2013 ...Is this the year for the ecoboost Raptor ?

[ARRAPTOR]

I HAD a 2011 lariet screw.baby it aroud town u might get 11.5, freeway at 70-75 do good to get 15. mine had 3.73 gears. my .02 worth. I'll admit it would get up and go.....

 

[SwampKing]

welcome to the site svtjackal, I'm Harley#356 from LR/NLOC/NHTOC/etc.

I would have bought a 3.5 EB Raptor in a heartbeat if it was an optional engine.

Josh! Small world, this is TTrah from Nhtoc, ect.... Glad to have ur expertise in the Raptor forum as well!

I'm anxious to see about the ecoboost world. An ecoboost 6.2l would be sweet! Now I'm dreaming I know, lol!


Sent from my iPhone5 using Tapatalk

 

[WarSurfer]

I love reading all the 'new and superior tech' and 'antiquated ****' postings - nothing like hanging a giant flashing sign that says "I know exactly zero about what I'm typing..."

First - 'new and superior'

the 'things' that make the eco 'eco' are direct injection & turbo's on a gas engine - well that is neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, GM has been doing it for several years... They designed the architecture for it in the 90's and were first to market, several years ahead of Ford (03 for overseas and 07in the states (which is when the twin-force Ford hit the streets). The only thing Ford has been more successful at (WRT the eco) is the marketing. GM's ecotec powerplants deliver higher power per liter numbers and very good mpg rates as well - and GM was at least smart enough to give them forged pistons. The first examples of direct injection occur in 1925... So much for cutting edge.

Gallery - ecotecpower.com - the ecotec enthusiast site

Second - 'antiquated ****'

let's look at the sum of their parts...

eco
twin independent variable cam timing
twin turbochargers
direct injection fuel system
tuned composite intake manifold.
forged crank
powdered rods
hyper pistons
piston cooling jets
aluminum 4v heads
aluminum block
6 bolt mains

6.2
Dual equal variable cam timing
Tuned composite intake manifold
cast aluminum pistons
Piston cooling jets
forged steel rods
cast iron crank
Iron block, 4 bolt mains with additional side bolts
aluminum 2v heads

it's as if one was made by a caveman, the other by aliens

knowing that adding 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) effectively doubles an engines displacement...

3.5x2 (at 15psi peak) = 7 liters = 365hp/420tq
6.2 liters = 411hp/434tq

3.5tt = 5500lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg
6.2 = 6000lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg

staggering how underwhelming the eco is with it's alien technology.

Turbo Tech - Terminology, Overview - Science & Selection - Hot Rod

the reason ecoboost trucks get better mpg's is because they are significantly lighter, so the engine doesn't need to be 'in boost' to move the truck around. the heavier the truck, the more rolling resistance and the larger the front profile, the more the eco will need to be 'in boost' to move. more time in boost means less mpg's - it really is that simple. This has been proven as fact time and time again.

Look up 'lifted eco mpg' and you will find a giant thread on the f150forum that clearly shows dozens and dozens of eco's that dropped 5-8mpgs when adding a lift and larger tires.

there are some common truths in the automotive performance community - the eco does not outperform the 6.2, honda's with fartpipes are not fast, there isn't a hemi in your Dodge.

 

[Boss327]

I love reading all the 'new and superior tech' and 'antiquated ****' postings - nothing like hanging a giant flashing sign that says "I know exactly zero about what I'm typing..."

First - 'new and superior'

the 'things' that make the eco 'eco' are direct injection & turbo's on a gas engine - well that is neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, GM has been doing it for several years... They designed the architecture for it in the 90's and were first to market, several years ahead of Ford (03 for overseas and 07in the states (which is when the twin-force Ford hit the streets). The only thing Ford has been more successful at (WRT the eco) is the marketing. GM's ecotec powerplants deliver higher power per liter numbers and very good mpg rates as well - and GM was at least smart enough to give them forged pistons. The first examples of direct injection occur in 1925... So much for cutting edge.

