|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/9/13 6:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. You are biased. ------------------------------------ No, I don't think I am biased. The Lightning was a unique, fast and fun truck but hardly a "Porsche eater". Different animals altogether. My lawyer friend has a non-turbo Porsche 911. I think it has 350 hp. I've driven it several times and frankly, it's as much fun to drive as the one I had. Not quite as quick, but has the handling qualities that makes a car (or truck) good .... and safe. So, I am not knocking the Lightning. I like and respect performance vehicles. I just take exception to your "Porsche eater" claim. Even the software dependent BMW M5 will outperform the Lightning on or off the track, as will some of Chevy's Corvette models. Right now I drive a Ford F-250 Super Duty truck and I just bought a 2002 Saturn with a five speed manual transmission for "around town" driving. I bought the Ford F-250 new in 2008 and it currently has a grand total of 18,500 miles on it. It will probably last me for many, many years. I had a Mini Cooper "S" for about a year but again, it's a BMW product. Maintenance and parts are expensive and the only local authorized service center is about 50 miles from me. Had fun with it, but I am just not into the "fast" car scene anymore. It's why I sold the Porsche TT while it still had a good resale value. You can't drive them the way they are designed to be driven unless you are into racing at a track or something. Or, you like getting speeding tickets. With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. |
Back to the Dakota..
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/9/13 6:41 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. I like the looks of many of the Harleys, and I'd probably like the ride, too, but esthetically, I just don't like driving BIG motorcycles. |
Back to the Dakota..
With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Sunday, June 9, 2013 5:53:09 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. You are biased. Nah. I owned a Porsche myself, and he's right. They have it right. There is no perfect car, but Porsches are well sorted, extremely well engineered cars. The Lightning is a fun truck, but is absolutely no substitute for a Porsche. :-) And a Porsche is no substitute for the Ford either. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. ------------------------------------------------- iboaterer just likes to argue anything. It's his purpose in life, I guess. I also recall that the Lightning was *not* recommended for towing or hauling anything, primarily because it was supercharged, not turbo'd. As for loading either of them with gravel to compare how they would perform .... well, we'll just ignore that. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:24:17 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 6/9/2013 7:54 AM, John H wrote: On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:41:51 -0700, jps wrote: On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:01:20 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Drove a BIG F150 last night... hated it. I mean, it has everything I need but I just don't like driving that huge monstrosity... Think I would get over it soon enough? WTF has this got to do with boats? The little freak doesn't trailer a boat. He trailers motorbikes and someday maybe his single wide to West Virginia, where he'd be at home. Guns and death are just as close to boats and boating as this crap. You *could* knock off your **** and join the club. The atmosphere's fine until this starts. BTW, did you buy a gun for your boat? I might could make you a good deal on a Sig Sauer P250 in 9mm. John H. The Sig didn't live up to your expectations? I'm not happy about the long trigger pull. But, I've been told to spend more time shooting it and it'll start feeling very natural. I have to quit shooting the Kimber .45 first, and then going to the Sig. My wife loves the Sig. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:41:47 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Should have bought a Moto Guzzi. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. |
Back to the Dakota..
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. ---------------------------------- Some of my replies have been in error. Indeed, the Lightning *does* have a towing capacity of 5,000 lbs although I remember when the supercharged version first came out it was not recommended. There have been three generations of it. The original was not supercharged. It had the 351W "truck" engine that was highly modified. The supercharged 5.8L versions came later. But, going back to the original issue, you simply can't compare a pickup truck regardless of how "fast" it is with a high performance sports car like a Porsche 911. Two completely different animals. My point about the Porsche is that it's not simply designed to go fast. It also is designed to stop and handle in world class competition. The Lightning is a unique, fun truck but it's not in the same league from a standpoint of total performance. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. ------------------------------------------------- iboaterer just likes to argue anything. It's his purpose in life, I guess. I also recall that the Lightning was *not* recommended for towing or hauling anything, primarily because it was supercharged, not turbo'd. As for loading either of them with gravel to compare how they would perform .... well, we'll just ignore that. Of course you will. Two different vehicles for two different needs. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. Yes, everyone knows, you're never wrong, even when you're wrong. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 1:18 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. Yes, everyone knows, you're never wrong, even when you're wrong. Absurd, and I'm not the one here who gets into endless arguments with Greg...you are. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Monday, 10 June 2013 14:37:15 UTC-3, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. No dog in this fight This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/2013 1:54 PM, True North wrote:
On Monday, 10 June 2013 14:37:15 UTC-3, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. No dog in this fight This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. Yeah, cracks me up... I see these guys with stock trucks a couple feet off the ground.. It's not like they are going off road, it's like the modern version of the red convertible wee wee machine:) |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 2:08 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/10/2013 1:54 PM, True North wrote: On Monday, 10 June 2013 14:37:15 UTC-3, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. No dog in this fight This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. Yeah, cracks me up... I see these guys with stock trucks a couple feet off the ground.. It's not like they are going off road, it's like the modern version of the red convertible wee wee machine:) If memory serves, the F150 I had was a '97 and it was a competent truck. I traded it in in 2001 for the Tundra that came out right after the T100. The Tundra was far better than the Ford in terms of fit and finish, a seemingly world of difference. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. No dog in this fight This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg That's a good old truck. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:40:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. Wait, are you saying that a car will out corner a motorcycle? Yes! Not true, the reason being, you are right in thinking because of the amount of tire contact a car has does give it a greater friction coefficient, you also have mass to deal with, and simply physics will tell you that a given mass wants to stay in a straight line, and that mass is MUCH greater with a car. It's a centrifugal force thing! So, all in all, they are closer to equal than anything. Motorcycle has less contact patch, but also less mass. There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Much greater traction coupled with aerodynamic down force the bike doesn't have. Nah, you're probably right, they're equal. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 1:18 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. Sure they are "applicable". The Lightning was lowered 1", show me different. As for towing, a towing package was available for the Lightning just as it was for a standard 150. Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. Yes, everyone knows, you're never wrong, even when you're wrong. Absurd, and I'm not the one here who gets into endless arguments with Greg...you are. Gee, can't seem to stay on the topic, eh? |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/2013 2:15 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. The operative word here is "look". That was a tough old truck. A pallet of pavers, a pallet of sod, no matter, off it went. I remember my dad's Ford had a straight 6. Wouldn't gain any speed going up hill with a load, wouldn't lose any either... |
Back to the Dakota..
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:40:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. Wait, are you saying that a car will out corner a motorcycle? Yes! Not true, the reason being, you are right in thinking because of the amount of tire contact a car has does give it a greater friction coefficient, you also have mass to deal with, and simply physics will tell you that a given mass wants to stay in a straight line, and that mass is MUCH greater with a car. It's a centrifugal force thing! So, all in all, they are closer to equal than anything. Motorcycle has less contact patch, but also less mass. There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Much greater traction coupled with aerodynamic down force the bike doesn't have. Nah, you're probably right, they're equal. A little bit of dampness and that motorcycle will slow down in a big hurry. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. Wait, are you saying that a car will out corner a motorcycle? Not true, the reason being, you are right in thinking because of the amount of tire contact a car has does give it a greater friction coefficient, you also have mass to deal with, and simply physics will tell you that a given mass wants to stay in a straight line, and that mass is MUCH greater with a car. It's a centrifugal force thing! So, all in all, they are closer to equal than anything. Motorcycle has less contact patch, but also less mass. It depends on the track and the vehicles. On a relatively simply track, like, for example, Daytona, certain Italian motorcycles will blow the doors off your Ferraris, Porsches, and Corvettes with similar top speeds because they will out-accelerate these four wheeled vehicles, and braking isn't as severe as it would be on a more difficult track with lots of complex, tight turns. On the more severe tracks, the motorcycles cannot go as deep and as fast into the tight turns as the cars, which have better brakes, so the cars can play catchup. The bikes may still finish faster, but only because of their acceleration abilities. This has been demonstrated many times with top drivers in each category. It's the brakes. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Monday, June 10, 2013 4:44:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:40:10 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/10/2013 2:15 PM, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. The operative word here is "look". That was a tough old truck. A pallet of pavers, a pallet of sod, no matter, off it went. I remember my dad's Ford had a straight 6. Wouldn't gain any speed going up hill with a load, wouldn't lose any either... That one had the 300CI 6 and it was plenty strong, even pulling my boat. It had the classic Florida Ford problem tho. They came standard with a 2 core radiator and in hot weather, towing, they ran hot. I put in a 3 core and the problem was fixed. I had to do the same thing with my E150 van. The 300 straight six was a torque monster. My dad had one in a 4x4, and in low range in 1st, you could let out the clutch and about walk beside it at idle. At that same idle, it would just about climb a tree. Great truck motor. |
Back to the Dakota..
Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Harry's imaginary Ducati is far more unreliable than either of your M5's. I know several people who have owned one, and only one, and now have another brand. |
Back to the Dakota..
