Geiger Cars, run under the sharp tutelage of Karl Geiger, is well known for its imported American cars that it tunes to customer satisfaction. All the way in Munich, Germany. Geiger has now imported the massive F650, presumably by ship via the Atlantic, for tuning. The vehicle’s proportions are simply incomparable. When we first spotted the big blob of Ford metal at the 2006 Detroit Motor Show we knew somewhere somehow would find it the most interesting thing since the model T Ford. Indeed.
Measuring some 21.3 feet (6.5 metres) in length and weighing 5.2 tonnes of curb weight on the scales, the F650 needs a truck driver’s license to drive. Comparisons have been made, by Geiger, to vehicles like the HUMMER H2 which sadly falls short on the size front.
The engine itself is a diesel motor, covering some 6.7-litres. The 320 bhp will hardly scare away anything in this day and age, especially if it’s 320 horses expected to run more than 5 tonnes of steel. You are better off racing a train. However. Here’s the thing. F650 from Geiger isn’t too interested in kiloWatts anyway since a truck’s main function in life is to haul cargo, dead or alive. What matters in this league are Newton metres or pounds in feet as it were, where we count 737.6 lb-ft of them. All from this six cylinder unit! Only the likes of Mercedes-Benz 65 AMG and Audi V12 TDI engines make such numbers. The vehicle is driven by a 6-speed automatic gearbox.
Get this. You can customize your vehicle to your best liking with things like gullwing doors, leather interior and navigation entertainment systems.
Ford F650 By Geiger Cars
Ford F650 by Geiger Cars / Geiger Cars
German torque of 737.6 lb-ft
By Thami Masemola
May 3, 2008 11:50 PM
Filed Under: American, Ford, General, Tuners
Comments
ck314
May 4, 2008 12:51 AM
monster truck madness X
Joe_Limon
May 4, 2008 12:52 AM
hmm, International CXT competition... couple hundred foot pounds of torque shy though.
FOXHOUND
May 4, 2008 1:37 AM
why would you want gullwing doors on this? there are plenty of these where i live, but i think this is just excess, too much for the job, you really don't need one of these unless your going to haul 25,000 pounds or more. a regular f-350 superduty, or a dodge cummins turbo deisel will gladly tow anything up to 25,000 lbs, this thing in my opinion is just for show, and for people trying to over compensate if you know what i mean... lol
BabyMilo
May 4, 2008 2:51 AM
that thing looks HUGE! ive never seen one but lookin at those pics its HUGE!
autoque
May 4, 2008 6:37 AM
It's a mini 18-wheeler. You need a truck driver's license to drive this thing. Not very practical...
Joe_Limon
May 4, 2008 7:22 PM
how is it not very practical? It is more reliable then a sports car, it can be your daily driver, you can tow pretty much anything you would ever want to tow, and due to the size and how high the drivers head is it is a really safe vehicle. Trucks are pretty much the most practical vehicles on the road.
Bremen_Koenigsegg
May 4, 2008 10:48 PM
I think Autoque means it is ruthlessly excessive. Also, it is essentially the same as a big rig in terms of scale and subsystems, meaning when it does break it will need specialized mechanics and heavy-duty tools to repair it. And I would argue against its merits of safety, because, though they are safe for the occupants, large vehicles are notoriously unsafe for everyone else in almost every respect. They don't stop as well, they don't handle as well, you can lose entire vehicles in their blind spots (let alone motorcyclists and pedestrians), and it's obvious to anyone with a driver's licence that the larger a vehicle an individual drives, the more reckless they become (save commercial truck drivers).
Joe_Limon
May 5, 2008 12:25 AM
just because it is bigger doesn't mean it is more complicated, and I would also argue that since it is bigger it is easier to fix, as everything isn't as crammed into little tiny spaces. Also since it is bigger there is less emphasis on cutting down the weight of individual components, so this again allows for more reliable components that may weigh more to be installed. As to more reckless drivers. I highly doubt that people in big trucks are more reckless, I would argue that people in cheaper cars are more reckless. This truck is definitely not cheap, and anyone who buys it definitely won't be reckless with it. As to blind zones, if you have ever driven in a large truck, you can see more of what is happening around you. That is just one of the benefits of having your head above the roof lines of other cars. Finally, as to heavy duty mechanics. Don't count on it. Heavy duty mechanics work on Cats and large machinery, not trucks. This thing has a 6.7L engine, well under the engine size for most large machinery.
