Global New Ranger Raptor reveal

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Thats my point, what good is it having a twin turbo v6 performance truck if youve got to baby it to get under 15l/100 considering the biturbo 2.0l returns 10s in diesel form.
Will this engine require 98ron?

The closest I could find was the Explorer ST with AWD 3.0 EB
but it has smaller wheels and tires and lighter at 2132 kg
City………………….13.3 l/100 km
Highway…………….9.8 l/100 km
Combined…………11.8 l/100 km



The bigger wheels and tyres on the Ranger Raptor would hurt those figures
as well but gives a ball park figure…

The other vehicle figures I saw was the 3.5 EB Expedition AWD with over 2582 kg
City……………..14.1l/100 km
Highway………10.6 l/100 km
Combined…..12.5 l/100 km

[FPV8U]

Ford and Ford Performance have done a great job with this thing, while obviously fuel is dear at the moment and likely to get worse, I have to chuckle about the fuel economy chat, yes the diesel will flog it in this area but really that’s not what the Raptor is all about is it.

I’d be almost sure there will be a V6 Diesel FX4 Max not too far away for those that want that style of vehicle.

Side note.. Ford if you could drop this engine into the XLT I’d be very thankful..

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Give it a rest mate, people bought the 2.0 diesel in spite of everyone complaining that it didn’t have a HP engine and that it would never sell, they were proven wrong.
The Raptor now has that engine that fits the image, so there shouldn’t be any impediments…unless people now p1ss and moan that there’s no V8…already happening btw.


Later this year after after they get over the initial launch.

You might have to swallow hard when you see the price…

Just funny after all the discussions on here for the past few years. Ford caved to “a handful of enthusiasts” going by what some forum members were stating a few years ago.

Can’t wait to see Ford sell a grand total of five Raptors month to internet trolls.
I never thought a V8 wild end up in a Ranger. It would be cool to see but I think a 6 cylinder with almost 300kws is a great engine for this vehicle.

A work colleague of mine just traded his 4 cylinder diesel tow vehicle for a 8 cylinder petrol.
There’s still a market in the $2 a litre world.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Ford and Ford Performance have done a great job with this thing, while obviously fuel is dear at the moment and likely to get worse, I have to chuckle about the fuel economy chat, yes the diesel will flog it in this area but really that’s not what the Raptor is all about is it.

I’d be almost sure there will be a V6 Diesel FX4 Max not too far away for those that want that style of vehicle.

Side note.. Ford if you could drop this engine into the XLT I’d be very thankful..

If Ford has gone to the trouble of fitting a EcoBoost V6 into the Raptor, I would think the smaller 2.7 would be an easy option to offer on say XLT and Wildtrack. The 2.7 is about 300hp, I'd be happy with that.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by FTE217

correct.
Most will be ABN - business/fleet/salary sacrifice puchase's.
Private buyers will be low % most likely.

Does a LC/Patrol/Ram/V8's/MB AMG/BM M large SUV etc owners really worry about fuel cost ?
yes ? but mostly no.
Raptor V6TT owners will smile as well by the way

Going by the blacked out RAM with an aftermarket exhaust I spotted on my morning walk, I say no they don't care about fuel use. He was driving it with no care for economy..............sounded good too.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The closest I could find was the Explorer ST with AWD 3.0 EB
but it has smaller wheels and tires and lighter at 2132 kg
City………………….13.3 l/100 km
Highway…………….9.8 l/100 km
Combined…………11.8 l/100 km



The bigger wheels and tyres on the Ranger Raptor would hurt those figures
as well but gives a ball park figure…

The other vehicle figures I saw was the 3.5 EB Expedition AWD with over 2582 kg
City……………..14.1l/100 km
Highway………10.6 l/100 km
Combined…..12.5 l/100 km

And they would be from conservative driving, add an extra 250kg and the wheels and you'd be lucky to see 15's under the same conditions.
Id assume it'll have a similar tank capacity to the diesel so youre looking at almost $200 to fill it for a range of 500k's at best.

[jpd80]

Milk also comes in 3 litres but you won’t hear anyone complaining….

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

And they would be from conservative driving, add an extra 250kg and the wheels and you'd be lucky to see 15's under the same conditions.
Id assume it'll have a similar tank capacity to the diesel so youre looking at almost $200 to fill it for a range of 500k's at best.

Gasoline engines like a drink for sure but that’s also where performance and acceleration comes from
Maybe just hold fire on that for now, and see what real world driving brings up but my research found
that the FX4 wheels hurt US Ranger highway miles but no worse than a similar Off Road Colorado (ZX2?)

