engineermike

Just ran across this in the V86#8 issue of "Boating Magazine". They tested a 2013 Raptor vs a 2013 xlt supercrew 4x4 ecoboost while towing a 7500 lb boat. Don't ask me why they chose a Raptor to represent the 6.2.

0-60
Ecoboost: 15.27
6.2: 15.73

Fuel economy
Ecoboost: 7.74
6.2: 7.62

They noted that the fuel economy was exceptionally low for both due to towing acceleration tests and steep grades. The economy test included a 2600' ascent.

Some say that the ecoboost makes for a good compared against the 6.2. Based on these results, I'd have to agree.

WarSurfer

I could see a 'regular' 6.2 F150 doing a little better in both categories - probably even in mpg but still a tad slower than the Eco 0-60. XLT SCREW Eco is about 400lbs lighter than a SCAB raptor, 600lbs lighter than a SCREW Raptor. That's part of the difference I'm sure.

engineermike

Yea, they do show the weight of the raptor to be about 600 lb heavier. That doesn't help any.

MPETE

iTrader: (1)

yea, not to mention the added rotational weight of 35" tires. yes it has 4.10's to help out but I still think apples to apples, the 6.2 would do a bit better in that test

GhostintheMachine

Who would ever take an Eco xlt over a raptor? If anything this reads like here's another reason to buy a raptor.

WarSurfer

Still, it is kinda cool that even 'acting' like a 7 liter the Eco achieved slightly better mpg.

I think a non Raptor would have slightly better mpg's for obvious reasons but at an even mpg measure, the Eco still proves to be a tad more efficient (7L getting the same mileage as 6.2L under the same conditions).

Left Plate

With that kind of mileage I would say they were running the crap out of them! Idk about the raptor, but that is not normal for the Eco.

WarSurfer

Not normal for drag racing while towing a boat uphill?

Left Plate

When you put it that way, then you might be right! Too bad they don't know how to tow, because anything much over 3500 rpm on an Eco is a waste of fuel.

Ssls6

Interesting results.