Spied: 2017 Four-Door Raptor

Raptor Crew II

Our spy shooters have captured the 2017 Ford F-150 Raptor SuperCrew (four-door crew cab), revealed for the first time in its entirety outside Detroit.

The Raptor was first revealed at the 2015 North American International Auto Show in January in Detroit, but it was shown only as a SuperCab version. Today we bring you photos of the 2017 Raptor SuperCrew fully undisguised and complete with the more subtle tailgate. This Raptor also sports new rims with the beefy BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 tires.

Ford said the 2017 Raptor would get a special version of the twin-turbo EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 with more than 450 horsepower to replace the standard 6.2-liter V-8 found in the 2014 model. The 2017 Raptor also will be one of the first Ford vehicles to receive the new 10-speed automatic transmission (the Raptor will have paddle shifters) being developed by Ford and GM. Expect to see that transmission replace other automatics on Ford's F-Series pickups.

As before, the Raptor will get off-road-oriented modifications such as remote-reservoir Fox racing shocks and meaty off-road tires. Ford is also going to add an all-new terrain management system to help keep the Raptor moving in tough conditions like snow, rocks and swampy mud.

The 2017 Raptor should be on sale by fall 2016.

Spiedbilde images


Raptor Crew 2 II

Raptor Crew 3 II

Raptor Crew 4 II

Raptor rear 1 II



Yep. And it's true of Rubicon owners, Corvette owners, and the like. They, like Raptor owners didn't buy them to thrash on them, ballz out, off-road or at the track. Too big of an investment to risk damage or totaled. Now the 2nd or 3rd owners of these are the one that thrash on them and often end up destroying them.

While not exactly a rock crawler, the Raptor's extra wide track was designed for high-speed stability, up to 100 mph on dirt, rough roads and sand. And it can land a jump repeatedly, with the electronics and traction-nanny bypasses keep things fun.

You can't really duplicate the all Raptor's off-road abilities for the price of the luxury-packed Raptor, even if you started with a new base-stripper truck. You'd end up spending lots more for a clunky truck on the street, while voiding the warranty.

The Raptor is about as a 'turn-key' as a factory BAJA 1000, racer type truck can get and still remain street/mall/family friendly.

I'm not here to talk up the Raptor, but there seems to be lots of confusion on its intent or purpose. Yes mostly to bring in mad profits for its maker.

Ford need to drop that 10 speed in the mustang next year, there is a big performance difference in the new Camaro and mustang

*** Just realized BIG AL FROM OZ = OXI ***

To echo what others have said. The Raptor shouldn't be looked at as a rock crawler. There are different off road vehicles for different purposes. The raptor is designed for dirt/sand at high speed, not slow crawling in a creek bed in Australia.

I like the front grill a lot better than the standard F150's. It doesn't make the front of the truck look cheap.

The interest I've generated in the Raptor is quite good. Many of the comments are from those who dream.

I will stand by my comments on the Raptor. It is essentially to big a vehicle for it's capabilities. It will make a great expeditionary style 4x4 if it had a decent payload and a diesel for endurance.

The Raptor is what it is. It is great for Ford by value adding to a existing product. The Raptor will do well on open trails through creek beds, and lots of holes, etc.

Ford has built a capable desert vehicle, with little payload and endurance. The EcoBoost will suck down fuel with no real gain.

Ford has also hit at the heart of the wanna be rich redneck. I was watching Bloomberg (Channel 68?) and a couple of the Wall St types own them and they stated they bought them as an accessory. This is what the Raptor has exceeded at more than it's usable off road abilities, it's called image.

I'm not stating the Raptor isn't good off road. But, I do think there is a lot of bull$h!t from you guys who don't understand off roading.

If you want to off road you will be better off buying a Wrangler and modifying it. It will perform better than a Raptor and be cheaper.

@BAFO. Typical response from a down under redneck who drives a less old POS BT50 that had to be modified to to any kind of off roading. This truck is a desert runner not a low range crawler. If I wanted to do that kind of off roading I would choose a Power Wagon. Both of the trucks just mentioned would put your little rig to shame. Nobody respects you here. You are to midsize diesel over zealous.

Toycrusher - too funny. I thought the exact same thing............

Big Oxi from Oz.


@Big Al - a long wide vehicle is best suited for higher speed terrain. Ummm, what is the Raptor advertised as being???????

