11 city / 18 highway

Who cares, it's not like you or anyone else on this board will ever drive one.

It's fast and it looks cool, just leave it at that.

It's actually impressive it gets that, that means it has a normal powerband and not just a crazy top end.

File: image.jpg (14KB, 206x206px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 206x206px

By making it faster.

File: 1482880374944.jpg (119KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x768px

>$400,000 and a blowjob to fords executive board for an f150 with a bodykit
what were they thinking?

File: 104_4544.jpg (70KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x600px

>giving a shit about fuel economy

YAWN

Wew they really need to work on thermal efficiency.

>>16445479
>lifted 100% above ground clearance
what's the point?

more air in engine = more gas in the engine

>>16445502
off roadan
muddan
murrica

>>16445479
>literally a mall crawler

>>16445479
>that articulation.

>>16445502
>what's the point?

what's the point of suspension lifting a DD and wrecking the ride quality when you can body lift to get the same thing but without the penalty on the road? Fuck offroading I just want to look good

>>16445513
>off roading
>mudding

You've added 0 inches of ground clearance and made the rollover risk much worse

>hurr durr who gives a crap about MPG its a fast car

Ford fags in damage control.

I thought GM fags were butthurt but this kind of anal destruction blows my mind.

>>16445285
it has nothing to do with the car and everything to do with the engine. the ecoboost motors have shit fuel economy across the board be it in their trucks, work vans, or I guess sports cars. it's a powerful engine man. there are sleeper plumbing vans casually strolling around right now sitting on a 400 lb/ft engines and probably don't even know it.

>>16445493
yes keeping the engine warm sure would help
fucking faggot

File: 1431703560978.jpg (138KB, 428x280px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 428x280px

>call it ecoboost
>get 14 combined mpg
madmen

>>16445518
snow drifts and plows

>>16445502
>people still don't understand how axles work
Granted that is a brodozer, but take a minute to learn about suspension.

>>16445466
[citation needed]

We don't even have hp numbers to go by, nevermind actual laptimes to actually compare and prove that it's faster than it's competition.

>>16445717
>spoonfeed me mommy
It's faster.

Remember when Clarkson sold his GT, because he couldn't DD it because of the appaling fuel economy? Several years later, add a lot of carbon fiber, an automatic gearbox, remove two cilinders and 1.9L of displacement, replace the supercharger with a set of turbo's - and it's worse? What the hell Ford.

>>16445417
>that means it has a normal powerband and not just a crazy top end.
Hang on there, that's a bit premature to conclude. Modern turbo's for economy cars actually provide their torque shove right down low in the powerband - that's what improves their MPG ratings apparently. The GT's appaling fuel economy rating suggests that it might just lack that ''normal powerband''/ early torque shove, which might just mean that it does have a very peaky powerband.

>>16445731
>spoonfeed me
I can't even spoonfeed myself if Ford refuses to publish numbers, or allow documented testing.

i guess slapping a turbo, or making it a "hybrid" wasn't enough to cheat tests.

sometimes i feel like manufacturers forgot how to design engines.
15 -25 years ago nearly every manufacturers was trying design(copy) infinitely adjustable VVL/VVT and had some "tricks" like variable intakes, infamous dual spark plugs, lighter cams etc.
i know it was expensive as fuck, but at least they were trying.

>>16445285

>How did Ford manage to make a sub-2900 pound car with a 3.5L V6 have worse fuel economy

turbo => lower CR => lower efficiency => worse fuel economy

>>16445518
Body lifts look fucking gay.

>>16445285
so.. what you're saying is Ford made a 'supercar' out of a pickup truck?

Kinda makes you want to kiss your sister.