Go Back   F150online Forums > Owner's Connection > General Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Photos Vin Decoder FAQ Members Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Vendor DirectoryGarage

General Discussion
SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to F150Online Forums!
Welcome to F150Online.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the F150Online Forums community today!





Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-26-2009, 01:11 PM
Senior Member
1972 Chevrolet Corvette
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: N.E. Ohio
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F150Lariat
Posts: 2,869
65 Econoline Pick Up

Saw this on Craigslist.

http://akroncanton.craigslist.org/ctd/1393125964.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-26-2009, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
2006 Ford F-150
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Decatur,AL
Vehicle: 2006 Ford F 150
Posts: 3,019
I always thought those were cool trucks. Not cool enough to spend my own money on though.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth View Post
Nothing screams poor craftsmanship like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruckGuy24 View Post
Damn that looks good! I want to do that to my rear end at some point. Always loved the shaved rears :rocker:
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-26-2009, 02:16 PM
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F-150
Posts: 2,485
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2009, 02:26 PM
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F150
Posts: 1,176
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.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2009, 02:28 PM
Senior Member
1972 Chevrolet Corvette
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: N.E. Ohio
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F150Lariat
Posts: 2,869
I'll give ya' 50 bucks for it
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2009, 05:11 PM
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So. Texas
Posts: 1,456
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.
Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2009, 05:20 PM
Suspended
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: not of this earth
Vehicle: 07 F150 SHORTY
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by che22879 View Post
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.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Does the front bumper meet federal crash standards?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2009, 07:57 PM
glc glc is offline
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Joplin MO
Vehicle: 2003 Ford F150
Posts: 28,279
Quote:
they were slow as sin and had lousy brakes.
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.
__________________
2003 F-150 XL RCSB 2wd 4.2 M5OD 3.55 LS
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2009, 08:04 PM
Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Statesboro, Ga.
Vehicle: 2001 Ford F-150
Posts: 27


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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2009, 08:43 PM
glc glc is offline
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Joplin MO
Vehicle: 2003 Ford F150
Posts: 28,279
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.
__________________
2003 F-150 XL RCSB 2wd 4.2 M5OD 3.55 LS
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-26-2009, 08:55 PM
Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Statesboro, Ga.
Vehicle: 2001 Ford F-150
Posts: 27
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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-26-2009, 08:59 PM
glc glc is offline
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Joplin MO
Vehicle: 2003 Ford F150
Posts: 28,279
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.
__________________
2003 F-150 XL RCSB 2wd 4.2 M5OD 3.55 LS
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-26-2009, 09:03 PM
Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Statesboro, Ga.
Vehicle: 2001 Ford F-150
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by glc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-26-2009, 10:02 PM
glc glc is offline
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Joplin MO
Vehicle: 2003 Ford F150
Posts: 28,279
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.
__________________
2003 F-150 XL RCSB 2wd 4.2 M5OD 3.55 LS
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-26-2009, 10:08 PM
Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F-150
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoshNet View Post
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 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.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 10:08 PM


 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 PM.


 
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Contact Us Advertising Privacy Statement Terms of Service Jobs Forum Text Archives
Emails & Contact Details

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2