Ford Unveils Changes for 2012 F-150 SVT Raptor

Putc-raptor01 By Mark Williams

Ford is making a few changes to make the new Ford F-150 SVT Raptor an even more capable high-speed performance truck. Among the most significant pieces of engineering in the new Raptor is that a locking differential will be available for the independent front suspension.

Last year’s Raptor had an open front differential and locking rear. For 2012, Raptors will continue to be offered with the electrically actuated rear locking differential, but now a traction-tuned front Torsen differential will be offered, too. A Torsen differential is a set of cams (as opposed to plates) that will ramp up on one another, causing full differential lockup when the truck senses a certain amount of slip between the right and left tires.  The system increases grip significantly for the front end of the truck and allows the vehicle to pull itself over obstacles and up steep grades even when the traction is split between the front tires.

12raptor02

Also, Ford is now equipping all SVT Raptors with a front camera option to allow drivers to see what’s happening directly in front of each tire. The system can be used like an extra spotter if the driver decides to challenge tough terrain alone. The camera can be activated only below a certain speed and when the vehicle is in low range. The view is displayed on an 8-inch screen in the center stack. The camera is mounted in the grille and includes a dedicated washer function that is activated by pressing a lever on the left steering-column stalk.

Finally, all 2012 Raptors will have a series of interior and exterior styling changes to help further separate it from 2011 models. Exterior changes include a new Raptor logo and a graphics package based around two diagonal stripes with jagged lines and shapes.

Inside, a new matte Anodized Blue interior color accent will replace the existing color. The new package includes accent leather-trimmed front seats with unique leather inserts and accents on the center stack, rear seat inserts and door panels. Aluminum trim accents are also used on the instrument panel and center console.

Also new for 2012 is the addition of cooled seats to the optional Luxury Package and a new Euroflange wheel with balancing weights on the inside to better protect from off-road debris and obstacles. The 2012 Raptors, in both SuperCab and SuperCrew cab configurations (the latter of which has an 80-percent take rate), will continue to use the 411-horsepower, 6.2-liter V-8 and run 35-inch BFGoodrich all-terrain tires.

The new Raptors are expected to arrive at the end of November. More pictures are below.

Putc-raptor02

Putc-raptor03

Putc-raptor04

Putc-raptor05

Putc-raptor06

Putc-raptor07

Putc-raptor08

Putc-raptor09

Putc-raptor10

Putc-raptor11

12raptor01

12raptor03

 

Comments

Was the transfer case updated to the clutch pack coupled front axle design? That 'AUTO' position would be very helpful.

Yes the 6.2 is an antiquated engine, only 2 valves per cylinder, iron block & large bore spacing.
A 500hp supercharged/intercooled 5.0 V8 should replace the 6.2, considering the price.

A torsen is not a "locker", it is a torque sensitive locking differential. It will not differentiate unless the traction imbalance is greater than the torque bias ratio, 2.5:1.

@ Lou

This is actually pretty interesting to talk about.

First, one has to clarify that the Cleveland engine was not a big-block or medium block. It was a small block, sharing the same bore spacing with the Windsor family (111.2mm).

Now, the 6.2L is really an evolution on the modular small block family. When Ford introduced the modular engine line, their equipment was limited to a 100mm bore spacing. This meant, in order to get larger displacements, they were stuck with either a ridiculously long stroke (like the 5.4L) or adding more cylinders (like the V10).

Thankfully, new equipment means they don't have that problem anymore, so the new block uses a wider bore spacing (115mm) more in line with the competition's engines. It still uses a taller deck (like the 5.4L), however the larger bore meant they could reduce the deck height and the stroke from the 5.4L's absurdly long 106mm stroke to a more appropriate 95mm stroke. (By comparison, GM's 6.2L vortec uses a 92mm stoke).

If anything, Ford's 6.2L is what the modular small block family would have been without the 100mm handicap. It's really no more a big block than Gm's LS series (which uses 110mm bore spacing) or Dodge's new Hemi (113.3mm bore spacing).

By comparison, true big blocks like Ford's 460 and Gm's 454 used 124.5mm and 122.9mm respectively. Even Ford's medium blocks, like the 390 and 427, used a larger bore spacing than the 6.2L at nearly 118mm.

@ George

"Yes the 6.2 is an antiquated engine, only 2 valves per cylinder, iron block & large bore spacing.
A 500hp supercharged/intercooled 5.0 V8 should replace the 6.2, considering the price."