A desert pre-runner.

Most guys in my part of the world who work off-road all drive HD crewcab trucks. Most do not even use all of the cargo capacity. They work well on gravel roads and winter roads the same reason the Raptor works well. STABILITY.

I've owned small trucks and full sized trucks. I can travel faster and more safely in a large truck. The smaller trucks are much more skittish. Slow speed PLAY 4x4 work is best suited for small trucks but even that is better done in a quad/side by side.

Every product has strengths and weaknesses. Small trucks are more agile and fit into tighter spaces because of the smaller size. That a strength for some. That small size is a PIA at higher speeds and when one actually needs more room or needs more capacity.

2 sides of the same coin.

Again you display you real self.

A lowly trowl. How many guises do you use;)

Not oxi, I haven't heard from him in a long time.

The Raptor just doesn't do it for me.

If I were to spent that kind of money on a 4x4 there are far better off road vehicles worthy of my money.

So what is your normal tag on PUTC. Haven't got the fortitude to be man?

Must be a child.

Nope same name relatively new poster. Been reading your crap for a while. You are a joke here and in many ways worse than the like of HEMI V8. By the way did you see the quarterly profits from FORD. Seems like the aluminum F150 is not the profit draining slug you keep saying it is. I hope you are man enough to finally admit you were wrong, boy

Yes, what ever you say.

@BOFO. What the matter? No response about how the aluminum F150 losing money for Ford. Seems their quarterly profit says otherwise. Oh wait, I suppose everybody is really buying steel super duty's. That has to be it. You are a joke, BOY

Did the money come from the F-150?

Read the article again.

@BAFO. Nope not LMAO. Just quit the crap. So tell me oh smart one, how does a companies volume seller and a top 5 profit margin product in the line up lose money and yet the company posts record quarterly profit. Come on Al you are not that stupid.

@BAFO. F series posted its best 3rd quarter since 2006, but I'm sure you will surmise it's due to massive steel Super Duty sales increases.


@Jake D. English, try it sometime. No need for all caps either.

I don't think the Raptor has to be the ultimate off road truck to sell. There are enough fans that will buy it and it will produce a halo effect for Ford's other products. I do like the regular wheels that have tires with thicker sidewalls.

Ford drops its 6.2 and goes V6 on the Raptor?

Wow, that's the same engine you can buy with a Taurus 4 door or a Ford Flex. Did somebody say "driving excitement"

I'll pass, thanks!

big al finally said something the way it should be said

"the raptor just doesn't do it for me"

bravo Big Al, thats all thats required, we all get it, no need to say ford is dumb or toyota is better etc, key word here is "NICHE" vehicle its not for everyone or every off roading application, the biggest thing here is the raptor sells and Ford is making money on them or they wouldnt be making them !

Papa Jim, it's the same cylinder displacement, completely different engine. It would be like criticizing the Sierra Denali or Corvette for having the same engine as a 1980s 3500 6.2 diesel

I think you will see more manufacturers go to turbocharged V-6s. V-8s will become much less available and will for the most part be offered in the HD trucks. The Ecoboost engines have been on the market long enough to prove themselves.

agreed Jeff S

Jeff S - GM has been talking about the TTDI V6 in the Cadillac going into the Sierra and Silverado. Right now they will most likely sit and wait and watch.
Does anyone know the take rate on their V6 full sized trucks?

Lou, I have yet to see any GM advertising against Fords 2.7L and 3.5L turbo engines. So I can agree that GM is likely close to a similar powerplant in their trucks. They can't really criticize an engine that they have in the works.

LMAO - GM does have a habit of calling out competitors just to release the same options that they ridiculed. Howie's man-step and heated steering wheels were just 2 examples. They now have bumper cut-outs and heated steering wheels.

They called out aluminum but it was reported that their 2008 collapse killed plans for hitting the market a year before Ford with an aluminum 1/2 ton.

I was reading comments on another site and an automotive engineer stated that both GM and FCA have been hitting up all of the aluminum manufacturers about aluminum fasteners.
GM will eventually go aluminum.
FCA does not have the funds to engineer an aluminum hub cap.

On Alcoa's website there is an article about GM using Alcoa to supply them aluminum. In fact it talked about the welding steel to aluminum. Not sure how this will hold up with 2 different metals but hopefully Alcoa has a good plan.


