Ford Raptor Forum

You would have to put the heavy tires on for the unsprung weight and the front of the raptor is less aerodynamic as well.

__________________
The UAV (Urban Assault Vehicle): 2010 Tux Black 6.2, Top Perch, ADD Stealth Bumper, Rigid 40" E Series, Vision X Solstices, Volant Cold Air Intake, Blue SVT Vent, Dumped Magnaflow Magnapack

I'd disagree that it's a weight thing. I think the biggest impacts of the Raptor design on efficiency are its drag and higher rotating wheel/tire mass.

A Raptor has a higher frontal surface area than a regular F-150, and likely higher coefficient of drag as well. Regular F-150s have a chin spoiler, Raptors have large cutouts in the front bumper, larger wheel openings, larger A/T tires, all of which increase aero drag.

Additional rotating mass (90lb per corner wheel/tire vs. 60ish for a regular F-150) will hurt acceleration-related mileage, but won't affect cruise mileage.

And last but not least, Raptors are geared fairly short.

For a wild ass approximation of what a Raptor would do with an Ecoboost, start with a 2011 Harley or Lariat Limited with the 6.2L and compare that to a similar Ecoboost. Then multiply the Raptor's mileage by that factor. I wouldn't put much stock in the result though.

__________________
2011 Black Supercrew

And for shits and giggles...the result of the wild ass approximation above:

Ecoboost 4WD = 15/21
6.2L 4WD = 12/16

Factor = 1.25/1.3125

Raptor = 11/14

Hypothetical EcoRaptor = 13.75 / 18.375

__________________
2011 Black Supercrew

I'd say thats a roughly loosely decent estimation, and 13.75/18.375 is a substantial improvement over 11/14. For nearly the same power, and a better torque curve.

I'm still 3.5 EB jealous.

__________________
REPTAR - 2012 SVT Raptor Supercrew, Ordered 08/26, VIN'd 12/15, Sch'd DAY of 1/19
M.HYDE - 2000 HD F-150 #0356 of 8197, 700/784, 10.32 @ 131.45
D.JEKL - 2000 HD F-150 #1552 of 8197, 372/450, 13.59 @ 100.95 - SOLD
GEN.0L - 1985 XL F-150, 1994 Lightning 5.8L Donor Engine Swap

Idk about all of you but I wouldn't give up my 6.2 V8. Those turbo's are going to have to be working pretty hard to produce the amount of power a stock 6.2 V8 produces. As well as if you want more power-what upgrade the turbos and intercooler. I'll be interested to see how this turns out but I forsee alot of trips to the service dept with repairs.

__________________
2011 White SuperCab-"The Shark"
Airaid Synthamax Non-Oiled Intake WithPrefilter/Undercoat/Rhino line Bed &
Wheel Wells/GT Covers & Weathertech liners.

Hypothetically NOT WORTH losing the rumble of my 6.2L. I'm already pulling low 17s mpg. a whole 1.375 added on would not get me to change...

17 mpg...shit what are you doing to get that. Are you fred flinstonin it lol?

__________________
2011 White SuperCab-"The Shark"
Airaid Synthamax Non-Oiled Intake WithPrefilter/Undercoat/Rhino line Bed &
Wheel Wells/GT Covers & Weathertech liners.

I have a feeling the ecoboost wouldn't fare much better to provide the same HP. Ecoboost is only ECO when it's not using BOOST. The F150 forums are also indicating real world numbers aren't near the posted numbers.

__________________
Full SW exhaust, CAI, Tune