Go Back   ModernMuscleCars.net > General > The Pit
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Home

Welcome to ModernMuscleCars.net.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You have to register before you can post. Registration is free! Click the register link above to proceed.
Our Sponsors
Advertise with us! Grundy
Collector car financing
J. J. Best
Collector car financing
Mecum Auctions
Collector car auction house.
Performance Restorations
Car restoration experts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2007, 02:05 PM   #1
XboxGuy
MIA
 
XboxGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mount Pilot
Posts: 2,215
vBookie Cash: $2300

EEK! 2008 F-350 Has Arrived!!!

Well he it is. This is a F-350 with the Twin Turbo 6.4L diesel. Lariat Crew Cab Dually. This one was ordered by a customer and he is letting us keep it a few extra days so that the salesmen can call customers to come in and look at it. Here a few pictures and a link to a vid I put on Youtube.com of the diesel starting and running on a cold start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrB8FcYf0-8
__________________
My work here is done.
XboxGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 02:46 PM   #2
JAY
"Mullet Man"
 
JAY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,138
vBookie Cash: $5250

Default

Twin turbo??? Got any specs? I have a F-250 but it has the Trition V8. My dad has a F-350 with the Powerstroke.
__________________
JAY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 03:37 PM   #3
XboxGuy
MIA
 
XboxGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mount Pilot
Posts: 2,215
vBookie Cash: $2300

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1JAY
Twin turbo??? Got any specs? I have a F-250 but it has the Trition V8. My dad has a F-350 with the Powerstroke.



Yep.. Twin Turbo. It has a small turbo that is used to spool up the large turbo. That way you don't have to wait for the lag of the large Turbo. Instant Power!


Quote:
6.4L Power Strokeฎ V-8 Turbo Diesel
• 350 horsepower @ 3000 rpm
325 horsepower @ 3000 rpm (F-450 with 4.88 rear axle)
• 650 lb.-ft. of torque @ 2000
600 lb.-ft. of torque @ 2000 (F-450 with 4.88 rear axle)
• Cast iron block and heads provide a durable foundation
• Larger exhaust valves than 6.0L
– Improves engine breathing
– Optimizes fuel economy and performance
• Improved emissions
– Reduces particulate output
– Emits pollutants on par with a gasoline engine of similar
size and power
• Improved engine control module (ECM)
– Fuel and engine controls now integrated into the same
cast-aluminum housing
– Allows engine technologies to operate properly
– Durability tests doubled to ensure robustness and long life
• High-pressure common-rail (HPCR) fuel system — the fuel
pump pressurizes the fuel system to 28,000 psi and injects the
fuel into the cylinders through piezo-actuated injectors
• Piezo-actuated injectors — capable of delivering up to five
injections per combustion cycle
– Benefits — instant response for optimized acceleration,
improved cold start at –20 degrees F, and better
emissions control
– Quiet operation throughout the entire rpm range (similar
to gasoline-engine noise levels)
– Injectors and fuel pump placed inside valve cover for
quieter ride
• Dual Sequential Turbo — dual sequential turbochargers help
improve response throughout the engine’s power band
– Benefits — better low-speed performance, improved
acceleration and power at altitude
– The first turbo in the series features an Electronic Variable
Response Turbocharger (EVRTTM). The second, larger,
fixed low-pressure turbo comes on at higher rpm and at
optimum speed
– The EVRT comes on at low rpm to provide extra boost
at takeoff
– EVRT changes the position of the turbine blades based on
engine demand
– As rpm increases, the larger fixed low-pressure turbo kicks
in to boost power through the middle of the torque curve
– The fixed low-pressure turbo takes over at optimum speed

__________________
My work here is done.
XboxGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 03:54 PM   #4
Grape Ape MMC Arcade Champ!
Been there, thought that
 
Grape Ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: S.FL- soon to be N. FL
Posts: 7,276
vBookie Cash: $200

Default

I was looking on www.fordvehicles.com a couple months ago. They had a massive information page there. The only real downside to this new version is all the EPA bs that comes with it. Cats and all, this stuff must add about 100 lb to the truck. I think they had it written at 350hp 650 ft-lb torque. That's a puller!

My dad recently got an '04 CC L/B Lariat duallie 6.0L 2WD and he seems to really like it... I wonder why?? He said he paid 27,300 for it with 46K on the clock. I wish I'd have gotten that one, or a 4WD like it, but I wanted to spend under 20K on whatever... I tried to have him use my F-350 PS as a trade, but he elected not to.

