SVT Raptor Pricing Announced

[GoCougs]

I bet that has more to do with the marketing team than the engineering team on that one.

Yeah, engine power/torque has virtually nothing to do with tow rating; even though the new SAE spec takes into account minimum acceleration it is glacial.

I don't see that the average truck buyer would pay extra over the 5.0L for this. Offering the E-B sounds like a boutique offering for PR purposes.

[Nethead]

I bet that has more to do with the marketing team than the engineering team on that one.

the Teuton:  Well, the EcoBoost tows 11,300 pounds like the 411 HP 6.2L V8, but doubtless gets vastly better mileage unloaded (while towing 11,300 pounds, not so much).  And it may get better mileage than the TiVCT 5.0L V8 unloaded, too.  Ford is expecting the EPA to rate the EcoBoost TiVCT V6 at 24 MPG in an F-150, but the EPA hasn't done their testing yet.

So it's both an Engineering and a Marketing issue:  Engineering makes it possible, and Marketing lets you know about it.  

[Nethead]

Submariner, it's time to batten down the hatches, take 'er deep, rig for silent running, and prepare for depth charge attack 'cuz here's another "High speed screws closing fast, Skipper!" Raptor rave , courtesy of www.autoblog.com:

Review: 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor 6.2
by Jeremy Korzeniewski (RSS feed) on Oct 26th 2010 at 11:55 AM

Frequent Flying In Ford's Factory Baja Blaster
A scant 30 minutes had passed after taking possession of this 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor until we had all four of its wheels off the ground. We'd have done the deed even sooner, but our destination ? a Baja-style test track in the middle of the desert outside Phoenix, Arizona ? was, understandably, far enough out of town that no locals would be able to complain of excessive noise or mini dust tornadoes encroaching on their own tracts of brush-filled paradise.

After all, the modern conveniences of day-to-day life just don't mix with such uncivilized activities as seeing how much air you can put between your truck's skid plates and solid ground.

And therein lies the beauty of this particular beast. Since when did such niceties as in-dash navigation with voice-activated SYNC, a leather interior with heated seats, dual-zone climate control and satellite radio count as standard equipment in a truck that was built primarily for 100-mile-per-hour blasts through the desert?

Since late 2009, actually, when FoMoCo unleashed the first version of the F-150 SVT Raptor on an unsuspecting public. Unlike all previous products from Ford's Specialty Vehicle Team, including the F-150-based SVT Lightning, this truck does its best work once the pavement ends and the really nasty stuff begins.

It's no secret that we've loved the Raptor ever since our first experience behind the wheel, and now it's better than ever before. How so? Keep reading to find out.

Our biggest and perhaps only real complaint with the Raptor when it launched was that its 5.4-liter V8 engine was underpowered for the kind of shenanigans its heavy-duty chassis and beefed-up suspension encouraged. Ford heard our cries for more power, and rectified the situation with a new 6.2-liter V8 that was adapted for Raptor duty after first seeing action in Ford's Super Duty truck line.

Here's the first bit of truly great news: Everything positive that we said about the original Raptor carries over completely intact with the 6.2-powered version. That includes the solidity of the fully boxed ladder frame, which is a full seven inches wider than the standard F-150, as well as the 17-inch wheels with specially-crafted BF Goodrich All Terrain tires.

You'll find knobs inside the Raptor 6.2 to switch between two-wheel drive, four-wheel drive high and four-wheel drive low. When the going gets really tough, the tough can get going by locking the rear end and engaging Off Road Mode, which uses electronic wizardry to change throttle and transmission shift maps along with the thresholds of the standard stability, traction and ABS brake controls. Finally, there is a handy-dandy Hill Descent Control function that will keep you from shooting up or down steep inclines too quickly.

And if you do happen to get in over your head despite all the efforts of the truck's hive mind of computer systems, the most important carryover bits and pieces would be those that make up the front and rear suspension. There are 11.2 inches of bump-ingesting travel up front and 12.1 inches at the rear. Damping duties are ably handled by a special set of Fox Racing Shocks that sport triple interior-bypass valving, enabling them to do things like leap tall mountains in a single bound. These suspenders are extraordinarily impressive and all but impossible to find fault with.

Now, let's get back to that Baja test track. We quickly found that you don't just drive a Raptor. You pilot it. The first thing we did after arriving at our not-so-secret testing location was to point the truck's massive front tires in the general direction of the track's largest ramp and bury the accelerator pedal. After that initial successful takeoff and landing, we repeated the deed over and over again... completely in the name of science, of course. Suffice it to say, the process of jumping a three-ton pickup truck never gets old, but we were still curious how the bright orange machine would handle the rest of the track's obstacles.

A couple of laps around the testing circuit proved a handful of points. First, it may indeed be possible to break a Raptor, but you'd need to do something truly stupid to make it happen. We're talking an act so completely without rational thought that it would have to be eligible for a Darwin Award if you didn't make it. A more likely scenario, however, is that you scare yourself into common sense at the first sign of pushing too far into the Raptor's prodigious bag of capabilities.

Second, the biggest obstacle to earning your Raptor Pilot's license is the guts to keep your foot on the throttle in spite of your brain's ever present urgings to maintain control over life and limb.

Third, once you find the elusive switch that shuts down your brain's dogged insistence on self preservation, the Raptor will take on almost anything that Mother Nature has in its arsenal. Vespa-sized boulders, tire-swallowing holes and trenches large enough to halt a blitzkrieg are all dispatched with an air of invincibility. If you find yourself unsure of whether or not an area is passable, it probably just means that you're not going fast enough to jump it. We're actually not joking here ? the truck's shocks are designed with multiple levels of damping force, which basically means the biggest of hits are soaked up at least as compliantly as smaller obstacles, and the rebound is much less likely to be jarring when you're moving at a decent speed.

