Saw this on Craigslist.

http://akroncanton.craigslist.org/ctd/1393125964.html

 

I always thought those were cool trucks. Not cool enough to spend my own money on though.

 

I've always loved the look of those trucks -- both the Ford and Dodge variations. However, anyone from "back in the day" who drove them seems to say that they were slow as sin and had lousy brakes. Not sure, since I've never personally driven one.

 

I've had a 70 dodge a100 sitting in my yard for a year now. first person to show up with $1000.00 gets it.

 

I'll give ya' 50 bucks for it

 

I had one of these back in the day. Mine was the FC170 model with the ultra high HP Hurricane 226. A flat head straight 6 with a one barrel. It would do 45mph in any direction including straight up. But don't try to go 46 'cause the engine was screaming at 45. It had 5:88 gears in both ends. The engine also comes out the bottom like most of these cab over PUs. And yes, they were extremely loud with the engine sitting next to you under the hood that was also inside with you.This one is from Jay Leno Collection.

 

Does the front bumper meet federal crash standards?

 

Yep! The Dodge had a lot more ***** than the Ford - the Dodge used the slant 6 and the Ford used the wimpy Falcon 6. They all had a 3 on the tree and 4 wheel drum brakes with no proportioning valve - without a load the rear brakes locked up VERY easily.

 

I had no idea these things existed.

Funny you say ford has no *****. Why does it seem chebby and dodge make much more powerful engines in HP? Sometimes I hate being the slow guy, even If I can pull a house of it's foundation.

 

At that time, the Falcon inline 6 was 170 cubic inches, the Dodge slant 6 was 225 cubic inches. Kinda hard to make a direct comparison, don't you think?

Eventually, Ford got 250 cubic inches out of that Falcon block, and that engine had some guts.

 

Careful GLC, I just giggled.

I do have to say, while Dodge and Cheb are putting out six litres as base v8's in their sports cars, ford still sticks with the 4.6 as it's base. Remember we're talking base here, not ss, roush/saleen/cobra,etc, srt8, etc.

I always hated that. Seems the only way we can ever beat them is 5.4 supercharged, but still, supercharged is unfair. Can we just make an engine in the same class as the others and not a smaller supercharged engine ?

 

Seems to me that's what they are trying to do with the 6.2. There's a factor that you may not be considering - it's called "CAFE" (corporate average fuel economy). By federal law, the automakers are required to have a certain CAFE averaged out across everything they sell. Bigger engines = worse fuel economy. That's also why Ford is doing Ecoboost. This is why GM and Chrysler are using cylinder deactivation.

 

I agree, about CAFE. I thought about that already. What I thought though was if Chevy and Dodge can make a 6.X and pass, why can't we?

I just hate hearing, yeah your car won, but supercharged.

 

Chevy and Dodge have enough vehicles in their line that get high gas mileage to counteract those. I also think it's the whole company - Chrysler, GM. Ford probably sells a higher percentage of low gas mileage vehicles than GM or Chrysler.

 

I think part of it is the fact that Ford has been so top-heavy with large trucks the last 15-20 years. They sold so many more trucks as a percentage of production compared to the other guys that I think this had to have played a role in the whole 4.6/5.4 fascination.

Up until the last few years they have really neglected the car market, with the last "hit" for the longest time being the '86 Taurus. It's gotten better of late, but FoMoCo went through LOOOONG drought as far as hot-selling cars were concerned.