Bremen_Koenigsegg
May 5, 2008 4:26 AM
Those are all seemingly reasonable points; however, I should point out this vehicle is a relatively large truck in that it is equipped with air brakes (requiring special certifications to service) and outside the maximum weight capacity for vehicle hoists in a significant majority of garages out there. Moreover, being able to see over traffic doesn't eliminate blind spots; in fact, you're more likely to lose sight of cars on either side of you, which is part of the reason why truck drivers have their own graduated licensing system. Now, I'm not going to argue who are the biggest offenders between Ricers and SUV Drivers, because it is a useless and irrelevant debate. What I do know is that there is a line between "practical" and "disgustingly excessive" this vehicle seems to have no awareness of.
Joe_Limon
May 5, 2008 5:16 AM
"disgustingly excessive" now thats a harsh word. In fact, many people would say any luxury sports car is "disgustingly excessive" because no one needs a car that can go from 0-60 in under 4 or 5 seconds and has every technological doohickey to boot. 99% of the population probably doesn't need this truck either, but there are people who pull work trailers that might view this as a better buy then a 18 wheeler that they cannot fit on their driveway. Also, I said nothing about comparing ricers with suv drivers. I was stating that people who buy cheap cars generally have less regard for their driving habits then people who invest more heavily into their cars. As to the weight concerns on hoists, for $2000 you can get a hoist capable of holding 3.6 tonnes, I am pretty sure that most garages have more expensive/greater spec'd lifts. And then there is the fact that many major automotive repair shops don't use hoists, they use pits to service vehicles.
wolff
May 5, 2008 8:56 AM
how could u say heavy automobile parts r more reliable?? n those Jap cars r very reliable car although they'd weigh only half as much.. this is an excessive at all kinda vehicle.. n 5.2 tonnes!! :O safety to anybody, even the driver is a matter of doubt! :P
Joe_Limon
May 6, 2008 1:40 AM
Its a simple matter of physics. If your drive shaft and gears are bigger, they can handle larger forces, and thus reduce fatigue and generally last longer.
wolff
May 6, 2008 8:43 AM
Aluminium weighs lesser than steel, n its as strong but lighter than that.. n hence that's gonna stay put for a much longer time than steel, weight is not everything buddy!!
Joe_Limon
May 6, 2008 3:43 PM
Aluminum might be much lighter then steel but it isn't as strong as steel. Even alloys of aluminum aren't as strong as steel.
wolff
May 6, 2008 9:22 PM
wat are u talking man!! Carbon Fibre.. its lighter than aluminium n yet stronger than steel!! :O heavy doesnt mean its gonna last long.. the fatigue that ur talking about.. would be higher on a heavier item[n if its moving even more so on it].. the wear tear of parts is higher?? this is a normal misconception that bigger is better!! Trust me, its not!!
Joe_Limon
May 6, 2008 11:22 PM
Don't change the subject, you were talking about aluminum not carbon fiber. Pure aluminum has a maximum yield strength between 7-11MPa, the most advanced aluminum alloys available on the market are about 600MPa, the average for steel is 700 MPa. Volume compared to strength Steel holds an advantage... thats because it is stronger. Now if you want to compare weights then yes pound of Aluminum will be stronger then a pound of steel... It will also take up 3x the volume. As to fatigue, steel again holds an advantage over aluminum as it can take a repeated stresses longer.
wolff
May 7, 2008 12:28 AM
sure.. i agree with ur facts.. good job.. but the excessive weight is ot going to really be an advantage, never, just coz a part is larger n heavier doesnt mean its better than a lighter n well engineered part! n if Ford is still gonna make this so heavy, then they must rethink with their engineers..
wolff
May 7, 2008 12:31 AM
5.2 tonnes man, for heaven's sake, atleast make the body panels with aluminium if not anything else!! :O
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 1:37 AM
Excessive weight in a vehicle meant for towing just means there is going to be that much more traction. So again you are wrong, just me thinking out loud here but maybe Ford engineers aren't stupid and put more thought behind there designs then you put behind your arguments. Seriously, how do you expect a vehicle that doesn't weigh much to toe any weight? Replace the wheels with suction cups? Now that I am done ripping on you. I will say aluminum and carbon fiber are very good building options. Especially when low weight is a concern i.e. fuel economy, handling, and general sports performance. This is a truck. And of all the other trucks out there this one is sold to people who want to tow giant yachts and trailers. They do not care about fuel economy if they have a giant trailer/boat, if they did care, they would get a smaller trailer/boat. And since it is such a big vehicle, to buy it hoping that you can race in any matter is laughable. So lowering the weight for better performance is also pointless.