The final off-road tidbit we learned during our visit to the track is that the 6.2-liter engine is a much more willing and able partner than the previous 310-horsepower 5.4-liter Triton V8. Perhaps that goes without saying, but the fact of the matter is that the Raptor easily handles every one of the 411 horsepower and 434 pound-feet of torque the new engine is capable of dishing out.

And now it's time for the real revelation the Raptor has been hiding from you all this time: It's an extremely obliging machine when it's time to leave the desert expanses and head back home. What seemed just moments before like something created specifically to jump across the gaping hole of an unpronounceable volcano in Iceland is now a good old Ford F-150 pickup truck... and a luxurious one at that.

Amazingly, the ride is smooth and well controlled while driving on surface streets. Further, the cabin is quiet and cozy enough inside for front-seat passengers to carry on a conversation with those in the back seat without yelling. Steering is reasonably tight considering the giant rubber balloons on which the Raptor rides. The steering feel is a bit too light and quick for our tastes, but it's certainly on par with the rest of its off-road oriented full-size truck competitors.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the Raptor is its dismal fuel economy . We averaged a woeful 13.7 miles per gallon in everyday driving, which included more long slogs on the highway than balls-to-the-wall stretches of off-roading.

It's something of a contradiction in sheetmetal, the F-150 SVT Raptor. On one hand, it's a vehicle bred specifically to tackle the Baja 1000. On the other, it's refined enough to take you and the Mrs. out for a surprise night on the town. Well, that's assuming she doesn't mind being seen in our tester's bright orange paint and matte black graphics package. We'd at least take a pass on the matching interior scheme.

Perhaps it goes without saying, but we thoroughly enjoyed the week we spent with the 2010 Ford Raptor 6.2. All the good stuff we've ever written about the Raptor applies to this newest version, but sadly, our opinion that it needs more power remains.

Clearly, the 6.2-liter V8 is the engine Ford's Raptor should have been blessed with from the very beginning. Naturally, we'll gladly take the extra 101 horses over the previous engine, but in reality we're still left wanting more, and we have to wonder how Ford's more fuel efficient but surprisingly powerful 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 powerplant would feel in this off-road application.

Still, at a base price of $41,995 (a reasonable $3,000 premium over the outgoing 5.4, which is no longer available for 2011), you won't hear us complaining very much at all about the fun-per-dollar quotient of the 6.2-powered Raptor. While a plane ticket might cost less, you won't have more fun flying than on the back of this bird of prey.

[GoCougs]

Interesting, yet another review of a Ford product pining for more power, or in the least implying the power stats don't match performance.

I look at both the 6.2L and 5.0L and the stats look great WRT the competition but the motors just aren't performing as they should.

[SVT666]

Interesting, yet another review of a Ford product pining for more power, or in the least implying the power stats don't match performance.

I look at both the 6.2L and 5.0L and the stats look great WRT the competition but the motors just aren't performing as they should.

Fanboi.

The Mustang is hitting 60 mph in 4.4 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 12.7 seconds in virtually every single test published.  The 5.0L is performing just fine.

As for the this review, it makes no mention of an under performing engine.  All they say is that they want even more power, which...let's be honest...is only natural of anyone who likes horsepower.

[Nethead]

Interesting, yet another review of a Ford product pining for more power, or in the least implying the power stats don't match performance.

I look at both the 6.2L and 5.0L and the stats look great WRT the competition but the motors just aren't performing as they should.

Yep, Ford builds vehicles that outperform their engines--which are clearly the best engines built in North America.  

That's because they can.  Ford's got the know-how, the technology, the modern factories, and the talented employees to push the limits further and further back.  Ford knows it's the entire vehicle, not just the engine.  

Back in the 'Sixties, every manufacturer built engines that outperformed their vehicles--Ford included.  But Ford got smarter, and as a result they're the only domestic manufacturer that hasn't gone bankrupt at least once.  Not only do Ford engines perform better than competing engines in their objective, measured statistics, but they back that up by performing better in the vehicles, too.
 
Let's tool on down to a GM or Chrysler dealership and let The Braying Ass show us the GM Raptor or the Chrysler Raptor.  Yeah, they got nothin'...

We've already gotten our jollies smirking at the GM Mustang and the Chrysler Mustang! Auto mags don't even bother including Camaros and Challengers in comparos of Mustang GTs, BMW M3s, and Nissan 370Zs--and that's BEFORE the Boss 302 and Boss 302 Laguna Seca hit the pavement...

Even Ford's EcoBoost V6 F150 tows hundreds of pounds more than the biggest V8s offered in the Silverado, Sierra, and Ram 1500. Naturally, Ford's naturally-aspirated V8s outtow the V8s of their competitors and Ford's naturally-aspirated V6 outtows the V6s of its competitors.

Better engines in better vehicles = superior products for the money.

Pssst, GM...Chrysler--it ain't the 'Sixties anymore.  Helllloooooo.........
     

[GoCougs]

Fanboi.

The Mustang is hitting 60 mph in 4.4 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 12.7 seconds in virtually every single test published.  The 5.0L is performing just fine.

As for the this review, it makes no mention of an under performing engine.  All they say is that they want even more power, which...let's be honest...is only natural of anyone who likes horsepower.

If that were the case you'd not only have volumes of data to post you'd not be compelled to attack and be an apologist.

The '11 Mustang GT is on average a 12.9 - 13.0 performer but by engine stats (+ gearing especially) it should be quicker.

[GoCougs]

Yep, Ford builds vehicles that outperform their engines--which are clearly the best engines built in North America. 

