GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
in [Toyota]
|
From: Kevin on 1 Apr 2007 21:55 "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:zOmdnac7YKa81I3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:NtFPh.22207$oV.19591(a)attbi_s21... >> >> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:o_GdnSpR05DpnpLbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> > >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message >> > news:GCEOh.17698$tD2.10404(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the >> >> major >> >> full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell > you >> >> which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details > of >> >> the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The >> > Tundra >> >> clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually >> > NEED >> >> trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear >> >> demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't > really >> > do >> >> much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers >> >> final >> >> statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter > than >> > the >> >> competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from >> >> the >> >> start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be >> >> interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 >> > feet >> >> shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was > gained >> >> during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually >> > correct >> >> it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something >> > that >> >> was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road >> >> Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras >> >> stopping >> >> distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A >> >> similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and >> >> Driver >> > 2007 >> >> pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge >> > 1500 - >> >> 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 >> >> feet. >> >> So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had >> >> exceptional >> >> brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag >> > race >> >> your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck. >> >> >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> > >> > When I buy a new vehicle I place priority in the engineering behind the >> > engine. >> > >> > The engine is used to a greater extent of it's fullest potential more > than >> > any other part of the truck. >> > >> > This means I prefer engine design consistent with 2007 instead of 1957. >> > >> > I want engines that produce high power and torque for their > displacement, >> > while their fuel consumption and emissions stay low. >> > I don't care who produces these cars I will buy them. >> > I seem to remember Ford himself talking about how they had to make a >> > new >> > focus on fuel economy technology. >> > Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ? >> >> They are getting 300 hp from 4.6L. Isn't that good enough? They have 4 >> valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their > horsepower >> targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost? > > 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use. That is unless > you > don't think the consumer deserves it. > Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication of a > lower red line ? > > The 4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve. > > The mustang engines are still pushrod design. > > Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ? How about variable valve timing > ? You should research before you spout. 4.6L, 5.4L, and 6.8L are all OHC, not pushrod. Lincoln Navigator has used four valve heads for almost 10 years. Mustang V8s are also OHC. Check it out. >> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines. >> >> There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it foolish >> to >> say you won't consider a pushrod engine. Most current Ford engines are >> overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6 truck >> engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It is > hard >> to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and horsepoer > per >> cubic inch of space occupied under the hood. > > OH ? > Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm > Tundra V8 5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm > Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm > > Similar numbers out of less displacement. This would suggest the Corvette > would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design. > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic > lifters hence not DOHC. > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. > >> >> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake >> > rotors. >> >> And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers work >> significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had cars >> with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite Toyota's >> hype, >> their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So what > is >> the advantage? > > That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and > responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area without > having to float the caliper. > > It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area. > > I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2. > >> >> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ? >> > >> > http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224 >> >> Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles" were 97 > and >> 98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket problems do >> some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure - >> >> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html >> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html >> > http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/ >> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1 >> http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm >> >> Ed > > Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket recalls. > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ? > >
From: Kevin on 1 Apr 2007 22:03 "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message news:3d514$4610602a$47c2b532$15794(a)msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:tvydnWe6oPj0w43bnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> >> "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... >>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to >>> form: >>> >>> >>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic >>> > lifters hence not DOHC. >>> > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. >>> >>> Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine. >> >> Yeah ? >> http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp >> >> says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers >> >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David M (dmacchiarolo) >>> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled >>> T/S 53 >>> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2:26 1 user >>> >> >> > > According the info from the link provided above, the 4.0 L has a single > overhead cam, the 4.6 L has overhead valves (pushrods) and the 5.4 L has > double overhead cam. > > It is possible for an overhead cam engine to use hydraulic lifters. > -- > > Ray O > (correct punctuation to reply) > Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all do. 4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting, which makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft.
From: Noon-Air on 1 Apr 2007 22:58 > > Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all do. Care to make a correction on that statement?? > 4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC > engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting, > which makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft. The direct acting method is the cam lobes directly contact cups on the end of each valve stem and are adjusted with shims under the cup for correct lash and clearance. Ref the 1600cc lotus twin cam, big valve engine. They also had a 4 valve per cylinder engine but it didn't make the horsepower or torque the big valve engine did. They were 125hp out of the box and when correctly massaged, they made 235hp(Formula B engine), with some very high revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to boot.
From: aarcuda69062 on 1 Apr 2007 23:06 In article <tvydnWe6oPj0w43bnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to form: > > > > > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic > > > lifters hence not DOHC. > > > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. > > > > Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine. > > Yeah ? > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp > > says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid? How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an overhead cam engine? Do you even know what a camshaft does?
From: Kevin on 2 Apr 2007 02:37
I know how direct actings work, give me a current example of a non hydraulic lifter engine. I've rebuilt several, and haven't shimmed one. "Noon-Air" <Noon-Air(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:v_SdnTV_v67s7I3bnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > >> >> Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all >> do. > > Care to make a correction on that statement?? > >> 4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC >> engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting, >> which makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft. > > The direct acting method is the cam lobes directly contact cups on the end > of each valve stem and are adjusted with shims under the cup for correct > lash and clearance. Ref the 1600cc lotus twin cam, big valve engine. They > also had a 4 valve per cylinder engine but it didn't make the horsepower > or torque the big valve engine did. They were 125hp out of the box and > when correctly massaged, they made 235hp(Formula B engine), with some very > high revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to boot. > |