|
The squircle fenders are part of the current GMC design language. I guess spreading them to the Chevy saves on tooling cost. Honestly at this point you wonder why GM still maintains two separate truck brands. The HIDs in both look like bad aftermarket jobs but the GMC does integrate them somewhat better. I would assume that buried under the "truck engine" marketing is an implicit suggestion (regardless of merit) that "truck engines" are heavier duty / longer-lasting under load, specifically to prep the battlespace against the next-gen of significantly lightened small-displacement Fords. The talk of high-revving high-HP engines in a half-ton or bigger truck sounds really misguided to me.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I would assume that buried under the "truck engine" marketing is an implicit suggestion (regardless of merit) that "truck engines" are heavier duty / longer-lasting under load, specifically to prep the battlespace against the next-gen of significantly lightened small-displacement Fords. The talk of high-revving high-HP engines in a half-ton or bigger truck sounds really misguided to me. I think you're right about this. But none of Ford's V8 options are particularly high revving. All of the N/A engines make peak torque at around 4,000 RPMs and, with the exception of the V6, peak power at 5,500. Ford has an ace up their sleeve with the EcoBoost V6. Not only do they have footage of that engine being abused long-term in racing situations with no ill effects, the drat thing probably produces more torque at a lower RPM than anything GM will offer under 6.0L. It is already within 14ft.lbs of being the highest torque engine in Ford's own lineup. Edit: the voice of Mike Rowe talking about a Ford V6 making more torque than any GM engine probably has GM's marketing team sweating at night. oRenj9 fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:I think you're right about this. But none of Ford's V8 options are particularly high revving. All of the N/A engines make peak torque at around 4,000 RPMs and, with the exception of the V6, peak power at 5,500. Ford needs to put the gt500s 5.8sc in the f series. It makes more torque at 1000 rpm than the 6.0 makes anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Ford needs to put the gt500s 5.8sc in the f series. It makes more torque at 1000 rpm than the 6.0 makes anywhere. Bingo. This + standard cab + short bed = new Lightning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
OK, so the box it comes in looks tacky...what does it really look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Porsche released a sneak preview of the Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car. drat, I wish I could afford to race one... Teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uco99ZbcGM4 More detail in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8TakwDPrRI
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Oh lord. I'm beyond excited for the next GT3. I honestly fear for my wallet when they finally announce it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 03:47
|
|
Zoom Zoom, motherfuckers
|
Boaz MacPhereson posted:Bingo. This + standard cab + short bed = new Lightning. Maybe it comes from living in Canada, but I never did understand the point of a truck without 4WD or the ability to haul large amounts of whatever. Why put up with the inherent disadvantages of a pickup with few, if any, of the clear benefits? It's a cool novelty, I suppose, but I can't imagine actually buying one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Pr0kjayhawk posted:Oh lord. I'm beyond excited for the next GT3. I honestly fear for my wallet when they finally announce it. I'm really curious to see what transmission they are going to choose for it. PDK is really nice and definitely the future, but I'm sure a lot of the GT3 target audience doesn't want to part with the manual transmission. Maybe the GT3 will come with the PDK and the GT3 RS with the 7-gear manual. (or the other way around)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Maybe it comes from living in Canada, but I never did understand the point of a truck without 4WD or the ability to haul large amounts of whatever. Why put up with the inherent disadvantages of a pickup with few, if any, of the clear benefits? It's a cool novelty, I suppose, but I can't imagine actually buying one. You used to be able to buy a 2WD truck with a bed low enough that a person of normal height could easily load heavy items from the side without having to lift them very far. Even ignoring El Camino-style truckcars, 2WD trucks just weren't hugely taller than regular passenger cars. These days (and especially with the demise domestically of actual 'compact' pickups) this is essentially impossible. An example shamelessly stolen from TTAC:  The Lightning and other lowered 'sport' trucks have compromises ('sport' suspensions tend not to be very compliant under load) but they're surprisingly useful for actual truck stuff. Lowering also reduces drag and can give better fuel economy. The beds aren't that small and many customers who stay generally on-road never see conditions requiring 4WD. It's a little silly that you can't just get, you know, a smaller truck, but that's the consequences of CAFE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:You used to be able to buy a 2WD truck with a bed low enough that a person of normal height could easily load heavy items from the side without having to lift them very far. Even ignoring El Camino-style truckcars, 2WD trucks just weren't hugely taller than regular passenger cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:You used to be able to buy a 2WD truck with a bed low enough that a person of normal height could easily load heavy items from the side without having to lift them very far. Even ignoring El Camino-style truckcars, 2WD trucks just weren't hugely taller than regular passenger cars. These days (and especially with the demise domestically of actual 'compact' pickups) this is essentially impossible. An example shamelessly stolen from TTAC: I get the point, but that picture is useless for demonstrating the problem. They should have picked another angle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
WTF Ferrari ? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
 as a design motif.Meanwhile, Skoda continue on their quest to become Audi's budget brand with the new Octavia:  Not quite sure what the VW Group are thinking here (if Skoda becomes the sensible mainstream brand then where does VW itself fit?) but hey: Golf mechanicals in a vaguely A4-looking body with a higher spec than both and at a lower price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Well there's the New Beetle!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Spatule posted:WTF Ferrari ? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Spatule posted:WTF Ferrari ? Nice to see that they are moving their new cars towards their uterus design language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:It's not just a US thing, if you see a 2wd nineties Hilux next to a 4wd one it's a huge difference. Its still true with the modern Hilux - the 4wd is 125mm taller
