 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / October 2004Lightning Won't Strike Again Anytime Soon
NoOp Comment: Doesn't sound good folks. Read on. --- Ford has pulled the plug on the next-generation F-150 Lightning SVT pickup truck, instead putting all SVT's eggs into one basket - the SVT Cobra Mustang, due in 2006 as an '07 model. "It's a business decision," said Alan Hall, SVT spokesman. The official line is that the Lightning has been "postponed," and not killed, but if it is revived, it will be 2008 or later before we see one. SVT has gone from three vehicles in 2004 - the Lightning, the Cobra Mustang and the SVT Focus - to none in 2005. Ford had already shown a concept version of the next-generation Lightning in 2003. The concept had a supercharged V-8 engine with more than 500 horsepower, in answer to the Dodge Ram SRT-10, which eclipsed the Lightning as the world's fastest production pickup in a test last winter. Ford was eager to regain the crown, but has decided to deed the performance pickup-truck market over to Dodge and its 500-horse SRT-10, and to a lesser extent, Chevrolet, though the heavy all-wheel-drive Silverado SS is not in the same category. The Lightning debuted in 1993, with a 240-horsepower version of Ford's 5.8-liter V-8. Cobby and not that attractive, it was only a mild success, and was dropped in 1995. The F-150's redesign led to a handsome new Lightning for 1999, featuring a 360-horsepower supercharged 5.4-liter V-8. A handful of 2004 Lightnings, not much changed from that 1999 model except for a horsepower bump to 380, remain on dealer lots. Base price: $33,560. Apparently, cost played a leading role in the decision, as the expense involved in developing and certifying a proper V8, and massaging the new-for-2004 F-150's chassis, was deemed prohibitive. Also, the next-generation Lightning's fuel mileage would likely continue to detract from Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy totals: The current Lightning is rated at 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway. Even so, this news will not be popular with Lightning loyalists, such as Mike Philpot of Heathrow, Florida, who paid full sticker price for his Lightning in July, 1999. "My '99 Lightning has been a fantastic vehicle," he says. "It has about 54,000 miles on it, and it runs better than new. Never any problems. I bought an extended warranty from Ford, but I could have saved myself the money. It has it all: good looks, comfort, good handling and, of course, all that incredible power. Hardly a day goes by without at least one positive comment on it from someone. "Hopefully, Ford will change its mind. If they want to keep the F-150 the most popular truck in the world with all the competition that it has now, they had better continue with their halo vehicle." --- NoOp Comment: Shelving the Lightning...I just don't know what to think about this managament decision. Anyone...? Thoughts? Comments? Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD > NoOp Comment: Doesn't sound good folks. Read on. > > --- > Ford has pulled the plug on the next-generation F-150 Lightning SVT > pickup truck, instead putting all SVT's eggs into one basket - the SVT > Cobra Mustang, due in 2006 as an '07 model. <snip> > Apparently, cost played a leading role in the decision, as the expense > involved in developing and certifying a proper V8, and massaging the > new-for-2004 F-150's chassis, was deemed prohibitive. Also, the > next-generation Lightning's fuel mileage would likely continue to > detract from Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy totals: The current > Lightning is rated at 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway. Too bad they couldn't just drop the existing GT engine in: same displacement (5.4 liters) and the engineering is already done. That particular engine is probably too expensive to build, I guess. :( The MPG rating is probably about right. My '03 averages 14 MPG on the mandatory 91 octane gas in rural driving, and I drive it conservatively. Today, a quarter-tank cost me $14.25! Since I plan to keep my L for a long time (or at least until it's paid off -- another 4-1/2 years), Ford's decision doesn't really affect me personally. As a Ford enthusiast, though, I'm sorry to see that they're apparently dropping the ball. I was also disappointed in their decision to drop the SVT Focus, which really only needed an infusion of torque to make it the perfect pocket rocket. -- Jim Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > NoOp Comment: Doesn't sound good folks. Read on. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > '93 Cobra > '83 LTD > Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true. > > Joe > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC I have read about the performance car of the future and it is here http://automobiles.honda.com/info/prototypes/accord_hybrid.asp?bhcp=1&BrowserDet ected=True Yes I know it is a honda but 255hp available, variable cylinder management cuts back to 3 cylinders when freeway cruising, runs hybrid electric around town, OHC VTEC, 30/37mpg, ABS, all airbags, 5sp autostick, electric ps. Sticker under 30K Chassis details which are important to me are outlined here http://automobiles.honda.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2004091736726&Categ ory=Accord+Hybrid They appear to have overcome the unresponsive suspension, hard and skinny tire problems of the 1st generation hybrids. I imagine offerings from Ford and GM will fall far below this Accord benchmark. I have never owned a Honda (mostly owned fords) but given current rising fuel prices, american speed limits, traffic volume and road surface conditions this IMO is the best current car I have seen. I will of course keep my 89 5.0 LX vert for torquey (new word) fun but will think seriously about getting this Accord for a daily driver. Howard >>Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Howard I'd rather pay 10 bucks a gallon than drive that crap. Thats just me though, I know alot of people could drive that and be very happy. Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT >>> Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> town, OHC VTEC, 30/37mpg, ABS, all airbags, 5sp autostick, electric ps. >> Sticker under 30K HONDA! I could give a sh.t, man! Not here to talk about Hondas. I roast a niked Civic per day, on average. It's NOT "the performance car of the future". You're talking about only 255 hp, with the snot rung out of it, and a glorified (but more functional) version of the 4/6/8 Cadillac. And front wheel drive does not a race car make. Ever. Take your Rally geeks and go. And oh, and all that expensive hardware makes me want to vomit. >> Chassis details which are important to me are outlined here >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Ford >> and GM will fall far below this Accord benchmark. Benchmark? Benchmark. That's a very, very strong term. You're slinging some big guns for a family car, pal. Anyone look at cost / mile? Cost / hp? ANY sort of cost / benefit? Remember, those new hybrid loco mobiles will create more pollution in their manufacture than my old Mustang ever will, with no emissions controls, over even 100,000 miles. Don't believe me? Dip deeper. Again, is the group titled "honda" in any way? >> I have never owned a Honda (mostly owned fords) but given current rising >> fuel prices, american speed limits, traffic volume and road surface >> conditions this IMO is the best current car I have seen. I will of course >> keep my 89 5.0 LX vert for torquey (new word) fun but will think >> seriously >> about getting this Accord for a daily driver. Do what you want but propagate this story to the rice boy groups. Sorry, don't mean to be harsh (this disclaimer is to avoid offending the exaggerated sensibilities of the RAMFM group), but you're way OT, in the realm of "don't give a sh.t 'bout your Accord, ricer" >> Howard > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > '94 white lightning > '01 white GT > >>> Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > >> I have read about the performance car of the future and it is here http://automobiles.honda.com/info/prototypes/accord_hybrid.asp?bhcp=1&BrowserDet ected=True > >> Yes I know it is a honda but 255hp available, variable cylinder > >> management [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > >> Chassis details which are important to me are outlined here http://automobiles.honda.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2004091736726&Categ ory=Accord+Hybrid > >> They appear to have overcome the unresponsive suspension, hard and skinny > >> tire problems of the 1st generation hybrids. I imagine offerings from [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > '94 white lightning > > '01 white GT I apologize. I didn't realize this would be such a sensitive subject. I only brought it up because the thread was about SVT's possibly going away and what will be the alternatives. I guess we just lay away lots of spares and hope our cars are not legislated out of existence (if you live in California you know what I mean). IMO, between fuel prices and CAFE, cars like this (whoever makes them) represent the future of high performance sedans.As a purchaser you will never recover your costs if you rush out to buy one to have the latest thing. But if you need to replace your car then the numbers may make sense. I also thought the term "ricer" applied to modified/dressed up sports sedans not stock family sedans. And yes I am shocked, just shocked by the vehemence of your replies. Remember this is USENET guys. :) Howard 89 LX 5.0 vert <snip> > I apologize. I didn't realize this would be such a sensitive subject. I only > brought it up because the thread was about SVT's possibly going away and > what will be the alternatives. I guess we just lay away lots of spares and > hope our cars are not legislated out of existence (if you live in California > you know what I mean). No apologies are necessary. I understand your motive, but just didn't agree it was the future of performance motoring. I met a guy with SVT; he stopped to talk about my car and Fords in general (my Accel super sh.t coil had puked, and I was waiting for a ride to get a spare). He seemed optimisitc, and his attitude was there was nothing but upside. I don't exactly know what his job was, but he was here for some conference in St. Louis. This was about a month ago. I'm going to look into some news stories. The alternatives, to me, are not attractive... and I feel for Californian car guys. > IMO, between fuel prices and CAFE, cars like this (whoever makes them) > represent the future of high performance sedans.As a purchaser you will > never recover your costs if you rush out to buy one to have the latest > thing. But if you need to replace your car then the numbers may make sense. Maybe... > I also thought the term "ricer" applied to modified/dressed up sports sedans > not stock family sedans. Yes, but Joe Suit in his "3.2 S-Type" is often every bit the wannabe racer that Farty Rice Boy is with the bedecked Civic. And each one pisses me off equally with their stupid moves and braking right in front of me to ... accomplish what, get a lawsuit? I'm headed somewhere, pal, leave me be. > And yes I am shocked, just shocked by the vehemence of your replies. I am a passionate person, what can I say. Hondas share a special place of loathing in my heart, as good as they are for reliable transportation. They're overpriced, IMO, and a couple of their performance followers have nearly gotten crowbar-beatings for antagonizing me and nearly causing humungous accidents to prove WHAT I don't know. Glad I have those 4-piston Kelsey-Hayes discs up front. Why them in particular, I don't know. Just bad luck I suppose. It sparked IRE in my Wound Up heart. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.