-the S10 has a limited slip. This means only one tire was even trying to pull.
The truck is 100 times better with a locker. I suggest an E-locker. I have one and its a dream to be able to pop it on when I need it but have it off when I'm just driving around.
-the Mercury Sable, Front wheel drive and both wheels are doing contributing to the pull.
As both appear stock and knowing a bit about both autos it makes complete sense that the Sable came out on top.
common sense would have told you that would happen considering that the car is front wheel drive and all the weight is on the front driveline while the s10 has almost no weight in the rear end how bout you do the same thing with a 4x4 s10 take the rear drive shaft out and have it pull with just the front diff then it would be a fair test otherwise this hear was pointless unless yall was just having some fun lol
what size motor is the s10 cuz i think it is the inline 4 i have a v6 loung box and it can pull alot of shit i pulled a 18 wheelers loued with grain so suck on that bitches
I work as a mechanic for Gm and it is safe to say that the s10's are possibly one of the worst Pieces of shit ever made, I can't even count how many transmissions I've had to put in em. A buddy of mine had to put a new one in every year.This truck is probably top ten for the most shitty reviews and the reliability itself is shit, so it's no suprise that a regular car can pull an s-10 with no effort.
saw a friend with a 3/4 ton 350 , 400 trans , 3.73 , 2wd chevy tru ck pull a 4wd , 350 eng , 350 trans chev backwards , both 1975 models ! the torque of the v6 sable was better than the 4 cyl s10 . i had a 73 comet & a friend had a 71 chev p/u ,350 engine , a/t ; a friend run off the side of the road down a a 5 ft bank in a ford torino . i pulled it out as the chevy p/u would not ! the tr uck had 3.23 gears ; comet had 2.79 gears ! everybody had a good laugh !
Pulls are never a test of torque. It's a test of traction. Either the Sable had more traction, or the S10 lost it's traction first. Once you start spinning tires, you're just going to slip. Oh, and a truck in 2WD will never pull a truck in 4wd assuming they are both similar weight class and chasis. It can't happen. Look up Chevy vs Dodge, with the 5.3L Avalanche 4x4 vs the RWD DRW Ram Cummins quad cab.
All you need with torque is enough to pull the weight of the vehicle you're hooked to, which isn't alot because that's not dead weight. The only time torque would be the biggest concern is if you have two vehicles that will never lose traction and never break anything. Other than that, traction is the far more superior variable than torque.
i do agree the ass end of any s10 truck doesnt way shit... (not waying shit) = no traction with the rear tires = sucks for a rear wheel drive truck...
also im curious its hard to tell... is that a 2nd gen? if so it could have that poor little 2.2 L 4 banger which wont help it out a whole lot...
try it up against my gpas 4.3 L 4wd truck... i dont know how it would end though.
who knows what my dime would do... its rockin a 3.4 L
" If the chain breaks ..." Whoa dudes ! Drape a fuckin Heavy cloth or blanket over that chain to prevent your friends from ending up with a Cracked SkuLL when it snaps. That way all you dumbasses can continue to have FUN !! Both of those there vehicles in the video are pieces of shit but at least its easy to drop a small block stroker into the S10 . Fuck the chain .
ill admit it the 4.3 is a good motor and all but wow that is pathetic. when both those rides pull a lot of the weight should be transfered to the rear tires so wtf is the s10s problem? it gots its ass handed to it by a sable
Well duh! Sables are a hell of a lot heavier than S10s and much of that weight is directly over the drive wheels. An S10 like that weighs about 2800. Even with those fuckers in the back it might weigh 3100 That Sable weighs at least 3400 If you took 600 of sand and put it directly over the wheel wells of that S10 it would be the total opposite of what you see here. All because that S10 has 3.42 or 3.73 gears, and a deep 1st gear. The final drive ratio would be far deeper than that of the Sable.
Why don't you just duplicate my said senario, and see what happens for yourself. I won't, and don't need to make excuses, because I know what I'm talking about. Thats what it boils down to.
You talk so much of how S10's suck, but give no reason as to why. Sure, you say its "underpowered". No one expects a 2.2, a 2.5, or a 2.8v6 to be a powerhouse. The 2.8 in my truck, moves heavy loads with no fuss. And plain and simple, you couldn't call an s truck with a 4.3 underpowered by any means. Biggest v6 made by the Big Three. And whats with the undergeared thing? I would see that as an advantage. Look at my comment on torque multiplication.
