Next lightning - Page 2

T-Bolt · 11-29-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robs95#116

I guess anything is posssible, I'd never seen the SHOstar and wished i never had. What kind of GOOBER (putting it nicely)would be caught breathing in a minivan? Maybe a mom who needed to pick up the kids and go to Wal-Mart in a hurry. This is NOT Ford SVT,s demo group. middle ageish and younger men are. As my grandpa said "stay with the one who brought you to the dance" So SVT quit "whoring " the group out

You've totally missed my point. Some people need more than 2 seats and needs to throw stuff in a covered, waterproof trunk. My point is that the SVT Explorer makes a lot of sense right now, and its other proposed competitors (TBSS and GCSRT8) are doing extremely well sales-wise. Would I complain about a new Lightning? No. Would I be happier to buy an SVT Explorer? Yes.

Lbronco96 · 11-30-2008, 08:14 AM

I called SVT about 2 months ago and talked to one of their tech guys in the phone. He said they were working on a gen 3 lightning recently but ran into alot of problems. They had a motor 500hp+ and couldnt make the driveline strong enough. He said they used the rear and trans off of the F250/350 models but kept breaking rearends and transmissions. They might last a little while but werent reliable enough. The biggest issue was that the new style F150s were soo heavy with the beefed up frame that you needed 500 horse at a minimum just to keep it in line with our gen 2 lightnings. All this said and done it would have cost upwards of $45-50,000 and they didnt think the market would buy it. He said they had a few other truck projects in the works not named lightning that they were testing. I found this information interesting but really nothing new.

buckachow · 12-01-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lbronco96

I called SVT about 2 months ago and talked to one of their tech guys in the phone. He said they were working on a gen 3 lightning recently but ran into alot of problems. They had a motor 500hp+ and couldnt make the driveline strong enough. He said they used the rear and trans off of the F250/350 models but kept breaking rearends and transmissions. They might last a little while but werent reliable enough. The biggest issue was that the new style F150s were soo heavy with the beefed up frame that you needed 500 horse at a minimum just to keep it in line with our gen 2 lightnings. All this said and done it would have cost upwards of $45-50,000 and they didnt think the market would buy it. He said they had a few other truck projects in the works not named lightning that they were testing. I found this information interesting but really nothing new.

What's their #?
I wouldn't mind having a lil chat with some of them and being in the loop.
The guy I talked to at the LA auto show was kinda vague. said maybe large V8 maybe V10. 500hp maybe 600hp maybe 650+ hp. It was like a guessing game, but none the less I am excited

Lbronco96 · 12-01-2008, 02:32 AM

Yea I was pretty shocked as well when the tech told me what he knew. They usually act like they have no idea what is going on. Nothing we didnt really know but at least they confirmed certain things. I just don't see a new lightning coming out on that body style and weight. Unless gas prices stay down and people start spending again $40-50,000. I think its 800-FORD-SVT

joedpl · 12-01-2008, 09:10 AM

I would think if GM could build a system to hold the ZR1's power that ford wouldn't have that hard of a time doing the same thing, but then again maybe the motor that ford was testing had an insane amount of torque.

T-Bolt · 12-01-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joedpl

I would think if GM could build a system to hold the ZR1's power that ford wouldn't have that hard of a time doing the same thing, but then again maybe the motor that ford was testing had an insane amount of torque.

GM didn't have to figure out how to get the drivetrain to handle the power AND tow a lot of weight. Remember, the RC SRT10 Ram couldn't tow.

Lbronco96 · 12-01-2008, 12:20 PM

your right I remember him saying it was the torque that was causing most of the problems.

Robs95#116 · 12-01-2008, 07:09 PM

[QUOTE=chickenwings_85;1788426]moms arent the only ones who drive vans. im in the process of building this one right now. van project (56k beware)

and yes i know total redneck, but the L wont drive very well on the dunes and mud. lol

Your van is pretty cool concept (for a chevy) but there's a difference between a backyard build -up and a multi million dollar factory performace group. Don't get me wrong i've built & pieced more trucks together than most,I have no problem with that. I guess an hopped up explorer not so bad if you could get it w/o the crappie AWD. Ijust can't get pass the souped-up soccermom mobile.

T-Bolt · 12-01-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robs95#116

Your van is pretty cool concept (for a chevy) but there's a difference between a backyard build -up and a multi million dollar factory performace group. Don't get me wrong i've built & pieced more trucks together than most,I have no problem with that. I guess an hopped up explorer not so bad if you could get it w/o the crappie AWD. Ijust can't get pass the souped-up soccermom mobile.

Why is it a soccer mom vehicle? The SRT8 Jeep surely isn't, though in my area, a lot of moms drive Trailblazer SSes. I have no idea why.

cschlamp · 12-03-2008, 03:30 PM

It is a power to weight to Aero thing.

