Raptor EPA Fuel Economy Figures - 17/23!

Raptor EPA Fuel Economy Figures - 15/18

Edit: Official numbers finally - 15/18.

Holy crap I missed this posted about a week ago in a picture thread. In case anyone else missed it, the pic is attached with the first quoted EPA numbers: 17/23!

IMO that would be incredible, conceivably over 800 highway miles on one tank would be fantastic, realistically close to 600 in town. Personally I don't give a shit about fuel cost savings, though I won't complain, but the extra range is excellent.

Some folks think this must be some mistake, suggesting bigger tires/poor aero, but I don't think this matters because:

1) Current 2016 3.5L 4x4 is already rated at 16/22.
2) Current truck doesn't have the new 10 speed transmission which easily counts for a couple MPG city and highway.
3) The standard F150 is a brick just like the Raptor. There is very little significant "aero" difference between the two.
4) Stock wheels/tires on F150 also weigh a ton, and even though the KO2s definitely weigh more than the stock tire, the aluminum wheels should mitigate some of that weight gain.

Undoubtedly the EPA numbers on the 2017 base F150 will be telling as to whether or not these numbers are legit, and should shift upwards of 18/24, which would also be a substantial range boost as well.

**Edit: Ford's own magic Mike Levine has stated these figures aren't accurate and still TBD.

Performance>MPG, but MPG is always good. Longer range off road/highway is nice and when you're cruising down the highway at 80 MPH it doesn't matter how capable the truck is it's still just transport so I'd love to save some money on fuel. That means more trips and more fun off road. 17/23 is the maximum I thought was possible with a Raptor, but I think it's not out of the question. We'll see soon.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

In the end if someone says MPG doesn't matter to them at all, they're full of it. To some it just matters more than others and for Raptor owners it's low on the list of priorities.

I'd agree with most points besides the aero difference. The greater ride height and tire rolling resistance, extra width and lack of an aerodynamic bumper / air dam (much more air going under the truck) will make a significant aero penalty for the highway economy. I'd guess 2-3 MPG worse highway than the F150.

That said, I think the numbers could be accurate, but I think final numbers will be around 15/20 city/hwy. The addition of port injection will help part throttle fuel efficiency, and the extra gears and taller top gear (haven't checked, but I assume it's taller) will reduce pumping losses by keeping rpms lower over the old 3.5L. It also has start/stop and the direct injection pump shuts down at part throttle. The version in the regular F150 will get 10.5 compression instead of the Raptor's 10.0, so that truck has an extra advantage.

If you can get real world 18-20 MPG at 70 mph with it I will be pumped, I like driving a long ways between fill ups.

If the new Raptor gets an honest 17 MPG combined, I'll be very happy. There is no way it will get a consistent 23-24 MPG.

Bombsquad68 said:

I'd agree with most points besides the aero difference. The greater ride height and tire rolling resistance, extra width and lack of an aerodynamic bumper / air dam (much more air going under the truck) will make a significant aero penalty for the highway economy. I'd guess 2-3 MPG worse highway than the F150.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The F150 is already terribly inefficient, rides high, very wide, etc. The coefficient of drag is probably only a couple points worse and the frontal area is only ever so slightly bigger. So maybe 4 or 5% worse, which would be only a 1MPG penalty or so. But hell, I'm not a Ford aerodynamicist, so I don't know.

Like everything else, hopefully we'll get confirmation soon.

matt33 said:

If the new Raptor gets an honest 17 MPG combined, I'll be very happy. There is no way it will get a consistent 23-24 MPG.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The current Eco a friend has can barely get 18 and I get 17 with the 6.2

It'll get way better mpg than the 6.2 when traveling on the interstate, and marginally better for city mpg and offroad.

Less than a tank to get to Washington every year from NorCal, I'm sold. People getting 14 mpg in the last gen is what made me pass.

17/23 would be phenomenal, but heck I would love a solid 20 on the highway at 70mph. Every penny not spent on fuel can be spent for fun stuff. But honestly, the biggest thing for me is range. With 700+ miles of highway range, I'd be VERY happy.

Maybe @Dan06 won't be at pucker factor 10 on his way through bfe Indiana. At least I think that was you the screws were leaving to run on fumes a couple years ago on the way to snoball?