Fast Lane Truck: Ecoboost vs i-Force vs Ecotec
#421
The 6.2 has less low end torque than the ecoboost, and it achieves this at a horrible MPG disadvantage. This is much more pronounced at elevation, where most Western folks- the majority of Raptor owners per forum- live.
That's not an accurate analogy. See above. These are multidisciplinary tools to do many different jobs. There is no excuse for putting an engine with weaker performance in nearly all applications in the Raptor truck.
They did it because the profit margin is higher on the 6.2, and that is a smack in the face to customers.
#422
It is a truck. It is to be used for many things. It is capable of towing 8k pounds per Ford.
Most vehicles on the road that tow are not "tow vehicles," if you define tow vehicle as a vehicle whose primary function is towing.
the lack of engine choices has to do with more issues than mere towing, anyway. It's a slap in the face to consumers to not give them options when buying their most expensive truck, particularly when they build clearly superior engine for all applications (towing, mpg, performance).
See above. You're wrong. Horrible analogy, not analogous in the least.
Your Ford apologetics is the intellectual equivalent of saying "the 5.0 might have a bad torque curve but it's an f150 engine. The f150 is a daily driver not a tow truck. Should have bought a super duty!"
See how stupid that is?
These trucks serve multiple purposes.
You're confused.
See above.
Trucks should serve many purposes.
"Bought a 5.0 for towing? Should have bought a powerstroke."
"Bought an f150 for off road? Should have bought a raptor."
"concerned with mpg? Should have bought a prius."
These are dumb, dismissive cliches that show a lack of understanding of how trucks are used in the modern world.
Most vehicles on the road that tow are not "tow vehicles," if you define tow vehicle as a vehicle whose primary function is towing.
the lack of engine choices has to do with more issues than mere towing, anyway. It's a slap in the face to consumers to not give them options when buying their most expensive truck, particularly when they build clearly superior engine for all applications (towing, mpg, performance).
See above. You're wrong. Horrible analogy, not analogous in the least.
Your Ford apologetics is the intellectual equivalent of saying "the 5.0 might have a bad torque curve but it's an f150 engine. The f150 is a daily driver not a tow truck. Should have bought a super duty!"
See how stupid that is?
These trucks serve multiple purposes.
You're confused.
See above.
Trucks should serve many purposes.
"Bought a 5.0 for towing? Should have bought a powerstroke."
"Bought an f150 for off road? Should have bought a raptor."
"concerned with mpg? Should have bought a prius."
These are dumb, dismissive cliches that show a lack of understanding of how trucks are used in the modern world.
The following users liked this post:
engineermike (10-21-2013)
#423
Just Another Member
Wrong...
The 6.2 has less low end torque than the ecoboost, and it achieves this at a horrible MPG disadvantage. This is much more pronounced at elevation, where most Western folks- the majority of Raptor owners per forum- live. Almost every vehicle in the world is tow-limited by factors other than engine. Super duty 3500's too. The pertinent question is whether or not Ford has an engine that is superior to the 6.2 in all aspects sans pretty noises for nostalgic folks. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Therefore, they should put it in their Raptors. Particularly when MPG is a factor, given our current climate of regulation.
You're conflating things all over the place.
That's not an accurate analogy. See above. These are multidisciplinary tools to do many different jobs. There is no excuse for putting an engine with weaker performance in nearly all applications in the Raptor truck.
They did it because the profit margin is higher on the 6.2, and that is a smack in the face to customers.
The 6.2 has less low end torque than the ecoboost, and it achieves this at a horrible MPG disadvantage. This is much more pronounced at elevation, where most Western folks- the majority of Raptor owners per forum- live. Almost every vehicle in the world is tow-limited by factors other than engine. Super duty 3500's too. The pertinent question is whether or not Ford has an engine that is superior to the 6.2 in all aspects sans pretty noises for nostalgic folks. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Therefore, they should put it in their Raptors. Particularly when MPG is a factor, given our current climate of regulation.
You're conflating things all over the place.
That's not an accurate analogy. See above. These are multidisciplinary tools to do many different jobs. There is no excuse for putting an engine with weaker performance in nearly all applications in the Raptor truck.
They did it because the profit margin is higher on the 6.2, and that is a smack in the face to customers.
Go buy a Chevy or a Ram if you're so unhappy with what Ford has to offer. Back in February you're asking what truck you should buy and now you're an expert on torque and towing capacity. Please.
Oh, and the Y-axis on your graph isn't labeled.
Edit: neither axis is labeled. That could be a graph of cupcakes vs calories.
Last edited by Theocoog; 10-21-2013 at 06:57 PM.
#424
Wrong...