That's because they can.  Ford's got the know-how, the technology, the modern factories, and the talented employees to push the limits further and further back.  Ford knows it's the entire vehicle, not just the engine. 

Back in the 'Sixties, every manufacturer built engines that outperformed their vehicles--Ford included.  But Ford got smarter, and as a result they're the only domestic manufacturer that hasn't gone bankrupt at least once.  Not only do Ford engines perform better than competing engines in their objective, measured statistics, but they back that up by performing better in the vehicles, too.
 
Let's tool on down to a GM or Chrysler dealership and let The Braying Ass show us the GM Raptor or the Chrysler Raptor.  Yeah, they got nothin'...

We've already gotten our jollies smirking at the GM Mustang and the Chrysler Mustang! Auto mags don't even bother including Camaros and Challengers in comparos of Mustang GTs, BMW M3s, and Nissan 370Zs--and that's BEFORE the Boss 302 and Boss 302 Laguna Seca hit the pavement...

Even Ford's EcoBoost V6 F150 tows hundreds of pounds more than the biggest V8s offered in the Silverado, Sierra, and Ram 1500. Naturally, Ford's naturally-aspirated V8s outtow the V8s of their competitors and Ford's naturally-aspirated V6 outtows the V6s of its competitors.

Better engines in better vehicles = superior products for the money.

Pssst, GM...Chrysler--it ain't the 'Sixties anymore.  Helllloooooo.........
     

For all your screed and apologism Ford still can't build a better motor than GM's decades-old pooprod V8. In fact to see the last time Ford built the best motor in Detroit one has to go back to the Flathead of the 1930s.

(Wind him up and watch him go - LOL.)

[SVT666]

If that were the case you'd not only have volumes of data to post you'd not be compelled to attack and be an apologist.

The '11 Mustang GT is on average a 12.9 - 13.0 performer but by engine stats (+ gearing especially) it should be quicker.

This is the latest test that just came out in the last Motor Trend magazine.

2011 Mustang GT vs. BMW M3

[SVT666]

For all your screed and apologism Ford still can't build a better motor than GM's decades-old pooprod V8. In fact to see the last time Ford built the best motor in Detroit one has to go back to the Flathead of the 1930s.

(Wind him up and watch him go - LOL.)

Ford builds some of the best motors on the market...period.

[GoCougs]

This is the latest test that just came out in the last Motor Trend magazine.

2011 Mustang GT vs. BMW M3

Guess we forgot the myriad other standardized tests. There are literally too many too continue to post that plainly show an average of ~12.9-13.0 sec. About the only way to wiggle your way out of this reality is to blame live axle for complications in launching. Possible, but then do you have the moxie to admit the obviousness of it?

Motor Trend: 12.8 sec.

Inside Line: 13.0 sec.

Car and Driver: 13.2 sec.

[SVT666]

Guess we forgot the myriad other standardized tests. There are literally too many too continue to post that plainly show an average of ~12.9-13.0 sec. About the only way to wiggle your way out of this reality is to blame live axle for complications in launching. Possible, but then do you have the moxie to admit the obviousness of it?

Motor Trend: 12.8 sec.

Inside Line: 13.0 sec.

Car and Driver: 13.2 sec.

Motor Trend's 12.8 is almost exactly the same as their 12.7 is the latest Mustang vs. M3 test.

Edmunds is always slower than most tests.  Always.

Car and Driver's Mustang was an anomaly.  It was slower than the Camaro in every acceleration test except 0-60 (tied).  Every other comparo has the Mustang ahead of the Camaro all the way to 130 mph.  This is the only comparo where that didn't happen.

[FoMoJo]

For all your screed and apologism Ford still can't build a better motor than GM's decades-old pooprod V8. In fact to see the last time Ford built the best motor in Detroit one has to go back to the Flathead of the 1930s.

(Wind him up and watch him go - LOL.)

Of course the Ford flathead V8 was the hotrodder's motor of choice for a couple of decades; until GM came out with their OHV high compression V8s in the late '40s for Oldmobile (rocket) and Cadillac.  If you could find one at a decent price they worked pretty good in a little '32 roadster or even a late '40s Ford Coupe.  

Although both Ford and Chevy had OHV V8s by '55 - Ford Y-block and Chevy small-block - and the Y-blocks had a power advantage over the small-blocks, the small-block, due to weight, dimensions and availability - there there thousands of them in junk-yards all over the country - became the hotrodder's choice mainly due to convenience.  In most respects, the Y-block was a better engine.  The low skirting made it a smoother running and more ridged engine and it had more power; especially the E version (2X4bbl) and the F version (4bbl with a blower) that was used in the T-Bird and high-end Fords.

While Chevy continued developing their small-block with some success, the Y-block was relatively short-lived (until '64).  In the meantime, it had been superceded by the legendary FE series; a derivative of the Y-block as well as the Windsor small-block V8.  Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of engines is well aware of the accomplishments of these famous powerplants.  The FE, other than dominating domestic racing for long periods of time, powered the iconic GT40 (427 version) to its wins at Le Mans.  The Windsor small-block, as well as winning innumerable races in various formats powered the Shelby Daytona Couple to the FIA championship in 1965 beating the elite sportscars of the era including Ferrari.  As well, in 1963 a near stock version of it was fitted into a couple of Lotus Indy cars being driven by Jim Clark and Dan Gurney.  Though only finishing 2nd and 7th, it proved a worthy competitor against the Offenhausers of the era and, after some tinkering, aluminium block, DOHC 4vpc, etc. it blew the Offys off the track and dominated in the series for years.  We should all know what the Boss series did in the Trans Am Series as well as all the exotic hybrids of the time into which the Windsor was fitted.