Ha if you don't know by now then you will never know. Funny how everyone else says the same, but you. Everyone knows the those chevy s10's have the weakest towing abilities in it's class. car and driver "When towing is compared, the 1994 chevy s-10 tows the least when compared to its Dodge Dakota and Ford Ranger counter parts." Google is the shit......
Have you honestly failed to notice that I havent been comparing the S10 to other vehicles? With the exception of its weight in relation to the Sable. With what youre saying, its lowest towing capacity constitutes it as a piece of shit. By no means, is that how auto publications rate the quality of a vehicle. I know what Daks are like, I used to have one. Larger trucks with more capacity. Only setback is those auto trannys. Coupled w/the old 3.9 its far from a strong powerplant in a truck thatbig
did you fail to read any of my comments. I never said the s-10 was a piece of shit where did i say that? I said in my last statement that it has the lowest towing in its class in which i backed up with article taken from car and driver.
Whats so shitty about them? My '91 is completely reliable, has more than 350,000 miles on the original engine, and gets 34 mpg on the highway with its 2.8 v6. All I've done to it, is add a 2-chamber Flowmaster, and a K&N air filter. 2.8's are very responsive to just those mods, if you even want to call those "mods".
If you look at the video at 16 seconds, you notice 2 large guys get in the bed of the s10, which would cancel out the weight of the engine over the front wheels of the sable, making it a fair contest, and everyone having the same amount of weight over the wheels, which proves that chevy s10 is a piece of shit.
Funny as hell, what engine was in the sable? I'm going to guess it was the torquemonster 3.8 V^ over the mainly used 3.0 V6.
Those talking crap saying the Sable had more traction... Think about this, when they gunned it, both cars looked to lean on the back wheels like they were under hard acceleration, which means the S10 had more traction sense it is RWD, and the Sable had LESS traction because it is FWD. So quit your bitching and accept the fact that the 'truck' just got owned by a car...
hey the bottom line is, is that was funny as shit to watch....btw im the one flaggin them. it was really funny cuz the S10 guy kept talkin shit sayin he cud pull anyone
yeee u chevy fans are aways trying to find an excuses cuzz u cant handle when a chevy gets smoked..which seems to happen too often!! dont get me wrong i love chevys and many other gm vehicles, and quite frankly ford kinda sucks, except for a few vehicles!! buuut bottom line i bet a 94 intrepid could pull both of those
Well first off,the Sable has its ''front wheel drive''the wieght is in the front witch gives him better traction,the S-10 has no wieght witch make the S-10 the loser here..
the s10 was trash talking saying his truck could pull the car will as we all see he needs to know alittle bout the shit he trys to talk about before he goes and try's it
how do you figure? if anything it would have more traction because there is more weight on the drive wheels. if you were as smart as your names suggests you would know that. retard.
Pretty sure I do, you dick. If you knew anything about anything, you would know that. Ok, I'll put it in lamens terms for you to understand better. If you put more weight on the drive wheels of a car they will grip better because it creates MORE friction, which means MORE grip, as opposed to the s10 up there that is rear-wheel drive and has less weight on the wheels which would create LESS friction and LESS grip. God, you are a fucking tard.
the sable is fwd, so it has the weight of the engine on the drive wheels, whereas the s10 has barly any weight over the drive wheels so its harder to get traction. same would happen if it was a ford ranger and chevy malibu or somethign similar
try to make the sable pull an s10 with the v6 vortec engine it wont win ive tried
dacardude1990 4 months ago
I would like to note.
-the S10 has a limited slip. This means only one tire was even trying to pull.
The truck is 100 times better with a locker. I suggest an E-locker. I have one and its a dream to be able to pop it on when I need it but have it off when I'm just driving around.
-the Mercury Sable, Front wheel drive and both wheels are doing contributing to the pull.
As both appear stock and knowing a bit about both autos it makes complete sense that the Sable came out on top.
