Dealership Builds The 650 HP F-150 Lighting That Ford Won't
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HGB9Ll72ZL0/WbxRi0mZpHI/AAAAAAAAKts/4m0YZDf1oLgR2xdluTm8AyE8vd2oiLfEQCLcBGAs/s1600/Ford-F-150-Lightning-Tribut.jpg)
The Ford SVT Lighting went out of production nearly 13 years ago but the high-performance truck hasn't been forgotten by the folks at Pioneer Ford in Georgia.
In a Facebook post earlier this week, the dealership unveiled its F-150 Lightning Tribute which is based on the single cab model with a short bed. Despite its rather humble appearance, a closer inspection reveals the truck has a side exiting exhaust and 22-inch five-spoke alloy wheels. The dealership also installed a sport-tuned suspension and a handful SVT and Lighting badges.
While the previous Lighting had a supercharged 5.4-liter V8 engine with 380 hp (283 kW), the new model has a 5.0-liter V8 that has been equipped with a Roush supercharger. This enables the truck to produce 650 hp (484 kW) which is 200 hp (149 kW) more than the F-150 Raptor.
The Drive reports the truck is rear-wheel drive and comes with its full factory warranty. The model is also eligible for all the rebates and incentives as a normal F-150.
This particular truck stickered at $49,661 but it has already been sold. The dealership has plans for additional models and one will be based on the 2018 F-150 and feature a gray micro suede and leather interior.
Link: http://www.carscoops.com/2017/09/dealership-builds-650-hp-f-150-lighting.html
I'd roll that. :ohyeah:
I've already been towying with the idea of a F150 RCSB with 5.0 for my next car
$50k? Not bad for a custom build on a new truck.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 15, 2017, 04:53:36 PM
$50k? Not bad for a custom build on a new truck.
A 2018 F150 with 400hp 5.0L, RCSB, 4WD, 10spd, and 3.73 with locker is like $32k MSRP. So figure mid 20's. I want it.
Add a supercharger, mild drop, and some more reasonable wheels for $10k? Yes please
That's actually not a bad deal and I've always loved RCSBs of all makes and models. But mid 30s will put you in a new Z or 228i. Man that would be a sick ass bike towing vehicle though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2017, 08:58:53 AM
That's actually not a bad deal and I've always loved RCSBs of all makes and models. But mid 30s will put you in a new Z or 228i. Man that would be a sick ass bike towing vehicle though.
Jesus Christ, Sporty. I'm shocked you would even consider such an obviously redneck with bucks vehicle! J/K :lol:
Aloominum body, short drive shaft, big horsepower.......oh ya!
Needs to be slammed with flares and maybe channel the body a couple inches. Cut out the bed floor, install a fuel cell and move the radiator to the back.
Quote from: shp4man on September 16, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
Jesus Christ, Sporty. I'm shocked you would even consider such an obviously redneck with bucks vehicle! J/K :lol:
Aloominum body, short drive shaft, big horsepower.......oh ya!
Come on man. I posted this on Instagram not too long ago:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16195563_654684066010_4963131091736898214_n.jpg?oh=ee02495fe3c8c8a2d55dfc832c297bce&oe=5A158C55)
Caption: Beautiful truck #ford #f100 #truck #vintage #patina
I talked to the owner; it has a Cadillac.... 454?.... under the hood. I'm with it.
Cool truck, but selling it as an SVT Lightning, or otherwise fitting it with SVT and Lightning badges, is just asking for a lawsuit (unless they cleared it with Ford first, or the trademarks have expired).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2017, 12:12:07 PM
Come on man. I posted this on Instagram not too long ago:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16195563_654684066010_4963131091736898214_n.jpg?oh=ee02495fe3c8c8a2d55dfc832c297bce&oe=5A158C55)
Caption: Beautiful truck #ford #f100 #truck #vintage #patina
I talked to the owner; it has a Cadillac.... 454?.... under the hood. I'm with it.
Nice truck. 472 maybe.
472 sounds right.
Lame. If you're gonna do a bad ass super fast truck, it's gotta have a backseat and be a 4X4. The Raptor has both. It's two reasons why the Chevy SSR sucked too even when they later on put the more powerful motor in it which made it do 0-60 in 5.29 sec. And the Chevy SSR looked really cool.