It's not antiquated in the slightest as far as truck engines go. Only 2 valves per cylinder? Yea, but it's also SOHC with variable cam timing. Iron block? Yup, same as all the other gas engines used in heavy duty applications (Hemi and GM 6.0L). Large bore spacing? Compared to the old modular engines, yes. Compared to the competition, not really. If anything, the lack of competition is what's holding that engine back. 411hp isn't even close to what that engine can put out naturally aspirated in a truck platform. I mean, it was designed to be competitive with the SRT-10 Ram if Ford needed it to.

Really though, the version of Ford's 6.2L that's produced right now was designed with the Super Duty in mind. In that respect, it had to be simple, durable, and reasonably priced. Supercharging the 5.0L for the Raptor and Superduty would have required significant changes to the high-compression 5.0L engine design (making it undoubtedly more expensive than the 6.2L), it would be more complicated and likely less durable than the 6.2L, and it wouldn't have the overall hp/tq potential that the 6.2L has.


Really, the only reason to put something like the 5.0L or the Ecoboost 3.5L would be for fuel economy. With that in mind, regardless of what gas engine you put in the Raptor, the fuel economy is going to suck. It's wider than a Super Duty, it has nearly 35" tires, and it's geared extremely low. Look at the fuel economy of similar vehicles like the Powerwagon or Hummer H2 SUT, they're just as horrible if not worse.

@paul810 - cool. Thanks for the information. I suspect the problem lies in the fact that people have gotten so used to smaller displacement V8's that they tack the label "big block" onto anyhting with a larger displacement. I've seen that label on the 6.2 so many times that I mistakenly assumed it were true.
When I look at the specs you've provided, I see your point. Thanks.
I stand corrected.
Its nice to have an informative converstaton with someone.

Daddy like! I love that blue. It closely matches the Acapulco Blue of my Mustang G.T. and the Intense Blue Pearl Coat of my Wrangler Rubicon.

Keep up the good work Ford!!!

@Lou

That's just it. It's all relative. Ford's 6.2L is 379ci. In the late 60's/early 70's that would have been a relatively average engine size for a truck. Nowadays, it seems huge when you've got 3.5L and 3.7L F150's rolling around.

With that in mind, one could say it shares a lot in common with the old big blocks. I mean, the 6.2L is to modern times, what Ford's 460 was to October of '73. The only people that want them are those that can actually make use of them.

Antiquated because it only has two-valves per cylinder? More like proven. Like the proof that a Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1, with an "antiquated pushrod V-8, spanks Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and Porsches with their mulit-valve and multi-camshaft motors. Like the proof that a 5.7L HEMI Magnum, with an antiquated pushrod V-8, has more horsepower and torque than the equally sized 5.7L i-Force V-8 and it's multi-valve and multi-camshaft design.

Ford is best. The end. I said it first. No one else is right but me. You can't win. I'm right. DONE

Michael-

Get real. Ford is better! Sha-zam!

@Michael
Yes, you are right. Ford is best in selling sh..

The best keeps getting better. Ford is the best at CANI, Constant And Never-ending Improvement. Nobody does trucks better than Ford.

@paul810 I did not put a modifier such as 'truck' before antiquated. The 6.2 is antiquated. It only has VCT instead of VVT (which by definition necessitates dual camshafts per head), it should have 3 valves per cylinder. (and the iron block)
Ford's biggest design flaw with the previous 3 valve head was the insistence on putting the spark plug in the center. That limited valve size, reducing power potential of an engine with already small bore 90mm.
Ford should have just copied Mercedes-Benz (1997) 3 valve head design, way back. They missed an opportunity to correct that.
Using the supercharged 5.0 V8 (see Ford of Australia) would cut weight-75 pounds or so, and more importantly push the center of mass of the engine rearward by 2.5 inches, improving weight distribution of the truck.
People have just slapped superchargers to the Mustang, which has a higher compression ratio 5.0 than the 5.0 for trucks, but that is irrelevant seeing as Ford has a supercharged 5.0, FPV GT Boss 335

@Buy American Or Say Bye To America!, the Corvette ZR-1 is a supercharger with wheels. Toyota moves slowly, and very conservatively, and the Toyota 5.7 operates on regular fuel.


and I see from the updated photos, the transfer case selection dial remains the same, shame.

@paul810- What is wrong with a small bore and large stroke? I like gobs of low rpm torque. My 02 5.4 (with antiquated 2v heads) makes 350 ft lbs at 2500 rpms. GMs over-bore 5.3 makes what, 338 ft lbs at 4500 rpms and thats the 2011 model! I dont need high rpm Hp, I want torque. Torque! TOOOORQUE!! Gobs and Gobs of TOOOORQUE!