Either way, these trucks are "BUILT FORD TOUGH" and he got a good one, just not AS good as the new one where power and comfort is concerned. He also paid about half what the new ones sticker for, which is exactly why neither of us ordered an '08 model. Trucks are like houses anymore and I can't damn see it! An '07 setup like his is over 44,200 and the '08 is more still.

The '08 engine is TOTALLY different in most respects. It looks much alike inside, or dimensionally, but man it's different. You can still go to the site and "meet Super Duty" to find out all about it.... Well not all, but alot. This thing is bound to be about the most expensive diesel ever used in a light duty truck and has things I wouldn't expect to see. Aside from the two-stage turbochargers, it has the emissions crap. It also has a sealed fuel system, just to make it quieter, and uses SEVEN radiators apparently all inside the engine. Plus, it has a fuel cooling system too!!! It's a wild engine, but I wouldn't be shocked if it cost another 8k over standard 5.4L's.
__________________
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 04:14 PM   #5
XboxGuy
MIA
 
XboxGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mount Pilot
Posts: 2,215
vBookie Cash: $2300

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
It's a wild engine, but I wouldn't be shocked if it cost another 8k over standard 5.4L's.



Nope... it's a little over $6k option for the diesel which is a little less than a grand more than the 6.0 was. The transmission is about $1500 option that is a must have. This truck stickers for about $47k which isn't bad at all compared to 07 trucks that we have and considering all the extra options this truck has on it.
__________________
My work here is done.
XboxGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 08:02 PM   #6
Grape Ape MMC Arcade Champ!
Been there, thought that
 
Grape Ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: S.FL- soon to be N. FL
Posts: 7,276
vBookie Cash: $200

Default

What options have been deleted for '08? It seems some would be done away with, considering they usually do that to a newer or "nicer" vehicle. Make a much tougher frame that cost $30 more to build, remove an item that cost $50 and keep the price the same. I was looking at a new Eddie Bauer ExploDer and it wasn't available with adjustable pedals on the "build your Ford" page. Neither were tinted windows, but that may be standard on the '07 for all I know. Both were used in the '04 E.B. version. I saw the same for Grand Marq's over the years. The 89 was available with a full size tire at no charge. By '94... Extra! The '97 got a slew of "instant" messages by touching a button, including instant economy... '04, no more. But the cars cost close to the same.


And I wonder if the truck you're showing is a 4X4, looking at the price. The Lariat 4X2 duallie L/B was just over 44K + for '07. Maybe that's a S/B version instead. Something makes it less of a jump over the Lariat. Then, the KR versions sticker over 50K way too often.

There simply isn't a pickup made today worth 50K. Hell, none are worth 35K to me. I remember when I could go buy a brand new F-350 CC diesel for about the price of a Crown Vic and it makes me mad now, seeing the price through the roof simply because it's become a popularity contest. Now those who use a truck for work purposes have to toss out roughly double what they're actually worth, just to have a new truck.

Btw, I think another 600 for the 6.4L and 100 for the trans is awesome... But that REALLY makes me wonder what they deleted. That engine must cost at least 500 more just to build in the 1st place. Maybe that much for just the emissions crap they were forced to add, thanks to the tree huggers.
__________________

Last edited by Grape Ape : 02-03-2007 at 08:04 PM.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2007, 04:53 PM   #7
DeckSetter
The Coolest Guy You Know
 
DeckSetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,772
vBookie Cash: $396

Default

Those trucks are HOT.


My only question, though, is WHY oh WHY can't Ford or GM figure out how to put big enough wheels and tires on stock trucks?!?! Ford is worse than GM. I think my boss's '06 F350 4x4 has smaller tires than my Dakota.
__________________
'08 Cobalt LS XFE - 2.2l, 5spd, 35mpg

'97 Dakota Sport - Club Cab, 4x4, 5.2l, 5spd, 3.92's, 3" body lift, 33x12.5 15 Cooper Discoverer S/T's
DeckSetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2007, 07:04 PM   #8
bigjhaire MMC Arcade Champ!
longmember
 
bigjhaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 495
vBookie Cash: $4000

Default

I want one..............
thats one bad mama jama......
__________________
THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
your freinds are gods way of apologizing for your relatives.
00 ford explorer 5.0 awd
81 ford f150 4x4 stepside
and a ford f350 cause i need to get to work everyday..
bigjhaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:29 AM   #9
Grape Ape MMC Arcade Champ!
Been there, thought that
 
Grape Ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: S.FL- soon to be N. FL
Posts: 7,276
vBookie Cash: $200

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeckSetter
Those trucks are HOT.


My only question, though, is WHY oh WHY can't Ford or GM figure out how to put big enough wheels and tires on stock trucks?!?! Ford is worse than GM. I think my boss's '06 F350 4x4 has smaller tires than my Dakota.