"Earl" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Harry's imaginary Ducati is far more unreliable than either of your M5's. I know several people who have owned one, and only one, and now have another brand. ------------------------------------------ That's hard to believe. The two M5's I had were nightmares. They were 2006 models and I think BMW was still getting all the bugs out of the software that controlled virtually every aspect of the car. The first one was constantly locking up the transmission so you couldn't shift it. Software revisions and upgrades didn't fix it. They finally gave me a newer one, manufactured later in the year that supposedly had all the "bugs" worked out. Nope. Started doing the same thing. Red cog of death appeared on the dash display. I had enough. They are awesome cars and maybe all the bugs are worked out by now, but it turned me off to BMW performance vehicles. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/2013 7:37 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"Earl" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Harry's imaginary Ducati is far more unreliable than either of your M5's. I know several people who have owned one, and only one, and now have another brand. ------------------------------------------ That's hard to believe. The two M5's I had were nightmares. They were 2006 models and I think BMW was still getting all the bugs out of the software that controlled virtually every aspect of the car. The first one was constantly locking up the transmission so you couldn't shift it. Software revisions and upgrades didn't fix it. They finally gave me a newer one, manufactured later in the year that supposedly had all the "bugs" worked out. Nope. Started doing the same thing. Red cog of death appeared on the dash display. I had enough. They are awesome cars and maybe all the bugs are worked out by now, but it turned me off to BMW performance vehicles. I have a buddy who has a more recent M5. I haven't heard him complaining about it. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/10/13 7:37 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"Earl" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Harry's imaginary Ducati is far more unreliable than either of your M5's. I know several people who have owned one, and only one, and now have another brand. ------------------------------------------ That's hard to believe. The two M5's I had were nightmares. They were 2006 models and I think BMW was still getting all the bugs out of the software that controlled virtually every aspect of the car. The first one was constantly locking up the transmission so you couldn't shift it. Software revisions and upgrades didn't fix it. They finally gave me a newer one, manufactured later in the year that supposedly had all the "bugs" worked out. Nope. Started doing the same thing. Red cog of death appeared on the dash display. I had enough. They are awesome cars and maybe all the bugs are worked out by now, but it turned me off to BMW performance vehicles. It wouldn't matter what brand I had, "Earl the Flaming Ass" would knock it. That's why I don't post photos here any more of boats, motorcycles or cars, and one of the reasons why Earl is a permanent resident of my Bozo Bin. Ducati produces beautifully made motorcycles that are super fast, handle well, and are reliable. I've had Honda and Kawasaki motorcycles and have found their reliability no different than "The Duc." |
Back to the Dakota..
In article , says...
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 6/10/13 9:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/10/13 8:28 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. The F-150 Lightening was a Porsche killer. --------------------------------------------- You're dreaming. The last year Ford built the Lightning, it had impressive performance numbers in the quarter mile, but that's not what a Porsche is all about. But, for the record: 2001 Ford F-150 Lightning 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.7 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.1 Now, take them off the track and onto the streets and there's no contest at all. The Porsche will surefoot around corners and bends in the road that would cause the Lightning to climb up a tree. I had a 2001 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. Finest engineered car I've ever driven, and I've had a few. Load the Porsche full of gravel and go up a steep dirt road and see which one prevails! No one would load either vehicle up with gravel. The Lightning was a pick-me-up truck in name only, far too fancy for the workaday world. I took a Lightning out for a demo when I decided to trade in my SplashTruck. In those days, it didn't even have the tow capacity of the "regular" F150, which is what I ended up getting. Oh, and if memory serves, the Lighting had much lower ground clearance than the regular F150, too. Loaded with gravel and going up a steep bumpy dirt road would have been death for that truck. Not true at all, the Lighting was a damned good combo work/play truck, and the "ground clearance" was not much different than any F-150. It was lowered only one inch from a base 150. Towing is about the same as the base 150 as well. Since you have no idea what F150 I bought and probably not the model year, either, your claims are not applicable. When I was shopping for a new "full size" pickup, the Lightning did not match up to the towing or height specifications of the F150 I bought. Period. ---------------------------------- Some of my replies have been in error. Indeed, the Lightning *does* have a towing capacity of 5,000 lbs although I remember when the supercharged version first came out it was not recommended. There have been three generations of it. The original was not supercharged. It had the 351W "truck" engine that was highly modified. The supercharged 5.8L versions came later. But, going back to the original issue, you simply can't compare a pickup truck regardless of how "fast" it is with a high performance sports car like a Porsche 911. Two completely different animals. My point about the Porsche is that it's not simply designed to go fast. It also is designed to stop and handle in world class competition. The Lightning is a unique, fun truck but it's not in the same league from a standpoint of total performance. The F-150 Lightening in its latest generation had a supercharged 5.4L V8 putting out 360/380 HP. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article , says...
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/10/13 12:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Sorry, I have no interest in getting into anything like a Greg-Iboaterererer 300-post debate that never reaches a conclusion. Right....... Right. Absolutely right. Perhaps you can intrigue Greg with this discussion and get back to me a few hundred posts later. No dog in this fight This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Nice looking 20+ year old truck. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com