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 3:23 AM
also wolff I just read your response to my post as to why hp/liter doesn't matter. I will ask you this. If you had a car, and you could choose between the AMG v8 and the LS7, both no forced induction each option at no extra cost. Which would you choose? Personally I would go with the LS7. Because it is more reliable, and if something does break it will cost 10x less to fix. And then there is the fact that if you put both engines in the same car the fact that both engines will burn the same amount of fuel even though the LS7 has a larger displacement. This is because the LS7 is a less stressed engine that requires a lower air/fuel ratio to get that power.
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 3:24 AM
er I guess that would be a higher air to fuel ratio in the fact that it runs leaner.
wolff
May 7, 2008 9:08 AM
heard of Traction Control?? it would aid u more at any given time than all of that weight... n a vehicle neednt really weigh 5.2 tonnes to tug a similar weight, that was a lame point.. a Toureg [ofcourse, it was a publicity stunt] could pull a Boeing747... n it weighs half as much as this, looks prettier n also runs much better!! n for Pete's sake do American cars handle at all?? :O u intrigue me..
wolff
May 7, 2008 9:19 AM
why would a sports car run a lean engine?? n i'll tell u what u get in a Mercedes Benz C63AMG that u wouldnt get in the Chevrolet Corvette LS7..
1. The C is a better engineered car, anyday much better than the Corvette. 2. Much better quality, anything from a small switch to the whole dash... seen the Corvette's interiors?? 3. That engine, for heaven's sake is a much better engine, n its infact been detuned for the C, so when u r not even running to its full capability, u dont stress the engine, n the Corvette's is not detuned, n it runs on technology that came in when my grand dad was born!! 4. C is safer.. 5. Handles better, no American car would even come close to it.. dont take one offs to compare.. 6. Its so much more comfortable.. it has a better suspension, it has better seating, can carry 4 with luggage.. Corvette has leaf springs, a cheap option, but a clever one.. but the ride quality is lost!! 7. It is a MERCEDES BENZ.. would cost u more than a CHEVROLET anyday.. u have a brand to call out loud!!
i guess these r more than enough to say the Mercedes Benz C 63AMG is a better car than the Corvette.. n also, its so lame of u to compare these 2 cars, why don u learn to compare cars of the same class.. next time take on a car with a similar displacement n class.. next time take on a Ferrari.. atleast an F430, if not the 599GTB, just to see u happy watching ur Chevrolet probably pipping that little car out!!
wolff
May 7, 2008 9:22 AM
n a larger engine means, it burns more fuel, even if it runs lean.. n y would anybody want a sports car with running on a lean mixture?
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 3:45 PM
ok I will answer your points as to why they are wrong.
1 and 2. Throwing as much crap into a car as possible, no matter how expensive that crap is, is not engineering. Nor is it good engineering. Carefully evaluating each parts pro's con's towards the overall driving experience, price, weight etc is engineering.
3. Some of the tech in both cars are from when your grandad was born, this may sound like a lame argument, but ever heard of wheels before? Pretty sure they haven't deviated from the round shape in many thousands of years. Basically, using old technology doesn't mean a car is gonna be crap, heck lots of "new technology" was invented decades ago and is finally being put in play. For old tech, I think you are referring to the single cam shaft/pushrods. This set up is lighter weight more compact and provides cheaper manufacturing costs. To not use it would result in a slower, bigger, more expensive car... which is what mercedes are.
4. C is safer because it's a bigger car. Not because of "typical American engineering"
5. Hahahahahhahaa mercs handle like boats, god your stupid.
6. Good for them, they made a luxury car more comfortable then a sports car.
7. Just because it costs more, doesn't mean its a better car. It just means they spent more on doodads for all of their cars.
