5.4 Vs 4.2
ok..so your saying they should have put the 6.8 in it?? or make a completely new motor???
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,337
Likes: 159
From: DFW
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Houston, TX
If they wanted to make the lightning a faster version of the truck, why didnt they just put a bigger engine in it? Isnt that yalls whole arguement, that the 5.4 is always better than the 4.2 because its bigger?
i dont see why putting a supercharger on a 5.4 was a bad idea in your mind...why would they make a completely new motor for a few thousand trucks?
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 0
What I dont understand is why they didnt put a turbo 3.8 in the lightnings?? Or maybe they could have use the 2.3 that mazda uses in the speed 3's. I imagine that lightnings would have been stomping v10 dodge vipers and ferrari's with engines of that size. Those 3.8s would make some banging horsepower with a big turbo. But then I guess the torque would be comparable to that of a snail's crossing a water puddle.
What I dont understand is why they didnt put a turbo 3.8 in the lightnings?? Or maybe they could have use the 2.3 that mazda uses in the speed 3's. I imagine that lightnings would have been stomping v10 dodge vipers and ferrari's with engines of that size. Those 3.8s would make some banging horsepower with a big turbo. But then I guess the torque would be comparable to that of a snail's crossing a water puddle.
ranger 2.3 ftw
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Houston, TX
I have been argueing that with the proper engineering a smaller engine can outperform a large one. Thats why they didnt put a large engine in the lightning, because they can get a signifcant increase in HP without having to up the displacement.
There is a replacement for displacement!
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 1
From: CO
chevy camaro Z28's(stang GTs competitor) had a GM under-rated 275hp in 1993 and ended up getting up past 300hp in 1998(305hp) and up to an under-rated 325hp by 2002. the mustang GT, the Z28's competitor, didnt get 300 hp til 2005, see what i mean by ford being behind? only took them 7 years to catch up to a 1998 Z28. so please...take your mumbo jumbo elsewhere and stay there for 7 years or so. by that time maybe you will have caught up with the times like ford did. at least they are making the gap in years smaller now. only took them 2 years to catch the new camaro.... good job ford!!!
lol
Last edited by timmypstyle; May 6, 2010 at 05:44 PM.
Have you been reading this thread?!? Im not saying a super is a bad idea!
I have been argueing that with the proper engineering a smaller engine can outperform a large one. Thats why they didnt put a large engine in the lightning, because they can get a signifcant increase in HP without having to up the displacement.
There is a replacement for displacement!
I have been argueing that with the proper engineering a smaller engine can outperform a large one. Thats why they didnt put a large engine in the lightning, because they can get a signifcant increase in HP without having to up the displacement.
There is a replacement for displacement!