Today ROUSH Performance released a new pickup that's inspired by the company's participation in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, the 500RC. It packs a supercharged (or ROUSHcharged) version of Ford's 5.4-liter V8 producing 445 horsepower and 500 ft-lbs. of torque. That's a pretty big bump over the stock motor's 300 horsepower and 365 ft-lbs. of torque, especially considering the engine and the entire truck is covered under a 3-year/36,000-mile warranty from ROUSH.
Rounding out the rest of the package is a dual rear-exit high-performance exhaust, 20-inch chrome wheels and a billet aluminum grille. So no one confuses your 500RC with a normal F-150, ROUSH also includes fender and tailgate badges, a top- and side-stripe kit, and a serial number badge in the glove box.
The 500RC features the same engine upgrades as the Stage 3 F-150, but appears to be aimed at the buyer who cares to be a bit more discreet. And at $11,995 plus the cost of a donor truck, the 500RC is significantly cheaper than the $15,860 Stage 3 package.
(More pics after the jump)
[Source: ROUSH]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jim @ Jul 17th 2006 4:02PM
they should put a six speed manual and rear wheel drive option o it could compete with the srt-10 ram.
Big Al @ Jul 17th 2006 4:50PM
Ummmm, I think it's already RWD. Do you mean AWD? Plus they'd need to squeeze out a few more ponies to compete with the Ram SRT10.
Corey W. @ Jul 17th 2006 4:52PM
SRT Ram is on the chopping blocks, can't think of anyone else in this cayagory. GM seems to shy away from this stuff, only offering SS type packages.
TJ Hooker @ Jul 17th 2006 4:54PM
Biggest 2 problems, #1, it's a FORD, #2, it's got Jack Rousch's name on it. If Ford wanted to build a respectable sport truck, they should have gone with Carrol Shelby.
chuck goolsbee @ Jul 17th 2006 5:02PM
Um, sorry to be the emperor's wardrobe critic here, but anybody notice that this is a TRUCK? You can paint stripes on it and put a big hood scoop, but it is still just a truck. You know... high CoG, no weight over the main drive wheels, soft crumple zone above your head when it rolls.
If you really want a machine to go fast with a Blue Oval on the nose, get a Mustang, or a GT. If you want to go fast in the same machine you haul lumber in, you need to get your head examined.
Corey W. @ Jul 17th 2006 5:23PM
chuck,
You might as well ask why is there a truck series in NASCAR... There is a market for high performance trucks, it might seem useless to you, but that can be the same for anything that goes over 100MPH, some people feel, there's no reason to go that fast in any vehicle.
Although, I would not buy the SRT RAM or the 500RC, I'm glad some companies have the balls to offer them. Especially in this time of vanilla sedans and useless crossovers.....it's about choice.
And right now, d@mn gas prices are limiting my choices!!! I'm feeling oppressed!! ;-)
Johnny B @ Jul 17th 2006 5:26PM
This is perfect, just what we need another gas guzzling truck...great job Ford, how about something to save gas instead of burning it for our ego's sake...
Peter @ Jul 17th 2006 5:55PM
Trucks aren't designed for racing and are a poor base for a performance vehicle. The NASCAR trucks have nothing besides four wheels and a motor in common with these road-going vehicles. Building a "sport" truck makes zero sense to me.
Bob J @ Jul 17th 2006 6:08PM
Well all you guys that think a truck can't be a good handling sporty vehicle should take a ride in my SRT. Right out of the box it was a 1/2 second quicker than my 03 vette, with me behind the wheel of both. And Johnny B, they still make the focus for guys like you.
PJ @ Jul 17th 2006 6:23PM
Any "_____-inspired" tagline raises a red flag for me. It's essentially the marketer admitting that the product has nothing to do with _____, but they trust the target audience to be too gullible to read between the lines. Sadly, they're usually right.
"Race-inspired" Grand Am, anyone?
Shaun @ Jul 17th 2006 7:12PM
to those who dislike trucks and anything resembling a truck... (exclude the ridgline...that is an uglified ugly Accord.) I am truck guy and thank Ford and Dodge for making go-quick trucks. I know handling isn't supposed to be as good and dynamics are off kilter because of higher center of gravity etc. but it is just my dream to be able to smoke a dude in a camaro with a sweet truck like the one written about above. It comes with a certain sense of satisfaction that you can't get out of a traditional low-slung sports car. Plus, you can still manage any speed bump with no worries mate!
UK-KID @ Jul 17th 2006 7:23PM
So glad we are not so gullible to marketing BS over here.
