6.2L Raptor: "You're gonna burn fuel"

[vipergts]

if you have to ask then don't buy it

if you have to ask then don't buy or sell it and buy a yugo, oh yeh they don't make them any more. buy a smart car, who cares how much fuel.

 

[HAYNES OFFROAD]

I can't believe that there are any "tweaks" that will pick up 2 hwy mpg.

I just seriously doubt they changed anything except for some tuning, which wouldn't net 2 mpg.

I disagree, a remapped tune (if done right) can increase mpg and hp. Its widely known that the stock tune is conservative, just talk to 5star. So if ford did tweak the tune slightly, its completly plausible to gain 2mpg, but real word numbers are hard to replicate.

Sent from my DROIDX using Forum Runner

 

[White608]

who cares how much fuel.

I do, to a point...
When I take a trip out west this coming summer I will probably drive 5200miles. The last trip was about that much. So if I were to get 12 mpg vs 16mpg that would be enough money saved to pay for a 5star tune if not more than that depending on when fuel goes back to $4-$5 ..


While I don't care what mpg it gets around town or out haulin ass some place. It would be nice to get decent trip mileage. Now if i wanted to be an arrogant **** and show everyone that money is no object, then I would absolutely agree with your statement.

 

[Ruger]

I disagree, a remapped tune (if done right) can increase mpg and hp. Its widely known that the stock tune is conservative, just talk to 5star. So if ford did tweak the tune slightly, its completly plausible to gain 2mpg, but real word numbers are hard to replicate.

Sent from my DROIDX using Forum Runner

Dyno charts and fuel economy records or it's not real.

 

[Reptar]

if you have to ask then don't buy or sell it and buy a yugo, oh yeh they don't make them any more. buy a smart car, who cares how much fuel.

Yeah! The less fuel mpg it gets, the more manly the truck is! Single digit fuel economy FTW! I'm so unsecure with my manhood associating wanting good fuel economy with being a prius driving tree hugger, that I actually drill holes in my tank so that chit leaks out faster!

I do, to a point...
When I take a trip out west this coming summer I will probably drive 5200miles. The last trip was about that much. So if I were to get 12 mpg vs 16mpg that would be enough money saved to pay for a 5star tune if not more than that depending on when fuel goes back to $4-$5 ..


While I don't care what mpg it gets around town or out haulin ass some place. It would be nice to get decent trip mileage. Now if i wanted to be an arrogant **** and show everyone that money is no object, then I would absolutely agree with your statement.

DING DING DING!!!

Sucking down the gas pump from chitty mileage is just mod money down the drain. I don't need 40 mpg, I don't want a reduction to 120 hp, I don't want a prius. But I do want a badazz truck (RAPTOR), that I can care less about the mileage when I'm romping having fun, but still get decent mileage on the highway for trips or towing. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and keeping the mentality of trucks SHOULD have crappy mpg does nothing to promote automakers to improve truck fuel economy ratings, and just burns that money in your wallet faster for absolutely no gains.

 

[pirate air]

Roger that. I got 15.5 in town and 16.5 on the road with the factory intake. Switched to the drop-in K&N and magically got 15.5 in town and 16.5 on the road. Then got an AIRAID intake and huzzah! I peaked at 15.5 in town and 16.5 on the road.

That's typically what I get, and occasionally squeeze 17 out of it on the hwy.

 

[KaiserM715]

I disagree, a remapped tune (if done right) can increase mpg and hp. Its widely known that the stock tune is conservative, just talk to 5star. So if ford did tweak the tune slightly, its completly plausible to gain 2mpg, but real word numbers are hard to replicate.

This engine was in development for almost a decade before it showed up in the Raptor. I would find it hard to believe that Ford left 2 mpg (which is a lot for a truck like this as it is a brick) on the table for two model years and then "found" a new tune for 2012. There must have been something different with the test.

Dyno charts and fuel economy records or it's not real.

+1

 

[HAYNES OFFROAD]

Dyno charts and fuel economy records or it's not real.

This engine was in development for almost a decade before it showed up in the Raptor. I would find it hard to believe that Ford left 2 mpg (which is a lot for a truck like this as it is a brick) on the table for two model years and then "found" a new tune for 2012. There must have been something different with the test.

look, all i said was that it was plausible that a refreshed tune could net 2mpg. but are you guys are saying that theres no way that the technology hasnt improved enouph over 2 years to "find" that? i tend to be open minded, but really dont care whether theres a 2mpg gain or not, just that its possible.

no i do not have dyno charts from a raptor. but back when i was racing my turbo b16 crx, i got plenty of tuning time on the dyno. and can tell you from personal experance that a proper tune matters when it comes to HP AND MPG.

the dyno chart i included in post includes a previous tune (dotted line) and then the new tune (solid line). chart speaks for itself power wise, but behind the scenes, i went from an avg. of 28mpg (old tune) to an avg. of 35mpg (new tune). there was no changes mechanicly, just a REVISED TUNE! and the old tune wasnt even bad, i ran it for over a year.

again all i said was it is PLAUSIBLE! cheers

 

[Ruger]

Wreckless, please forgive me for being cynical. If I bought all of the intake swirllers, water injectors, fuel magnitizers, teflon oil additives, etc. and used them on the same vehicle I'd be manufacturing gasoline and would have to sell it to a gas station!

A 2mpg improvement on a truck that gets roughly 15 mpg represents a huge 13 percent improvment, this on a 3-ton vehicle. MAYBE that's possible if the fuel mixture is leaned out to the point that it's running well below the stoichometric optimum. It might run that way at very modest throttle settings, but if driven the way a Raptor was designed to be driven it would run ****** and would eventually destroy the engine.

Now, this is amittedly conjecture on both sides of the argument. So substantive evidence is required to settle the matter. You have advanced the 2 mpg argument so you run the experiment. May I suggest that you take your beautiful Raptor over to a tuner and tell him, "I want a 2 mpg improvment. That's the one and only goal. Make it happen," and then let's see the dyno charts and your fuel economy records. I wouldn't do it because I want to drive my Raptor for the next ten years, but it's up to you to prove your contention.

No animosity intended or implied, sir. I am a skeptic, but I will gladly concede given proof.

 

[comagt]

Im pretty sure the 2012 numbers are just corrected. My 2011 already gets those numbers.

What about the type of fuel used in each test?

Then again maybe they revised the AC compressor. My current compressor is a loud obnoxious fuel hog, that I haven't had to use a lot of yet.