I think the standard wheel size on these is 17" and that's enough. When you use a truck for work, a taller tire isn't always the best approach. Dakota's aren't considered working trucks, so if they have a 17 or even 20-22, it's not concern because Dakota's don't haul much to begin with. Since I drove 2 for years, I can say that while laughing, all the while knowing it isn't totally a joke.


Of course, neither of my drivers had 265/70/17's on them stock, but the F-Super Duty does. I believe the Dakota gets 245/70/16's instead. I think even the 2500 Dodge gets 265/70/17's, which are the same as SD. I'm only thinking 4X4, btw. GM's 2500 get the same. Even my Expolder has 245/70/17's and I'm okay with that. Maybe it's just that the Ford seems to have so much space between the body and the tires. That is normal on trucks... It just sucks when the same can be said of the Mustang.

EDIT: Of pure curiousity, I looked at GM's site and they list 16's as standard wheel size. They show 245/75 for tire size. Dodge uses the same stuff as Ford though.
__________________

Last edited by Grape Ape : 02-05-2007 at 01:01 AM.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:15 PM   #10
No Rice Allowed MMC Arcade Champ!
Instigator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,491
vBookie Cash: $280

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
I think the standard wheel size on these is 17" and that's enough. When you use a truck for work, a taller tire isn't always the best approach. Dakota's aren't considered working trucks, so if they have a 17 or even 20-22, it's not concern because Dakota's don't haul much to begin with. Since I drove 2 for years, I can say that while laughing, all the while knowing it isn't totally a joke.


Of course, neither of my drivers had 265/70/17's on them stock, but the F-Super Duty does. I believe the Dakota gets 245/70/16's instead. I think even the 2500 Dodge gets 265/70/17's, which are the same as SD. I'm only thinking 4X4, btw. GM's 2500 get the same. Even my Expolder has 245/70/17's and I'm okay with that. Maybe it's just that the Ford seems to have so much space between the body and the tires. That is normal on trucks... It just sucks when the same can be said of the Mustang.

EDIT: Of pure curiousity, I looked at GM's site and they list 16's as standard wheel size. They show 245/75 for tire size. Dodge uses the same stuff as Ford though.




Has everything to do with Gas mileage, nothing to do with how well the truck would handle with taller or fatter tires.....The bean counters have to keep the mileage within a certain limit.....To help make the EPA freaks somewhat happy.....Doesn't take as much gas to move 17inch tires compared to 20's...
No Rice Allowed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 01:32 PM   #11
DeckSetter
The Coolest Guy You Know
 
DeckSetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,772
vBookie Cash: $396

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed
Has everything to do with Gas mileage, nothing to do with how well the truck would handle with taller or fatter tires.....The bean counters have to keep the mileage within a certain limit.....To help make the EPA freaks somewhat happy.....Doesn't take as much gas to move 17inch tires compared to 20's...



Good point. I'll give you that one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
I think the standard wheel size on these is 17" and that's enough. When you use a truck for work, a taller tire isn't always the best approach. Dakota's aren't considered working trucks, so if they have a 17 or even 20-22, it's not concern because Dakota's don't haul much to begin with. Since I drove 2 for years, I can say that while laughing, all the while knowing it isn't totally a joke.


Of course, neither of my drivers had 265/70/17's on them stock, but the F-Super Duty does. I believe the Dakota gets 245/70/16's instead. I think even the 2500 Dodge gets 265/70/17's, which are the same as SD. I'm only thinking 4X4, btw. GM's 2500 get the same. Even my Expolder has 245/70/17's and I'm okay with that. Maybe it's just that the Ford seems to have so much space between the body and the tires. That is normal on trucks... It just sucks when the same can be said of the Mustang.

EDIT: Of pure curiousity, I looked at GM's site and they list 16's as standard wheel size. They show 245/75 for tire size. Dodge uses the same stuff as Ford though.



My Dakota has 265 70R 16's on it (about 31" tall). That's the stock size. They look too small in the wheel well and I'll almost definitely move up to a 75 series soon (and an A/T, these Firehawks look stupid on a truck and have no traction on anything other than pavement).

My boss's '06 F350 I believe has 17's on it, but the tires look narrower than my Dak. I'd guess them to be a 245, but considering the truck's 40 miles long and the bed's 2.7 acres that probably makes them look narrower than they are. I'd pretty much guarantee they're no wider than a 265. They're also a road tire so he gets no traction in the snow, even though it's a 4x4.

My supervisor's '05 Ram, on the other hand, has 315 70R 17's on it (probably 34" tall). They're HUGE compared to the Ford's tires.