Quote from: veeman on September 16, 2017, 09:55:07 PM
Lame. If you're gonna do a bad ass super fast truck, it's gotta have a backseat and be a 4X4. The Raptor has both. It's two reasons why the Chevy SSR sucked too even when they later on put the more powerful motor in it which made it do 0-60 in 5.29 sec. And the Chevy SSR looked really cool.
So go buy a Raptor, then. :huh:
Lightnings have always been RCSBs.
RCSB= regular cab short bed. :lol:
Quote from: veeman on September 16, 2017, 09:55:07 PM
Lame. If you're gonna do a bad ass super fast truck, it's gotta have a backseat and be a 4X4. The Raptor has both. It's two reasons why the Chevy SSR sucked too even when they later on put the more powerful motor in it which made it do 0-60 in 5.29 sec. And the Chevy SSR looked really cool.
I would never cross shop an SSR with a Lightning or SRT Ram. That thing was a one-off fuckin' turd. lol
Quote from: Cookie Monster on September 16, 2017, 10:01:00 PM
So go buy a Raptor, then. :huh:
Lightnings have always been RCSBs.
With the exception of the early-mid 2000s Silverado SS, which was a step below the SRT and Lightning trucks in performance, all of the sport/muscle trucks have been regular cab, short bed. Chevy 454SS, SVT Lightning, Ram SRT10, and GMC Syclone. They've been predominantly RWD-only, as well. The Syclone was AWD-only and the Silverado SS offered AWD initially (AWD only in its first year), but it was later dropped for a RWD-only configuration.
Yea if you want max performance you gotta commit to the best body style. The 4,400lb 6' tall RCSB :lol:
On a semi serious note my buddy has a pretty successful woodworking business (please check him out west coasters- Bearcrated.com) and his work truck is a ~08 F-150 RCSB. I was surprised and impressed with its..... pickup :lol: With some suspension work and bolt ons.... it would still be a pickup truck, who the fuck are we kidding here.
90% of RCSBs are driven by old dudes.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 16, 2017, 11:15:17 PM
I would never cross shop an SSR with a Lightning or SRT Ram. That thing was a one-off fuckin' turd. lol
Why? When they put the better engine in it that could deal with its weight, it was damn fast. Also came with a manual transmission. Single cab, RWD, same thing as the Lightening. It even has the Lightening beat by being way overpriced and having a useless bed :lol:
Current Ford Raptor Supercrew can do 0-60 in 5.1-5.3 sec I think. Plus it can carry 4 or 5 full size adults in comfort, go off-road, and be driven in the winter where it snows. If you're gonna do a super fast pickup in today's world, it should come with a backseat and be 4x4. I know what was done in the past but in the past, pick ups weren't marketed as luxury SUVs for cowboy wannabes. Now they are, are total cash cows for automakers, and that's why, I think, this truck has very limited appeal.
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2017, 06:09:09 AM
With the exception of the early-mid 2000s Silverado SS, which was a step below the SRT and Lightning trucks in performance, all of the sport/muscle trucks have been regular cab, short bed. Chevy 454SS, SVT Lightning, Ram SRT10, and GMC Syclone. They've been predominantly RWD-only, as well. The Syclone was AWD-only and the Silverado SS offered AWD initially (AWD only in its first year), but it was later dropped for a RWD-only configuration.
The SRT10 came with a Quad Cab, but no one talks about those because automatic anyways.
Quote from: veeman on September 17, 2017, 11:08:11 AM
Why? When they put the better engine in it that could deal with its weight, it was damn fast. Also came with a manual transmission. Single cab, RWD, same thing as the Lightening. It even has the Lightening beat by being way overpriced and having a useless bed :lol:
Because with its convertible top and wood paneled bed, it was closer to a Plymouth Prowler than a pickup truck. All the other performance trucks could actually be used as a truck.
See, even this Lightning in F&F1 is being used to haul car parts:
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/fastandfurious/images/6/62/The_Team_-_Hauling_Parts.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160118055620)
Quote from: veeman on September 17, 2017, 11:21:29 AM
If you're gonna do a super fast pickup in today's world, it should come with a backseat and be 4x4.
Why? By this logic, sports cars shouldn't exist either. RCSB = good ol' boy sports car.