I say build a truck about the size of a 56 ford pickup. Seats 3 across like the Gen 2, and the cab is comfortable for a 6’5” guy. Use Aluminum and Carbon fiber to keep the strength up and weight down. 1000 pound carry capacity and able to tow a 16 foot outboard boat.

Engine could be a turbo diesel or small aluminum block v8 supercharged or turbo charged. My preference is supercharged.

Work over the aero package when you design the truck so it is not such a brick, but not a Ranchero. Freeway gas mileage around 25 mpg. Maybe a button for sport, towing, or cruise like some high end cars have. Floppy paddle shifting manual automatic!

Air bag independent rear end = good ride un loaded with carry capacity some thing like the Navi air bag rear end. Of course 1G skid pad numbers!!

Offer a hard, locking, electrically actuated tonneau and tail gate.

You want an off road vehicle get a Raptor. You want to tow the retirement trailer buy a F250 or F350.

I want a sports car with a big trunk.

12-03-2008, 03:30 PM	#25 (permalink)
cschlamp Registered User Paid Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Lynnwood Washington Posts: 222 NLOC member #: 1923 View this user's gallery iTrader: 0 / 0%	Future Bolt (F100 L3) It is a power to weight to Aero thing. I say build a truck about the size of a 56 ford pickup. Seats 3 across like the Gen 2, and the cab is comfortable for a 6’5” guy. Use Aluminum and Carbon fiber to keep the strength up and weight down. 1000 pound carry capacity and able to tow a 16 foot outboard boat. Engine could be a turbo diesel or small aluminum block v8 supercharged or turbo charged. My preference is supercharged. Work over the aero package when you design the truck so it is not such a brick, but not a Ranchero. Freeway gas mileage around 25 mpg. Maybe a button for sport, towing, or cruise like some high end cars have. Floppy paddle shifting manual automatic! Air bag independent rear end = good ride un loaded with carry capacity some thing like the Navi air bag rear end. Of course 1G skid pad numbers!! Offer a hard, locking, electrically actuated tonneau and tail gate. You want an off road vehicle get a Raptor. You want to tow the retirement trailer buy a F250 or F350. I want a sports car with a big trunk.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode




Home \| Classified Ads \| Gallery \| Join the Club \| Register on the Forum \| Merchandise \| Supporting Vendors \| Chat

11-30-2008, 08:14 AM	#17 (permalink)
Lbronco96 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 991 View this user's gallery iTrader: 10 / 100%	I called SVT about 2 months ago and talked to one of their tech guys in the phone. He said they were working on a gen 3 lightning recently but ran into alot of problems. They had a motor 500hp+ and couldnt make the driveline strong enough. He said they used the rear and trans off of the F250/350 models but kept breaking rearends and transmissions. They might last a little while but werent reliable enough. The biggest issue was that the new style F150s were soo heavy with the beefed up frame that you needed 500 horse at a minimum just to keep it in line with our gen 2 lightnings. All this said and done it would have cost upwards of $45-50,000 and they didnt think the market would buy it. He said they had a few other truck projects in the works not named lightning that they were testing. I found this information interesting but really nothing new.

12-01-2008, 02:32 AM	#19 (permalink)
Lbronco96 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 991 View this user's gallery iTrader: 10 / 100%	Yea I was pretty shocked as well when the tech told me what he knew. They usually act like they have no idea what is going on. Nothing we didnt really know but at least they confirmed certain things. I just don't see a new lightning coming out on that body style and weight. Unless gas prices stay down and people start spending again $40-50,000. I think its 800-FORD-SVT

12-01-2008, 09:10 AM	#20 (permalink)
joedpl Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Edmond, Oklahoma Posts: 676 View this user's gallery iTrader: 0 / 0%	I would think if GM could build a system to hold the ZR1's power that ford wouldn't have that hard of a time doing the same thing, but then again maybe the motor that ford was testing had an insane amount of torque.

12-01-2008, 12:20 PM	#22 (permalink)
Lbronco96 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 991 View this user's gallery iTrader: 10 / 100%	your right I remember him saying it was the torque that was causing most of the problems.

12-01-2008, 07:09 PM	#23 (permalink)
Robs95#116 In The Hills Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oneida,Tn Posts: 77 View this user's gallery iTrader: 0 / 0%	[QUOTE=chickenwings_85;1788426]moms arent the only ones who drive vans. im in the process of building this one right now. van project (56k beware) and yes i know total redneck, but the L wont drive very well on the dunes and mud. lol Your van is pretty cool concept (for a chevy) but there's a difference between a backyard build -up and a multi million dollar factory performace group. Don't get me wrong i've built & pieced more trucks together than most,I have no problem with that. I guess an hopped up explorer not so bad if you could get it w/o the crappie AWD. Ijust can't get pass the souped-up soccermom mobile.