WildoTheRubberFist 11 months ago
common sense would have told you that would happen considering that the car is front wheel drive and all the weight is on the front driveline while the s10 has almost no weight in the rear end how bout you do the same thing with a 4x4 s10 take the rear drive shaft out and have it pull with just the front diff then it would be a fair test otherwise this hear was pointless unless yall was just having some fun lol
Trowa7542 1 year ago
what size motor is the s10 cuz i think it is the inline 4 i have a v6 loung box and it can pull alot of shit i pulled a 18 wheelers loued with grain so suck on that bitches
MrSkidoomxz 1 year ago
Very funny lol.....
aldotkd1 1 year ago
I work as a mechanic for Gm and it is safe to say that the s10's are possibly one of the worst Pieces of shit ever made, I can't even count how many transmissions I've had to put in em. A buddy of mine had to put a new one in every year.This truck is probably top ten for the most shitty reviews and the reliability itself is shit, so it's no suprise that a regular car can pull an s-10 with no effort.
olverafam 1 year ago
pinches pendejos de por si esas transmissiones no sirven y haciendo esas mamadas no mamen la neta cvan a kedar sin yonke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robasenoras 1 year ago
saw a friend with a 3/4 ton 350 , 400 trans , 3.73 , 2wd chevy tru ck pull a 4wd , 350 eng , 350 trans chev backwards , both 1975 models ! the torque of the v6 sable was better than the 4 cyl s10 . i had a 73 comet & a friend had a 71 chev p/u ,350 engine , a/t ; a friend run off the side of the road down a a 5 ft bank in a ford torino . i pulled it out as the chevy p/u would not ! the tr uck had 3.23 gears ; comet had 2.79 gears ! everybody had a good laugh !
crownv80 2 years ago
Pulls are never a test of torque. It's a test of traction. Either the Sable had more traction, or the S10 lost it's traction first. Once you start spinning tires, you're just going to slip. Oh, and a truck in 2WD will never pull a truck in 4wd assuming they are both similar weight class and chasis. It can't happen. Look up Chevy vs Dodge, with the 5.3L Avalanche 4x4 vs the RWD DRW Ram Cummins quad cab.
phattacorider 2 years ago
@phattacorider ; if you get traction ; torque is a must 1!
crownv80 2 years ago
All you need with torque is enough to pull the weight of the vehicle you're hooked to, which isn't alot because that's not dead weight. The only time torque would be the biggest concern is if you have two vehicles that will never lose traction and never break anything. Other than that, traction is the far more superior variable than torque.
phattacorider 2 years ago
@phattacorider saw that!!!!
34celticpride 2 years ago
sable win yet agen
bradygd 2 years ago
hey kids, we're eating tonight
amotisi8859 2 years ago
what a bad day for s-10 history
fishininthesouth 2 years ago 2
all about weight....
powerman270 2 years ago
i do agree the ass end of any s10 truck doesnt way shit... (not waying shit) = no traction with the rear tires = sucks for a rear wheel drive truck...
also im curious its hard to tell... is that a 2nd gen? if so it could have that poor little 2.2 L 4 banger which wont help it out a whole lot...
try it up against my gpas 4.3 L 4wd truck... i dont know how it would end though.
who knows what my dime would do... its rockin a 3.4 L
yes everyone a 3.4 dont question if its a 4.3.
roycearandolph 2 years ago
is it a 4.3
timbrackenuknowme 2 years ago
haha
roycearandolph 2 years ago
" If the chain breaks ..." Whoa dudes ! Drape a fuckin Heavy cloth or blanket over that chain to prevent your friends from ending up with a Cracked SkuLL when it snaps. That way all you dumbasses can continue to have FUN !! Both of those there vehicles in the video are pieces of shit but at least its easy to drop a small block stroker into the S10 . Fuck the chain .
Calcutta151 3 years ago
lets see that sable go up aganst a 4 door chevy blazer 4x4. i bet that would do the trick. more weight in the back.
kryk101 3 years ago
Yeah, old Sable's are very strong cars. Did as well in the crash tests too. Real qualtiy.
mkgamesdotnet 3 years ago 11
hey is this in dewitt? looks like the junior high
na6drifter 3 years ago
lol and imagine if that sable was a newer duratec
na6drifter 3 years ago
ill admit it the 4.3 is a good motor and all but wow that is pathetic. when both those rides pull a lot of the weight should be transfered to the rear tires so wtf is the s10s problem? it gots its ass handed to it by a sable
smlmydslsmke 3 years ago
it could have a 2.2 or a 383 if the power on have dont hook up its goin backwords by FORD
kev40ranger2010 2 years ago
Weight=traction. Traction+torque multiplication=great pulling power.
madtownmadman 3 years ago
A rear wheel drive getting owned by a front wheel drive. Now that's funny!
