Will it be faster than a TRX???

[Kaz109]

Ask seeing the numbers on the regular F150 powerboost I have no doubt that should and will be the best powerplant for the raptor. The upside to hp and tq and fuel economy is just too great

 

[MTF]

The 5.2 Predator is already making 760HP with a TVS; it certainly doesn’t need an aftermarket supercharger. If they offer an optional V8, that engine is a given.

Yes agreed.
Eaton makes lots of different parts, OEM and aftermarket.
The TVS, it's rebranded right, what does say on the blower now?
Sorry Whipple fan boy here, LOL

 

[codeman]

Agree, those motors make anything they put it into flat out fast. That’s a given you get out of an FCA car with that power plant.

But we are most likely at a peak with engines and regulation will start to kill things off. It’s the dawn of a new day. We have a new sherif in town it appears. Sad in ways but true.

For sure, the worst part about it ... is these turbo charged engines aren't any better on fuel economy at all. Compare this 3.5L Ecoboost engine in the Raptor, to the 400HP 5.7L Hemi on the RAM trucks. The RAM has noticeably better MPG for everyday usage, which would seem at quick glance to "defy physics" when looking at the bare minimal set of information. Displacement, and horsepower / torque rating. Something called a 3.5L V6 "EcoBoost" should be miles better on MPG than 5.7L NA 8 cylinder by the branding ... but we know once those turbos start spooling, so does the fuel pump lol not to mention the cylinder deactivation present with a lot of the V8's.

Marketing vs. reality. I think Ford should be using the smallest displacement V8 they can manage to get around 500-600 HP out of, and somewhere around 560+ ft/lbs of torque. I don't think if the next Raptor is engineered correctly and weight considerations are made, there's any reason it can't overall perform better as an actual off-road truck, being more nimble, comfortable and 'ergonomically' designed for taking corners and jumps etc. as well as long highway stints. The TRX again, is mostly great at plowing back and fourth on a straight line and hence the heavy focus on the insane engine and 0-60 time ... drive one, and you'll see it's more of a "boat" that puts a smile on your face as you slam the accelerator than it is a race-bred off-road machine that can corner like a dream.

I'd rather have the current Raptor any day over the TRX - and if the horsepower is down for your taste, give it small tune for 91 octane. But the next-gen Raptor, I would fully expect to finally get rid of the leaf spring setup, further refine the Fox shock setup, and boost the engine power enough to still in real-world MPG ratings to beat the TRX.

 

[FordTechOne]

For sure, the worst part about it ... is these turbo charged engines aren't any better on fuel economy at all. Compare this 3.5L Ecoboost engine in the Raptor, to the 400HP 5.7L Hemi on the RAM trucks. The RAM has noticeably better MPG for everyday usage, which would seem at quick glance to "defy physics" when looking at the bare minimal set of information. Displacement, and horsepower / torque rating. Something called a 3.5L V6 "EcoBoost" should be miles better on MPG than 5.7L NA 8 cylinder by the branding ... but we know once those turbos start spooling, so does the fuel pump lol not to mention the cylinder deactivation present with a lot of the V8's.

Marketing vs. reality. I think Ford should be using the smallest displacement V8 they can manage to get around 500-600 HP out of, and somewhere around 560+ ft/lbs of torque. I don't think if the next Raptor is engineered correctly and weight considerations are made, there's any reason it can't overall perform better as an actual off-road truck, being more nimble, comfortable and 'ergonomically' designed for taking corners and jumps etc. as well as long highway stints. The TRX again, is mostly great at plowing back and fourth on a straight line and hence the heavy focus on the insane engine and 0-60 time ... drive one, and you'll see it's more of a "boat" that puts a smile on your face as you slam the accelerator than it is a race-bred off-road machine that can corner like a dream.

I'd rather have the current Raptor any day over the TRX - and if the horsepower is down for your taste, give it small tune for 91 octane. But the next-gen Raptor, I would fully expect to finally get rid of the leaf spring setup, further refine the Fox shock setup, and boost the engine power enough to still in real-world MPG ratings to beat the TRX.

You can't objectively compare the 3.5 EcoBoost in the Raptor to the 5.7 RAM; they are two completely different applications. The Raptor's increased ride height, 35" All-Terrain tires, lack of a air dams, and 4.10 gears all reduce fuel economy significantly compared with a standard F-150 or RAM. Hence why the fuel economy of a standard 4x4 F-150 3.5 is 16/22/18 while the Raptor is 15/18/16. It's not the engine that makes it less efficient, it's the application. The RAM 5.7 4x4 manages 15/21 in a standard truck, which is the same as the Raptor gets in the city and only 3 MPG more on the highway. That engine in a Raptor or TRX wouldn't be far off from the TRX's ratings; the EPA test procedure is not aggressive enough build boost on the 6.2.

