Raptor w/ecoboost MPG?

[A.I.I.Raciing]

what I'm trying to say is that the Raptor is limited because of it's spongy suspension, not it's power
There are also several folks that have commented on the steering being a tad sluggish since it wasn't designed to turn the larger tires.

I am very interested to see some data from the SDHQ folks on their eco-raptor hybrid.

Trust me, I've already thought about it and I know the reason for the low tow rating is the leafs. Which I'm not concerned with from a towing stand point(see pics below, towed from Baja to Santa Barbara). What does concern me is if I get into an accident(my fault or not) and I'm over loaded its legally my fault.
One of my other idea's was to swap out the leafs on a Raptor for a standard F1 set to get that tow rating back, but I will still have a problem as the sticker say's 6K and not 11K.

As far as steering, did Ford use a different rack for the Raptor?

 

[WarSurfer]

The Eco trucks have electronic assist instead of power steering. A couple of the Eco guys have mentioned that they 'noticed' when they increased tire size.

 

[Maxx2893]

And why would you only be able to get several mpg better than the window sticker rating with your 6.2, yet not be able to do it with the 3.5? Those driving improvements are from driving styles and driving habbits. If you're going to get better mpg than the sticker on a 6.2, you'll get better mpg than the sticker on a 3.5 EB as well.

On a stock ecoboost he could get better than sticker because of his driving style, but this is about an ecoboost in a Raptor or Raptor-like truck. You would never see the mpg on the sticker after you lift it and put the heavier tires on.

 

[Reptar]

On a stock ecoboost he could get better than sticker because of his driving style, but this is about an ecoboost in a Raptor or Raptor-like truck. You would never see the mpg on the sticker after you lift it and put the heavier tires on.

Missing my point. Droid posted some hypothetical Ecoboost Raptor fuel ratings by taking the % decrease in 6.2 regular f150 vs 6.2 raptor mpg ratings, and applying that % decrease to 3.5 EB regular f150 to get a 3.5 EB raptor mpg rating. Which is an arguably reasonable approximation to make.

Then RaptorSCrew posted that it wouldn't be worth the mpg difference to him since he's getting 17 on his 6.2 anyway and it wouldn't be worth the 1.375 difference to the 3.5. Well that's not a reasonable comparison, because he's comparing his real world mpg to the calculated sticker mpg of the 3.5. If your driving style gets better real world mpg than sticker on a 6.2, it's reasonable to assume your driving style would get better real world mpg than sticker on a 3.5 EB as well.

 

[RaptorScrew]

Missing my point. Droid posted some hypothetical Ecoboost Raptor fuel ratings by taking the % decrease in 6.2 regular f150 vs 6.2 raptor mpg ratings, and applying that % decrease to 3.5 EB regular f150 to get a 3.5 EB raptor mpg rating. Which is an arguably reasonable approximation to make.

Then RaptorSCrew posted that it wouldn't be worth the mpg difference to him since he's getting 17 on his 6.2 anyway and it wouldn't be worth the 1.375 difference to the 3.5. Well that's not a reasonable comparison, because he's comparing his real world mpg to the calculated sticker mpg of the 3.5. If your driving style gets better real world mpg than sticker on a 6.2, it's reasonable to assume your driving style would get better real world mpg than sticker on a 3.5 EB as well.

I would agree to that but that is not always close to true. The truck plays a major part. I speak from experience with my 2004 F150 FX4 SCrew. I bought new in '03. it was rated for 14 city / 18 highway.

I drove it the same as I do this one. i NEVER saw better than 13.5 on the highway. I would get 10-11 in the city.

So I would disagree that if I drive my vehicles the same they would react the same. At a little over a mph difference, I would never take the chance. My luck the EcoBoost would get 17 or less!

 

[K-9]

I don't care for the feel of the EcoBoost down low. I test drove one last summer along with a 5.0 F150 and while on paper (dyno graphs) the eco looks to be a ton better I actually preferred the feel of the 5.0. Now the 5.0 was a King Ranch vs. some lower level with the eco boost but that put aside I could feel the turbo lag down low. It was not bad but I felt it and noted it was the worst when rolling slow at idel then hitting the gas. I found it accidently pulling out of the dealer and mashing the pedal to merge (I was a little scared for a second when it didn't go).

I have never bought a car for MPG and that's not a concern for me....sure I would love more but when i go out to get a car/truck etc. I get what I want and can afford. If I can't afford what I want I wait. My situation is different in that i work from home so the car is really some what of a luxury item for me.....though I haul kids all over and do drive to my other home in MI so i log some miles that way.

My neighbor and i argue the benefits of the eco-boost in a raptor all the time as he says he would buy one if he got that in it. He drives a ton for orthopedic sales all over the state (has 235K+ miles on his Honda pilot). I keep saying that he would never see the sticker miles on the eco-boost f150 in a raptor and if MPG is the issue why not get something else as there are plenty of options that do better (and he makes enough $ to buy a work car and a raptor). Anyway - the point is that while the MPG would be better I would not be willing to give up the feel of the instant power. If you are doing any rock climbing etc. as the new trucks are set up more for the turbo lag would be a real bitch. If you are desert racing then I have to expect the heat soak would kill you 15 minutes in unless you upgrade the hell out of the intercooler.

If you think that dyno chart is that much better take an eco boost and dyno it 3 times back to back with no cool down time on a hot sticky day and do the same with the 6.2. I would bet that you will find the 6.2 repeats the numbers a heck of a lot closer than the eco boost will and for anything short of cruise control on the highway the 6.2 would be the motor of choice (at least for me). Dyno curves on a 1 pull run with a cool engine are great, but they don't tell the whole story.....though I have yet to drive a raptor so my talk is mostly just that - but I have a lot of experience battling heat soak and know it would be an issue on the eco boost in the raptor's environment.

 

[Maxx2893]

Missing my point. Droid posted some hypothetical Ecoboost Raptor fuel ratings by taking the % decrease in 6.2 regular f150 vs 6.2 raptor mpg ratings, and applying that % decrease to 3.5 EB regular f150 to get a 3.5 EB raptor mpg rating. Which is an arguably reasonable approximation to make.

Then RaptorSCrew posted that it wouldn't be worth the mpg difference to him since he's getting 17 on his 6.2 anyway and it wouldn't be worth the 1.375 difference to the 3.5. Well that's not a reasonable comparison, because he's comparing his real world mpg to the calculated sticker mpg of the 3.5. If your driving style gets better real world mpg than sticker on a 6.2, it's reasonable to assume your driving style would get better real world mpg than sticker on a 3.5 EB as well.

Ok. Im following you now.

 

[linexsa]

The Eco trucks have electronic assist instead of power steering. A couple of the Eco guys have mentioned that they 'noticed' when they increased tire size.

Im curious to read more about this.

I have had the same debate in my head for months. its one of the reasons i joined this forum. I just ordered an ecoboost 3 weeks ago after alot of thought. I will be putting 34-35" tires on it, and will be glad to post some real world MPGs. Ive driven a few of them here for work, and am pretty happy with the results. im not convinced the mileage will be awesome, but hell anything beats the 12.5mpg im getting in my excursion, and the 11mpg i got in my 08 5.4L.

 

[BIRDMAN]

hypothetical ecoboost

 

[whtrapta]

A dyno chart of the 6.2 (non raptor) and 3.5EB would give you an idea too. The 6.2 has tons of power everywhere thanks to it being naturally aspirated. The EB only has a bunch of power when on boost. Being turbo'd, the power is all high up. So unless your on boost, the lack of power may cause low fuel mileage.
Just a thought.