SteelCity1981 3 years ago
Well duh! Sables are a hell of a lot heavier than S10s and much of that weight is directly over the drive wheels. An S10 like that weighs about 2800. Even with those fuckers in the back it might weigh 3100 That Sable weighs at least 3400 If you took 600 of sand and put it directly over the wheel wells of that S10 it would be the total opposite of what you see here. All because that S10 has 3.42 or 3.73 gears, and a deep 1st gear. The final drive ratio would be far deeper than that of the Sable.
madtownmadman 3 years ago
istead of making excuses, just come out and say the s-10 sucks and get it over with, because that's what it boils down to.
SteelCity1981 3 years ago
Why don't you just duplicate my said senario, and see what happens for yourself. I won't, and don't need to make excuses, because I know what I'm talking about. Thats what it boils down to.
madtownmadman 3 years ago
Point? Everyone knows this that knows anything in regards to how baddly under powered under geared the s-10 is.
Simple S-10 trucks suck. Easy.
SteelCity1981 3 years ago
You talk so much of how S10's suck, but give no reason as to why. Sure, you say its "underpowered". No one expects a 2.2, a 2.5, or a 2.8v6 to be a powerhouse. The 2.8 in my truck, moves heavy loads with no fuss. And plain and simple, you couldn't call an s truck with a 4.3 underpowered by any means. Biggest v6 made by the Big Three. And whats with the undergeared thing? I would see that as an advantage. Look at my comment on torque multiplication.
madtownmadman 3 years ago
Ha if you don't know by now then you will never know. Funny how everyone else says the same, but you. Everyone knows the those chevy s10's have the weakest towing abilities in it's class. car and driver "When towing is compared, the 1994 chevy s-10 tows the least when compared to its Dodge Dakota and Ford Ranger counter parts." Google is the shit......
SteelCity1981 3 years ago
Have you honestly failed to notice that I havent been comparing the S10 to other vehicles? With the exception of its weight in relation to the Sable. With what youre saying, its lowest towing capacity constitutes it as a piece of shit. By no means, is that how auto publications rate the quality of a vehicle. I know what Daks are like, I used to have one. Larger trucks with more capacity. Only setback is those auto trannys. Coupled w/the old 3.9 its far from a strong powerplant in a truck thatbig
madtownmadman 3 years ago
did you fail to read any of my comments. I never said the s-10 was a piece of shit where did i say that? I said in my last statement that it has the lowest towing in its class in which i backed up with article taken from car and driver.
SteelCity1981 3 years ago
i hate how people say "ohhh but its got the biggest v6." hell a piece of shit is still a piece of shit no matter how much u polish it
fbcenter67 3 years ago
im a chevy fan too but s10's are a piece of shit
chevyman217 3 years ago
Well. I love my little S10 anyways!
tigerfan6317297 3 years ago
im a ford fan but im willing to bet that s10 had the 4 banger in it
doug1bite 3 years ago
haha, my DD can beat a truck
Sol5t1c3 3 years ago
s10s are the bigest piles of shit and im a chevy fan.
steelfaze 3 years ago
s10s are the bigest piles of shit and im a chevy fan.
steelfaze 3 years ago 2
Whats so shitty about them? My '91 is completely reliable, has more than 350,000 miles on the original engine, and gets 34 mpg on the highway with its 2.8 v6. All I've done to it, is add a 2-chamber Flowmaster, and a K&N air filter. 2.8's are very responsive to just those mods, if you even want to call those "mods".
madtownmadman 3 years ago
If you look at the video at 16 seconds, you notice 2 large guys get in the bed of the s10, which would cancel out the weight of the engine over the front wheels of the sable, making it a fair contest, and everyone having the same amount of weight over the wheels, which proves that chevy s10 is a piece of shit.
professer60 3 years ago
woohoo! say-bull love!
RIPBARNBURNER 3 years ago
Funny as hell, what engine was in the sable? I'm going to guess it was the torquemonster 3.8 V^ over the mainly used 3.0 V6.
Those talking crap saying the Sable had more traction... Think about this, when they gunned it, both cars looked to lean on the back wheels like they were under hard acceleration, which means the S10 had more traction sense it is RWD, and the Sable had LESS traction because it is FWD. So quit your bitching and accept the fact that the 'truck' just got owned by a car...