I agree you can't compare the cars, I was comparing their effing engines. Please try your hardest not to be as ignorant as german cars lover
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 3:47 PM
as to your detuned comment. If they have to detune an engine for one of their top brands, that means it is unreliable running in its top state.
wolff
May 7, 2008 8:11 PM
CRAP!!! about Mercs handling like boats, i mean which century are u from?? are from the 1930s? it clearly shows ur ignorance.. in the C class, the engine is detuned coz u dont need so much of power for that little car!! dude, ur talking crap!! serious!! lolz.. chuck it man, the American auto industry has stalled in the 60's.. sit there n have your cup of tea.. bye bye!! have ur fun with huge engines, huge cars, crap interiors, impractical cars!! have fun! lolx!! i dont have words to say about ur comments man.. lolx.. i'm out of this.. serious crap!! :D
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 8:38 PM
I say they handle like boats because they weigh so much. On the higher end models they can't handle the power they have, and on the lower end models their weight detracts from stopping cornering and possible acceleration. As to traction control and the Toureg, this truck has traction control, and pulling a 747 isn't a feat of traction. I have seen a person pull a 747. Where traction plays its roll is letting you accelerate faster with a load. If the F650 pulled the same 747, it would accelerate about 4x faster then the Toureg. Again you show you igrnorance, you were wrong about aluminum being the same strength as steel, and about the fact that trucks should be super light weight. You laugh at my ignorance yet don't realize that your own blindfolded faith towards german cars leaves you ignorant towards all things automotive.
wolff
May 7, 2008 9:21 PM
firstly, i apologise for having been rude!! :) The Mercedes Benzes have changed through time, they r amazing cars to drive, the C220CDI handles amazingly, n that too the previous generation.. the S class, i havent driven, but unlike many other car manufacturers the Germans n Japanese in particular r the BEST when it comes to engineering cars, n this is a fact.. n the American cars always have an excess of everything other than engineering, when compared to these 2.. TC, about that when u pull something that heavy, u need TC the most, coz unless u have that ur wheels will be spinning like mad n u'd be where u r, without moving an inch.. the Toureg will do that job much better than this Ford, although this is heavier, heavyness doesnt mean traction at all.. on a slippery road, a car with TC will do a better job than a heavy vehicle.. on a slope, while tugging a load TC will be more helpful than the weight.. its weight is its biggest down point.. n all that 1000+ Nm of torque is going to go nowhere if they dont have the right gearing, n i havent such a perfect American car.. n i'm not asking this vehicle to be feather light, but for Heaven;s sake it can be lighter than wat it is now!! n also, if i were to be so ignorant, i wouldnt be doing my Auto engg.. n the Aluminum part, fair enough, i agreed with u!!
Joe_Limon
May 7, 2008 11:17 PM
haha thats funny cause I am going for my mec engg with an automotive specialty. You go on with the traction conrol still like the F-650 simply doesn't have it. It does, and that coupled with the heavier mass increases it's ability to tow. Also, I will concede to the merc's. They are not performance cars, people talk as if they are, but they simply aren't. They are european tanks, the equivalent of american luxury cars. As with the engineering comment. Do you believe the Delorean was one of the best engineered cars of it's time? It had all the gadgetry, heck it even had airplane brakes. I don't think it was a very well engineered car. On the basis that anyone can slap together a bunch of individual technologies onto a car. The skill comes in when you analyze each component so that when you are done the car you get is exactly what you set out to create. Most car manufacturers do this. Japanese sports cars focus on light and compact parts. American sports car focus on light compact and cheap parts. While the german sports cars focus on what will add the most value to their cars. Also, as to american car's engineering. You really have to tear into the components of the car. They are usually simpler designs, but as someone great once said. "The best engineered design is often times the simplest."
wolff
May 7, 2008 11:57 PM
well, simple might be the best!! but when u already have the BEST.. i guess nothing beats it!! ;) well,Mercedes Benzes are primarily luxury cars, but have a racing heritage which can only be paralleled by the equals of Ferrari n Porsche.. n who can forget the Nazi silver arrows?? The Germans have it in their blood, they do engineer some of the best stuffs.. but as we r talking of automobiles here, i must say they just have that one bit extra know how which makes them better.. they have quality, amazing engineering, n they r built to last!! a Merc or a BMW bought now will last through atleast a couple of generations without having to even bother much to maintain it!!
