OK, I'm back at work and still bored, so here goes:
'66 Bronco with a 170 put out 158 pound feet of torque. With the curb weight of 3200 pounds, that gives us a torque-to-weight ratio of 0.049.
'67 Bronco with a 289 put out 282 pound feet of torque. Curb weight of 3420 gives us a...
But the question wasn't torque-to-weight ratio, it was power...
I'm going to be leaving work in just a few minutes, but that will give me something to do at work tomorrow, assuming I don't get a case of Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome and forget.
According to my Google-Fu, the 1966 Bronco was released with a 170ci engine that put out 105 gross HP (89 net HP) and had a curb weight of 3200 pounds, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.033 gross HP or 0.028 net HP per pound of vehicle.
In March of 1966, the 289ci Windsor V8 making 200...
That's not that far off of what I was thinking. Give Dwayne Johnson a Bronco kitted out for overlanding, full kitchen setup, get him out in the boonies, and then have him cook something.
"Can you smell what Ford and the Rock are cooking?"
There's your commercial, Ford. You can pay me with a...
An extended cab with a 6.5' bed is about the same length as a crew cab with a 5.5' bed, and those are already long enough. An extended cab with an 8' bed or a crew cab with a 6.5' bed is just too much for me.
I haul quite a bit of firewood with my truck. Stove wood is cut to 16". To be sure...
I still think crew cab pickups are just wrong. You're giving up too much bed space.
"bUt juSt uSe A TrAilUr!"
Just no.
I had an extended (non crew) cab pickup as my first truck, but there wasn't room for human beings in the back "seat." Great for putting stuff, though...except that the...
That actually does look pretty good. If they'd introduce that, call it the Comanche, and make it as available as the Gladiator and Wrangler, I bet they'd sell a metric fuckload of them.
I wouldn't buy one, because it's still a Chrysler product, but I have to admit it looks good.
From reviews I've seen, I'm not so sure.
People buying them primarily as a small off roader that is streetable would snap them up (that's why I'm in lurv with them).
People buying them as a daily driver that they can but probably never will off road will kill their reputation, which is...
Yeah, that was probably not Ford's smartest move.
What I suspect that they meant was "We'll reveal it in 2020, and there might be a couple available for purchase at the very, very, no, seriously, very end of 2020.
And here I thought it was confirmed that it was just going to be called the Braptor, but you're more in the know than I, so I'll defer to your expertise.
Maybe, but I'm inclined to agree with this to a degree:
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2.7L EcoBoost in the Bronco.
I would be surprised, but not disappointed to see the 3.3L NA and 3.0L diesel from the F-150 in the Bronco.
I would be shocked to see the Coyote or either of the 3.5Ls in...
Haven't they also confirmed (well, leaked) a 2.0L 4 cylinder EcoBoost engine for the Sport?
It looks like that 2.0L is usually tuned to put out 245HP and 275 lb-ft. of torque, and is tuned for 5 more of each in a couple of Lincoln models. That beats the tar out of the 2.2L naturally aspirated...
Suzuki left the US market because people weren't buying them in enough numbers.
Suzuki's US automotive sales peaked at 107,000 units (all nameplates) in 2007, and they basically nose dived from there.
I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if Suzuki ever finds it worthwhile to put in the time, effort...
I'm guessing that big yellow machinery is farm and/or construction equipment, so it makes sense to me that y'all would still be working.
Farmers still gotta farm, and construction workers still gotta construct. Those are essential businesses (unless you don't want food and you don't want roads...