What you are really not putting in to your thoughts is,,, all the value or extra material is computer aid designed out of the truck to pay the CEOs big salary. We as car buyers do not get much for the money we spend considering the cost we pay.
Superchargers are hard on equipment
- Thread starter quicktruck
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Have you seen the beating a twin I-beam suspension can take without being whacked out of alignment? Every 2WD F-350 and E-series van has one. Many earlier Ford Rangers, F-series, and Explorers had them, too.
No GM truck has one.
Also, whenever I see a failed taillight assembly, 9 times out of 10 it is a GM truck.
Up until the redesign of the GM alternator during the 1990s, the Ford alternator was more reliable. Now it is a tie.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ford 6.9 and 7.3 diesels were more reliable than the GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Have you seen the beating a twin I-beam suspension can take without being whacked out of alignment? Every 2WD F-350 and E-series van has one. Many earlier Ford Rangers, F-series, and Explorers had them, too.
No GM truck has one.
Also, whenever I see a failed taillight assembly, 9 times out of 10 it is a GM truck.
Up until the redesign of the GM alternator during the 1990s, the Ford alternator was more reliable. Now it is a tie.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ford 6.9 and 7.3 diesels were more reliable than the GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels.
thanks , I thought I spelled a couple of things wrong.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
thanks , I thought I spelled a couple of things wrong.
I didn't even notice, I was just answering your question
Had to go back to see what you were talking about! LOL!
thanks , I thought I spelled a couple of things wrong.
I didn't even notice, I was just answering your question
Had to go back to see what you were talking about! LOL!
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Have you seen the beating a twin I-beam suspension can take without being whacked out of alignment? Every 2WD F-350 and E-series van has one. Many earlier Ford Rangers, F-series, and Explorers had them, too.
No GM truck has one.
Also, whenever I see a failed taillight assembly, 9 times out of 10 it is a GM truck.
Up until the redesign of the GM alternator during the 1990s, the Ford alternator was more reliable. Now it is a tie.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ford 6.9 and 7.3 diesels were more reliable than the GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels.
Everyone knows the old GM diesels were junk.
The I-beam suspension was great as far as strength and off-roading go. Our old Mazda Navajo used this setup. It's not so great for on the road handling and tire wear though.
I drive to the oil fields once or twice a week and we have over 1,000 trucks in our fleet. These guys abuse the trucks. They're overloaded and driven way to fast on poorly maintained dirt roads. The Fords snap at the front of the frame from this abuse. The Chevys seem to hold up ok as in nothing actually breaking. They seem to blow through fuel pumps rather quickly though. Can't keep the Fords in alignment with the A-arm setup.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
Have you seen the beating a twin I-beam suspension can take without being whacked out of alignment? Every 2WD F-350 and E-series van has one. Many earlier Ford Rangers, F-series, and Explorers had them, too.
No GM truck has one.
Also, whenever I see a failed taillight assembly, 9 times out of 10 it is a GM truck.
Up until the redesign of the GM alternator during the 1990s, the Ford alternator was more reliable. Now it is a tie.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ford 6.9 and 7.3 diesels were more reliable than the GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels.
Everyone knows the old GM diesels were junk.
The I-beam suspension was great as far as strength and off-roading go. Our old Mazda Navajo used this setup. It's not so great for on the road handling and tire wear though.
I drive to the oil fields once or twice a week and we have over 1,000 trucks in our fleet. These guys abuse the trucks. They're overloaded and driven way to fast on poorly maintained dirt roads. The Fords snap at the front of the frame from this abuse. The Chevys seem to hold up ok as in nothing actually breaking. They seem to blow through fuel pumps rather quickly though. Can't keep the Fords in alignment with the A-arm setup.
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
In the 80's and 90's, Ford trucks were more durable, GM trucks were more comfortable. GM has come a long way in recent years, but they still have that rep as a "comfy" truck that wasn't designed for any "real work" that they need to get rid of. The Duramax has really helped them out in that department.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
In the 80's and 90's, Ford trucks were more durable, GM trucks were more comfortable. GM has come a long way in recent years, but they still have that rep as a "comfy" truck that wasn't designed for any "real work" that they need to get rid of. The Duramax has really helped them out in that department.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
There's some truth to that. The 4L80E, and TH400 were great transmissions. IMO, the 700R4/4L60E were borderline too weak for the power and weight they were asked to move. I think the "power mangement" is proof they were too weak.
Then there's the 2004-R in my car. In it's stock form in the GN it wasn't too bad. It really bangs the second gear shift, one of the only factory cars I've driven that will chirp or spin when it hits second. Keeping it on street tire it holds up ok when you put some power to it. To get mine to live at these power levels took a ton of work. Price is $3,800 not counting the convertor.
I think the 4L80 should've come standard in every full size GM truck with the V8.
The E40D is a strong trans sans the cooler circuit bypass problems. Even the AOD didn't require much work to make it take a ton of power reliably.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
Ford trucks are a little stouter than GM products.
Based on what?
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
There's some truth to that. The 4L80E, and TH400 were great transmissions. IMO, the 700R4/4L60E were borderline too weak for the power and weight they were asked to move. I think the "power mangement" is proof they were too weak.
Then there's the 2004-R in my car. In it's stock form in the GN it wasn't too bad. It really bangs the second gear shift, one of the only factory cars I've driven that will chirp or spin when it hits second. Keeping it on street tire it holds up ok when you put some power to it. To get mine to live at these power levels took a ton of work. Price is $3,800 not counting the convertor.
