Raptor EPA Fuel Economy Figures - 17/23!

[Dan06]

Yeah I'd like to find a bigger gas tank. Lol I've borrowed abunch of cans in bfe Mexico before.

 

[downforce137]

It takes MORE fuel to make MORE power than a 6.2L.. it will get worse MPG when under a heavy load.. I doubt anyone is going to see 17 combined in the wild.

Im positive 17/23 numbers are not for raptor, but for a regular 4x4 model that doesn't have 35s and 4.10 gears... come on guys, use those brains.

 

[SilverBolt]

17/23 would be awesome. My 4500lb FJ with a N/A 4.0L V6 only does 15/18. I hope those Raptor numbers are true but I doubt it.

 

[ReefBlue]

Engines require less fuel to make more power when technology uses the fuel in a more efficient manner.

Ford built an engine in 1902 that was 1156 cubic inches, it put out 70-100hp.

We're doing a lot more with a lot less nowadays.

 

[nicul15]

It takes MORE fuel to make MORE power than a 6.2L.. it will get worse MPG when under a heavy load.. I doubt anyone is going to see 17 combined in the wild.

not a linear relationship tho

 

[Craigy]

It takes MORE fuel to make MORE power than a 6.2L.. it will get worse MPG when under a heavy load.. I doubt anyone is going to see 17 combined in the wild.

Im positive 17/23 numbers are not for raptor, but for a regular 4x4 model that doesn't have 35s and 4.10 gears... come on guys, use those brains.

 

[downforce137]

I know its not exactly a linear relationship..

It's been common knowledge that the current ecoboost engines aren't living up to their advertised numbers in the real world when it comes to fuel economy.

I'll bet its more efficient than the 6.2L overall, but when the boost is on, the fuel is going to be burning at pretty close to the same rate as the V8. It's not magic.. They are forcing air and fuel into the cylinders and that volume needs a ratio of fuel.. Do you think they are forcing twice the amount of air, so its now a 7.0L engine? I bet that would require more fuel than a 6.2L... again, not rocket science, and they haven't invented some new magic engine that doesn't need a ~13.7 stoichiometric ratio

I personally love the looks of the new trucks, but I really hope for Ford's sake they give some other engine options down the road, because I think they are alienating a big part of their customer base that wants V8 engines..

 

[Dewserb]

I know its not exactly a linear relationship..

It's been common knowledge that the current ecoboost engines aren't living up to their advertised numbers in the real world when it comes to fuel economy.

I'll bet its more efficient than the 6.2L overall, but when the boost is on, the fuel is going to be burning at pretty close to the same rate as the V8. It's not magic.. They are forcing air and fuel into the cylinders and that volume needs a ratio of fuel.. Do you think they are forcing twice the amount of air, so its now a 7.0L engine? I bet that would require more fuel than a 6.2L... again, not rocket science, and they haven't invented some new magic engine that doesn't need a ~13.7 stoichiometric ratio

I personally love the looks of the new trucks, but I really hope for Ford's sake they give some other engine options down the road, because I think they are alienating a big part of their customer base that wants V8 engines..

Actually, my Ecoboost is getting considerably better fuel economy than the published figures. So are dozens of guys on the Ecoboost groups that I admin.

The trick is learning the sweet spot with the boosted platform. Stay in boost = bad fuel economy.

 

[downforce137]

Actually, my Ecoboost is getting considerably better fuel economy than the published figures. So are dozens of guys on the Ecoboost groups that I admin.

The trick is learning the sweet spot with the boosted platform. Stay in boost = bad fuel economy.

considerably better? If you're not using boost, shouldn't be hard to get better numbers.. Are you pushing 35's and 4.10s?

 

[ovrlnd]

whoops, wrong thread...