Has weaker torque at every RPM, too, so the Coyote isn't really anyone's ideal truck engine. The appeal is strictly aural, I imagine.You do realize a dressed 5.0 weighs less than a dressed 2.7L right?
Sponsored
Last edited:
Has weaker torque at every RPM, too, so the Coyote isn't really anyone's ideal truck engine. The appeal is strictly aural, I imagine.You do realize a dressed 5.0 weighs less than a dressed 2.7L right?
But that’s not what you were originally referring to. Based on your previous post I thought you would be excited to be able to carry an extra cooler of beer with the increased payload from the lighter V8.Has a weaker torque at every RPM, too, so the Coyote isn't really anyone's ideal truck engine. The appeal is strictly aural, I imagine.
It’s really the perfect engine. Also a nice FU to Jeeps 6.4L Wrangler.I'd like to see the Baby Godzilla engine (6.8L) in the Warthog.
I wonder if the bronco is the most expensive non hybridized 4 banger out there?For the price of a Bad Lands ($50k), it should've come with a V8/ 7spd manual Transmission. No question. I do find ($50k MSRP) for a 2.3L 7spd MT Badlands to be ridiculously over priced. Even though I'll probably buy one, thats a lot of money for a 4cy vehicle. NO matter how you turn it and try to convince me the R&D is worth every penny...
The Porsche Boxster/Cayman laugh at your premise.I wonder if the bronco is the most expensive non hybridized 4 banger out there?
I'm not racing mine in any off-road events. So my dog has been put away. Ford has to comply with EPA regulations. We'll see how long the Rubicon 392 will last.How long before those tunes cause the EPA to start fining people $10k per instance?
Another LS performance parts designer released a letter yesterday they were ending a sizeable amount of production due to the EPA coming down on them.
Particularly with turbo engines Increasing engine timing, raising cylinder temperatures - you start creating more NOX emissions, not the fake bologna CO2 emissions.
The 392 just got promised to another new upcoming vehicle in the minivan-tastic Grand Wagoneer. So I imagine it’s safe for at least another 6-7 years.I'm not racing mine in any off-road events. So my dog has been put away. Ford has to comply with EPA regulations. We'll see how long the Rubicon 392 will last.
Also you are incorrect, Ford does not have to comply with these particular EPA regulations. They are free to slap the 6.8L into everything they produce and charge customers a couple hundred dollars extra to satisfy the bureaucrats with their pay offs as FCA does.The 392 just got promised to another new upcoming vehicle in the minivan-tastic Grand Wagoneer. So I imagine it’s safe for at least another 6-7 years.
Therefore, the Rubicon’s 392 will likely last as long as Wranglers generational life.
Depends if you live in a state that tests or not?How long before those tunes cause the EPA to start fining people $10k per instance?
Another LS performance parts designer released a letter yesterday they were ending a sizeable amount of production due to the EPA coming down on them.
Particularly with turbo engines Increasing engine timing, raising cylinder temperatures - you start creating more NOX emissions, not the fake bologna CO2 emissions.
They definitely don’t test on older than 2000 in my county. And for that matter I don’t think they actually check tailpipe emissions in anything. Probably just checking the computer for codes.Depends if you live in a state that tests or not?
My state they don’t check emissions at all. In fact I know a few places for $10 you get a sticker and can pass inspection on a totaled car. YmmvThey definitely don’t test on older than 2000 in my county. And for that matter I don’t think they actually check tailpipe emissions in anything. Probably just checking the computer for codes.