Ford Lightning not the fastest truck

ZombyWoof > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:26:22 -0600, "Erik D."
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Man I would like to read an article where anyone in a Gen 1 beat a
>>> Vette, Viper or Mustang in an autoX, cause it had to be some
>>> version of the Special Olympics. If a dude in a Vette/Viper/M3
>>> can't out drive a dude in a pickup, he should give it up.
>>
>>
>>I used to think that too....until I rode in a Gen 1 lightning. They
>>are really great handling vehicles. If you get the chance you need
>>to take one for a hard spin. I couldn't find what I read on them,
>>in fact I may just be thinking of a post I saw on NLOC. I am in
>>search though and I put a post on nloc if you are interested:
>>http://www.nloc.net/forum/showthread...225#post774225
>>It very well could have been a case of a bad driver versus a good
>>driver, but still thats impressive for a truck if you ask me. In
>>fact, I think I am gonna go ride around in my truck for a lil while
>>right now!
>>
> Having driven pickups of one type or another almost my entire life,
> I am curious as to how the issue of such a light ass-end was over
> come with in the Gen1. It wasn't AWD was it?

Out of the box, Gen 1s were low-15 trucks in the 1/4. Basically, my
Dak is the same as a Gen 1: RWD big V8 with a slightly improved
suspension and bigger wheels/tires. A torquemonster for sure, but
certainly no race car. Tons of fun to drive though.

Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

>
> I am still curious as to how a pickup in any configuration is going to
> beat a Vette/Viper/Mustang hell maybe even a Mitia in an AutoX course.
> Yeah you can make a pickup that hauls balls, but handling is an issue
> that is really hard to over come with it's intrinsic weight
> distribution problems with a light ass-end.


The lightning ass-end is actually not very light. The rear end is
housing is bigger than the usual 8.8, the frame is thicker than a
regular F150, it is lowered, it has added swaybars, and throw in a full
size spare back there and there is a good bit of weight. With the stock
suspension in my truck, it hardly spins the tires even with the 4.10s
and 1800 rpm stall. It just hooks up and throws you in the seat. Same
thing going through turns, it does not come out from underneath you like
you think it would. I have driven many other trucks as well, until you
drive a Gen 1 lightning you will not understand. While the Dak is
similar in performance as far as straight line, it does nothing to
compare to the handling of a Gen 1 lightning. The Dak is alot more
similar in handling to a Gen 2 lightning, which also fails to compare to
a Gen 1. Seriously, I never thought a truck could handle either until I
rode in a Gen 1 lightning. Until you ride in one there is no point in
me trying to make you understand any more than I have already tried.
Seriously though, I would like to hear your honest opinion after you
take one for a good hard spin.
Erik D.
'94 white lightning
'01 white GT

Erik D. wrote:
>
>>
>> I am still curious as to how a pickup in any configuration is going to
>> beat a Vette/Viper/Mustang hell maybe even a Mitia in an AutoX course.
>> Yeah you can make a pickup that hauls balls, but handling is an issue
>> that is really hard to over come with it's intrinsic weight
>> distribution problems with a light ass-end.
>
>
> The lightning ass-end is actually not very light. The rear end is
> housing is bigger than the usual 8.8, the frame is thicker than a
> regular F150, it is lowered, it has added swaybars, and throw in a full
> size spare back there and there is a good bit of weight. With the stock
> suspension in my truck, it hardly spins the tires even with the 4.10s
> and 1800 rpm stall. It just hooks up and throws you in the seat. Same
> thing going through turns, it does not come out from underneath you like
> you think it would. I have driven many other trucks as well, until you
> drive a Gen 1 lightning you will not understand. While the Dak is
> similar in performance as far as straight line, it does nothing to
> compare to the handling of a Gen 1 lightning. The Dak is alot more
> similar in handling to a Gen 2 lightning, which also fails to compare to
> a Gen 1. Seriously, I never thought a truck could handle either until I
> rode in a Gen 1 lightning. Until you ride in one there is no point in
> me trying to make you understand any more than I have already tried.
> Seriously though, I would like to hear your honest opinion after you
> take one for a good hard spin.
> Erik D.