@Alex How is the ecoboost V6 in the Ford Flex different from the engine in their pickups and SUVs?

@Jeff S

An ecoboost is a very expensive engine to build--how is it cheaper?

@papa jim--I never stated that the Ecoboost was cheaper to build, I stated that the trend is toward turbo charged V-6s and to lighten the weight of the trucks to meet the new fuel standards along with 8 and 10 speed automatics and more aerodynamics. If you are just looking at costs of producing a motor and a low cost option for the consumer then you need to go no further than a small block GM V-8 engine. Papa jim Ford is gaming the new fuel standards by using turbo charged V-6s, aluminum bodies, and eventually the 10 speed automatic that is jointly developed with GM. Having said that GM and Ram will eventually be doing their own gaming.

Try to get more efficiency out of a truck without compromising too much of the function of a truck and marketing it heavily as a significant change. Having said the above I would compare what is happening to trucks as to low fat cookies and ice cream, you will get some benefit unless you eat more low fat cookies and ice cream than you would normally eat. It is what it is and there will not be any major changes unless some revolutionary technology is discovered that will significantly improve fuel economy.

@Papa Jim--As for the reliability of the EcoBoost V-6 they have been proven to be fairly reliable. For most people the Eco-Boost would meet most of their needs. There are pros and cons of the EcoBoost. There are also many pros about the V-8 especially the small block GM V-8 which are very popular with classic car restorers. We will see less V-8s and more V-6s in trucks and less V-6s and more 4 cylinders in autos. It is amazing the amount of power that today's smaller engines have versus the larger engines of just a few years ago.

@Jeff S

Dear Jeff, Proven? There are many questions about the durability of the ecoboost 3.5

Ford has been making V8 engines for over 80 years. The ecoboost? Not so long.

Ecoboost motors have been around less than ten years and in the F150 for about five years. Let's take stock of the 3.5 in a few more years.

As for cost, the ecoboost has shown in numerous tests that it uses as much gas as a V8 doing similar work, heavy loads, stop/go traffic, etc. The 3.5 does great idling along at 60 mph with no traffic on some rural stretch of road, it shines. But in everyday driving it offers little that Ford's 5.0 litre and 6.2 litre engines didn't already do better.

Sorry to bring the bad news again.

The raptor ecoboost share more engine architecture with new ford gt supercar and little with the 1st gen 3.5 ecoboost. Not really the same as the standard Eco other then displacement.

PapaJim - the EB 3.5 in the F150 has different internals. Crank and rods more robust. IIRC heads are different and so are turbos.

The next Raptor EB3.5 is also different than the current F150 EB.

@papa jim--I am not a Ford fan boy, I am just stating that the EcoBoost has been around long enough that any bugs have been worked out. Whether you prefer a V-8 or a V-6 is your choice but it is obvious that this is not a brand new engine. You need to re-read my previous comments about why Ford went to the EcoBoost and the aluminum body. Each manufacturer will have to comply with the new Federal fuel standards that started this year. There is nothing to be sorry about the fact is that Ford has gone to using more EcoBoost engines and apparently the many customers are buying F-150s with EcoBoosts. GM and Ram will probably do the same. There is nothing wrong with Ford's 5.0 or 6.2 but it is apparent that Ford is replacing these engines in their newer trucks with more EcoBoosts. Again I am not Ford but it seems that Ford knows what they are doing.

@papa jim--The EcoBoost would be at its best cruising a 60 mph highway without any stops. Any engine will perform better and more efficiently if it is cruising at a specific speed without rapid acceleration or stop and go. My wife's CRV gets up to 40 mpg on the highway with the cruise control set at 65 to 70 mph, but in stop and go traffic the mpgs are more like 23 to 24. Any engine will also last longer if most of the mileage is highway. The Ecoboost will lose much of its additional efficiency under heavy loads, towing, or rapid acceleration. Extra fuel is being consumed whenever those turbos kick in.

