I always take the time to walk past there if I'm up for a Browns game or the Cleveland airshow.

If you want to get technical and bust out math equations you should look up a calculus concept called "integration" and then look up "area under the curve". You'll then understand why the peaky Pentastar V6 is no match for a torque heavy turbo engine even if the maximum horsepower numbers are similar.

Comparably powerful 3.6? What planet do you live on where 269lb-ft at 4800RPM is comparable to 375lb-ft at 3000RPM? That's 106ft-lb more way earlier in the rev band. Hp is close, but that's it. A closer comparison would be Ford's 3.5 V6. It's down on HP and TQ in comparison, but it should be hauling around less…

The turbos are water cooled, the oil is mainly for lubrication

Ford uses small (really small) turbo's that spool up fast which means they are limited on flow. It's likely that the boost pressure and maximum flow peak in the midrange; as the engine RPM rises and the turbo CFM stays the same the boost pressure falls.

Everyone said the same thing about the EB 3.5 in 2011. There's plenty of them running around with WELL over 100k miles...

Unlikely. Somebody also mentioned that the grill is incorrect for the year. That Lexus took a hit to the face...

Pretty sure it has been hit, look at the driver's side fender. Paint doesn't match and the alignment of the panel is shaky at best.

The one you changed it for may not be much better off. It's obviously been hit in the drivers side fender; the paint doesn't match and the alignment of the panel is way off.

I guess we should just install carburetors as well since fuel injection doesn't do much to help us bomb around the track any faster. Luddite...

You've missed the point. Reciprocating engines use complex mechanical linkages to convert up and down piston movement to rotary movement and control combustion events (levers, pulleys, valves, linkages, etc). There are much more simple ways to get rotary motion out of combustible fuel (not necessarily more suitable,…

I'm 116% sure that reciprocating IC engines are Rube Goldberg devices.

We've got an '11 F50 at work with an 8ft box and payload package (7 lug wheels, extra leaf in the spring pack, load range E tires, etc.). It rides like a dump truck when it's empty. I can only imagine what the lighter F150 rated for 3300lbs would ride like. It would probably need 2000lbs in the bed to feel comfortable!

There are a handful of these cars running around. Kugel made the kits. They are great if you want something unique, but they handle worse than a stock Focus and there are (much) cheaper ways to go fast in a straight line.

The C3 Vette's get no love, but it's the late versions that were ugly. The 68-72 models, I think, are quite good looking.

I think the 2.3 turbo from the Mustang would work better in this application. That would seem more in line with an ST model. If they used the new 2.7 ecoboost they could pitch it as more of an SHO model.

Nevermind

Nerd alert! It was a joke, crocket. I'm fully aware of what the MQB platform is and isn't.

I'm sure it did. VAG is smart enough to keep some distance between the Audi and VW brands in terms of feel, even though they share the MQB platform.

TL;DR, sounds like a really nice GTI...