Concern for fuel economy should be balanced against what we know about full sized pickup fuel economy.
If those bigger Utes can get reasonable economy, I’m willing to bet that buyers will be pleased with the balance.

And let’s be fair, to get the same performance out of say, an LS powered Colorado, those people pay a ton more…

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Gasoline engines like a drink for sure but that’s also where performance and acceleration comes from
Maybe just hold fire on that for now, and see what real world driving brings up but my research found
that the FX4 wheels hurt US Ranger highway miles but no worse than a similar Off Road Colorado (ZX2?)

Concern for fuel economy should be balanced against what we know about full sized pickup fuel economy.
If those bigger Utes can get reasonable economy, I’m willing to bet that buyers will be pleased with the balance.

And let’s be fair, to get the same performance out of say, an LS powered Colorado, you’d pay a ton more…

Agreed, but some of those full sized utes give towing capacity and a soundtrack to compliment.
What does the Raptor provide to make it stand out that wont see you refilling every few hundred k's @~$200?
If anything it will make alternatives like RAM more attractive when you look at bang for buck.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

If Ford has gone to the trouble of fitting a EcoBoost V6 into the Raptor, I would think the smaller 2.7 would be an easy option to offer on say XLT and Wildtrack. The 2.7 is about 300hp, I'd be happy with that.

325 hp/400 lb ft, just over 240 kw/540 nm.
The 2.7 EB is a terrific engine and goes hard in F150.

There’s nothing in the plan for the baby six in our market, that’s a shame
but I understand why (more than a few won’t)

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Hulsty

Sounds like you would have enjoyed our work Hilux, 4.0L petty V6, 4x2 povo, alloy tray, nick names "the bullet"

Hell yeah, the 4.0L V6 Hilux made no sense when the Falcon ute was around, but these days I make romantic heart eyes emojis at it

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Ford and Ford Performance have done a great job with this thing, while obviously fuel is dear at the moment and likely to get worse, I have to chuckle about the fuel economy chat, yes the diesel will flog it in this area but really that’s not what the Raptor is all about is it.

I’d be almost sure there will be a V6 Diesel FX4 Max not too far away for those that want that style of vehicle.

Side note.. Ford if you could drop this engine into the XLT I’d be very thankful..

The same flogs that sooked about the 2 litre will now sook about fuel economy of the 3 litre. They are usually the most povo blokes that could never afford one anyway. Utter tossers.

I bloke spending near 100k for a car isn't going to give 2 ****s if the extra fuel use costs him an extra $20-30 bucks a week is he? Jesus christ these whingers are pathetic.

People buying Ram and Silverado V8's don't give a damn about fuel costs, neither will Raptor buyers.

What will these einsteins claim next, that Putin will stop his invasion cause it's going to cost extra to fill his tanks up?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The same flogs that sooked about the 2 litre will now sook about fuel economy of the 3 litre. They are usually the most povo blokes that could never afford one anyway. Utter tossers.

I bloke spending near 100k for a car isn't going to give 2 ****s if the extra fuel use costs him an extra $20-30 bucks a week is he? Jesus christ these whingers are pathetic.

People buying Ram and Silverado V8's don't give a damn about fuel costs, neither will Raptor buyers or Nissan Y62 owners.

well said, I agree 100%

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Gasoline engines like a drink for sure but that’s also where performance and acceleration comes from
Maybe just hold fire on that for now, and see what real world driving brings up but my research found
that the FX4 wheels hurt US Ranger highway miles but no worse than a similar Off Road Colorado (ZX2?)

Concern for fuel economy should be balanced against what we know about full sized pickup fuel economy.
If those bigger Utes can get reasonable economy, I’m willing to bet that buyers will be pleased with the balance.

And let’s be fair, to get the same performance out of say, an LS powered Colorado, those people pay a ton more…

My son has a Nissan Y62 and either towing his 2.1t van or not it gets better fuel economy than my 2016 Ford Ranger pulling a similar weight van or not, however IF he puts his foot down, well lets just say you don't talk about fuel economy when you feel the power

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Agreed, but some of those full sized utes give towing capacity and a soundtrack to compliment.
What does the Raptor provide to make it stand out that wont see you refilling every few hundred k's @~$200?
If anything it will make alternatives like RAM more attractive when you look at bang for buck.

I'm in this situation right now. I was going to order a RAM but thought I'd wait for the Raptor reveal. At this stage I have swung over to the Raptor. I contacted my local dealer to order but they say they can't take orders yet.

As for the fuel costs, I'm not too concerned about it. If I'm going to be paying near 6 figures or more, I don't think the fuel consumption is going to sway my decision one way or the other.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Agreed, but some of those full sized utes give towing capacity and a soundtrack to compliment.
What does the Raptor provide to make it stand out that wont see you refilling every few hundred k's @~$200?
If anything it will make alternatives like RAM more attractive when you look at bang for buck.