Because this is not a sports car. It is a super fast straight line performance pickup. There's probably a good reason Ford doesn't make this anymore. Because very few would buy it. Good ol' boy would rather have a Raptor.
Quote from: veeman on September 17, 2017, 01:16:25 PM
Because this is not a sports car. It is a super fast straight line performance pickup. There's probably a good reason Ford doesn't make this anymore. Because very few would buy it. Good ol' boy would rather have a Raptor.
This here good ol' boy would rather have the Lightning. It's easier to park, handles better, has more low end grunt and goes faster. I've driven almost everything Ford made in the last 20 years, the one with the most neck snapping low end torque was the SC 5.4 Lightning truck.
If I was into off-road, it may be a different story.
Quote from: shp4man on September 17, 2017, 01:32:07 PM
This here good ol' boy would rather have the Lightning. It's easier to park, handles better, has more low end grunt and goes faster. I've driven almost everything Ford made in the last 20 years, the one with the most neck snapping low end torque was the SC 5.4 Lightning truck.
If I was into off-road, it may be a different story.
It's easier to park, I'll give you that. Faster? This thing will hit 0-60 in less than 5 seconds? Handle better? Perhaps on a racetrack...
When I think of single cab RWD pickups, I think of the economical work truck. The single cab and RWD specs being features which are not sought after but instead the cheapest option. As opposed to a sporty car where RWD and two seats are often sought after specs.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people want a sporty super fast truck which they can't take on a ski trip or take more than one passenger in. Unless it comes with a bench front seat. I hear that's the new in thing.
Raptors appeal more to the off-road, trophy truck, extreme sports kind of people.
A Lightning appeals more to the muscle car and autocross kind of people.
They're not really interchangeable vehicles since they appeal mostly to totally different demographics.
Quote from: veeman on September 17, 2017, 02:14:20 PM
Maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, you are wrong. Most people do want crew cabs but there is definitely a market for non-work truck RCSBs. Domestics would not continue to offer mid trim RCSBs if nobody was buying them, and an F150 5.0 XLT RCSB wipes the floor with the old Lightning in performance and dynamics.
I totally get the appeal of classic RCSB RWD pickups from a bygone era wonderfully restored or just in working condition. They're beautiful and macho and meant for cruisin' in style.
This I think sorta sucks but many on this forum here like it and that's cool.
Quote from: veeman on September 17, 2017, 11:21:29 AM
Current Ford Raptor Supercrew can do 0-60 in 5.1-5.3 sec I think. Plus it can carry 4 or 5 full size adults in comfort, go off-road, and be driven in the winter where it snows. If you're gonna do a super fast pickup in today's world, it should come with a backseat and be 4x4. I know what was done in the past but in the past, pick ups weren't marketed as luxury SUVs for cowboy wannabes. Now they are, are total cash cows for automakers, and that's why, I think, this truck has very limited appeal.
Hence why they only made 1?
Also I wouldn't be surprised if the new 2018 RCSB with either the 2.7 or 5.0 will be almost as quick as the Raptor. That appeals to me because I don't drive offroad, and I don't have a family or friends ( :evildude:). I prefer the look and the fact I could get one for under $30k.
I want an RCSB raptor.
Quote from: Cookie Monster on September 17, 2017, 10:13:04 PM
I want an RCSB raptor.
Buy a Dodge Ram and then the Ram Runner kit from MOPAR
(http://www.ramforum.com/attachments/f17/48905d1429331907-new_member_14_ram_runner_black_edition_build-img_20150407_202535.jpg)
Quote from: 68_427 on September 17, 2017, 10:06:01 PM
Hence why they only made 1?
Also I wouldn't be surprised if the new 2018 RCSB with either the 2.7 or 5.0 will be almost as quick as the Raptor. That appeals to me because I don't drive offroad, and I don't have a family or friends ( :evildude:). I prefer the look and the fact I could get one for under $30k.
Yeah that makes sense. This truck originally posted stickered for a hair under $50,000 though.
