F-150 Raptor Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Here is one from Jalopnik:

To put it plainly, the Raptor is the fastest off-road vehicle we've ever driven, yet remains a refined, capable and fun daily commuter or work truck. It's ability to travel at extremely high speeds over rough terrain is utterly unique among stock vehicles. It does all that while only asking a $2,900 premium over the F-150 FX4. In a world of cars and trucks designed only to compete with peers in specific classes and on boring things like fuel economy, trunk volume and stereo spec and in a society beset with oppressive liability concerns, the Raptor sets itself apart by doing something no one else has ever thought was a good idea, was possible within the legal framework of an automobile company or, hell, even possible at all. The 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor is ****ing awesome.

For the full read and pics

http://jalopnik.com/5343872/2010-ford-f+150-svt-raptor-first-drive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
From what I have read on the tests, it doesn't sound like the 6.2 is going to change anything. I guess we will have to wait and see. Maybe ford hearing these complaints will offer a flash for the transmission or the 6.2 will have a different shift pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
According to Greg Foutz, the man who built the Raptor R for baja, when driving off-road there isn't a huge difference between the 5.4 and 6.2. At least that's what he told me at Barrett Jackson when I rode in one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
tq/l = ft lbs of torque per liter

Actually the 5.4 has 390 for 2010 because it can run on E85 and gets a little more power from it. Maybe the 6.2 will also be a FFV but I doubt it.

5.4l
390/5.4 = 72.2 tq/l

6.2l
400/6.2 = 64.5 tq/l

But.... that's just the estimated output of the 6.2, so if it's closer to 500 tq then it will actually be higher than the 5.4l.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Sorry dajohu, I didn't notice the "per liter" in your statement. If the 6.2 has 425 lb-ft. like has been reported in earlier statements, the 2 engines would be really close in the tq/l running gasoline. 67.6 tq/l for the 5.4 and 68.5 tq/l for the 6.2. The reason I am using the gasoline rating for the 5.4 is because from what I have read, the 6.2 will not be FF and E85 isn't sold anywhere close to where I live. I don't think I would run the E85 even if I could, based on the MPG I've heard about when using it. 14 city and 18 hwy gas, 10 and 13 E85.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
the 6.2 has over 400 lb.-ft. torque compared to only 365 for the 5.4, not to mention the 80 horsepower difference.
Your are right. All these people keep saying how the 5.4 has 390lb. ft, but on e85 if I am not mistaken. So if you don't have access to that then your out of luck.




^^^^Guess someone beat me to that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I suppose I get a bit defensive. So many people bashing the 5.4. I'm not being partial to the 5.4 though, because say the 6.2l is FFV and had more HP and TQ I wouldn't short it either, I would actually quote those specs because that is the most you can get out of it stock, without any changes.

It's like some vehicles requiring high octane because of tune, turbo, supercharger etc (my SRT4 required 92 if I remember right). Say you don't have 92 octane (or whatever it's tuned to) in your area, or don't want to run it becuase it costs more (or has worse milage) then you should automatically lower your HP and TQ from stock becuase you won't make it with the lower octane. See my point?

I have been running gas only, but if I needed the extra power for a race, towing or just fast offroading I DO have E85 even in small town Nebraska. So it's as simple as a fill up and I have the full power of the motor, to me that is fair.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top