Turbosax2005 3 years ago 9
Power to the 3.8!!!!!!!!!Whohooo. my old 94 Taurus has out pulled my newer 04 impala with it having a 3.8 too..
pjmcoats90 3 years ago
hey the bottom line is, is that was funny as shit to watch....btw im the one flaggin them. it was really funny cuz the S10 guy kept talkin shit sayin he cud pull anyone
fbcenter67 3 years ago
yeee u chevy fans are aways trying to find an excuses cuzz u cant handle when a chevy gets smoked..which seems to happen too often!! dont get me wrong i love chevys and many other gm vehicles, and quite frankly ford kinda sucks, except for a few vehicles!! buuut bottom line i bet a 94 intrepid could pull both of those
enidxhoxhaj 3 years ago
Well first off,the Sable has its ''front wheel drive''the wieght is in the front witch gives him better traction,the S-10 has no wieght witch make the S-10 the loser here..
Lucas10w30 3 years ago
the s10 was trash talking saying his truck could pull the car will as we all see he needs to know alittle bout the shit he trys to talk about before he goes and try's it
cgwih1066 3 years ago 2
All GM fagboys talk shit about every other car automaker everywhere you go.
PROgoth121 3 years ago 2
ford laaaaaaaaave uuuu!
markrua4 3 years ago
at least one smart redneck in the group
alexyoungberg 3 years ago
well DUH that S10 spun it's tires to lose traction and THEN the Sable took off, I can do that with mt 16hp MTD tractor if you do it the same way
Isaiah402831 3 years ago
ford rules
thunderbirdew 3 years ago
reason the car pulled the s10 was cuz it had all the wait on the front it which was the end going.
1992dakota 3 years ago
yup agreed
Isaiah402831 3 years ago
bet that tranny was pretty done in the Sable
jp198780 3 years ago
S10 stands for "shitty x 10"
smartepants777 3 years ago
ahaha excellent
nocontrol89 3 years ago
Sables are beasts
FunkyShaf 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA
DodgeDweller420 3 years ago
but the wheels are in the front dumbass so which makes it have less traction
smartepants777 3 years ago
how do you figure? if anything it would have more traction because there is more weight on the drive wheels. if you were as smart as your names suggests you would know that. retard.
mvcartman 3 years ago
do u even know how a fuckin car works man?
smartepants777 3 years ago
Pretty sure I do, you dick. If you knew anything about anything, you would know that. Ok, I'll put it in lamens terms for you to understand better. If you put more weight on the drive wheels of a car they will grip better because it creates MORE friction, which means MORE grip, as opposed to the s10 up there that is rear-wheel drive and has less weight on the wheels which would create LESS friction and LESS grip. God, you are a fucking tard.
mvcartman 3 years ago 2
the only reason the ford won is because the ford has more wieght on his tires, because he has a fwd car.
racingmalibu 4 years ago
Im a Ford/Mercury fan, but the s-10 broke the tires first thats why he lost.
fizzman2008 4 years ago
once again ford owns chevy sucks
slowscort 4 years ago 2
s10 would just spin its wheels since theres no weight or traction
which means the sable would basically just be moving the truck as though it were in neutral
drummerdude777 4 years ago
The Sable was spinning the tires too actually. You can see the front of the car slide sidways at first as he was peeling out.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
the sable is fwd, so it has the weight of the engine on the drive wheels, whereas the s10 has barly any weight over the drive wheels so its harder to get traction. same would happen if it was a ford ranger and chevy malibu or somethign similar
drummerdude777 3 years ago
Oh I know that the Sable is FWD and the S10 is RWD, so easier for the S10 to lose traction. My point was that BOTH vehicles broke traction here.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
yeah. now if it was on better asphalt, and the s10 had slicks, it would be a different story
drummerdude777 3 years ago
not only that the S10 spun its tires to lose traction then the Sable took off
Isaiah402831 3 years ago 3
the sable spun to. there was smoke over there to.
f150talladega 3 years ago
and THATS what saves MY ASS on the highway, every time, all days!
mine picks up slow though...
i lost count at how many people have honked at me while im on the wheel since i started driving last september.
lol.. no wonder they call asians bad drivers ahahahaha
vic028 4 years ago
well thats probly cause your cause id front wheel drive and the s10 is rear wheel drive so i coulda told you what was gonna happened b4 it did
marine7051 4 years ago
Is this guy still embarassed to this day?
CaptainAmericalives 4 years ago
HOLY!
CsalbertCs 4 years ago
Nice Sable and Taurus power cool vid
dmx011 4 years ago 3
HAHA!!! Sable's are COOL!!! I dragged my '89 Sable against a '95 Camaro... I won big time!
sonnyr1985 4 years ago 3