This only touches the extent to which Ford Power dominated racing in the golden era; based largely on the FE and Windsor series.  If one were to venture over the pond at the time you would find the crown jewel of engines from the small Ford sponsored shop of Messrs Costin and Duckworth.  Never has an engine so dominated the pinnacle of motorsports so convincingly as the Ford Cosworth DFV.

[GoCougs]

Motor Trend's 12.8 is almost exactly the same as their 12.7 is the latest Mustang vs. M3 test.

Edmunds is always slower than most tests.  Always.

Car and Driver's Mustang was an anomaly.  It was slower than the Camaro in every acceleration test except 0-60 (tied).  Every other comparo has the Mustang ahead of the Camaro all the way to 130 mph.  This is the only comparo where that didn't happen.

It's not my fault testing is showing it ain't as quick as it should be.

Edmunds is slower, huh? Edmunds Inside, Camaro SS: 13.0 sec. Interesting, as we know the Camaro SS has been a rock solid 12.9 - 13.0 sec performer in virtually every single test.

The only logical implication that can be drawn from your incessant thread pollution ANYTIME the Mustang is mentioned is that its live axle is making it difficult to get consistent acceleration results. I accept your verdict with grace.

[SVT666]

It's not my fault testing is showing it ain't as quick as it should be.

Edmunds is slower, huh? Edmunds Inside, Camaro SS: 13.0 sec. Interesting, as we know the Camaro SS has been a rock solid 12.9 - 13.0 sec performer in virtually every single test.

The only logical implication that can be drawn from your incessant thread pollution ANYTIME the Mustang is mentioned is that its live axle is making it difficult to get consistent acceleration results. I accept your verdict with grace.

It has nothing to do with the live axle.  Your precious Camaro got it's ass kicked and you can't accept it.  You have become the Nethead of the Camaro world.  That's my verdict.

[GoCougs]

Of course the Ford flathead V8 was the hotrodder's motor of choice for a couple of decades; until GM came out with their OHV high compression V8s in the late '40s for Oldmobile (rocket) and Cadillac.  If you could find one at a decent price they worked pretty good in a little '32 roadster or even a late '40s Ford Coupe.  

Although both Ford and Chevy had OHV V8s by '55 - Ford Y-block and Chevy small-block - and the Y-blocks had a power advantage over the small-blocks, the small-block, due to weight, dimensions and availability - there there thousands of them in junk-yards all over the country - became the hotrodder's choice mainly due to convenience.  In most respects, the Y-block was a better engine.  The low skirting made it a smoother running and more ridged engine and it had more power; especially the E version (2X4bbl) and the F version (4bbl with a blower) that was used in the T-Bird and high-end Fords.

While Chevy continued developing their small-block with some success, the Y-block was relatively short-lived (until '64).  In the meantime, it had been superceded by the legendary FE series; a derivative of the Y-block as well as the Windsor small-block V8.  Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of engines is well aware of the accomplishments of these famous powerplants.  The FE, other than dominating domestic racing for long periods of time, powered the iconic GT40 (427 version) to its wins at Le Mans.  The Windsor small-block, as well as winning innumerable races in various formats powered the Shelby Daytona Couple to the FIA championship in 1965 beating the elite sportscars of the era including Ferrari.  As well, in 1963 a near stock version of it was fitted into a couple of Lotus Indy cars being driven by Jim Clark and Dan Gurney.  Though only finishing 2nd and 7th, it proved a worthy competitor against the Offenhausers of the era and, after some tinkering, aluminium block, DOHC 4vpc, etc. it blew the Offys off the track and dominated in the series for years.  We should all know what the Boss series did in the Trans Am Series as well as all the exotic hybrids of the time into which the Windsor was fitted.

This only touches the extent to which Ford Power dominated racing in the golden era; based largely on the FE and Windsor series.  If one were to venture over the pond at the time you would find the crown jewel of engines from the small Ford sponsored shop of Messrs Costin and Duckworth.  Never has an engine so dominated the pinnacle of motorsports so convincingly as the Ford Cosworth DFV.

Very notable, but that's racing, some which Ford had nothing to do with, especially the production/retail side of Ford.

From the mid '50s forward Ford always played second (or third) fiddle save for MY2011:

Y-block: Chrysler Firepower (first gen Hemi) huge advantage

Windsor small block; 289, 302, 351: Chevy and Chrysler small blocks small advantage

Short-lived medium block; 351C, 400M; Chevy and Chrysler small and big blocks big advantage

FE series; 352, 390, 427: Chrysler Firepower small advantage, Chrysler and Chevy big blocks big advantage

'385' series; 429, 460: Chevy and Chrysler big blocks small advantage

Boss 429: Chrysler 426 Hemi, Chevy TriPower 427 and LS6 454 moderate advantage

Modular/Triton: Chevy small block moderate advantage

385 series: Chevy big block and Chrysler B/RB big blocks small advantage

Coyote 5.0, 6.2L: tentatively equivalent to pooprod Dodge Hemi and Chevy LS

[SVT666]

Coyote 5.0, 6.2L: tentatively equivalent to Dodge Hemi and Chevy LS

Tentatively equivalent?  Your fanboism is poking through Cougs.

[GoCougs]

Tentatively equivalent?  Your fanboism is poking through Cougs.

Not only is it only the very beginning stages of the 2011 MY, objective irrefutable data to date shows no advantage in Coyote engine performance when there should be at least some. Even if performance is equivlanet GM and Chrysler are doing it with archaic pooprod motors.

In short, "tentative" was me being usual nice self.

[SVT666]

Not only is it only the very beginning stages of the 2011 MY, objective irrefutable data to date shows no advantage in Coyote engine performance when there should be at least some. Even if performance is equivlanet GM and Chrysler are doing it with archaic pooprod motors.