Your proposal of using a V8 to get 560 lb-ft of torque in the Gen 3 would put it within the same fuel economy range as the TRX. The new PowerBoost is a likely option for the Gen 3, and of course there are rumors of the 5.2 Predator, which would match or exceed TRX on power and most likely exceed it in fuel economy due to the aluminum body and IWE system.

 

[codeman]

I understand, and you're correct that they are used in completely different applications. However, my main point is still valid. Even considering the same or very similar application, there's a noticeable difference between ACTUAL mpg, and EPA rated or manufacturer claimed MPG. We all know, those MPG figures on turbo boost engines are performed with an "expert" driver who knows to stay out of the boost range as much as humanly possible.

You sound like you know engines, and vehicle dynamics well so that point should still ring valid and true with you.

I mentioned the V8 with ~560 lb-ft of torque would also presumably anyhow, be mated to a noticeably lighter vehicle overall which given solid engine design (something like the 5.2 Predator) would also be smaller displacement, plus using a 10 speed transmission should overall give a noticeable increase and not 'within the same' fuel economy as a much heavier TRX with a clunkier 8 speed transmission & driveline. I'm pretty confident Ford would also be very clearly targeting a fuel economy that's still good-enough to not be outrageous for everyday driving; something I think the RAM missed the boat on a bit with the TRX despite the obviously awesome sound and acceleration

 

[FordTechOne]

I understand, and you're correct that they are used in completely different applications. However, my main point is still valid. Even considering the same or very similar application, there's a noticeable difference between ACTUAL mpg, and EPA rated or manufacturer claimed MPG. We all know, those MPG figures on turbo boost engines are performed with an "expert" driver who knows to stay out of the boost range as much as humanly possible.

It really just depends on how the vehicle is driven. In low speed/stop and go city driving, a 3.5L 6 cylinder is going to use less fuel than a 5.0L 8 cylinder. The larger engine has 2 additional cylinders to fuel and a larger displacement. At higher speeds, the same principle applies. The only time they will achieve approximately the same fuel economy is under heavy throttle, as both engines will be producing approximately the same power and therefore will require approximately the same amount of fuel. As far as real world “actual” MPG, I have found the EcoBoost to be much more efficient than the Ford 5.0 V8 or the 5.7 Hemi in my Jeep, which averages about 14MPG.

You sound like you know engines, and vehicle dynamics well so that point should still ring valid and true with you.

I mentioned the V8 with ~560 lb-ft of torque would also presumably anyhow, be mated to a noticeably lighter vehicle overall which given solid engine design (something like the 5.2 Predator) would also be smaller displacement, plus using a 10 speed transmission should overall give a noticeable increase and not 'within the same' fuel economy as a much heavier TRX with a clunkier 8 speed transmission & driveline. I'm pretty confident Ford would also be very clearly targeting a fuel economy that's still good-enough to not be outrageous for everyday driving; something I think the RAM missed the boat on a bit with the TRX despite the obviously awesome sound and acceleration

I agree, it’s not like RAM set the fuel economy bar very high with the TRX. As you mention, the lighter truck with the smaller engine and 10 speed should be able to beat the TRX by at least a few MPG.

 

[The Car Stereo Company]

why not take a w24 and put in a 27 speed trans? i mean an engine that big wont use hardly any fuel to move a small piece of aluminium on wheels around right?




just incase someone thinks im serious......SARCASM....

 

[codeman]

It really just depends on how the vehicle is driven...

Very true as well; it's under load where the two engines will see similar fuel economy with similar power output. I agree, if you're careful / have a light foot then the 3.5L turbo or non turbo is going to use less fuel.

The problem is most of these turbo engines aren't super efficient with the usage of the turbos, and manufacturers end up giving misleading MPG estimates. As soon as you load up the engine enough to require increased boost pressure, the air/fuel mixture becomes no different than a larger displacement NA engine. There's some really interesting information out there on exhaust gas re-circulation, and intake mixing to help optimize ideal air to fuel ratios which a lot of existing smaller displacement turbo engines don't get "quite right" which is why outside of being careful with your throttle management, as soon as you "goose it" a little, you lose if not worsen fuel economy even versus a larger displacement V8 with more immediate torque available off the line, which keeps RPMs down and hence overall requires less fuel etc. etc. Anyways! haha I find that stuff interesting myself.

I can't find as much information available on the EcoBoost (and this is my first with the new Raptor now), but definitely good to hear it's seemingly a better designed / more efficient engine

 

[TannerK17]

I add absolutely no value at all to the above comments or this thread in general, but my goodness does this thing sound good going down the freeway.

With that said, I think that’s all it’s good for really. I would never touch it. It’s a straight line queen purely. Plus, I’m just fine without being a Fiat owner.

 

[Kaz109]

@FordTechOne

I have seen the megazilla ( 7.3L with heads and cam) make 641Hp and 550TQ .......what are the chances of this version making it into the Gen 3 instead of the predator motor?


I am probably in the minority but if there is going to be a V8 in the Gen 3 I would prefer it be a NA V8. My over all preference would be a powerboost