Jump to content

New 2017 aluminum Ford Raptor - Ecoboost only?!


Mossyoakglock

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was reading a Car & Driver yesterday while waiting to get my haircut and read something interesting.

 

Now I know this is a GM site but I'm sure most everybody on this site just likes trucks/vehicles in general so thought this was interesting.

 

In the article it said that the only motor that the new aluminum Raptor is going to get is the new 3.5L EcoBoost. To me, it just seems wrong to take a truck like that a put in a V6. If I'm going to buy a truck like that I'm not going to be concerned about fuel mileage and want that 6.2L V8 sound. The few that are around me sound really mean.

 

There are a few other cool upgrades/changes to this years model but I just though that only offering a V6 is wrong. Maybe offer the EcoBoost with the V8 as an added option? I wonder if that is going to cause it to not sell as well?

 

Here is the article.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2017-ford-f-150-raptor-in-depth-feature

 

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Ford wants to pretty much get rid of their v8 options. This has been known about the raptir for about a year, the expedition no longer offers a v8 either

Posted

One guy in the comments: "I couldn't tow my travel trailer with the old Raptor looking at the specs."

 

Uh...duh...that is a guy who buys for looks first then function and gets caught with his pants down realizing the truck he bought can't do the job.

Posted

Ford wants to pretty much get rid of their v8 options. This has been known about the raptir for about a year, the expedition no longer offers a v8 either

 

they don't want anything more than 6 cylinders; and The Mustang is likely next in line to be turned into a Gelding.

Posted

What's sad is this just more of the nanny state---safety, fuel efficiency, god forbid we floor it and have some fun garbage! Count me out....if you buy a high performance truck.....isn't that what you should except?! My humble .02 :driving:

Posted

What's sad is this just more of the nanny state---safety, fuel efficiency, god forbid we floor it and have some fun garbage! Count me out....if you buy a high performance truck.....isn't that what you should except?! My humble .02 :driving:

It does put out decent power. It wont be Ford GT power, but more than the outgoing 6.2
Posted

 

they don't want anything more than 6 cylinders; and The Mustang is likely next in line to be turned into a Gelding.

Ford has already stated the Mustang will never lose the V8. And the GT350s and GT500s of the future will have V8s. The only reason the new Ford GT is an eco boost is because of the engine liter limit restriction from the class of car it will race in. Now the new Ford Raptor will be a showcase for Ford on what a high performance turbo V6 can do in a truck. Personally I think it's a smart move for Ford to dedicate themselves to the ecoboost instead of being wishy washy and confusing the consumer. But at the end of the day I do prefer GMs method of usinf cylinder deactivation to achieve better fuel economy than using turbos on smaller engines.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Posted

Ford has already stated the Mustang will never lose the V8. And the GT350s and GT500s of the future will have V8s. The only reason the new Ford GT is an eco boost is because of the engine liter limit restriction from the class of car it will race in. Now the new Ford Raptor will be a showcase for Ford on what a high performance turbo V6 can do in a truck. Personally I think it's a smart move for Ford to dedicate themselves to the ecoboost instead of being wishy washy and confusing the consumer. But at the end of the day I do prefer GMs method of usinf cylinder deactivation to achieve better fuel economy than using turbos on smaller engines.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

that actually makes sense; but I would LOVE for them to marry the Coyote V8 with Ecoboost Technology for the Ford GT as an Option for the Road car!

Posted

 

that actually makes sense; but I would LOVE for them to marry the Coyote V8 with Ecoboost Technology for the Ford GT as an Option for the Road car!

What you just described is possibly the engine that will be in the next generation GT500. Rumor is it'll be a V8 with twin turbos and pushing well over 800hp stock. Even one of the guys at Ford made a joke when asked about Hellcat power.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Posted

Ok I can maybe see making that the standard engine with a V8 options...but I mean come on Ford... :P

Posted

What's sad is this just more of the nanny state---safety, fuel efficiency, god forbid we floor it and have some fun garbage! Count me out....if you buy a high performance truck.....isn't that what you should except?! My humble .02 :driving:

 

I definitely agree.

 

If I was in the market and looking at Ford it would make me want to get a Raptor with the V8 before it goes away.

Posted

I think it'll sell.

There is a new generation out there. The "fast and furious" generation.

Small, boosted engines are the way to go nowadays.

Wait until Ford can cut a deal with Honda and puts a VTEC in the trucks. The sale numbers will go sky high...lol.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Posted

What you just described is possibly the engine that will be in the next generation GT500. Rumor is it'll be a V8 with twin turbos and pushing well over 800hp stock. Even one of the guys at Ford made a joke when asked about Hellcat power.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

or Imagine the Voodoo V8 with Ecoboost Technology: a Twin Turbo, Direct injected V8 that can Push 8,500 RPM!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...