Gallery - ecotecpower.com - the ecotec enthusiast site

Second - 'antiquated ****'

let's look at the sum of their parts...

eco
twin independent variable cam timing
twin turbochargers
direct injection fuel system
tuned composite intake manifold.
forged crank
powdered rods
hyper pistons
piston cooling jets
aluminum 4v heads
aluminum block
6 bolt mains

6.2
Dual equal variable cam timing
Tuned composite intake manifold
cast aluminum pistons
Piston cooling jets
forged steel rods
cast iron crank
Iron block, 4 bolt mains with additional side bolts
aluminum 2v heads

it's as if one was made by a caveman, the other by aliens

knowing that adding 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) effectively doubles an engines displacement...

3.5x2 (at 15psi peak) = 7 liters = 365hp/420tq
6.2 liters = 411hp/434tq

3.5tt = 5500lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg
6.2 = 6000lb truck, lifted on 35's gets 12-14 mpg

staggering how underwhelming the eco is with it's alien technology.

Turbo Tech - Terminology, Overview - Science & Selection - Hot Rod

the reason ecoboost trucks get better mpg's is because they are significantly lighter, so the engine doesn't need to be 'in boost' to move the truck around. the heavier the truck, the more rolling resistance and the larger the front profile, the more the eco will need to be 'in boost' to move. more time in boost means less mpg's - it really is that simple. This has been proven as fact time and time again.

Look up 'lifted eco mpg' and you will find a giant thread on the f150forum that clearly shows dozens and dozens of eco's that dropped 5-8mpgs when adding a lift and larger tires.

there are some common truths in the automotive performance community - the eco does not outperform the 6.2, honda's with fartpipes are not fast, there isn't a hemi in your Dodge.

Excatly. Everyone jumps on the ecoboost bandwagon thinking they will get better MPG's but thats not the case. In the real world (not EPA ratings) the 3.5 ecoboost gets the same MPG's as the 5.0.

If anything, Ford needs to give the 6.2 an aluminum block, 4V heads and up the displacement. I doubt anyone who has bought a Raptor was thinking about MPG's.

 

[Ranger]

Very well written Warsurfer. As I've posted somewhere before, in January I had a long conversation with an ecoboost engineer from Ford. I used to be a motorcycle road racer and rebuilt my own motors, so I know my way around an engine, he could tell so he didn't dumb down the conversation. He totally sold me on the ecoboost engine and technology. If I was to buy a regular F150, I would pay for that engine. But he did say because of the Raptor's tire size, wind resistance (7 inches wider than a F150 and taller) and gearing that an ecoboost wouldn't make enough of a difference in mileage to bother. He said he's heard nothing about an ecoboost Raptor. If you can afford the Raptor, you can afford the gas.

 

[RAPTORSV]

The 2013 Ford Raptor - Annual Edition of 2013 Cars - New Cars for 2013

Might get updated shocks.

 

[SwampKing]

Starting at $38k sounds good.


Sent from my iPhone5 using Tapatalk

 

[Debest21]

Wup

Im new just país sing. To say hi.....Awesome forum.....

 

[matt33]

The 2013 Ford Raptor - Annual Edition of 2013 Cars - New Cars for 2013

Might get updated shocks.

I heard from a knowledgeable source that Fox is pushing Ford to use their new 3.0's on future Raptors. It makes sense for Fox as they would need to keep making both. Ford has certain price-points to meet so I was told that this is far from a done deal.

 

[Deinonychus]

I heard from a knowledgeable source that Fox is pushing Ford to use their new 3.0's on future Raptors. It makes sense for Fox as they would need to keep making both. Ford has certain price-points to meet so I was told that this is far from a done deal.

It could always be a "suspension upgrade package"

Then they could keep the base Raptor around $40, but offer an improved suspension option.