Dont know if anyone has seen this before...

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/pick...olt/index.html

If only they would start production on this...Id get one in a snap

*drool*

 

Yeah i remember seeing that, stillhave the truckin magazine where they called it blurple rain (blue and purple).

it's fast, but i'd rather see a S/Ced 4.6 in a ranger, I think the 5.4 is an overkill IMO.

It would be nice to see Ford finally getting there smaller truck to compate against a dakota R/T.

 

thats would be BAD ***!!!!
I want one...LOL

 

Looks to have Djayenos wheels on it.
I wonder how well it supports the weight of that V8.
Talk about bad balance since the rear end of a Ranger is very light.
Probably plows into the turns and swings out the rear end easily.
Would not want to drive that beast in rain or snow, but on the straight away it must be a screamer.

 

Bad weight balance? It's meant to accelerate, so the weight transfers to the rear. :)

 

1/4 mile for that thing was only a 13.29 the last time I checked, simply because of the lack of traction.

Gotta love 12" wide tires in the back.

However, I'm really surprised and disappointed that they didn't use the Thunderbolt front fascia; it would REALLY be like a mini-Lightning then...

 

 

But the external dimensions of the 4.6L and 5.4L are the same, so you might as well put the bigger one in.

 

Yeah yeah, well I havent, so I just thought I would share...soooorry. :(

 

I was thinking that as well, but I wasn't 100% sure, so I just left it out. :)

Those modular motors are huge for what they are...

 

Not sure how the weight could transfer, the engine does not move.
For a better handling vehicle you look to balance the weight over axles.
Suspension and tires along with motor torque effect the balance, but it is not going to make up for over a thousand pounds over the front axle.
I bet it accelerates like the devil, stopping and turning are what might give it problems.
Rangers need more power, but it should come from technology and not cubic inches.

Looks cool though, and the Ranger line should have a sport truck dedicated to the street and not just for off road.
Right now the only performance upgrade not focused on off road is the stereo. 8)

 

What do you think is going on when you launch and the truck is "squatting" in the rear?

 

I'm not an expecrt by any means, but I would think the engine is mounted to the frame, and at least a portion of it's inertia would transfer down the frame instead of the front suspension. I am not saying however, that it'll feel less nose heavy than any other ranger, quite the contrary actually... :)

fixed spelling... :p

 

I'd rather put a 4.6, because seriously a 5.4 in that light of a truck is extreme overkill as you can see with the 1/4 mile #s

 

Well, I know for sure no weight is transfered to the back of the truck!! 8)
The tires twist forward and the immediate action is to wrap the leaf spring.
If the force is enough and the springs powerful enough to stand it, the torque will lift the front end.
Since the power is probably not that great and the springs not that strong the truck squats down at the rear as the springs are compressed.
Launch like this enough times and you break the stock springs, just ask Dano. :badgrin:

 

saw that in April of 2003 at Fabulous Fords Forever!!! trust me it looks awesome, and by the way it even sounds better!!! :)

 

Geeze...

Kinda looks like my truck haha

 

THey should have mounted the engine in the bed and got a lot more traction out of it.

 

Yeah, that truck is awesome....I wish I could have seen it up close last year. I try to find any and all info on that truck that I can...for reasons all my own, hehe.

As for the power/weight, etc. think of it this way...

You need to steer right? If you lift the front end off, how will you drive? Even in the 1/4 you might need to correct one way or the other even a little. Upon takeoff, yes the axle wants to tild down (axle wrap) and the springs and everything else must counteract that force. So U have the traction as everything works together (and opposite) to get the vehicle moving.

Now...you can do what many of the racers (not ricers) have done, and what I have done. Run a beefy parallel 4-link with either a panhard bar or a wihbone setup and coilovers. The reason: The parallel 4-link helps keep the axle straight and prevent axle wrap. The panhard bar allows limited movement side to side. The wishbone (what some 'bagged trucks run) setup does the same thing but sidways movement is even more limited but allows for more movement of the axle up and down on either side (almost independent). The coilovers are obviously your springs and your shocks. Mine are adjustable for ride height, which is nice as well.

The 4.6 vs the 5.4....no contest...many people have put a 302 or a 351 in the rangers...same principle, yeah the new motors are bigger, but to say that you've done it (or Ford has done it) is just plain bragging rights that I think some of wouldn't mind. I know I'd like it.

The suspension setup they (SVT) have, at least in the front, is awesome. Personally I would have done a Ford 9" in the rear with the suspension setup I laid out above.

Just my two cents as how to improve upon the already awesome Ford Ranger Lightning Bolt. And help some of us aspire to something greater than ourselves (or at least our trucks)

 

I think I'd rather see a s/c 4.0 or a turbo 2.3...

 

its got LEO wheels.

 

From what i heard they used some front end parts from the lightning itself or maybe it was a mustang? not too sure but i thought they said lightning.

BigRed01