The 6.2 has less low end torque than the ecoboost, and it achieves this at a horrible MPG disadvantage. This is much more pronounced at elevation, where most Western folks- the majority of Raptor owners per forum- live. Almost every vehicle in the world is tow-limited by factors other than engine. Super duty 3500's too. The pertinent question is whether or not Ford has an engine that is superior to the 6.2 in all aspects sans pretty noises for nostalgic folks. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Therefore, they should put it in their Raptors. Particularly when MPG is a factor, given our current climate of regulation.
You're conflating things all over the place.
That's not an accurate analogy. See above. These are multidisciplinary tools to do many different jobs. There is no excuse for putting an engine with weaker performance in nearly all applications in the Raptor truck.
They did it because the profit margin is higher on the 6.2, and that is a smack in the face to customers.
The 6.2 has less low end torque than the ecoboost, and it achieves this at a horrible MPG disadvantage. This is much more pronounced at elevation, where most Western folks- the majority of Raptor owners per forum- live. Almost every vehicle in the world is tow-limited by factors other than engine. Super duty 3500's too. The pertinent question is whether or not Ford has an engine that is superior to the 6.2 in all aspects sans pretty noises for nostalgic folks. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Therefore, they should put it in their Raptors. Particularly when MPG is a factor, given our current climate of regulation.
You're conflating things all over the place.
That's not an accurate analogy. See above. These are multidisciplinary tools to do many different jobs. There is no excuse for putting an engine with weaker performance in nearly all applications in the Raptor truck.
They did it because the profit margin is higher on the 6.2, and that is a smack in the face to customers.
The raptor is not a multidisciplinary tool. It is a special use vehicle that happens to be moderately capable for other uses but whose special design considerations, which make it more capable in one area, make it less capable in other areas.
I too would like to see an Eco in a raptor. But that is just because I like turbos. I'd never buy it because it will still get bad mileage and have bad towing capacity. But I'd like to see it.
Oh, and ford does not think the eco is more capable than the 6.2 since they rate it for the same towing as the Eco.
#425
I like the Ford. That's why I bought it. I'm explaining one aspect of my purchase that I disappointing with. This is such a childish unhelpful comment.
And no, I'm not an expert on torque capacity. I'm a man capable of doing an intelligible Google Search and posting a link.
Happy?
Of course not. You're bitter and miserable. Have a nice day.
#426
No the analogy is quite apt. You bought the wrong tool for the job. And I am sorry.
The raptor is not a multidisciplinary tool. It is a special use vehicle that happens to be moderately capable for other uses but whose special design considerations, which make it more capable in one area, make it less capable in other areas.
I too would like to see an Eco in a raptor. But that is just because I like turbos. I'd never buy it because it will still get bad mileage and have bad towing capacity. But I'd like to see it.
Oh, and ford does not think the eco is more capable than the 6.2 since they rate it for the same towing as the Eco.
The raptor is not a multidisciplinary tool. It is a special use vehicle that happens to be moderately capable for other uses but whose special design considerations, which make it more capable in one area, make it less capable in other areas.
I too would like to see an Eco in a raptor. But that is just because I like turbos. I'd never buy it because it will still get bad mileage and have bad towing capacity. But I'd like to see it.
Oh, and ford does not think the eco is more capable than the 6.2 since they rate it for the same towing as the Eco.
Check this out if you haven't , pretty sweet:
#427
USN Retired 1992-2012
We'll have to agree to disagree over the intended utility of modern trucks at this point, I think.
Check this out if you haven't , pretty sweet:Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWE11Oo5rg
Check this out if you haven't , pretty sweet:Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWE11Oo5rg
Richard
#428
Just Another Member
Quite the opposite. I've got you on the defensive. Guess I struck a nerve, eh? BTW, it's against forum rules to call people idiots like you have just done, but I won't report you.
In any case, the SVT stands for Special Vehicle Team. Emphasis on Special Vehicle. If it was a general use vehicle, it would be called the GU Raptor.
In any case, the SVT stands for Special Vehicle Team. Emphasis on Special Vehicle. If it was a general use vehicle, it would be called the GU Raptor.
#429
USN Retired 1992-2012
Quite the opposite. I've got you on the defensive. Guess I struck a nerve, eh? BTW, it's against forum rules to call people idiots like you have just done, but I won't report you.
In any case, the SVT stands for Special Vehicle Team. Emphasis on Special Vehicle. If it was a general use vehicle, it would be called the GU Raptor.
Richard
The following users liked this post:
Silver FX4 (10-21-2013)
#430
Senior Member
Brianford, sounds like an ecoboost fx4 would have made you happier for less money, especially if you value mpg's, low end torque, towing capacity as have come to do.
P.S. I can think of countless examples where oem's only offer the highest hp engine in the most expensive model.
P.S. I can think of countless examples where oem's only offer the highest hp engine in the most expensive model.