Years ago I worked as a landman in Houston for an independent landman that had a 75 Cadillac with over 200k miles which were mostly highway miles. That 75 Cadillac was one of the smoothest running vehicles I ever drove. This landman told me he once had a 56 Fleetwood with over 500k miles on it and the only thing he ever did to the engine was a valve job around 200k miles. He said the 56 Cady was still running strong when he got rid of it--his wife wanted a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. This man was meticulous about maintenance on his cars and even though his 75 Cadillac was over 10 years old it looked and ran like it just rolled off the assembly line. I learned how to take care of my vehicles from this man and I usually get the maximum life out of all of my vehicles. One of the comments from a reader on this site said that he had reliable service from all the trucks he owned regardless of brand and that he kept a strict maintenance schedule. Most of today's vehicles are reliable and with proper service will give many years of reliable service. I could get just as many years out of a V-6 or I-4 as a V-8 by just adhering to a regular maintenance schedule and taking care of any mechanical problems before they become major.

Jeff S - the mistake people do make with the EB 3.5 is to drive it more like a lower torque higher RPM V8 or even normally aspirated V6's. It may be the old believe that turbo's need rpm's to make power.

I had a rental EB3.5 and adapted to its power characteristics rather quickly because to me it felt like a more powerful 5.4. Foot meets floor driving is a waste with it. Smooth inputs that keep it a gear higher and relying on the torque is the best way to drive it. The guys that I know with EB 3.5's that downsized from HD diesels or were used to 5.4's transitioned well and love it. All of the gys I know used to higher revving 5.3 Chevy's have had issues transitioning. It is as if they can not adjust to a low rpm torque rich motor.

MPG is driver sensitive. If you have a heavy foot mpg is not good but that is like any other 360 plus HP engine.

I really don't think the FE between the turbo and non turbo engines are that great. The difference in FE with the turbo comes into play more when the engine is loaded, ie, towing.

The Ram with the 3.6 is averaging between 16.5-18mpg average FE.

The EcoBoost when driven hard or loaded is a pig on fuel, you'd be better off having a V8. People don't buy such an engine like you stated to be light footed on the accelerator. If that was the case then NA V6 engines would be very popular.

Ford is not much different from VW in the respect that it is gaming the system, except Ford is doing it legally.

This is where diesel is ideal, loaded they don't exhibit the same or as great a loss in FE.

Any engine is a pig on fuel when towing compared to the same vehicle empty. Also in putc last 1/2 ton comparison the only v8 to achieve better towing mpg's then the 3.5 ecoboost was fords 5.0 v8. Gm and ram v8 got worse mpg's while towing.

@Lou_BC--Agree. Smooth and steady will maximize fuel economy. The EcoBoost has the power when you need it but if you have a heavy foot then you will get miserable fuel economy out of the EcoBoost or any engine. I don't have anything against V-8 engines, I have had 2 Chevies, 1 Buick, and a Chrysler 5th Avenue with V-8s and loved them especially the small block Chevy engines. I am less interested in horsepower than reliability and adequate acceleration. My wife's 2000 Taurus had the 24 valve overhead cam V-6 which when you gave it the gas would literally fly but then if you drove it like that all the time the mpgs were miserable. When I drove the Taurus at a steady cruising speed between 65 and 70 mph it would get around 30 mpgs.

@Big Al--I can see the advantages of diesel for towing and for nonstop interstate driving especially long distance driving. The disadvantage of diesels are for short stop and go trips especially having to warm a diesel up in cold weather. For me a diesel would not be feasible because I do mostly short trips withing 3 to 5 miles with the park and ride for the bus being 3 miles from my house. My fuel efficiency goes down over winter because of the cold.

Jeff S,
I totally agree, I have never stated otherwise.

A diesel is good for 10km plus drives to and from work, etc.

But, for a run down to the shops/store now and then it doesn't really matter.

On a daily basis yes.

Can you provide a link showing that the GFC was the reason for GM's move away from aluminium.

Just google RV sites and just read all of the many who bought an EcoBoost F-150 for tow duties are dismayed by it's FE.

Not too hard a task.

A V8 is better than a gasoline turbo engine for towing.

One the other hand a diesel fares much better with a turbo. It's as if the diesel and turbo were made for each other.

For towing a diesel is the best option, by a long shot.

Even for cruising at high speeds a diesel is the best option.

Gasoline engines are terrible on FE compared to diesel, just look at the recent articles on the diesel Colorados. 32mpg! I would love to see any F-150 EcoBoob achieve those kind of FE figures.

Maybe the EcoBoost F-150 can do that is it towed.

The comments to this entry are closed.