Fiat "rates" their engines higher than Toyota--the proof that the Toyota makes more power can be seen here as the heavier/sturdier Tundra that weighs more than the Fiat is still faster:
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2011/09/30k-shootout-quarter-mile-test.html
and
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2011/09/30k-shootout-0-60-mph-test.html

I guess that is to be expected as the Tundra engine is made in Alabama and th Fiat engine is actually built in Saltillo Mexico:
http://blogs.cars.com/files/ram-1500-window-sticker.pdf

Back on topic: these are some cool upgrades for the Raptor, but despite having a great job, I would never pay the stupid money Ford asks for the Raptor. If I am paying that kind of coin for a pickup, it better not have spark plugs... .

@Dav - if you think the USA Raptor is overpriced, you'd better not look at one in Canada. The window sticker killed my wet dream instantaneously.

@Benchimus

At 2500rpm, Ford's 5.4L made ~350ft-lbs tq, at which point torque would gradually decrease up to the engine's redline.

The 6.2L, on the other hand, also makes around 350ft-lbs torque at 2500rpm. Instead of it decreasing though, that number increases all the way up to 4500rpm.

So not only do you have low end torque, but you've also got high end torque. It's a well balanced engine. Not only that, but you've also got ~100 more hp to work with, and that's a good thing.

Right on SOCOMech; looks like you made Ken mad though. Oh well back to rotflmfao!!!!!!

@paul810- True. But there is also a .8 liter difference too. What kind of torque would a 6.2 with the same bore to stroke ratio as the 5.4 make at 2500 rpms? Probably bunches. And I think bunches is a Metric term.

@paul810- As far as truck engines go, square is about as short a stroke as I would want to go.

Just look at the 6.8 v10, just a 5.4 with 2 more cylinders, the current one makes 362 hp. @ 4750 rpm and 457 lb.-ft. @ 3250 rpm. Thats the newest 3 valve numbers, and the only recent updates Ford gave that engine was emissions, CNG option and the new 6 speed transmission. It has alot of potential, i'd say even more than the new 6.2 v8.


Wow, new front differential (essentially) new front view camera, and OOOOoo, new paint and tweeked the interior. I guess Ford thinks that if you have the extra 50K to spend on this chunk of lead...then stopping at every other gas station shouldn't hurt your wallet. How about some mileage so can afford to go off-roading, huh.....

George-

The Ram 5.7L runs just fine on 87 octane, as well. The owner's manual even states that 87 octane is adequate. I have run my Ram 5.7L on 87 octane, for several tanks here and there, without any negative performance. The motor does not care what octane it is burning...it just keeps on chewing and eating the competition just the same.

@Benchimus

It basically comes down to undersquare (as in 5.4l) vs. oversquare (as in the 6.2l).

A tendency of undersquare engines is to have a lot of torque down low, but to fall on their face up top.

Oversquare engines tend to be the opposite. Less torque, but a flatter torque curve, and more horsepower.

It sounds like a somewhat even trade-off, but it's really not.

First, Oversquare engines exhibit less wear and tend to be more reliable in the long term. Second, they are typically more resistant to detonation (a good thing in a gas engine). Next, oversquare engines tend to breath better and therefore be more volumetrically efficient; this allows them to rev more freely, make more horsepower, and be less effected by elevation increases.

Finally, and most importantly, torque to the wheels is a function of gearing. Thanks to our latest 6/7/8+ speed transmissions, we can put plenty of torque to the ground while also retaining a high level of horsepower and drivability.

Basically, when it comes to V8 gas engines, being oversquare to square is a good thing. This was known long ago, hence why most of the truly successful gas engines of the past were also oversquare.

Chevy 454? Oversquare
Ford 427? Oversquare
Mopar 426 hemi? Oversquare.
Mopar 440? Oversquare.
Ford 300 I6? Oversquare.
Ford 460? Oversquare.
Ford 302? Oversquare.
Chevy 350? Oversquare.
Chevy 327? Oversquare.
Ford 351? Oversquare.
Ford 289? Oversquare.
Even the Viper V10 (and the truck engine it was based off of)? Both Oversquare.

@paul810
If the oversquare engine is more volumetrically efficient, it would be more affected by changes in air pressure/density from higher elevation.
Wear would be more of a function of stroke to connecting rod ratio.