In short, "tentative" was me being usual nice self.

You're getting awfully desperate Cougs.  At least when I was arguing last year that the 2010 Mustang GT (with 100 fewer horsepower) was still a better car than the Camaro despite being slower, the magazine comparos backed me up.  You don't even have that.

[GoCougs]

You're getting awfully desperate Cougs.  At least when I was arguing last year that the 2010 Mustang GT (with 100 fewer horsepower) was still a better car than the Camaro despite being slower, the magazine comparos backed me up.  You don't even have that.

Your unsavory behavior is as a result of the failure of your screaming-from-the-mountaintop predictions that the '11 GT would both be quicker and the Mustang the better seller. I would have thunk you would have been mature enough to have accepted reality. Seriously, what happens with you when the 'vert and Z28 are released next year???

[SVT666]

Your unsavory behavior is as a result of the failure of your screaming-from-the-mountaintop predictions that the '11 GT would both be quicker and the Mustang the better seller. I would have thunk you would have been mature enough to have accepted reality. Seriously, what happens with you when the 'vert and Z28 are released next year???

I was wrong about the sales, but I most certainly wasn't wrong about the Mustang being faster or the better car.  But, sales do not make a great car.

[GoCougs]

I was wrong about the sales, but I most certainly wasn't wrong about the Mustang being faster or the better car.  But, sales do not make a great car.

You can objectively state the GT500 is quicker than all current Camaros (but using the heavier CTS-V coupe as a gauge the Z28 will run about 12 flat easily besting the GT500) and that the V6 Mustang is quicker than the V6 Camaro. Unfortunately you can not objectively state that the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS.

[SVT666]

You can objectively state the GT500 is quicker than all current Camaros (but using the heavier CTS-V coupe as a gauge the Z28 will run about 12 flat easily besting the GT500) and that the V6 Mustang is quicker than the V6 Camaro. Unfortunately you can not objectively state that the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS.

Yes I can.  You're the only one who won't.

[SVT666]

You can objectively state the GT500 is quicker than all current Camaros (but using the heavier CTS-V coupe as a gauge the Z28 will run about 12 flat easily besting the GT500) and that the V6 Mustang is quicker than the V6 Camaro. Unfortunately you can not objectively state that the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS.

Take a look at Motor Trend's July 2010 issue. "Mustang takes on all comers" is the article.  Mustang GT hits 60 mph in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.7, while the Camaro hit 60 mph in 4.7 and got through the 1/4 mile in 13.1.  What's your excuse for that one?

Oh and in that same comparo, the Mustang GT, Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track, Challenger SRT-8, and Mustang V6 all beat the Camaro SS and Camaro RS in the final standings.

[Nethead]

Take a look at Motor Trend's July 2010 issue. "Mustang takes on all comers" is the article.  Mustang GT hits 60 mph in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.7, while the Camaro hit 60 mph in 4.7 and got through the 1/4 mile in 13.1.  What's your excuse for that one?

Oh and in that same comparo, the Mustang GT, Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track, Challenger SRT-8, and Mustang V6 all beat the Camaro SS and Camaro RS in the final standings.

SVT666:  This is where The Braying Ass will choose to use the "Ignore" function on your postings again

[Nethead]

SVT666:  You WILL want to read the November 2010 issue of Automobile magazine--with a '70 Boss 302 and a Boss 302 Laguna Seca on the cover and the banner headline "10 GREATEST MUSTANGS EVER!  WILL THE NEW BOSS 302 BE NUMBER 11?"  It all starts on page 52.

Editors Rusty Blackwell, Joe DeMatio, Joe Lorio, Evan McCausland, Mike Ofiara, Eric Tingwall, and Jim Campisano get together and select what they believe to be the Ten Greatest Mustangs so far--evidently in no particular order--from the '65 G.T. 350 to the '69-'70 Boss 302 to the '68(1/2) 428 Cobra Jet to the '84-'86 SVO to the '87-'93 LX 5.0 to the '93 Cobra to the '95 Cobra R to the '00 Cobra R to the '01 Bullitt to the '11 GT500.  

Another article that begins on page 72 selects cars that provide Practicality with Performance for those in their twenties, those in their thirties, and those in their forties.  Prices of the cars is the key, with cars for twenty-somethings being the least expensive (a Civic Si & a VW GTI), cars for the thirty-somethings being mid-priced (a 370Z & a Mustang GT), and cars for the forty-somethings being the most expensive (an M3 and an MB C63 AMG).  A Twenty-something, a thirty-something, and a forty-something with track experiences were chosen to do the duties in each vehicle.  The GTI, the GT, and the C63 AMG get the recommendations here.

Check it out!

[GoCougs]

  cherry picking...

Car and Driver: Camaro SS 13.0 sec, Mustang GT 13.2 sec.

You two and your embarrassing and shameful trolling, insecurity and apologism for all things Mustang. Ugh. Sorry, but I have no choice.

[SVT666]

  cherry picking...

Car and Driver: Camaro SS 13.0 sec, Mustang GT 13.2 sec.

You two and your embarrassing and shameful trolling, insecurity and apologism for all things Mustang. Ugh. Sorry, but I have no choice.

You're the one cherry picking Cougs.  That's the only comparo that has the Mustang slower than the Camaro.  Your Camaro apologism, insecurity, and shameful trolling is embarrassing.

[Nethead]

Meanwhile, back on the topic of the thread, comes this Car and Driver odyssey not through the deserts but through the permafrost . Why th' Hell not?

