Ford Motor Company has issued specifications for its 2017 F-150 Raptor off-road performance pickup, and you can thank the company’s engineers for the attractive numbers.
The next-generation Raptor makes serious gains not just in horsepower and torque, but also in fuel economy. The mileage boost should make those dirt-flinging romps through the countryside just a little bit greener.
For starters, the dealer product document posted to Ford Raptor Forum two weeks ago was right on the money. The high-output version of Ford’s second-generation 3.5-liter Ecoboost V6 truly does make 450 horsepower in the Raptor, and cranks out an impressive 510 lb-ft of torque.
Stock versions of the upgraded mill make 375 hp and 470 lb-ft. To put the Raptor’s boosted output into context, the previous generation housed a 6.2-liter V8 making 411 hp and 434 lb-ft. The model’s torque-to-weight ratio improves by 21 percent.
A 10-speed automatic transmission co-developed by Ford and General Motors (and designed for high-torque applications) comes standard. Between the extra cogs, the newly refined engine, and the aluminum bodied F-150’s 500-pound weight loss, the 2017 Raptor is a far more efficient machine than before, even if the numbers don’t look that way to your average economy car driver.
Ford claims an EPA-rated 15 miles per gallon in the city, 18 mpg on the highway, and 16 mpg combined. Those numbers aren’t likely to make a new buyer cheer, but owners of 2014 Raptors will sit up and take notice. The automaker claims a 23-percent increase in combined fuel economy.
Sporting a more capable suspension and Ford’s six-mode Terrain Management System, the 2017 Raptor will carry an MSRP of just under $50,000.
[Image: Ford Motor Company]
The mileage figures of the previous generation would be helpful in the article for those of us who don’t follow, or own, the Raptor.
Low. Even lower when driven by a Raptor owner.
Lincoln Mark IV territory, which is what this truck has become for our time.
^This.
I average about 11 MPG in my ’12 Raptor SuperCrew, but I’ve upsized tires slightly to 37″ BF Goodrich AT KO2s. I knew this going in (it’s my 2nd Raptor) so I can’t b!tch about it…..but I won’t lie, 16 MPG consistently would be awesome!
12 city / 16 highway / 13 combined
Or approximately FREEDOM miles per gallon.
Edit: not far off from a ’75 LTD…
Thanks guys.
I kinda want that transmission and engine (or even the “standard” 3.5EB) in my F250…
Beats the 6 (“really 5”) speed and 5.4L it has now.
The 6.2 Raptor was EPA 12/14 when it first came out.
Current MPG numbers are on par with the EPA ratings for my F150 with 5.4. Those numbers are impressive considering the ride height and 35 inch tires.
In development we quickly learned to assume 10mpg. That limited the distance we could get from Allen Park on daily duty cycle testing.
This application says a lot about the new 10-speed automatic.
Please place this powertrain in the MKT immediately. I would buy one today. 10 speeds and 450 hp and over 500lb of torque. Im all in. I dont offer companies to “take my money” like so many others do on the internet but for an MKT with these bits of kit ….yes you can.
The MkT is FWD/AWD so this transmission/engine combo isn’t happening.
You’d have to wait for the Aviator.
Ford’s 6.2 liter gas engine is a notorious gas-sucker. So, just about anything more modern than that engine will look good. Of course, if you’re using a high percentage of those 500 horses, you’re gonna pay big time, as is with the case with the other Ford turbocharged engines when worked hard. The only way to cool down combustion chamber temperatures caused by those insane boost pressures is to spray in fuel . . . lots of it, and burn off the excess in the catalytic converter to stay emissions compliant.
Keep in mind the original raptor had the ancient 5.4, with even worse fuel economy than the 6.2 and 100 less horsepower.
So it’ll suck fuel by the barrel in the real world. Isn’t that a plus for the target customer? And has the aftermarket developed a way for gas trucks to roll coal?
PS – I had to explain to my daughter the other day that trucks come from the factory with Trump bumper stickers on them.