" A Good Handling Sporty Pickup"???????
Compared to what ?? A Humvee ??
The power is going to the rear wheels were there is least amount of weight (ergo Traction), Pickup suspensions still utilise leaf spring technology ( Decades obsolete in performance vehicles except for american muscle cars)
Any of you clowns who think the handling is so great, the Cayenne Turbo has approximate Hp numbers and less Tourque numbers than your beloved Pickup, Go Ahead, put your money down and go race a Cayenne Turbo around a track and see which one ends up in the Bushes
UK-KID @ Jul 17th 2006 7:28PM
(11) Point Accepted
Your statement as to why you like the Roush is valid, my post was to the others above who sound like they truly beleive that the Roush F-150 is Great Handling.
Jaymez @ Jul 17th 2006 8:02PM
I see the need for trucks like this, while I don't see the need for little two seat roadsters asuch as the Sky or S2000. It's all a matter of taste. While I wouldn't go for one of these trucks, even if I could fit it into my budget, I'd much rather have a sporty truck over anything BMW or Mercedes ever made. Ruggid, utilitarian, AND fun to drive? Count me in!
Go ahead and call me red neck or unsophisictated. Just don't call me when you're ready to move something larger than a bag of golf clubs. It's not like I'll get any fuel money, or thanks, out of you for helping you out.
What I'm waiting for is an explination as to why trucks and SUVs are evil, when Mini-Vans are alright. They're basicly the same thing, just one is built with a more car like sub-structure.
PJ @ Jul 17th 2006 8:41PM
Jaymez, to answer your question, minivans don't get as much shite from enthusiasts because, if you run the numbers, they really are far more efficient with fuel. To take Toyota for example, the only SUV they have that will *comfortably* seat seven adults is the Sequoia, which is rated at 15/17 MPG. The Sienna has even more cabin space, and is rated at 19/23 MPG with AWD, or 19/26 without.
The numbers are similar for other companies' minivans and their equivalently-roomy SUVs. You end up using about 1/3 less gas in a minivan.
Also, minivans don't need to be as big on the outside to be as roomy as, say, a Suburban on the inside. Their floors are much lower, and the FWD drivetrain means there's no big drivetrain tunnel (in front) or hump (in back). In fact, they're usually roomier.
Minivans also tow more than people think (usually 3,500 lbs), accelerate and turn faster, grip better, and stop shorter than like-priced SUVs. Plus, they score better than the vast majority of SUVs in crash tests while damaging other cars less in accidents.
On top of that, it's easy for enthusiasts to feel disdainful of people who buy SUVs when they don't actually tow much or go off-road because their decision seems uninformed and mostly style-driven. It's like watching someone buy Luis Vuitton toilet paper because fashion dictates that it's cool.
(I know that there are people who make full use of their SUVs, so I'm not flaming. Just legitimately trying to answer your question).
PJ @ Jul 17th 2006 8:47PM
I should add to the above, too, that the argument of people not "needing" an SUV applies to minivans, too--they don't get a pass simply for being car-based. I can't tell you how many people I know buy a minivan when they have one child, and then rag on SUVs. What about them? They only "need" an Accord!
atlkustoms @ Jul 17th 2006 11:22PM
Look for Dodge to replace SRT 10 Ram with SRT 8 6.4L HEMI producing 550 ponys'.
Rob @ Jul 18th 2006 1:18AM
OK, since everyone has already blamed ford for releasing another gas-guzzling pick up, this is a truck tuned by the aftermarket (Roush), not ford. While you can get a truck like this at a ford dealer, it wasnt developed by ford, even if it keeps the warrenty. So if youre going to talk cars, please know more than one has 4 wheels. Anyways, I hear these trucks are pretty slow compared to the srt-10 and the lightning. The srt-10 is only a couple tenths faster than a lightning and considering it has a 6-speed and 115hp on the lightning, it was always a dissapointment in my eyes. At least considering for $3000 you can turn a lightning into sub 12 (11.46) second 1/4 mile truck. Eating srt-10's, vipers, vettes, evos and that prick in the 360 modena for lunch is free.
Andrew Shafer @ Jul 18th 2006 9:22AM
...as far as truck not being a good base for racing, I have come to the conclusion the humans will race anything that moves. with that said they all seem to fail and are taken off the market anyways.
Proud Japanese @ Jul 18th 2006 9:52AM
445 from a supercharged 5.4L V8. I guess you can't expect much from a "NASCAR" inspired automobile.