Well the most obvious is size, you will struggle less trying to park one in normal suburban driving.
Hypothetical, do you think a petrol Raptor is going to get less than 400km a tank in normal driving? If it's an 80L tank that's 20L/100km all the time as a minimum, not as an average.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Well the most obvious is size, you will struggle less trying to park one in normal suburban driving.
Hypothetical, do you think a petrol Raptor is going to get less than 400km a tank in normal driving? If it's an 80L tank that's 20L/100km all the time as a minimum, not as an average.

I already said it will get 500 to a tank if using the same size tank, thing is, thats conservative driving using JPD's comparison of Explorer ST with Raptor weight and wheels added.
Its marketed as a performance package so as the peddle goes lower to access that so too will the km/litre.
It cant tow over 2.5t and has no V8 soundtrack, unless you want a Ford product there are better bang for buck options, thats all.

And the size thing is a weak argument, plenty of people live with and park the full sized utes everyday, infact, if Ford released F trucks here you'd never see it mentioned on this forum again.

[PG2]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I already said it will get 500 to a tank if using the same size tank, thing is, thats conservative driving using JPD's comparison of Explorer ST with Raptor weight and wheels added.
Its marketed as a performance package so as the peddle goes lower to access that so too will the km/litre.
It cant tow over 2.5t and has no V8 soundtrack, unless you want a Ford product there are better bang for buck options, thats all.

And the size thing is a weak argument, plenty of people live with and park the full sized utes everyday, infact, if Ford released F trucks here you'd never see it mentioned on this forum again.

BENT, you have had your fun, now it is time to move on.




Gee I miss the days when it was OK to get all excited and biased over a Ford product on a Ford forum. For those that don't understand it...

Most of us on here are car enthusiasts, our thoughts and opinions don't have to make sense.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I already said it will get 500 to a tank if using the same size tank, thing is, thats conservative driving using JPD's comparison of Explorer ST with Raptor weight and wheels added.
Its marketed as a performance package so as the peddle goes lower to access that so too will the km/litre.
It cant tow over 2.5t and has no V8 soundtrack, unless you want a Ford product there are better bang for buck options, thats all.

And the size thing is a weak argument, plenty of people live with and park the full sized utes everyday, infact, if Ford released F trucks here you'd never see it mentioned on this forum again.

The same argument can be used in regards to the fuel consumption in the case of the RAM. So really in this context it is a non issue.

I think the suspension is a significant point of difference between the Raptor and RAM.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I already said it will get 500 to a tank if using the same size tank, thing is, thats conservative driving using JPD's comparison of Explorer ST with Raptor weight and wheels added.
Its marketed as a performance package so as the peddle goes lower to access that so too will the km/litre.
It cant tow over 2.5t and has no V8 soundtrack, unless you want a Ford product there are better bang for buck options, thats all.

And the size thing is a weak argument, plenty of people live with and park the full sized utes everyday, infact, if Ford released F trucks here you'd never see it mentioned on this forum again.

Yep, the 2lt diesel and lower towing ability really hurt Raptor sales against RAM the last couple of years, I can only imagine how a twin turbo V6 is going to impact sales.

Fuel prices have been high for over a decade now, and towards the end Holden and Ford were still pumping out V8’s. Because people who buy those cars do not rate fuel economy overly high on their lists.

[FPV8U]

I’d be surprised if the majority of Ram or Raptor owners are cross shopping.

While I’d happily have either in the driveway, even at 1500 level the Ram is a V8 cruiser that’s built for towing a big boat or van and eating up km in comfort.

The Raptor is about taking the gravel road that’s twice as long as the highway, putting it in Baja mode and coming out the other side with a smile.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

My son has a Nissan Y62 and either towing his 2.1t van or not it gets better fuel economy than my 2016 Ford Ranger pulling a similar weight van or not, however IF he puts his foot down, well lets just say you don't talk about fuel economy when you feel the power

And this is something important that shows up in towing, a larger capacity engine
actually is more fuel efficient. I recall the Truck Fast Lane guys doing towing tests
with F150 5.0 V6 vs 3.5 EB with a 9,000 lb trailer, the 5.0 got US10 mpg while
the Ecoboost was about 7 mpg.

As you’ve also demonstrated a smaller Ute loaded up with enough weight will start
to drink more fuel than a larger Ute that sees the same weight as less imposing.

Horses for courses, I’m willing to bet the larger 3.0 diesel in the new Ranger will
actually tow better than the 2.0, maybe with a lighter throttle too..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

The Raptor is about taking the gravel road that’s twice as long as the highway, putting it in Baja mode and coming out the other side with a smile.