2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor 6.2 - Road Test
Driving north through Saskatchewan to the border of the Northwest Territories will seriously mess with your truck. Not to mention your internal organs.
BY JOHN PHILLIPS, October 2010

Specifications
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2+2-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED: $48,765 (base price: $42,235)
ENGINE TYPE: SOHC 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 379 cu in, 6210 cc
Power (SAE net): 411 bhp @ 5500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 434 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 133.0 in Length: 220.9 in
Width: 86.3 in Height: 78.4 in
Curb weight: 6100 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec
Zero to 90 mph: 14.3 sec
Street start, 5?60 mph: 6.8 sec
Standing ?-mile: 15.3 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 98 mph
Braking, 70?0 mph: 202 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: N/A
C/D observed: 16 mpg

For years, I?d heard tales of a scenic but topographically malevolent gravel road that leads 420 miles to the top of the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. It dead-ends just 47 miles shy of the Northwest Territories. Plenty of Canadians and hard-core fishermen know of its existence, but few will describe it in any but the most vague, ominous, unhelpful terms.

?Helluva road,? said one.

?Kinda creepy,? offered another.

?You?ll wanna bring a truck,? advised a third. ?A sturdy truck. Not your own truck.?

A 411-hp SVT Raptor is a sturdy truck. And the example that arrived in our parking lot belonged to the Ford Motor Company.

Two-thousand and three miles later, we?d made it as far as La Ronge, Saskatchewan, which marked the end of pavement and the start of gravel. La Ronge is a dusty, hardscrabble burg, predominately populated by Woodland Cree. For photographer Marc Urbano, it represented terra incognita. Before dinner, I caught him studying a warning next to the restaurant?s steel door, scarred as if attacked by something wielding a rake. The sign said, ?Do not put cigarettes out on building.? Urbano had already been marginally unnerved by La Ronge?s North Mart grocery store, where we?d stocked up on survival provisions. Opposite the potato-chip aisle was a canoe for sale. ?I?ll have the Pringles, the elk jerky, a loaf of whole-wheat, and . . . wait a sec,? I said to the clerk. ?Oh, yeah, you know what I almost forgot? A 16-foot, green-fiberglass Pelican canoe.?

At dawn, we headed north and were surprised to find the gravel road remarkably well groomed, permitting bursts of up to 45 mph. At the 300-mile mark, we had reached Points North Landing, a fuel depot attached to a small airstrip hacked out of the granites and gneisses of the Precambrian Shield. The landscape was monotonous yet fetching, little of it touched by human hands?a steady panorama of stunted black spruce, birch, icy-blue ponds, and undulating fields of exposed cinnamon bedrock. ?This is gonna be a cinch,? I said to Urbano. At that point, the Raptor had suffered no injury save dirt. Its $1075 graphics package, which its designers call ?digital splash,? had been wholly obscured by analog splash. For free.

And that, of course, is when it all went nasty: God?s great banana skin.

The first biblical tribulation was a 100-yard-long sand pit, two or three feet deep. I hit it at maybe 30 mph. The truck stopped as if it had T-boned the Berlin Wall and showed no intention of moving until I selected 4WD low. The sand was like talc. When the Raptor powered out, milky, opaque plumes of the stuff billowed up astern. It didn?t matter, though, because I hadn?t seen a vehicle behind us for the previous nine hours.

The second biblical tribulation comprised corrugated surfaces, especially jarring on the uphill stretches. ?Corrugated,? though, is the wrong word. It was as if someone had dug foot-deep troughs laterally every six feet or so. Maybe you?ve seen those TV commercials where something fantastically heavy?like a locomotive?is dropped from 30 feet into a pickup?s bed, and the whole truck squats as if it might snap spindles and axles. Every couple of seconds or so, the Raptor likewise explosively squatted as its wheels slammed into the miniature canyons. The trick was to apply throttle only after regaining a smooth surface. Otherwise, the axles would tramp like jackhammers.

The third biblical tribulation was mile after hellish mile of granitic slabs, Mother Nature?s own paving stones laid out on the day she showed up for work drunk and petulant. I thought the side windows might pop into a thousand pieces. During one spleen-busting grand slam, Urbano?s cell phone momentarily levitated two feet above his lap. Later, he would discover that one of his zillion-dollar Canon lenses refused to focus on anything that wasn?t in the left-most edge of the frame. The pounding caused our seatbelts to cinch until they threatened to snap ribs. We hooked the belts uselessly behind our backs and continued untethered, wondering whether a closed head injury would hurt or merely induce welcome numbness.

I expected that the next impediment would be locusts. We weren?t that lucky. At 4:30?60 miles from the northernmost end of the road and six hours before sunset?the sky went dark. Actually, it went black, so perfectly Johnny Cash black that I turned on the high-beams, although I actually had plenty of grim glimpses of what was transpiring out there, given the sheet lightning that was now fragmenting the sky. Next came Thor?s own tympanic thunder, followed by the kind of rain you?d expect if someone had inverted a lake. Then hail began pinging off the Raptor?s roof, mimicking a Buddy Rich paradiddle clinic. Then came washouts, which were hard to identify because the whole road had churned into frothy chocolate milk. Then came dense fog, only it wasn?t fog?it was steam rising from our left, where the spruce and birch had burned a couple of hours earlier, which wasn?t hugely distressing until we traveled another mile to discover the spruce and birch still gaily ablaze. Steam, fog, or smoke?hard to tell?started puffing from the Raptor?s hood vents.

?You wanna get out and see if everything?s okay?? I asked Urbano.

?No,? he said. ?I already know. Everything?s not okay.?

