This stinks, Lightning possibly cancelled
10/10/04, 02:20 AM
#21
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MustangMan311@October 8, 2004, 4:37 PM
Isn't the purpose of having a fast ride for it to go fast? Why would you want to slow it down?
Isn't the purpose of having a fast ride for it to go fast? Why would you want to slow it down?
10/11/04, 11:52 AM
#22
This is total horse-puckey. Indeed, the auto tranny in the Powerstroke diesel handles over 600lb-ft of torque and can take much more than that easily. This might not mean much if the outgoing Lightning did not use a version of this very transmission! Why in the world would Ford not just continue doing the same with the new Lightning?
Also, in this case it is torque that really matters when you are talking about what the tranny can handle. If a slushbox can take 600lb-ft of torque hitting virtually all at once during a difficult uphill pull with a 10,000lb trailer behind it who in their right mind would think it could not take 500hp? It's ridiculous!
Finally, IMHO a manual tranny is the option that makes no sense in this vehicle. I love manual tranny's in GT's and sprts cars. But, this would be a case of having a manual tranny simply for image and nothing more. It's like BMW only building M Sedans with manuals, most people buy these vehicles to use daily, and likely want at least one of their "fast" vehicles with a slushbox.
Too many folks think everything should be a hardcore sports car in disguise. It's as though they were saying "I'll drive my rides like a buckboard, rev-her til she screams, manual stinks in rush hour traffic, M5 home and then get in my rides like a buckboard, manual tanny pickup to go get some plywood. Oh yeah, after that I think I'll get in my manual tranny, rides like a buckboard sports car and act like everything else I drove earlier today was somehow a sensible alternative and this is my "sports car release"
Having sold cars in the ranges spoken of above I can tell you people love that idea right up until they are living with it daily.....then most of them want to trade.
Personally, I would rather drive something like a Mercedes E55 AMG/S Type R home from work (fast, comfy, and a real sport/luxury sedan...not a 4 door nobody but you is ever going to want to ride in...and it has an auto)....I think you get the idea.
Also, in this case it is torque that really matters when you are talking about what the tranny can handle. If a slushbox can take 600lb-ft of torque hitting virtually all at once during a difficult uphill pull with a 10,000lb trailer behind it who in their right mind would think it could not take 500hp? It's ridiculous!
Finally, IMHO a manual tranny is the option that makes no sense in this vehicle. I love manual tranny's in GT's and sprts cars. But, this would be a case of having a manual tranny simply for image and nothing more. It's like BMW only building M Sedans with manuals, most people buy these vehicles to use daily, and likely want at least one of their "fast" vehicles with a slushbox.
Too many folks think everything should be a hardcore sports car in disguise. It's as though they were saying "I'll drive my rides like a buckboard, rev-her til she screams, manual stinks in rush hour traffic, M5 home and then get in my rides like a buckboard, manual tanny pickup to go get some plywood. Oh yeah, after that I think I'll get in my manual tranny, rides like a buckboard sports car and act like everything else I drove earlier today was somehow a sensible alternative and this is my "sports car release"
Having sold cars in the ranges spoken of above I can tell you people love that idea right up until they are living with it daily.....then most of them want to trade.
Personally, I would rather drive something like a Mercedes E55 AMG/S Type R home from work (fast, comfy, and a real sport/luxury sedan...not a 4 door nobody but you is ever going to want to ride in...and it has an auto)....I think you get the idea.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post