I think the 4L80 should've come standard in every full size GM truck with the V8.
The E40D is a strong trans sans the cooler circuit bypass problems. Even the AOD didn't require much work to make it take a ton of power reliably.
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
My father inlaws's buddy has one...blew one of the sparkplugs out of the head.
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
My father inlaws's buddy has one...blew one of the sparkplugs out of the head.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
Interesting.
My Xj12 uses a GM 4L80E transmission. Pre Ford Jaguar V12's were always cast to mount up to GM TH400 transmissions, but as much as Ford spent redesigning the engine bay of the Xj40 to take the V12 engine, I would have thought they would have spent the few extra pounds to drill the block to take a Ford tranny and avoid the embarassment of buying transmissions from an arch rival, if they had one that could take the grunt.
I don't think they did.
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
Interesting.
My Xj12 uses a GM 4L80E transmission. Pre Ford Jaguar V12's were always cast to mount up to GM TH400 transmissions, but as much as Ford spent redesigning the engine bay of the Xj40 to take the V12 engine, I would have thought they would have spent the few extra pounds to drill the block to take a Ford tranny and avoid the embarassment of buying transmissions from an arch rival, if they had one that could take the grunt.
I don't think they did.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
It really bangs the second gear shift, one of the only factory cars I've driven that will chirp or spin when it hits second.
The 4L60E in my LS1 powered GTO would hit second hard enough to snap the rear tires loose and throw the car out sideways if the traction control was turned off.
Can't speak to it's durability - I traded the GTO on the G8 at about 30K miles.
The 4L60E in my Blazer needs to be rebuilt at 93K, but it was an auction truck and, judging by the size of the receiver hitch mounted on it, was abused pretty badly before I got it.
It really bangs the second gear shift, one of the only factory cars I've driven that will chirp or spin when it hits second.
The 4L60E in my LS1 powered GTO would hit second hard enough to snap the rear tires loose and throw the car out sideways if the traction control was turned off.
Can't speak to it's durability - I traded the GTO on the G8 at about 30K miles.
The 4L60E in my Blazer needs to be rebuilt at 93K, but it was an auction truck and, judging by the size of the receiver hitch mounted on it, was abused pretty badly before I got it.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ARB1977
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
My father inlaws's buddy has one...blew one of the sparkplugs out of the head.
This is a thread-depth issue not specific to the Lightning and has nothing to do with the blower.
Originally Posted By: quicktruck
I wonder if the Ford lighting has had any problems or did they take in consideration the extra power and built the truck with beefer parts
My father inlaws's buddy has one...blew one of the sparkplugs out of the head.
This is a thread-depth issue not specific to the Lightning and has nothing to do with the blower.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Kestas
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
Interesting.
My Xj12 uses a GM 4L80E transmission. Pre Ford Jaguar V12's were always cast to mount up to GM TH400 transmissions, but as much as Ford spent redesigning the engine bay of the Xj40 to take the V12 engine, I would have thought they would have spent the few extra pounds to drill the block to take a Ford tranny and avoid the embarassment of buying transmissions from an arch rival, if they had one that could take the grunt.
I don't think they did.
They could have easily built the AOD to handle it. It was actually probably cheaper to keep the casting as-is and use what was there.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
You can base some of BuickGN's statement on data from what my father told me when he was working as an engineer at Ford Transmission and Axle. He said that the data they gathered while reverse engineering GM transmissions showed that GM's transmissions would not pass Ford's performance requirements for the power they were handling. Ford products were more robust.
Interesting.
My Xj12 uses a GM 4L80E transmission. Pre Ford Jaguar V12's were always cast to mount up to GM TH400 transmissions, but as much as Ford spent redesigning the engine bay of the Xj40 to take the V12 engine, I would have thought they would have spent the few extra pounds to drill the block to take a Ford tranny and avoid the embarassment of buying transmissions from an arch rival, if they had one that could take the grunt.
I don't think they did.
They could have easily built the AOD to handle it. It was actually probably cheaper to keep the casting as-is and use what was there.
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
I almost went that route in the GN. It's cheaper than building a 200-4R (list is $3,800 for mine not counting convertor) and I get to keep my OD. However, my father would've disowned me.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
I almost went that route in the GN. It's cheaper than building a 200-4R (list is $3,800 for mine not counting convertor) and I get to keep my OD. However, my father would've disowned me.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
I almost went that route in the GN. It's cheaper than building a 200-4R (list is $3,800 for mine not counting convertor) and I get to keep my OD. However, my father would've disowned me.
Understandable
My grandfather used to use GM engines to moor floating docks.....
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The good thing about the TH400, it's cheap, it's strong, relatively light, and it lasts forever.
I've considered it many times but I keep going back and forth whether I'm willing (or able) to lose a gear and the unique vacuum modulator issues a turbo car presents.
I remember something about replacing the AOD's hollow input shaft with a solid shaft and losing the lockup shaft to gain a ton of strength.
Yup, that mod is done to my good friend's, which sits behind a 525RWHP supercharged 302.
I almost went that route in the GN. It's cheaper than building a 200-4R (list is $3,800 for mine not counting convertor) and I get to keep my OD. However, my father would've disowned me.
Understandable
- Status