Right about when I figured we might want to turn back?assuming we had fuel sufficient to return to Points North Landing, which was iffy?the sky cleared and the sun shone so brightly that sunglasses were unpacked. ?Helluva road,? I said to Urbano, as if I knew  we?d make it. We passed beneath a birch limb where two immense ravens were perched, and I imagined one saying to the other, ?Jeez, too bad. Looked like quite a nice dinner there.?

Stony Rapids, population roughly 425, marks the end of the road. Literally. The village clings to an escarpment overlooking the raging Fond du Lac River. Portions of pickup trucks, in various stages of mauled desiccation, rest in front of almost every weather-beaten house, and mud-encrusted dogs sleep in the middle of intersections. At Scott?s General Store, a marten pelt is legal tender. Our accommodations that night were at Al?s Place, a clean motel owned by stern-looking Al Syne, who is mysteriously obsessive about locking his establishment?s front door. Al had already rolled his own truck on the way down to La Ronge. ?I knew I was gonna crash,? he recalls. ?I had a choice. Either bust through a snow berm into a lake, or hook the steering and probably roll. In the end, I decided I didn?t want to swim.?

At that point, we had successfully navigated the road without breaking the Raptor. Well, we loosened it up quite a bit. And, of course, there remained the ugly business of the return trip. Al suggested we air down the Raptor?s 35-inch tires and park once per hour to allow the shocks to cool. At 8:30 p.m., the motel?s lights flickered. ?They?ll go out for good momentarily,? Al pessimistically but accurately predicted. Sitting in the dim lobby, we asked about all the broke-back pickups, many only a few years old. ?The rule of thumb up here,? Al informed, ?is that you use up one truck per year. Then you get another.?

Our Tuxedo Black 2010 Raptor is more or less a clone of the Sunkist-orange Raptor we tested in December 2009. The big difference, of course, is the optional 6.2-liter V-8 ($3000), producing 411 horsepower rather than the 5.4-liter V-8?s meager 310. Readers will recall that this SVT truck in no way mimics the SVT Lightning stoplight racer that preceded it. Instead, the dirt-seeking Raptor is a factory-built off-roader, with improved approach and departure angles, greater ground clearance, custom shocks, and cast-aluminum front lower control arms that you?d find only on a truck belonging to someone named ?Iron Man.? With this ?bigger-engined Raptor, acceleration has improved, naturally, but not as much as 101 bonus horses might suggest. Sixty mph now rolls into view in 6.7 seconds (versus the 5.4-liter Raptor?s 8.0 seconds), and the quarter-mile disappears in 15.3 seconds at 93 mph (versus 16.3 seconds at 86 mph).

Monster BFGoodrich mudders and ?massive suspension travel?11.2 inches fore, 12.1 inches rear?do not a sports car make. The Raptor?s body rolls like a long-line trawler in the North Atlantic. Spirited on-ramp maneuvers often result in sunglasses, maps, and cell phones on the floor, and those huge all-terrain sidewalls feel as if they might roll over and de-bead.

In a straight line on pavement, however?all 4005 miles of it?the Raptor proved compellingly sorted. The tires were neither as noisy, squirmy, nor prone to wander as we expected, tracking loyally on interstates. What contributed most earnestly to the Raptor?s long-distance poise were, first, its terrific seats, with perfect lumbar and thigh support; and, second, its ?70s-era-Caddy-cushy ride, partly an upshot of its super-stretched lower control arms up front. If you tend to fall asleep during 13-hour driving stints, don?t expect to be awakened when the Raptor drifts starboard onto the berm. You won?t feel a thing.

The steering wheel?s red, top-dead-center stripe proved distracting, constantly dancing a left-right rumba in the driver?s peripheral vision, discordantly matching the shivers and gyrations of the lightweight composite hood. Here?s something odd. In the owner?s manual, Ford insists that the Raptor not be subjected to a commercial carwash. That?s because it?s more than seven inches wider than a stock F-150, so it might not fit. The company also warns against aiming a high-pressure spray wand at the stick-on splash graphics, which, we guess, tend to splash off. With options, our Raptor?s sticker soared to $48,765, pricey for an extended-cab F-150. Of course, it?s probably justifiable if you?re weekly navigating Forest Service roads, dousing fires ignited by lightning, or attacking Walker Evans?s driveway.

Our return southbound was slightly less vicious than the trek upstream, in part because the rain had largely snuffed the flaming black spruce. Unfortunately, the torrent had also transformed sections of the road into those recreational mud pits popular at state fairs and catfish-noodlers? conventions. The driver of a pale-blue van got crossed up, rolled, then endoed with force sufficient to cram the engine into the center console. And a gent piloting a small water tanker pinwheeled tail-first into a wet sandbank, high-centering his truck with apparent permanence. Urbano and I were the first on the scene. ?Been here eight hours,? the driver informed. ?You got anything to eat?? We built a Dagwood sandwich for the guy, then donated nuts, Pringles, Triscuits, granola bars, teriyaki caribou jerky, and three bottles of vitamin water. The sandwich was gone in three bites, then our rescuee began speed-jamming Triscuits with his right hand, even as he handed me a rusty chain with his left.

With the Raptor?s diff locked, I leaned into the throttle cautiously?I wasn?t sure how much more life the driveline possessed?until the truck was heaving in place, its BFGs eventually excavating individual foxholes large enough to house doughboys. The tanker moved not one inch. To my surprise, a southbound Chevy Silverado had pulled up, and I walked back to explain the situation. The driver was a Black Lake First Nation native, with muscled chest and forearms. He never turned his head to look at me. Eventually, I asked, ?So, what do you think we should do??

In a deep, throaty, Arnold-the-Terminator voice, he replied, ?Leave him.? Then he selected a gear, navigated six-inch-deep slop to bypass the Raptor, and continued southbound at a clip I considered unwise.