Joe_Limon
May 8, 2008 1:43 AM
a couple generations without maintaining? how long do people live where you are? Also, most major automotive manufacturers, with the exception of Chrysler, are reliable. I still would prefer to own a car that doesn't cost $10,000 to fix when something does go wrong.
radmeister
May 5, 2008 4:44 AM
This is a very limited production truck, the only real use is to pull a really big yacht or mobile home trailer. But most people who own those either get a motorized coach trailer like a Prevost or have their boat docked at the marina. It is cool for what it is but not realistically a daily driver unless you are rich and you want to say you have the biggest production pick up around(it is not really a pick up since the back is a big truck sized trailer hitch).
Xanavi23
May 5, 2008 7:03 AM
I would probably never need a truck like this but even if it is "Excessive" i'ld still buy it if i had more than enough money to put it on the side of a couple sportscars. Some would think im just a fool overcompensating for something else but thats fine by me, i still love this truck. "Theres no success like excess". Doesnt Chevy have a similary large kind of pick-up?
xLumino
May 5, 2008 5:39 PM
5.2 tonnes curb weight? I hope it's limited to 60mph! you can have a more practical transporter if you need or a more useful luxury pickup in smaller size. Who is such sic for develop a monster like this?
vadizzel
May 5, 2008 8:47 PM
Yeee-Haaa cowboys lets rustle some cows. This is perfect for a farmer who has enough money to pay 4.00$ per gallon on this monster. Otherwise this truck is useless for anyone else.
alarrosa87
May 6, 2008 1:08 AM
"how is it not very practical? It is more reliable then a sports car, it can be your daily driver, you can tow pretty much anything you would ever want to tow, and due to the size and how high the drivers head is it is a really safe vehicle. Trucks are pretty much the most practical vehicles on the road"
Practical? How about parking, driving through the city, running costs - fuel, servicing, tyres etc..... it seems like it will make a great work/farm vehicle but hardly practical for day to day driving.... $4 a gallon haha! We're paying the equivelant of $6 a gallon and in england nearly $10! Only because fuel is so comparatively cheap in the states and some parts of the world can trucks like this continue to sell.
Xanavi23
May 6, 2008 1:27 AM
You're right on one thing...even in Canada...driving this thing will be even worse than the price of admission we're gonna hit 2 dollars a Liter in a years time or a bit longer most likely, 1.37~ now, 1.50 by mid-late summer...we're heading for the way European prices are as of now.
Joe_Limon
May 6, 2008 1:50 AM
If you can afford this truck, gas prices should be nothing to worry about. I know they are comparitively higher then before, but that so far hasn't proven to change anyone I know's driving habits. As to tires, they probably won't cost as much as those short sidewall sport tires, and last longer due to the fact that they have more rubber. Back to gas prices, I had a 1986 T-Bird that got 7mpg. It didn't burn through fuel, it pumped it. I now drive a car that gets 3-4 times the mileage. And in all honesty even if gas prices doubled I would still want my old car back. Now as to parking, some trucks have a tighter turning radius the some small cars. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about door dings, or anybody running into you cause lord knows your the most visible thing in the lot.
wolff
May 6, 2008 11:07 AM
"Now as to parking, some trucks have a tighter turning radius the some small cars."
WAT??? :O
Joe_Limon
May 6, 2008 3:37 PM
my dad's yukon has a much smaller radius then my moms mazda 6, basically since there is more room for the tires to pivot around so there is a larger steering angle.
vadizzel
May 6, 2008 4:51 PM
Well the price of gas is one of the reason why Europe does not need cars like that. The narrow streets are also the factor. This car is purely for U.S The buyers in Europe are much better off with small and economical cars.
Add Comment
[cancel]
Latest F1 News
Mercedes names Nico Rosberg as 2010 driver
Nov 23, 09 5:00 PM
No new F1 career for Schu - Brawn
Nov 23, 09 4:00 PM
Donington administrators welcome Ecclestone comments
Nov 23, 09 3:04 PM
Sauber's Qadbak takeover to collapse - report
Nov 23, 09 3:02 PM
F1 journalist to reprise naked jog
Nov 23, 09 2:59 PM
Le Mans on hold as Klien eyes F1 return
Nov 23, 09 2:53 PM
Merc GP structure not a recipe for tension - Haug
Nov 23, 09 2:49 PM
No Bulgarian GP, FIA's Todt insists
Nov 23, 09 2:45 PM
Argentine signs conditional USF1 race deal
Nov 21, 09 1:33 PM
Williams sells team share to Toto Wolff
Nov 20, 09 8:30 PM
