last 5.9 to 6.7 +25hp +40tq with the addition of 50 cubes.



The old 5.9 would not meet the performance goals and pass emissions for 08 up. Ford did the same thing going to the 6.4 and TWO turbos. The new Cummins are not doing well at all on the boards. Dodge chose a passive DPFE system and it has been clogging left and right. Ford and Chevy use an active DPFE system and are managing to stay running minus horrible fuel economy. Dodge also went to the horrible VGT turbo and have had problems with those.

6.7 guys are looking to go back to the 5.9...
http://www.thedieselgarage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71936




I still disagree w/ performance... however emissions definately. I've read all about the DPF, my dad had a few probs with his. I told him to stop babying it... ever since then he hasnt had any probs with it. I believe he has around 20k on it. I've heard a few (very few) probs about the VGT also... why do you say horrible?? I've seen a lot of guys bitching and moaning saying they wish they would have NEVER traded in their 5.9s. I've also seen others that say they are happy with their new ride. It's all about what you want. If you want a stock truck that will pull most anything and still retain a warranty the 6.7s is hard to beat. However if you want to mod and dont care about warranty 5.9 is hard to beat (if your getting a dodge, i know theirs die hard ford and chevy diesel guys on here). Mods/warranty are the reason I bought the 5.9 :tu: and reason why my dad bought the 6.7 :nono: .