name one ford that doesn't suck besides the GT40.

 

F-150
Lightning
Cobra
Escape

 

lightning is an overweight muscle pickup (~5,000lbs)...with big huge tires and 10-11 mpg average...nothing great about it especially now that the ram has a big huge pushrod v10 towing it around

1996 mustang cobra (n/a version) sucked complete ass...first 2 generations cobras (n/a and the s/c versions) had overstated hp and had to be recalled or bought back from customers

escape has poor front crash ratings and after its crash redisign this year still only gets average to marginal (www.iihs.org , http://www.nhtsa.gov<br /> <br /> ...ity and safety)

 

wow talk about nitpicking

Lightining: Sure the model is on its last year run of its current generation, but show me a truck made before 2004 that's made to be a muscle truck as well as the Lightning. Until the new Lightning based on the new F-150 comes out, the brand new Ram SRT-10 is the better muscle truck, but that doesn't mean the current Lightning neccessary "sucks". Reserve that title for the Silverado SS.

Cobra: Why are you bringing up a 1996 model Cobra for? The current and last gen of this model run definitly don't qualify for the "sucks" title. Show me something that is made to go superfast with a torquey V8 that's about or under $35k.

Escape: The pre-2005 model did not receive a "poor" frontal crash rating. Check up your stats again, IIHS - marginal; NHTSA - 5/4 star

As far as the 2005 model Escape goes, it received an "Acceptable" rating in the IIHS test. The Toyota RAV4 also got the same overall score in both organization's test. In otherwards, I fail to see why the Ford Escape "sucks", unless you're refering to the early models with all the bugs.

 

if you've ever been on a track with an svt lightening and in a stock 130hp protege wagon (both average drivers) that can keep up with it and all the hype as it is a sports truck...only on the straights could it actually do anything...braking took 50-60 feet longer from a high speed to stop with a lot of drama and while turning watching the rear end try to come around each time they tried to push it through

why not? when anyone thinks of "cobra" they can only think of the current generation?...the fact that it was slow when the first modeld debuted then later mistated horsepower several times (and not just on the cobra) doesn't conjur up some embarassment?

check the iihs site again and tell me the 2001-2004 escape did not get a "poor" rating in right leg foot injury...http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...105.htm...then look at the 2005 escape same area that did not improve the same intrusion danger in the right leg foot injury...now this was after Ford touted its 2005 escape had several improvements in crash safety especially frontal collision in which it was one of the lowest performers...you'd think a "poor" area would be a center of focus

 

How about not comparing apple to oranges. And yes, I've driven both the first 2 generations of the Lightning. It's a hot truck. And that's always what it is a TRUCK. Again, just because its on its last year model run and the brand new RAM SRT-10 has it beat this time and isn't a track demon compared to small compacts it doesn't mean that it "sucks". No, this Ford does not suck.

So what. Blame it on the intake manifold. Ford messed up, but they fixed that for the 2001 model year and even released a 5.4L Cobra R in 2000. then for 2003 the 4.6L was based on an iron-block for better torque and added a supercharger to it. Now does that Ford really "suck"? This Ford does not "suck". And you are WAY over-generalizing when you say "anyone". :ugh:

Again, you're nitpicking. When you say "[pre-2005] escape has poor front crash ratings" you're implying about the overall test. Just because it failed on that one point, doesn't mean that it was "poor". The pre-05 Escape got a "MARGINAL" overall rating. The Escape was release in the 2000 model year. The Escape is practically one of the oldest model in its category right now. The CR-V in 2000-2001 was rated the same nearly the same as the Escape at the time, and to some extent better with its higher score in the head injury measurement.

The 05's got an "ACCEPTABLE" overall ratings. I recognize it still got a poor rating in one category, but the 05s are refreshed models and not a remodel. I rather have a broken foot than get a head or chest damage. And actually those test depends less on the foot scores than the others categories of head, chest, restraint, and structure. Look at the link I provided. Unless it gets a "POOR" overall crash score, I do NOT count the Escape as a Ford that "sucks" in safety.

 

:blah: go drive your "badass staaang" and have your NASCAR party already.
Why you preaching Ford for?

 

OMFG...:rofl: You don't know me at all do you? I'm an automobile enthusiast. I don't sackride on just one brand automobile. And let's keep the childish remarks like "have your NASCAR party" out of this. :slap:



FYI: IMO NASCAR sucks, but that's another subject.

 

Yeah, way to tell kazi and his Mustang what's what :slap:

 

ford often lies about its cars...then gets caught = suck

maybe the shouldn't advertise the lightening as a "sports" truck then if it is in no way close to actually having any sport...if they'd build one that was only 3000lbs with similar power out of a smaller engine and had 4 wheel ind suspension then i'd say hell yes this is a "great" vehicle...but that is not the case...i have no problem with the F150 if you do take note and find it to be a good (doesn't suck) vehicle


when ford's icon flagship "cobra" has overstated hp and even initially came out with major problems what does that tell you...so it takes them 5 years and 3 tries to actually sell the car they said they sold you (you could get an older stang lx 5.0 and blow its doors off the n/a version and actually be almost identical in speed as the 1st s/c'd versions)...to me that is "teh suck"...now, imagine if chevy sold a vette with understated hp and was almost a second slower in the 1/4 mile than its previous generation while advertising how great a car it was


ford has bragged that the redesigned escape was a much safer suv but it is only marginally (now it is mid pack in safety...still behind the perennial leaders)...now, ford tends to do this often from the explorer and its high speed stability issues (turn and you die) to the pinto (only stop when no one is behind you) when they advertised it was one of the safest small cars on the road...add in the 15 public recalls (the various TSBs that ford uses often to hide recalls from public and others that ford overlooks) the escape has had over the past several years and its 50% fleet sale numbers...it drops short of being anything but good (however it is one of the better ford suvs on the road...which really isn't saying much)