Torque is not power, power is power.
So the 'need' for power without revs is eliminated by the use of modern transmissions.
4 speed autos replaced 3 speed. 5 speeds replaced 4 speeds. 6 speeds replaced 5, and 8 speeds will replace 6.
Torque is now irrelevant.

http://autozine.org/technical_school/engine/Forced_Induction_1.html#TVS

Who knows, maybe in the future Ford with have a TriForce V8 (direct injection, turbocharging, compensation exhaust manifold)
http://autozine.org/technical_school/engine/Forced_Induction_4.html#Cross-bank

@paul810- I was unaware of the difference in reliability, tho I am sure there are outliers. Also, I never looked it up till just now but you were right. I have always been under the impression the 300 I6 was undersquare. Seems it wasnt.

A 50 grand race truck is nice and all, but what I would really like is one of the new aussie rangers with a diesel.

I dont understand the mine has more Hp/troque than yours argument, if you are not towing, which lets face it most of these upper-end trucks like the raptor dont do much. the 5.3 in my chevy z71 was fine for my needs a good balance for fuel economy and power. So when I needed to upgrade from z71 to SVT i went with the 5.4 because after talking to owners i decided that i did not want the 6.2 b/c of milage and range when off road. I had hoped that ford would have kept 2 engine options in the raptor but they didn't so i found a gently used 2010 with the 5.4 and i am getting better mpgs than i did with my 05 z71 did, both trucks have 4.10 gears but the raptor is heavyer the real advantage is the 6spd transmission. I normally get over 20 in both trucks on flat highways. Around town they where both pigs. The olny reason to get a 6.2 in the raptor is because people saw svt on the side and expect it to be the fastest thing ever. the 5.4 raptor lost motor trend truck of the year b/c it was too slow, however it had better 0-60 than the other vehicles that year. If you truly need more off road than a fx4 or z71 in 1/2 ton then raptor is your option, but you sould not have to suffer through bad mpgs just b/c some people wanted only the looks and the ability to smoke evey i-force in sight.
And for you haters who say build it your self : After having many drive train and 4x4 and suspension problems in my stock chevy i concluded that if i lifted my truck or any truck for that matter you are inducing extra stress on the drive train that it was not designed to handel wearing out components faster and creating more head aches. After 8 mounths of repair bills over $1000 i determined that it was time for a new truck as it would be cheaper and made a decision between the Power Wagon and the raptor as they are the only vehicles that meet my needs of the show room floor, chevy needs to give me more fron clearnce/ aproach angle if it wants my business again.

Ford built cheap

Why don't they put the eco boast eng in the Raptor

In the Ford video "promo" from the dealer showing the eco-boost V6 turbo ,they show in in a off road truck after beating the heck out of it, Not much less HP than the 6.2 in the Raptor,a little lighter and it makes the power at a much less RPM and might get a little better fuel mileage... So why does not ford offer this in the RAPTOR? I am not sure how to get back to this forum. If someone could email me the answers to this at my email address
photoman51@aol.com
I would really appreciate it
thanks Jim

Can the Raptor be fitted with dual fuel tanks from the factory?

Thank you in advance

I read with a smile on my face the comments made about the HEMI being such a good engine,in its own way it is. But it must be noticed by all that i have owned a 6.2 Raptor and also have a 2012 Ram with a 5.7 Hemi. Seriously there is no comparison... The 6.2 totally kicks ass against the HEMI in all areas. I even let the sales manager of my local Dodge dealer take it for a drive and even he came back shaking his head saying HolyCow, that is much quicker than our best!!! Secondly i can tell you from personal experience that the MSDS does not make the Dodge any better on gas mileage. I get the same driving the raptor as the ram, with the only difference being i drive the 6.2 much harder because it kicks assso much more than my Ram, which equates to way more fun and enjoyable to drivethan the Ram. Honestly i am amazed that they pumo up the slogan " yes,its got a hemi" as it is a really disappointng engine compared to the 6.2! So please,go drive a Raptor with the 6.2 and you may realize you know nothing!

I have a 2012 Raptor. It has plenty of power, but then more is better. My truck is taken to glamis run pretty hard thru everything the manual says it can do and more. Duneing isn't in the manual but it kills at it. Anyone that doesn't like this truck is honestly foolish, and has not a clue how to operate a performance vehicle. The only Ford I have seen that will make a chevy guy consider a ford when driven correctly. Icons raptor has been run thru some very hard testing and they haven't broken there frame. So for you that have, your doing something wrong. Love the truck. Looking to buy the shelby Raptor next.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us