As I stood ruminating mid-road, a colony of  black flies began feasting on my forearms, leaving red welts that resembled measles. I promised the tanker driver that I?d report his plight at Points North Landing. ?Yeah,? is all he said, shrugging his shoulders and wiping a glop of Hellmann?s off his chin. Then we returned to the pummeling.

The uphill slogs were the worst, where the wheels would slam, spin, then snap over sharp granite outcrops hidden by a couple of inches of sand. It made my neck ache. We lacerated a left-front sidewall, but a roadside spit test indicated the leak was minor. Something under the dash was making a kind of fabric-ripping sound; deep sand was causing the traction control to moo like a Hereford; and the truck?s bed was twisting three inches to the east when the cabin was headed west. ?This road,? Urbano suggested, ?should automatically  void your  warranty.?

As the worst of the craggy knolls approached, I silently began naming them: Big Bastard Butte, Hemorrhage Hill, Rio Vista the Vicious, Titanic Talus, and Now We?re Totally Screwed Promontory.

?Who?s totally screwed?? Urbano asked. I hadn?t realized I was talking out loud. A half-mile ahead, Urbano spied dust flung up from the red Silverado driven by the man he was now calling ?Mr. Leave Him.?

?You could catch that guy,? he urged. ?Get right on his bumper, and, you know, turn him.? There was a good 30 seconds of silence. Then Urbano added, ?I?ve been watching a lot of NASCAR.?

We passed a well-maintained roadside shrine at kilometer-marker 65. It commemorated either a fatal accident or Our Lady of Broken Driveshafts.

Ten miles out of Points North Landing?where we could buy precious fuel and take a 36-hour respite from door panels inflicting kidney welts?I remarked, ?I can?t believe the windshield isn?t busted.? That?s when a northbound F-350 shotgunned us with mini meteorites, gouging a spidery hole that caused Urbano to duck and cry out.

It had been another 6.5-hour march of misery?an average of 18.5 mph, not bad, considering. The Raptor was a festival of filth, its taillights so clayed over that not even brake lights were visible, and one exhaust tip was bent forward like a floppy puppy ear. But the truck wasn?t broken.

As we slowed, a wolf burst out of a spruce forest on our left, crossed the road like a cannonball?never so much as glancing at us?and disappeared into a thicket to starboard. As he ran, his body stretched out five or six feet, like a giant greyhound?s in the final furlong. I nosed the truck to where the wolf had penetrated a dense and dark stand of tamarack. Raptor pursuing canine. ?Wow,? I said. ?Think we should go look for him??

Urbano turned to face me. In his most earnest voice, he said, ?Leave him.?

[FoMoJo]

Very notable, but that's racing, some which Ford had nothing to do with, especially the production/retail side of Ford.

From the mid '50s forward Ford always played second (or third) fiddle save for MY2011:

Y-block: Chrysler Firepower (first gen Hemi) huge advantage

Windsor small block; 289, 302, 351: Chevy and Chrysler small blocks small advantage

Short-lived medium block; 351C, 400M; Chevy and Chrysler small and big blocks big advantage

FE series; 352, 390, 427: Chrysler Firepower small advantage, Chrysler and Chevy big blocks big advantage

'385' series; 429, 460: Chevy and Chrysler big blocks small advantage

Boss 429: Chrysler 426 Hemi, Chevy TriPower 427 and LS6 454 moderate advantage

Modular/Triton: Chevy small block moderate advantage

385 series: Chevy big block and Chrysler B/RB big blocks small advantage

Coyote 5.0, 6.2L: tentatively equivalent to pooprod Dodge Hemi and Chevy LS

Piffle and balderdash .  I disagree with everything you've stated.

So as to not diverge anymore from the thread topic I will state only a couple of short facts.

From How Lincoln Cars Work

1952, 1953, 1954 Lincoln Cars and Lincoln's Mechanical Advancements
The period from 1952-1954 was significant in Lincoln history. The most notable mechanical development was the make's first overhead-valve V-8: a new short-stroke design of 318 cid, good for 160 bhp at first and 205 bhp for 1953-54.

It was superior in many ways. Its crankshaft, for example, had eight counterweights versus most competitors' six. Intake valves were oversized for better breathing and higher specific output. (Among '53 engines, it produced 0.64 bhp per cubic inch against 0.63 for Cadillac and 0.54 for the Chrysler Hemi.) The crankcase extended below the crankshaft centerline to form an extremely stiff shaft support, hence this engine's family nickname of "Y-block."
Lincoln turned in some spectacular performances at the Carrera Panamericana -- virtually unrivaled in the Inter?national Standard Class. Lincolns took the first five places in 1952, the top four in '53, and first and second in 1954.

Regarding the later 'big blocks', though each in their own right were excellent engines, it was well known by builders that a Ford FE could easily withstand 700 bhp with the stock bottom end while a Chevy was not trusted beyond 500.  The Ford 385-series was even more robust...and yes, the Boss 429 was the BOSS; unless you had the NASCAR version.  If you wanted to boost the hp on a Chevy, better switch out the bottom end with an after-market assembly.  As for the HEMI, no doubt it was a stout engine but it weighed 200 lbs. more than either the Ford or chevy.  No wonder they were call the 'elephant'.

We could discuss small-blocks but, as previously mentioned, versions of stock and modified Windsors achieved legendary status; and the Cleveland was even sweeter, especially the 'Boss'.  However, it was late to the table and the 'golden era' had faded into the dreary 70s.  Yes, the Chevy small-block was the hotrodders choice before the muscle-car era but the Chrysler small-blocks .  Just consider what was not achieved in the original Trans-Am series by them.

Now, back to the SVT Raptor...