Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well guess you caught me, im just an idiot... no my friend, those ARE v10 stats...
No, those are not V10 power numbers. Even in 1999, the 6.8L V10 was rated at 410 ft./Lbs of torque. That number has only gone up since than. Lets see your source.
No, those are not V10 power numbers. Even in 1999, the 6.8L V10 was rated at 410 ft./Lbs of torque. That number has only gone up since than. Lets see your source.
but hes a dodge salesmen so of course he is going to say ford and chevy are crap and underpowered
whichever you wish dood, im not here to argue with the two obvious super-intelligences of city data
What are you talking about? There is no argument. Ford put out those numbers and they manufacture the damn engine. Companies have been known to up the HP and torque a little bit (maybe by 10-15), but nothing like has been stated here. Your spitting out 5.4L specs and trying to pass them off as 6.8L specs and quoting a dyno as your only source. You dyno'ed V10 either has mechanical trouble or was burning all the power away in the tranny but I don't even believe that to be true. This argument is ridiculous as your numbers are clearly wrong. This would be like me saying a stock 5.3 Vortec makes the same numbers as a stock 8.1 Vortec, impossible.
whichever you wish dood, im not here to argue with the two obvious super-intelligences of city data
Your flat out wrong about your Ford V10 numbers... And the other guy complaining about his Ford V10 is just rattling on about how he thinks its underpowered. Pure conjecture out of you two. Currently we have 2 40ft Stretch Excursion limos. One has the 7.3 (4wd) and the other the V10 (2wd)... both have gobs of power and move along in traffic fine. No complaints with the gasser either, even when loaded to the brim (weighing several tons) it performs great. We also had an 05 unstretched Excursion with the V10 (4wd) that was a tank. My ONLY complaint with the V10 is the amount of fuel it sucked down. On the way back from TX I could only squeeze out 13mpg when averaging about 75mph. All those ratings are rwhp... this isnt the early 70's anymore, they dont do gross ratings at the flywheel... unless your an engine builder, then you do both!
And if you are going to try and preach to me about dodges and diesels you can save it, I already have a 4x4 2500 12v with the NV4500.
Last edited by Innovator831021; 10-08-2009 at 11:45 AM..
Flywheel numbers for my '68 Cadillac 472 (7.7L) are 375hp and 500ft/lb tq. So in 40 years gasser technology has actually gotten worse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
