GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
in [Toyota]
|
From: C. E. White on 2 Apr 2007 08:10 "jcr" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:X_2dnSXmCI7aXZDbnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > I'd be very surprised if Toyota's "fastest" truck would > out-accelerate the V-10 engines that Ford and Dodge produce. Ford doesn't offer the V-10 in a F150. But the V-10 is really a truck engine, so I doubt it would be as fast as the Tundra 5.7L V-8. I don't know much about the Dodge V-10, but again unless you are talking about the Viper V-10, the Dodge V-10 is a truck engine. No one building serious work trucks would tune their engine to for drag racing. Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge have all built silly trucks set up to go fast in a straight line (like the Ford Lightning), but only Toyota seems to think anyone takes drag trucks seriously as work trucks. A 2004 Ford Lightning would do 0-60 in 5.2 sec (or less) and stop from 60 in 162 feet. Of course it was not a real work truck, but it sure would look good in that silly Tundra 0-60-0 ad..... Ed
From: Noon-Air on 2 Apr 2007 08:50 I haven't kept up with the new engines, and quit building engines and racing in the mid to late 80s FWIW, the Ford 2.8 V6 was a solid lifter, pushrod engine with a gear drive cam "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:3x1Qh.7507$YJ4.1953(a)newsfe23.lga... >I know how direct actings work, give me a current example of a non >hydraulic lifter engine. I've rebuilt several, and haven't shimmed one. > > "Noon-Air" <Noon-Air(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:v_SdnTV_v67s7I3bnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> >> >>> >>> Not only is it possible for OHC engines to have lifters, virtually all >>> do. >> >> Care to make a correction on that statement?? >> >>> 4.6L is OHC, roller finger followers are kind of like rocker arms on OHC >>> engines, and allows a ratio change. The other method is direct acting, >>> which makes for a VERY lumpy camshaft. >> >> The direct acting method is the cam lobes directly contact cups on the >> end of each valve stem and are adjusted with shims under the cup for >> correct lash and clearance. Ref the 1600cc lotus twin cam, big valve >> engine. They also had a 4 valve per cylinder engine but it didn't make >> the horsepower or torque the big valve engine did. They were 125hp out of >> the box and when correctly massaged, they made 235hp(Formula B engine), >> with some very high revs, and naturally aspirated with carburators to >> boot. >> > >
From: owl on 2 Apr 2007 09:13 "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:Yc6Qh.9819$YJ4.3818(a)newsfe23.lga... > DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft placement > and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and 4 valve engines > that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I don't > understand, if I were you I wouldn't be pretentious about my understanding if I were you. My mistake came from reading Ford's erroneous web page. It's right there on the 4.6 L 24V V8 for the Mustang GT model. Clearly says OHV. If you want to get on a highhorse about understanding, go make your gripes to those responsible for the error on the web page. > > "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ybOdneERr7mfM43bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > > > "aarcuda69062" <nonelson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:nonelson-8D0F03.23063101042007(a)newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > >> 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$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > >> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to > > form: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have > > hydraulic > >> > > > lifters hence not DOHC. > >> > > > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. > >> > > > >> > > Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine. > >> > > >> > Yeah ? > >> > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp > >> > > >> > says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger > >> > Followers > >> > >> Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid? > > > > I'm just used to DOHC meaning no rockers and no lifters. > > I have always associated lifters with pushrods. > > > > Does condesention make your point better, or are you trying to win an > > award > > for something else ? > > > >> > >> How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an > >> overhead cam engine? > > > > I think a better question is how does a DOHC valvetrain have lifters in > > the > > traditional sense. They are not lifters they are cups and shims. > > > > I've been looking all over the site, I guess to get the spark plug in the > > middle, and DOHC you have to get the Shelby. > > > > > >> > >> Do you even know what a camshaft does? > > > > > >