I do wonder what a RCSB F150 5.0 would do with good suspension/ brakes/ tires. Tire tech has moved so far forward from the first lightning. I think there are crossovers puking close to a g on the skidpad. That wouldn't be too make it a canton carver... its more an issue of safety
Imagine the burnouts.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2017, 09:26:02 AM
I do wonder what a RCSB F150 5.0 would do with good suspension/ brakes/ tires. Tire tech has moved so far forward from the first lightning. I think there are crossovers puking close to a g on the skidpad. That wouldn't be too make it a canton carver... its more an issue of safety
Weight distribution will be the biggest hurdle. If nothing else, crew cabs with the short bed carry more of their weight on the back tires.
I would bet trucks can accomodate pretty big effing tires. An RCSB isn't much heavier than something like a Hellcat if at all. 305/40R20 lmao.
Quote from: MX793 on September 18, 2017, 10:43:53 AM
Weight distribution will be the biggest hurdle. If nothing else, crew cabs with the short bed carry more of their weight on the back tires.
I'd imagine RCSBs are fairly light on the rear end? I know a couple 70lb sand bags in my bed makes a big difference in the winter. :lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 18, 2017, 04:17:35 PM
I'd imagine RCSBs are fairly light on the rear end? I know a couple 70lb sand bags in my bed makes a big difference in the winter. :lol:
That's why my first post said I'd move the radiator to the back. Battery too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
I would bet trucks can accomodate pretty big effing tires. An RCSB isn't much heavier than something like a Hellcat if at all. 305/40R20 lmao.
(https://i.imgur.com/7NoX2kw.jpg)
Does that spec sheet have weight distribution? Hellcats are 56-57/43-44.
No it doesn't
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
I would bet trucks can accomodate pretty big effing tires. An RCSB isn't much heavier than something like a Hellcat if at all. 305/40R20 lmao.
Friction is a function of normal force. Wider tires aren't going to increase grip between the rubber and road surface, nor does it actually increase the contact patch. You need weight.
The last Lightning was 57/43.
Wouldn't use a Hellcat as a great metric; they don't handle particularly well. A regular Mustang GT will handily outlap a Hellcat on a road course despite being down like 300 hp.
Unless you run lower tire pressure. Then the wider tire will have a larger contact patch
Weight distribution? If refrigerators are to be hauled, compromises must be made. ;)
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 19, 2017, 07:43:05 AM
Unless you run lower tire pressure. Then the wider tire will have a larger contact patch
For a given tire pressure, under a given load, any 2 tires will have the same contact patch regardless of tire width. Structural nuances (radial vs bias ply, radial belt arrangement, etc) not withstanding.
Quote from: MX793 on September 19, 2017, 07:55:07 AM
For a given tire pressure, under a given load, any 2 tires will have the same contact patch regardless of tire width. Structural nuances (radial vs bias ply, radial belt arrangement, etc) not withstanding.
Yes. But a wider tire with lower pressure will have the same length patch of a slightly higher inflated skinnier tire, while also having more width. You could deflate the skinny tire to the same psi, but it'll just increase the length of the patch, which isn't as useful.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 19, 2017, 08:36:44 AM
Yes. But a wider tire with lower pressure will have the same length patch of a slightly higher inflated skinnier tire, while also having more width. You could deflate the skinny tire to the same psi, but it'll just increase the length of the patch, which isn't as useful.
In terms of stress area, it makes no difference. Depending on your goal, a longer, narrower patch can be more beneficial than a wide and short one of the same area.
That's why you run lower pressure in your 335s so that the patch is the same length while also being wider... That's what the BFG guys do.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 19, 2017, 08:54:25 AM
That's why you run lower pressure in your 335s so that the patch is the same length while also being wider... That's what the BFG guys do.
For radial tires, reduced pressure typically lengthens the contact patch. It may also result in the center of the tread lifting. Higher wear on the shoulders vs the center is a classic sign of an under inflated radial tire.
Yes, it lengthens the patch. 275 vs 335 tire, the 335 at 31 psi is gonna have a shorter, wider patch than the 275 @ 31 psi. So you drop the 335 to 29 psi in order to lengthen the patch. This gets you a larger overall patch.
It's not a good idea to lower the 275 down to 29 psi because then you'd have too long of a patch and start running into issues with the center of the tread lifting and stuff, like you mentioned.
All this talk of patches.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODczNGNhMDgtZmNlMy00YmZkLWI3MWUtZjJhNmQ3NjY0YTZmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQ1NzU4Njk@._V1_.jpg)