The picture looks like an extended cab with the tiny (5′?) bed of the crew cab.
That would make for a very short truck, possibly the same length as a regular cab with the 6 1/2′ bed?
Which is very good for off-roading. Not so useful for hauling, but nobody buys a Raptor to haul, anyhow.
It’s about halfway between the reg6.5 and crew5.5 in length and wheelbase. Given it only gets the little guy’s gas tank, a foot or foot and a half of bed space will be taken by a bed mounted tank, and most of the rest for spare tire, tools and parts. Leaving just a little bit left over for the precious cargo hauled out on Humboldt County logging roads, to help pay for the thing….
If the bed isn’t entirely taken up by a spare tire, it’s not a real Raptor.
The SuperCab Raptor uses a 5.5′ bed to sit on a unique 133″ WB. Previously (from 2004-09), this config was also available as a standard F-150 in STX, FX2/4, XLT, and Lariat trims.
Besides the offroad advantage of a shorter WB, I don’t see why Ford also offers a SuperCab/6.5′ bed Raptor sitting on a 145″ WB like the SuperCrew model.
The 133″ wheelbase supercab F150 was available in the P415 generation for at least a couple of years. I tested several and thought they were nice handlers. With the 4.6L 3-valve engine they were good for 22-23mpg on the highway. I drove one in STX trim from Detroit to Vegas and back via Wyoming and thought it was the most comfortable truck I’ve ever driven.
And, thus, the future of YouTube “Raptor Fail” videos is assured.
Y’know if only I could tell by looking at the grill exactly who makes this truck???????
“performance pickup” is an oxymoron.
The expression “it drives like a truck” is pejorative – for good reason.
There are lots of cars that can be described as “performance” vehicles, but not a single truck. The laws of physics do not permit such a thing to exist.
@ect – on road your comment holds true but on a powerline right of way or any place where you can open this thing up, it is a performance truck.
My longer and heavier KTM 620 was more stable at high speeds in the rough than my KX500.
Lou_BC, my truck days are years in the past. From 1985-95 we lived in the country (on gravel roads) and owned a horse boarding stable for 4 of those years. During that period, we had 3 SUVs (Cherokee, Explorer, Grand Cherokee) and 2 pickups (F-250, Ranger – both of which were XLT Supercab 4×4). But that’s the limit of my truck experience, so I’m afraid your references to KTM 620 and KX500 go right over my head.
I accept your premise that “performance” can be a relative term. But I do wonder how many Raptor buyers actually use these trucks in the circumstances you describe, as opposed to on the road as daily drivers or weekend toys.
It is perhaps apocryphal, but I worked with a guy about 12-14 years ago who drove a Windstar “Sport”. I never raised it with him, but I thought there was something more than faintly ludicrous about a “sporty” minivan.
More recently, I did some work for a couple of remote First Nations, whose only land access is via an ice road in the winter. Members of those communities don’t have a lot of money to spend on vehicles, but they prize rugged much much more than “performance”.
Still, chacun a son goût…
ect – c’est vrai that most people will never use a Raptor as intended. That is also true of most Jeep Rubicons or most exotic hyper cars.
Funny you mention mini-vans and sport. My wife and I had a Grand Caravan “sport”. That just meant it was monochromatic.
Sorry about the bike comment. Some guys on this site are bike guys. I was trying to say that in some situations a larger longer and heavier vehicle is actually a benefit.
You mentioned physics. A larger longer mass is going to want to remain going in the direction it is heading. If the suspension is up to the task, it will tracker straighter and more smoothly than a lighter shorter vehicle. It will be less likely to deflect and skip around. My SuperCrew F150 is less nervous on a gravel road than my Regular cab 4×4 Ranger was.
The negative is that it won’t want to turn as quickly. That is great at 70- 140 kph on a more open trail but is a nightmare at 5 kph snaking through trees.
While my SVT Lightning would never be considered nimble, it has “performance” in spades in terms of acceleration.