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
dissss posted:Its still true with the modern Hilux - the 4wd is 125mm taller   (These aren't a match year-for-year, but they illustrate it well)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Its still pretty significant when you're loading poo poo into them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Maybe it comes from living in Canada, but I never did understand the point of a truck without 4WD or the ability to haul large amounts of whatever. Why put up with the inherent disadvantages of a pickup with few, if any, of the clear benefits? It's a cool novelty, I suppose, but I can't imagine actually buying one. People who say "I don't get it" about the Lightning just need to drive one. That will explain everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:People who say "I don't get it" about the Lightning just need to drive one. That will explain everything. I think that only works if you're an American. Never heard anything positive from anywhere else in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
dissss posted:I think that only works if you're an American. Never heard anything positive from anywhere else in the world. Was it even offered anywhere else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
dissss posted:I think that only works if you're an American. Never heard anything positive from anywhere else in the world. You mean that silly Top Gear review?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Was it even offered anywhere else? I don't think officially but there are always imports. G-Mach posted:You mean that silly Top Gear review? Well that was an older one with a RHD conversion (which is seldom a good thing) so I'd discount that one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
lightnings and SRT Rams are retarded and ridiculous but so is owning anything with more than like 250 horsepower if we want to be real about it. Down here in the great state of TX you'll see at least one 12 second lightning at every open drag night. I saw one that was heavily modified and running at least 10s. Its also pretty funny when you see a lightning towing a fox body and its a father son racing thing. Xguard86 fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Spatule posted:WTF Ferrari ? I can't believe they're calling it the F-150 again. Ford sued (and won) when they tried calling their F1 car an F-150, this time they don't even have the excuse about it not being a road car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I can't believe they're calling it the F-150 again. Ford sued (and won) when they tried calling their F1 car an F-150, this time they don't even have the excuse about it not being a road car. From what I read on Autoblog, it'll be called the F150, so no hyphen. Maybe that's distinctly different enough? Although Ford should really not get its panties in a bunch about something like this - people do not cross-shop exotic performance cars with 1/4 ton pickups, not to mention the fact that those shopping for Ferraris would probably not be caught dead driving a Ford (and vice-versa for those shopping for Ford trucks).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
You'd think there was even less chance of someone cross-shopping a 1/4 ton pick up and an F1 car that you can't actually buy* but the Blue Oval was less convinced. *Yes, I am aware you will at some point be able to buy one through Corsa Cliente but really, you'd have to be even more pedantic than me to point that out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
a lot of times those lawsuits are filed because if the copyright holder doesn't actively protect their patent, they lose it. Its why the NFL sues HS football teams for infringement but then licenses their logo to them for like 1$ per year. The difference is that ford probably does give a poo poo about Ferrari and is happy to pursue the case rather than cut a deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:a lot of times those lawsuits are filed because if the copyright holder doesn't actively protect their patent, they lose it. Its why the NFL sues HS football teams for infringement but then licenses their logo to them for like 1$ per year. Pretty much. A trademark doesn't even have to be officially registered to be defendable. As long as you can prove that it's linked to your product in the customers eyes and a infringing trademark may result in customer confusion, you have cause to take it to court. The problem is that if you have a trademark that is associated with your product, it's up to you to decide if someone is infringing it. And if you drag it out, your ability to defend it becomes weaker and weaker. So for a company that truly values their IP and their trademarks, they have to respond ASAP in order to put their foot down, or risk someone else gaining traction with an infringing mark.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I can't believe they're calling it the F-150 again. Ford sued (and won) when they tried calling their F1 car an F-150, this time they don't even have the excuse about it not being a road car. What happened to calling it the F70? I thought it went F40, F50, Enzo (F60) and then they'd go back to F70?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:From what I read on Autoblog, it'll be called the F150, so no hyphen. Maybe that's distinctly different enough? you'd think so, but then again, Calgary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
davebo posted:What happened to calling it the F70? I thought it went F40, F50, Enzo (F60) and then they'd go back to F70? I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrrari REALLY wanted to call it the F150 to spite Ford as a celebration of the 50th anniversary of their original spiting of Ford.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Speaking of naming,quote:Infiniti to rebadge car, light-truck lineup under Q, QX series
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Linedance posted:you'd think so, but then again, Calgary. Hey, those people aren't cross-shopping. They have one of each! There's never an actual decision between the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
I saw a VPG MV-1 on the road today. Pretty cool if you have a wheelchair. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1204_vpg_mv_1_first_drive/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Infiniti Shenanigans This actually makes sense from a marketing perspective as engine sizes are decreasing whereas John Q Public associates a higher number with newer, better. Now the guy who buys his 2014 turbo Q60 (nee G28) won't feel inferior to his neighbor with the 2012 G37. It's just slightly more respectable than BMWs make-up-a-number system they have now. I expect Toyota to follow suit when they have to start replacing the 3.5 liter V6 in their Lexus range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
drgitlin posted:I can't believe they're calling it the F-150 again. Ford sued (and won) when they tried calling their F1 car an F-150, this time they don't even have the excuse about it not being a road car. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:21
|
|