From: owl on 2 Apr 2007 09:52 "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:5m6Qh.52534$nh4.26122(a)newsfe20.lga... > > "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:opydnUZF3NZvKI3bnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > > > "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message > > news:vpZPh.16617$Ng1.3320(a)newsfe19.lga... > >> > >> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:zOmdnac7YKa81I3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message > >> > news:NtFPh.22207$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. > > > > You should check out the Ford Web site before you spew. > > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/ > > > > I was looking at the GT model. > > > > The 4.6 says OHV right on it. However, clicking on the link and spawning > > the child window.. > > The engine is a SOHC. Looks like Ford has an ERROR right on their > > website. > > I guess their mistake on their new product sales collateral was > > misinformation. > > > > The starting context of this entire thread was in reference to the F150 > > 4.2 > > versus the Tundra 4.0 > > both V6 engines. > > > > The F150 4.2 v6 is a OHV design. > > > And you, sir, should understand engine construction before inserting your > foot in your mouth. Referring to a 4.6L as an OHV is not an error. OHV means > overhead valve, which is exactly how it is built. It is an error on the page and to most people OHV means it is NOT SOHC period. I made a snapshot of Ford's errored page. Do I need to attach it. Click on the link for the Mustang GT's 4.6L OHV 24V V8 link you get a child page that says 4.6L SOHC. Don't try to Tell me OHV = SOHC or DOHC. This has never been the case. > There's nothing wrong with > pushrods engines, especially in low RPM applications like trucks. If Ford > and Chev are competetive with pushrods engines and 3 valve engines, who > should worry? Maybe Toyota if they make a 4 valve? If they have to go to > added engineering and construction expense to stay competetive, who's the > dumb one. The one who isn't acknowledging the history of Toyota engines that get more power and torque out of less displacement. Construction expense is the CEO's greater wages versus your right as a consumer to get technology in the year 2007 for the money you pay. You keep trying to suggest I don't know. I have worked on dirtbikes. There is no secret who is solving the power per weight and displacement in that market. My 1979 xr500 is a SOHC 4 valve. My 1983 xr500 is RFVC, Radial Four Valve construction. The valves go in radialy to the head to maximize the valves size in the head. Pushrod engines have more reciprocating weight. This will always be a grave liability to engine performance simply because of physics. Does your rhetoric undermine or replace physics ? > > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > 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: C. E. White on 2 Apr 2007 11:01
"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:N_Sdneo0KvTkl4zbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > It is an error on the page and to most people OHV means it is NOT > SOHC > period. > I made a snapshot of Ford's errored page. Do I need to attach it. > Click on the link for the Mustang GT's 4.6L OHV 24V V8 link you get > a child > page that says > 4.6L SOHC. > > Don't try to Tell me OHV = SOHC or DOHC. This has never been the > case. Clearly, the Ford web page author made a mistake. However , OHV = over head valves and you don't have to have push rods to have over head valves. So while the usage is misleading, it is not false. The 4.6L V-8 most definitely has a over head valves. It also has a single overhead camshaft. So while it is an SOHC engine, it is also a OHV engine. > The one who isn't acknowledging the history of Toyota engines that > get more > power and torque out of less displacement. Especially when you measure the horsepower with special intakes and exhaust... http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/inthenews/03-13-06.html http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?section=Pickup&story=universalHP2006&subject=stories&referer=&year=New http://www.cars.com/go/news/Story.jsp?section=news&subject=recent&story=031306storyaDN&referer=&aff=sacbee > Pushrod engines have more reciprocating weight. Not true. You might be able to claim that push rod valve trains have more reciprocating mass, but not necessarily the whole engine (and even then you might be on shaky ground). You should check out NASCAR push rod engines (even the Toyota NASCAR V-8). They spin those 6 liter V-8s to over 10,000 rpm with push rods. If valve train reciprocating mass was the main deterring factor in engine performance, race cars would all be running flat head engines. > This will always be a grave > liability to engine performance simply because of physics. Does > your > rhetoric undermine or replace physics ? Does yours? People get fixated on maximum horsepower numbers. What I want is a car that drives properly. I've had 240 HP cars that were a pain to drive in traffic, and 140 HP cars that were a joy to drive in traffic. The V-6 Camry I test droive a was a POS. If you floored it, it accelerated briskly, but in around town driving it was hopeless. Unresponsive, the transmission constantly hunted for the right gear, and unless you floored it, it lagged like heck. My SO's 4 cylinder automatic transmission RAV4 drove much better in traffic. Toyota can publish all the big numbers they want for horsepower, but if it drives like a POS, it is a POS. Ed |