It's doubtful that Erik even knows who I am; but, I know he's been
around here for quite a while longer than me (I don't post here much
anymore). And if there's one person on here that I would believe is
giving out truthful information on a Lightning, it's Erik. And don't
ask me why, but I can remember when he bought the truck after having
tons of transmission problems with his 93 LX.

No Erik, I'm not stalking you! I just remember that white Lightning
;-)! Nice looking truck.

--
Sean

Joe wrote:

> Does the hybrid Honda get better mileage than the Echo?

37/25 EPA est for the Honda vs. 39/33 for the Echo. And I doubt if the
37 for the Honda is at 80 mph. In their Dec 04 test report Car & Driver
got 26 mpg overall.

So I'm agreeing with you, that plain old gas engines are still where
it's at for economy-minded. You take the added buy-in costs and the
complexity and battery replacements of the hybrid and you really aren't
saving money with a Prius or a Civic hybrid.

The Accord is different, though. Its electric motor adds 16 hp and 100
lb-ft to the 240 hp, 217 lb-ft of the 3.0 gas engine. 0-to-60 in 6.7
(0.3 quicker than the non-hybrid). What's not to like?

180 Out

wrote in news:1112288273.513180.252020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> Does the hybrid Honda get better mileage than the Echo?
>
> 37/25 EPA est for the Honda vs. 39/33 for the Echo. And I doubt if
the
> 37 for the Honda is at 80 mph. In their Dec 04 test report Car &
Driver
> got 26 mpg overall.

That's what I was wondering - real world mileage. EPA figures are
fiction.

> So I'm agreeing with you, that plain old gas engines are still where
> it's at for economy-minded. You take the added buy-in costs and the
> complexity and battery replacements of the hybrid and you really
aren't
> saving money with a Prius or a Civic hybrid.

Exactly my point.

> The Accord is different, though. Its electric motor adds 16 hp and
100
> lb-ft to the 240 hp, 217 lb-ft of the 3.0 gas engine. 0-to-60 in 6.7
> (0.3 quicker than the non-hybrid). What's not to like?
>
> 180 Out

So the electric runs along with the ICE? Is the ICE running full
time?

Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

"Erik D." > wrote in
:

>
>>
>> I am still curious as to how a pickup in any configuration is going
>> to beat a Vette/Viper/Mustang hell maybe even a Mitia in an AutoX
>> course. Yeah you can make a pickup that hauls balls, but handling
>> is an issue that is really hard to over come with it's intrinsic
>> weight distribution problems with a light ass-end.
>
>
> The lightning ass-end is actually not very light. The rear end is
> housing is bigger than the usual 8.8, the frame is thicker than a
> regular F150, it is lowered, it has added swaybars, and throw in a
> full size spare back there and there is a good bit of weight. With
> the stock suspension in my truck, it hardly spins the tires even
> with the 4.10s and 1800 rpm stall. It just hooks up and throws you
> in the seat. Same thing going through turns, it does not come out
> from underneath you like you think it would. I have driven many
> other trucks as well, until you drive a Gen 1 lightning you will not
> understand. While the Dak is similar in performance as far as
> straight line, it does nothing to compare to the handling of a Gen 1
> lightning. The Dak is alot more similar in handling to a Gen 2
> lightning, which also fails to compare to a Gen 1. Seriously, I
> never thought a truck could handle either until I rode in a Gen 1
> lightning. Until you ride in one there is no point in me trying to
> make you understand any more than I have already tried. Seriously
> though, I would like to hear your honest opinion after you take one
> for a good hard spin. Erik D.
> '94 white lightning
> '01 white GT

I've never driven a Lightning, but the R/T is definitely no slouch
when it comes to handling. IIRC, it's got all of the same stuff that
the Gen 1 had. BTW, my R/T is the last year it was made. After '03,
there's no such thing as a Dakota R/T.

Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Joe wrote:

> So the electric runs along with the ICE? =A0
> Is the ICE running full time?