As for Dakotas not hauling much....... SHUT UP The Dak handles weight in the bed well, but I've already decided I'll be ordering a bed extender that flips out so you can use the tailgate as extra bed space. You'll never know it's there unless it's in use because I've got a roll up tonneau cover.

I wouldn't be afraid to tow with my truck either. I've only towed a couple thousand pounds but it was fine. If I had a trailer brake controller I wouldn't be afraid to tow the Bobcat at work, and it's about 10,000lbs gross with the trailer and attachments. It would be better if I had 3.92 gears though.... but mine's got the 3.55's.
__________________
'08 Cobalt LS XFE - 2.2l, 5spd, 35mpg

'97 Dakota Sport - Club Cab, 4x4, 5.2l, 5spd, 3.92's, 3" body lift, 33x12.5 15 Cooper Discoverer S/T's
DeckSetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 01:55 PM   #12
XboxGuy
MIA
 
XboxGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mount Pilot
Posts: 2,215
vBookie Cash: $2300

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
What options have been deleted for '08? It seems some would be done away with, considering they usually do that to a newer or "nicer" vehicle. Make a much tougher frame that cost $30 more to build, remove an item that cost $50 and keep the price the same.



I have went through the source book and I can't find any options that have been discontinued. Normally when they stop offering an option, package, etc. they will make note of it in the source book so that sales people are aware of it. I can't find anything listed as deleted etc. Ford is trying to take a better direction in the pricing and knocking off some of the stupid amounts of mark-up some of these vehicles had in the past. Look at the 07 Expedition for example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
And I wonder if the truck you're showing is a 4X4, looking at the price. The Lariat 4X2 duallie L/B was just over 44K + for '07. Maybe that's a S/B version instead. Something makes it less of a jump over the Lariat. Then, the KR versions sticker over 50K way too often.



This truck is a 2WD truck. The King Ranch trucks do sticker in the 50s very often because a lot of times when they are ordered the dealers also order all kinds of other options with them to drive the price up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
There simply isn't a pickup made today worth 50K. Hell, none are worth 35K to me. I remember when I could go buy a brand new F-350 CC diesel for about the price of a Crown Vic and it makes me mad now, seeing the price through the roof simply because it's become a popularity contest. Now those who use a truck for work purposes have to toss out roughly double what they're actually worth, just to have a new truck.



Yeah.. and remember when you could buy a Mustang for less than $10 grand? Popularity contest would suggest the price come down because in theory the vehicle with the lowest price would be more popular.

You have to think about it though. Look how much more improved the trucks are today. It's not just some body slapped on a frame. You have so much technology involved to make the truck ride good, handle good, be silent on the inside, etc etc etc. 10 years ago no one cared about that, but today everyone does.
__________________
My work here is done.
XboxGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 01:58 PM   #13
XboxGuy
MIA
 
XboxGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mount Pilot
Posts: 2,215
vBookie Cash: $2300

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed
Has everything to do with Gas mileage, nothing to do with how well the truck would handle with taller or fatter tires.....The bean counters have to keep the mileage within a certain limit.....To help make the EPA freaks somewhat happy.....Doesn't take as much gas to move 17inch tires compared to 20's...



Not so much gas mileage as you would think. The majority of these trucks are diesels so they aren't even rated for gas mileage. I think you are going to be looking more at rolling mass etc. These trucks are built to tow and if you throw on some 20s or 22s then it's that much harder to start pulling that mass.
__________________
My work here is done.
XboxGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 10:01 PM   #14
bl3wbyu
n00b...no kiddin'
 
bl3wbyu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: K'vegas, NC
Posts: 630
vBookie Cash: $500

Default

My only complaint with stock tires (and I've only really noticed it on GM's HD trucks) is how skinny they are. They look tall enough to me, but my word are they SKINNY!!! They just look flat out ridiculous.
bl3wbyu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 10:03 PM   #15
bl3wbyu
n00b...no kiddin'
 
bl3wbyu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: K'vegas, NC
Posts: 630
vBookie Cash: $500

Default

Oh, and are you sure the smaller turbo really spools up the larger one? From my understanding, that's not what 'sequential turbos' do. IIRC the TT Supra had sequential turbos, mainly (or am I now thinking about another car?) so you wouldn't have soo much power right of the bat so as to improve driveability. The first turbo is good for a while, then the second turbo kicks in. I have no idea what they use to determine when the second turbo kicks in (RPM, speed, half-moon/full-moon?), but I don't think sequential turbos has anything to do with one feeding the other.

Could be wrong, though. Would definitely be the first time...but there's a first time for everything...
bl3wbyu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.




Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ฉ ModernMuscleCars.net