Judging from what I've seen of Ranger drivers around here they'd be coming out the other side on a tow truck

[DoreSlamR]

Originally Posted by naddis01

I'm in this situation right now. I was going to order a RAM but thought I'd wait for the Raptor reveal. At this stage I have swung over to the Raptor. I contacted my local dealer to order but they say they can't take orders yet.

As for the fuel costs, I'm not too concerned about it. If I'm going to be paying near 6 figures or more, I don't think the fuel consumption is going to sway my decision one way or the other.

What’s a Ram worth these days?

Was thinking of one but the Raptor now looks to have far better in cabin technology and obviously more than adequate power

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

What’s a Ram worth these days?

Was thinking of one but the Raptor now looks to have far better in cabin technology and obviously more than adequate power

The older DS's from about $100k new and the newer DT's from about $130k.

Secondhand are more than they were sold new.

[MITCHAY]

Wow Ford went all out and gave the people what they wanted short of a V8 and there are arguments over fuel economy. Really?

[au2000]

5 of our 7 cars have 8 cylinders... btw.. whats this thing called fuel economy we speak of?
Im one of the "tossers" that bagged the 2 litre raptor.. and still do.. but this new one id be glad to own.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And this is something important that shows up in towing, a larger capacity engine
actually is more fuel efficient. I recall the Truck Fast Lane guys doing towing tests
with F150 5.0 V6 vs 3.5 EB with a 9,000 lb trailer, the 5.0 got US10 mpg while
the Ecoboost was about 7 mpg.

As you’ve also demonstrated a smaller Ute loaded up with enough weight will start
to drink more fuel than a larger Ute that sees the same weight as less imposing.

Horses for courses, I’m willing to bet the larger 3.0 diesel in the new Ranger will
actually tow better than the 2.0, maybe with a lighter throttle too..

Could be something to do with fuel enrichment on boost with turbo unleaded engines when it's loaded up doing work, larger naturally aspirated engines are more fuel efficient than smaller forced induction jobs when doing work.

Now the Thailand Special has been muscled up massively and has disc brakes on the rear, I now have nothing to complain about - great job Ford for providing a product to fill this gap.

I look forward to seeing what the other clowns can muster as a competitor.

Even if this thing does circa 20L/100km look how far they've come from the 1980s F series, mine did 35L/100km all day every day and made half as much power with two extra cylinders and 2.8L more displacement.

Are the turbos on the new 3L Ecoboost mounted in the valley like the modern V8 TT stuff?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And this is something important that shows up in towing, a larger capacity engine
actually is more fuel efficient. I recall the Truck Fast Lane guys doing towing tests
with F150 5.0 V6 vs 3.5 EB with a 9,000 lb trailer, the 5.0 got US10 mpg while
the Ecoboost was about 7 mpg.

As you’ve also demonstrated a smaller Ute loaded up with enough weight will start
to drink more fuel than a larger Ute that sees the same weight as less imposing.

Horses for courses, I’m willing to bet the larger 3.0 diesel in the new Ranger will
actually tow better than the 2.0, maybe with a lighter throttle too..

I have been on about larger capacity engines doing it easier (and with less fuel) for years on here and I keeping getting laughed at

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I have been on about larger capacity engines doing it easier (and with less fuel) for years on here and I keeping getting laughed at

That’s only true when they’re fully loaded all the time, once people start
using them as passenger vehicles, they’re better off with Ecoboost, hybrid
or small diesel.

As you truckers know, moving weight is down to burning fuel as efficiently as possible
and to a point, the larger the capacity the less enrichment is required compared
to a smaller capacity engine be that naturally aspirated or turbo.

Case in point is F250 vs F150, the 7.3 in F250 gets about 15 mpg on the highway unladen
which is same as 6.2 Boss. Towing about 9,000 lbs both drop to around 9 to 10 mpg,
roughly same as 5.0 F150 but the F150 gets over 20 mpg unladen on the highway.

The 6.7 power boost gives roughly 30% better fuel economy but is like US$8k premium
on top of the F250 7.3. It makes sense for people who do a lot of continuous heavy towing
like commercial fleet owners. Nissan USA tried using a Cummins 5.0 diesel in a heavy duty Ute
but it was a flop because too heavy and not enough towing capacity, the worst of both worlds.

Getting back to Ranger Raptor, the 3.0 EB is a good match for the people lobbying Ford for HP,
they now have what they sought, the people wanting a V6 Diesel have FX4 which I’m sure that
Ford will option up with more goodies…….

(perhaps there’s room for Raptor to have a diesel option in the future…..or not)