>From the CD story (
http://www.caranddriver.com/article...._id=3D8779&pa=
ge_number=3D1
):

"We think average folks wouldn't notice anything about the way it
drives, either. Okay, engine off at idle might raise flags, except, 'Is
it really off? What's that little noise? There's a vibration, too.'
Until you read the manual, the small green 'AUTO STOP' blinking on the
cluster is cryptic to the point of huh?

"During our summer test motoring, the A/C was always running. The
belt-drive compressor (75cc displacement) stops with the engine, but
the electric compressor (15cc) maintains cabin coolness and keeps the
Accord alive with enough vibration that you could think=97in a Lexus
anyway=97the engine were still idling.

"The 2997cc V-6 has a system to deactivate all the valves on the rear
bank. It's programmed to shrink back to three-cylinder operation below
3500 rpm when cruising or coasting, and the others don't come alive
even for mild acceleration. Instead, the electric motor readily and
seamlessly kicks in to help. Only at higher revs, or if the battery is
down, or if significant acceleration is ordered, will all six cylinders
join in. One staffer thought he could feel some rough running on three,
but most of us could not. This feature is highly successful,
effectively cutting consumption in half when the green glows."

180 Out

>
> It's doubtful that Erik even knows who I am; but, I know he's been
> around here for quite a while longer than me (I don't post here much
> anymore). And if there's one person on here that I would believe is
> giving out truthful information on a Lightning, it's Erik. And don't
> ask me why, but I can remember when he bought the truck after having
> tons of transmission problems with his 93 LX.
>
> No Erik, I'm not stalking you! I just remember that white Lightning
> ;-)! Nice looking truck.
>


I remember you Sean! Thanks!
Erik D.
'94 white lightning
'01 white GT

>
>
> I've never driven a Lightning, but the R/T is definitely no slouch
> when it comes to handling. IIRC, it's got all of the same stuff that
> the Gen 1 had. BTW, my R/T is the last year it was made. After '03,
> there's no such thing as a Dakota R/T.
>
>

I know the R/T is no slouch, neither is a Gen 2 lightning for that
matter. They just don't compare. My good friend has a '93 lightning
and his brother has a dakota r/t. They are both very nice and two of
the cleanest trucks around. The r/t rides better as far as smoothness,
but it just doesn't have quite the sporty feel of a Gen 1 L. Take it
into a turn and it definitely does not have the stiffness. These are
just my observations though. I really think ya'll should find a Gen 1
to take for a test drive.
Erik D.
'94 white lightning
'01 white GT

wrote in
ps.com:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> So the electric runs along with the ICE? *
>> Is the ICE running full time?
>
>>From the CD story (
> http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8779
&
> page_number=1 ):
>
> "We think average folks wouldn't notice anything about the way it
> drives, either. Okay, engine off at idle might raise flags, except,
> 'Is it really off? What's that little noise? There's a vibration,
> too.' Until you read the manual, the small green 'AUTO STOP'
> blinking on the cluster is cryptic to the point of huh?
>
> "During our summer test motoring, the A/C was always running. The
> belt-drive compressor (75cc displacement) stops with the engine, but
> the electric compressor (15cc) maintains cabin coolness and keeps
> the Accord alive with enough vibration that you could think—in a
> Lexus anyway—the engine were still idling.
>
> "The 2997cc V-6 has a system to deactivate all the valves on the
> rear bank. It's programmed to shrink back to three-cylinder
> operation below 3500 rpm when cruising or coasting, and the others
> don't come alive even for mild acceleration. Instead, the electric
> motor readily and seamlessly kicks in to help. Only at higher revs,
> or if the battery is down, or if significant acceleration is
> ordered, will all six cylinders join in. One staffer thought he
> could feel some rough running on three, but most of us could not.
> This feature is highly successful, effectively cutting consumption
> in half when the green glows."
>
> 180 Out

Pretty interesting. I didn't realize there are two compressors. Is
the same true for stuff like power steering? How do the power brakes
work if the ICE isn't running? Lots of interesting things to
consider.

Although I'd think the bottom line is that maintenance and repair
costs will be through the roof compared to what most of us drive now.
Personally, I'd prefer a vehicle with a single source of power rather
than multiple powerplants just from the point of simplicity.

Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC