• Jun 1, 2010
Ford F-150 SVT Raptor R – Click above for high-res image gallery

Ford is really proud of its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, and while the automaker currently only offers this mill in the Taurus SHO, Flex, Lincoln MKS and MKT, PickupTrucks.com reports that the Baja-blasting SVT Raptor will get a version of this powerplant, as well.

Ford will be offering the EcoBoost V6 as a top-range engine on the F-150 for the 2011 model year, producing something in the range of 400 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque, but in the Raptor R, expect output numbers to be significantly higher. Currently, the Raptor R 6.2 produces roughly 500 peak horsepower out of its modified version of the automaker's latest V8, and we doubt that Ford will want to skimp on power when it comes to a no-holds-barred race truck like the Raptor R.

PickupTrucks.com reports that we could see the Raptor R EcoBoost compete in this year's Best In The Desert off-road racing series, as well as the Baja 1000 later this year. All we know is, this sounds like one seriously brutal pickup for desert storming.



[Source: PickupTrucks.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 48 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      What about a Diesel?
      • 4 Years Ago
      Whoops, miss the part about the V6 becoming the top motor choice. Hmmmm, I guess it'd be easier to tune more power out but people are going to miss the V8 nonetheless.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Obviously the Engineering school you participated in never discussed power to weight ratios, and even given the fact the taurus is heavier could you please explain how its faster....oh, must be that crumby engine...........FACT, and I will say it again, it was DETUNED.....is it that hard for you to embrace an engine that has superior potential than literally any you have listed? The Taurus is the first round, what is around the corner is enticing to say the least....
        • 4 Years Ago
        And that Engineer is a total cop out....you did research and realize there are two differing axle ratios no?....man, you self proclaimed "engineers" are clueless....AND have a resoundingly apparent anti American sentiment towards vehicles....so, remeber your veiws, thats the eco boost engines are going no-where, do not compare with the examples yu stated, and its "potential" of exceeding the 365hp in the taurus is vaporware.....
        • 4 Years Ago
        Exactly, especially when one realizes the V6 twin turbo EcoBoost isn"t really anything to brag about.


        Taurus EcoBoost does 17/25 mpg.

        Hyundai Genesis 4.6 V8 also does 17/25 mpg. No need for turbos, especially two. Hyundai engine will be significantly more reliable and it still sounds like a naturally aspirated V8.

        Lexus GS 460, also with a V8, does 17/24 mpg.

        The twin turbo V8 in a BMW 7 series does the same 17/25 mpg, while producing 400HP!

        Twin turbo BMW 535i outdoes the Taurus with its 19/28 mpg.


        EcoBoost is seriously overstated. It looks like American blogs chose this engine as their marketing kid to help the domestic brand.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ EngineersView

        You are an engineer and you have no idea what AWD does to FE?

        Do you know what parasitic loss is? AWD components add to the vehicles overall weight. Every single vehicle you mentioned weighs less and is smaller than the Taurus as well.

        Your comparison points are a bit silly.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Engineer, your knock was on the Eco engine, now after being constantly reminded that in the SHO iteration it has been severely DE-TUNED, you are changing the tune to attacking the car it has been put in.... nothing like using an example that is constrained by its platform, in fact brilliant cop out. Fact is the engine is a gem, whos potential has yet to be fully realized...even to a layman that is BLATANTLY obvious, I expect more from an engineer....does the Hyundai V8 have the same potential..........didnt think so....not even remotely....
        • 4 Years Ago
        Engineer, the SHO has been clocked by NUMEROUS mags with a 5.2 0-60....still not impressed, and remember thats in an overweight ( 4400lb ) de-tuned configuration......but please, keep spinnin.....
        • 4 Years Ago
        @EngineersView:

        When talking about the efficiency of an engine, you have to exclude the inefficiencies of the chassis. All the cars in your comparison are lighter than the Taurus SHO, partly because of the addition of AWD and partly due to the overall size of the vehicle. If the Ecoboost V6 engine was not more efficient than the competition, it could not overcome these inefficiencies, but it does.

        The Taurus SHO tested by Edmunds wore all-season tires and was without the performance package. All those performance numbers you quoted below for the other vehicles were with summer tires. The GS460 runs around 5.4 seconds with summer tires. The Taurus SHO has clocked in at 5.2 seconds by multiple sources, specifically MotorTrend, who ran the 535i at 5.6 seconds.

        The Genesis does have a longer wheelbase by 2.5", but it is shorter in overall length by 7". The 535i is about the same length as a Fusion, which is a midsize, not a full size.

        "I'm stating an obvious fact that a less complex, less overstressed (in terms of thermal and mechanical load), naturally aspirated engine will generate lower costs of ownership. Plain and simple."

        Extra pistons, connecting rods, etc. are also points of added complexity, specifically adding heat via friction and extra rotating mass. There also the need for higher compression to make power in a normally aspirated engine..

        I never said the Taurus SHO was a better car than any of the cars you mentioned, but it does have some redeeming qualities, mostly due to the Ecoboost V6. What Ford lacks is the proper packaging (aka a full size RWD chassis).
        • 4 Years Ago
        EngineersVeiw...i beleive you just got OWNED............
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ NightFlight

        Tarus has only part time all wheel drive system. For 99% of the time the car remains front wheel drive with center electronically actuated clutch disengaged and rear wheels freewheeling (or transferring some 1% of power, whatever).

        At the same time, it has a transversely mounted engine, so there is no need for bevel gear differential (a must in any rear wheel drive vehicle with the engine in the front) which is a bit less efficient.

        Add all this together and the disadvantages of Taurus and its competitors at least partially level out. Hence my comparison.


        Arguing that the Taurus is heavier? It's like using Ford disadvantage as an excuse. As far as size is concerned, the Hyundai Genesis is almost just as huge. And its big bad thirsty V8 ist as efficient as the complex twin turbo V6 with pseudo eco badges.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Arumage

        > The 2010 BMW 535i is rated at 17/26 mpg

        True. But it's still better than the Taurus.


        > It's also slower

        Edmunds Insideline always does their acceleration test in the same way, same dude, same track, same procedure, same measuring device.

        0-60 in seconds

        BMW 535i: 5.5
        Taurus SHO: 5.8
        Lexus GS 350: 5.7 (and the V8 460 is faster)
        Hyundai Genesis V8: 5.9

        Did I mention that the Genesis has larger wheelbase than the Taurus?


        > You really can't play the reliability card here since the Genesis V8
        > has only been out for 2 years and Ecoboost V6 is less than a year old.

        I'm stating an obvious fact that a less complex, less overstressed (in terms of thermal and mechanical load), naturally aspirated engine will generate lower costs of ownership. Plain and simple.


        > The GS460 rocks it's 8 speed automatic that can't decide
        > what gear it needs to be in. It's also smaller, slower, and more
        > expensive than the Taurus SHO.

        Keep trying to play down the superior competition. And no, the GS is not slower. In fact, it will be faster than the Taurus. See above.

        Taurus being cheaper? It's typical for premium brands to charge more. Still, Taurus is not any better value than Hyundai Genesis.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Engineer....if based on this quote " My point was to bring the data from one, the same, single source to get full comparability of what performs better. I don't care who timed the Taurus." you beleive everything you read from one source, i suggest the National Enquirer...and YES... BAT BOY LIVES!
        • 4 Years Ago
        1. Bringing the non existing arguments (like "detuned" and "potential") to the discussion is futile and wastes time.

        Customers don't compare and buy potential. They compare and buy values, specifications.



        2. You fail to realize that a market engine is always a compromise. Why twin turbo BMW 3.0 engine only has 300HP? Why Audis supercharged V6 has only 330HP. Oh, so badly "detuned" they are??

        No. An engine simply has to meet fuel efficiency, durability, NVH and emissions requirements. It has nothing to do with "detuning".



        3. My point was to bring the data from one, the same, single source to get full comparability of what performs better. I don't care who timed the Taurus.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @EngineersView:

        The 2010 BMW 535i is rated at 17/26 mpg, not 19/28. It's also smaller, slower, and much more expensive than the Taurus SHO. No AWD.

        The 2010 BMW 750i xDrive with it's 400hp TT V8 and AWD is rated at 14/20 mpg.

        The Hyundai Genesis V8 is impressive at 17/25 mpg, but it's also smaller, slower, and just as expensive as the Taurus SHO. No AWD. You really can't play the reliability card here since the Genesis V8 has only been out for 2 years and Ecoboost V6 is less than a year old.

        The GS460 rocks it's 8 speed automatic that can't decide what gear it needs to be in. It's also smaller, slower, and more expensive than the Taurus SHO.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I was under the impression the SVT Raptor was a special trim of the F150 (not unlike the GT500 is with the Mustang) rather than a completely separate model complete with it's own range of body styles and motors. But I guess with the introduction of the crewcab version as well as several motor options already, then with the right power/torque backing it up there's nothing wrong with having an Ecoboost option available.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The Raptor is almost a foot wider than the Ford F-150.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ford's got too many engines...it's like the late 60s/early 70s when they had the Windsor, Cleveland, "M", FE and 385 (429/460).

      They've got:
      242hp and 290hp in Trucks
      310hp 5.4L in Trucks
      305hp 3.7L in the Mustang
      355hp 3.5L Ecoboost all over
      411hp 6.2L in the Raptor
      412hp 5.0L in the Mustang
      550hp 5.4L (S/C) in the GT500

      So...uh...where's the place for a 400-ish hp Ecoboost V6? Why not just use the NA 5.0L?
        • 4 Years Ago
        7.0?...possible, id be happier with a 5.0 with Twin Turbos....Twinforce as such....700hp anyone?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Given what the 5.0 and this hypothetical 400hp Ecotec put out, the 6.2L doesn't seem to have much of a purpose in life making only 411hp*. Needs to be more like 420-450 to really be worth it, particularly with extra weight over the 5.0L.

        If you need big-truck grunt, you're better off going diesel. If you don't, why not just go 5.0L? In fact, that's pretty much why everyone's dropped big blocks across the board, they've been replaced by diesels.

        *BTW, how awesome is it to get to say "only 411 hp"?
        • 4 Years Ago
        dont get fooled into thinking a few dimensions here and there mean one engine is "based" on another....trust me, they are two different beasts altogether....the Coyote is world class to say the least........
        • 4 Years Ago
        I believe the 5.0 is a whole new engine, and not based on the modular 4.6/5.4. I know the top end is new, bucket/shim valve-train etc... other than that not sure.

        I throw my vote in for the 5.0 EB (pretty please...) Park that new 5.0 EB raptor right next to a new Mustang with 5.0 EB and you've pretty much got any motorsport covered ;)
      • 4 Years Ago
      I agree, but they are in the process of streamling, lineup will become, 1.0 ( or 1.2 ) 3 cyl eco, 1.6, 1.6 eco, 2.0, 2.0 eco, 3.5, 3.7. 3.5 eco, 5.0, 6.2, 6.7diesel. What happens with the GT500 I have no idea, but gut tells me a Direct Injection Twinforce with some truly outrageous numbers.
      • 4 Years Ago
      1: Why would they want their Ecoboost V6 to have the same power as their 6.2 V8? Wouldn't they want to differentiate them a bit from each other?

      2: If they can do this, why can't they give Mercury a flip-side modern foil for the Mustang, and build a RWD mid-sized sport sedan on it, as well

      Cougar and Marauder. GET ON IT! Those could SAVE MERCURY, in concert with some premium small to mid-size FWD cars.

      Raptor already excels in a narrow market. Let's get some other segments going, here Ford!
        • 4 Years Ago
        Mercury is done. Officially. Long overdue in my opinion, as well as the rest of the world.

        Now Ford can work on Lincoln and energize it the way they did their mainstream brand.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @laserRed...

        Turbos are only more fuel efficient when they are OFF BOOST, when they are running like a low-compression NA engine, without the turbos engaged.

        You have to burn fuel to make power... and if the turbos are spooled up, and making power, they are drinking fuel.

        And turbos like to run even richer than an NA larger engine of the same power level, to keep things cool, and not burn up valves or pistons.

        A race would be the LAST place that a turbo engine would show greater efficiency. Especially an off-road, dusty, torture test race that could compromise any of that complex turbo air, oil, and water plumbing.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Good grief, why would they take the 6.2 V8 out of the Raptor?

        That would be a monumental failure.

        Do they think that a complicated and complex twin turbo 6 with intercoolers, and all the rest is going to stand up to the kind of shock and impact, mud and grime that this truck is built for?

        The more I think about it, the worse the idea sounds. I love how turbos drive, but good grief they are delicate and potentially fatal to the engine in that sort of environment.

        One pipe section becoming dis-lodged and you are blowing dirt into the engine, possibly by sucking it through the precision turbo first.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Boxer, you nailed it....dont expect ANY race engine to now be broken down between races, that gos for normally aspirated as well, just ask Nascar, so the argument is moot. 99% of owners will NOT put the raptor through truly serious race conditions, but its nice to know that the truck has the potential to do it AND more importantly the drivetrain, same as a Porsche GT4 can go around the ring in a certain time, that car X can get to 60 in 3 seconds flat...etc etc etc. And truthfully, do you think ford wouldnt test said vehicle thoroughly....I guess we will wait and see if in fact it is released, and if in fact its offered with ANY warranty at all.......snicker. Oh and hey, yes, bring on the MKR....and stuff in that 4.7 eco boost they have shoehorned in a mule....happy now?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Boxer, please contact all the Rallydrivers and their Teams in the world and ask them how their turbos perform in their bump, dust, gravel, and sand free environment......
        • 4 Years Ago
        The Ecoboost family of engines is going into alot more mainstream vehicles than the 6.2L V8 so proving its durability and reliability is much more important from a financial standpoint. Besides the 6.2L is a very simple engine, there's not much to prove there. There's nothing new to it. Iron block, aluminum heads, SOHC.

        Turbos are pretty rally proven at this point. Turbo'd engines have logged millions of miles on rally courses by this point. The 2009 Dakar winner was a Volkswagon Touareg TDI, which is pretty complicated with just as many parts.
        • 4 Years Ago
        2a: Who's going to want a Mercury knockoff Mustang? Just get the Mustang!

        2b: The only RWD platform Ford uses in north america is, you guessed it, for the Mustang. Also, Ford's plans for a 4-door rocket are looking pretty good with the Taurus SHO.

        Just put Mercury to bed already.
      • 4 Years Ago
      EngineersVeiw...are any of the vehicles you mentioned AWD? and FYI, because the ( HEAVY ) platform ids FWD based HP was dialed back for Transmission longevity, engine saw 500 plus on the bench....but your right, its nothing special....YET!....oh, and back at you on the Hyundai you so reveal....how does 412 5.0 V8 with the same 25 mpgs sound....oh, yeah, nuttin special....
      • 4 Years Ago
      I might be the only Swiss person to buy it in my country... but seriously, bring it here Ford.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Sandok

        I could tell you were Swiss by your avatar. Only a posh Swiss would put up an image of some model chick with a stiff upper lip. Some of the most supercilious people I've met were Swiss. Why??
        • 4 Years Ago
        €Diesel

        Really dude? A posh supermodel who was in Need for Speed?... Posh?...

        Do you judge everyone on stereotypes? Because if so, then I'm pleased to say I love cheese and chocolate, own a cow, live in the Alps and own a private Swiss Bank :-P
      • 4 Years Ago
      not to mention similar/ superior performance with a 6-8 mpg advantage...sidenote...imagine the weight savings in a race vehicle that doesnt have to carry the same fuel load.....
      • 4 Years Ago
      So, if I'm reading this right, the Raptor will have three engine choices?

      1. Base Raptor with 310hp 5.4L
      2. Premium Raptor with 411hp 6.2L
      3. Raptor R (off-road only) with ~500hp 3.5L twin-turbo?

      Makes sense, as they most likely want to show the potential performance and durability of the Ecoboost line. After all, truck guys are a pretty conservative bunch when it comes to new technology. Therefore, being able to demonstrate a new engine's potential in a rough and tumble race truck application helps Ford to get he word out there.

      With that in mind, I'm thinking the 3.5L twin-turbo will eventually find its way into the base Raptor as a replacement for the 5.4L (say, for 2011 or 2012?).

      I mean, think about it. The 5.4L is definitely on its way out and, right now, the only viable replacement options are the 5.0L and the 3.5L Ecoboost. Therefore, it's most likely going to be one of those engines. Since Ford has said the 3.5LTT is actually a premium engine vs. the 5.0L, and is better suited to a truck application (since it has a better torque curve), I think they are gearing up to use the Ecoboost as the replacement for the range-topping Raptor. In fact, I'm almost sure enough to bet money on it unless they decide to throw some kind of curve ball.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Do want a street version. Better fuel economy when cruising around town, but minimal to no difference when off road, is a win in my book.
        • 4 Years Ago
        my sentiments eaxactly Josh...some seem incapable or unwilling to embrace higher tech...the free advertising Ford would get would be invaluable...and would assist in eco-boosts embrace from the mainstream market....this is practically a rolling billboard for a superior more efficient drivetrain....
      • 4 Years Ago
      I am so impressed with Ford. This will be so bad ass. I really wish they would put a manual transmission in it. And make those turbos audible!!!
    • Load More Comments