ANTAUS Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Hopefully it doesn't auto-destruct like the Torsen in the FX4 Level II Rangers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 My link Now had they just given the Truck the Ecoboost engine I'd have a reason to get a new one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Hopefully it doesn't auto-destruct like the Torsen in the FX4 Level II Rangers... This is news to me. My brother drives the crap out of his and hasn't had an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Now had they just given the Truck the Ecoboost engine I'd have a reason to get a new one. ....not yet, maybe down the road...I see the 6.2 perhaps becoming redundant in the 150 lineup....its take rate is trivial.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 ....not yet, maybe down the road...I see the 6.2 perhaps becoming redundant in the 150 lineup....its take rate is trivial.... ..and the take rate for the Boss 302 is trivial compared to the rest of the Mustang lineup. Choice is a good thing though. For those who have opted for the 6.2, I doubt many of them regret it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 ....not yet, maybe down the road...I see the 6.2 perhaps becoming redundant in the 150 lineup....its take rate is trivial.... They will just have to add 4v heads and TIVCT so it isn't so redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Best truck continues to get better. Love these options, always nice to keep improving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Yea, they also get cooled seats and the accent interior color is now blue vs orange..... I really wanted to order a 2012 raptor, but the 10-12mpg was a big negative with that truck. It would have cost me $10,000 more to purchase and $10,000 more to operate over the Ecoboost Lariate that I bought... A $20,000 differential over 4 years was just a little too much for me to justify.... Having said that, I still think it is the best performance truck to ever roll off any assembly line and would have loved to own one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 ..and the take rate for the Boss 302 is trivial compared to the rest of the Mustang lineup. Choice is a good thing though. For those who have opted for the 6.2, I doubt many of them regret it. Regret the power no, The MPG yes. My buddy must have a lead foot. He gets a constant 13-14mpg on his 6.2 Raptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) ..and the take rate for the Boss 302 is trivial compared to the rest of the Mustang lineup. Choice is a good thing though. For those who have opted for the 6.2, I doubt many of them regret it. well thats kinda an ill conceived comparison, the Boss engine is limited production, and my guess is its tweeks will find their way into the 2013 regular 5.0...the 6.2 in the f 150 is readily available......I for one would go eco boost....it literally feels the same if not more powerful, and has obvious benefits at the pump....really the only thing missing is a V8 rumble..... Edited September 29, 2011 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) They will just have to add 4v heads and TIVCT so it isn't so redundant. yup, it needs to distance it self from the eco-boost significantly to justify the MPG loss..... Edited September 29, 2011 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 yup, it needs to distance it self from the eco-boost significantly to justify the MPG loss..... If those goodies ever appear, it'll get turbo'd so fast . . . wonder just how much power in "street" tune? 800 hp? Godzilla torque? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Now had they just given the Truck the Ecoboost engine I'd have a reason to get a new one. Won't happen, the Raptor will always have the biggest engine available. But you should be able to build your own Raptor like F150 soon with parts from the Ford Racing catalog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Yea, they also get cooled seats and the accent interior color is now blue vs orange..... I really wanted to order a 2012 raptor, but the 10-12mpg was a big negative with that truck. It's not that bad -- Overall I get about 14, but on the highway if I keep it under 75 I can get almost 16. It is a fantastic vehicle, though I do need to take it into the dealer for a few small things. Edited September 30, 2011 by jasonj80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's not that bad -- Overall I get about 14, but on the highway if I keep it under 75 I can get almost 16. It is a fantastic vehicle, though I do need to take it into the dealer for a few small things. 14? Wow, my 96 bronco gets 14 mpg lol. Guess the only-way to make an offf-road vehicle get some-what decent gas millage is to make it jeep-sized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 14? Wow, my 96 bronco gets 14 mpg lol. Guess the only-way to make an offf-road vehicle get some-what decent gas millage is to make it jeep-sized. And the Bronco has half the HP and 2/3 the torque. And it weighs probably 1k less. And most likely has smaller tires. And, and, and... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) It's not that bad -- Overall I get about 14, but on the highway if I keep it under 75 I can get almost 16. It is a fantastic vehicle, though I do need to take it into the dealer for a few small things. My problem is that most of my driving is tilted toward city/congested highway and about 10-11 mpg is all I would have got. ( I only get 15-17mpg in the Ecocboost) My only long cruses are when I hitch up the boat to go fishing. I drive about 20K per year and that would really add up. Also I have to park in a lot of small city lots. The lariat feels like I am parking a battle ship, I suspect that the extra 7" of tire width would make that task a little more challanging as I am more or less on the lines as it is.... It really is a nice truck and I get green with envy every time I see one.... Edit: It is official, I truly regret not getting the Raptor. I checked my gas milage. I got 14.8mpg and I am really babying the truck. I am nearly certain I could have got within 1-2mpg driving the raptor the same way. That first fully tank mpg was VERY disappointing. I am truly disappointed in the ecoboost right now..... Edited October 1, 2011 by sranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Hopefully it doesn't auto-destruct like the Torsen in the FX4 Level II Rangers... There was an issue with the Torsen diff in the 2002 Ranger FX4. There was no Level II until 2003 and all 2002 Ranger FX4s had the Torsen. I had a new FX4 in 2002 and it was recalled to have the rear axle assembly replaced. Something about some part in the Torsen diff not being properly heat treated. I wouldn't say they were self-destructing though. There were only one or two trucks that had a problem before all 2002 manual transmission FX4s were recalled. One of those trucks belonged to a member on offroadrangers.com and his was the reason for the recall. He dumped the clutch on pavement and grenaded the Torsen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 My problem is that most of my driving is tilted toward city/congested highway and about 10-11 mpg is all I would have got. ( I only get 15-17mpg in the Ecocboost) My only long cruses are when I hitch up the boat to go fishing. I drive about 20K per year and that would really add up. Also I have to park in a lot of small city lots. The lariat feels like I am parking a battle ship, I suspect that the extra 7" of tire width would make that task a little more challanging as I am more or less on the lines as it is.... It really is a nice truck and I get green with envy every time I see one.... Edit: It is official, I truly regret not getting the Raptor. I checked my gas milage. I got 14.8mpg and I am really babying the truck. I am nearly certain I could have got within 1-2mpg driving the raptor the same way. That first fully tank mpg was VERY disappointing. I am truly disappointed in the ecoboost right now..... Let it break in -- the first 1,000 was horrific in my truck ( I was getting 10.5) it got up to 12.5 by 5,000 and slowly got up to the 14 at about 10,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Let it break in -- the first 1,000 was horrific in my truck ( I was getting 10.5) it got up to 12.5 by 5,000 and slowly got up to the 14 at about 10,000. Excactly...all Ford products that friends and family bought in the past couple years had bad MPG numbers the first 6-10K miles on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Excactly...all Ford products that friends and family bought in the past couple years had bad MPG numbers the first 6-10K miles on them. I found out that my truck was not going into 6th gear. For some reason it was stuck in over drive off mode. Dealer re-flashed the truck. On the way to dealer it showed 13-15MPG and on the way home it showed 18-19mpg ( About 32 miles mixed City/HWY both ways) That overdrive really makes a difference with this truck... I am pretty sure that this was the issue. I could not see the gear selection in the 4" display and now I can turn it off of on. I suspect that the ECU was improperly program to start with. It also seemed to solve the occasional 1-2 rough shift problems that I have noticed when you are accelerating slowly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Regret the power no, The MPG yes. My buddy must have a lead foot. He gets a constant 13-14mpg on his 6.2 Raptor. I would venture to guess that a lot of Raptors are not daily drivers. Sort of negates the need for them to get class-leading fuel economy. I wouldn't recommend a Raptor, with any powertrain, for a daily driver to anyone. well thats kinda an ill conceived comparison, the Boss engine is limited production, and my guess is its tweeks will find their way into the 2013 regular 5.0...the 6.2 in the f 150 is readily available......I for one would go eco boost....it literally feels the same if not more powerful, and has obvious benefits at the pump....really the only thing missing is a V8 rumble..... I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Look at the 6.2 in the F-150 as being limited production. Yes, it's a normal check box on the order sheet, but Ford certainly wasn't/isn't expecting it to be a high-take option, regardless of gas prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procyon Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 As I recall, the ability to add cylinder deactivation to the 6.2L was designed in during the development phase...this could help make the engine more viable in the marketplace as a future upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 As I recall, the ability to add cylinder deactivation to the 6.2L was designed in during the development phase...this could help make the engine more viable in the marketplace as a future upgrade. Meh, cylinder deactivation doesn't affect MPG figures substantially... And I seriously doubt those choosing the 6.2L over the EB are that concerned about fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.