2017 Ford Raptor Is Ready to Race

Foutz Raptor Racing action II

In order to fine-tune the next-generation 2017 Ford F-150 Raptor, engineers are taking the new aluminum-bodied pickup to the punishing 2016 Best in the Desert off-road racing series, where it will compete in one of the least-modified stock classes offered.

The race-ready Raptor will be driven by longtime Ford driver Greg Foutz from Foutz Motorsports, who said in a statement that although this new pickup truck needed relatively few modifications to race in this series, it did need a few additional safety features required by race insurers. Those changes include a full interior roll cage, five-point safety belt harnesses and window nets, a special fuel cell, heavier-duty front and rear springs, a Lowrance GPS, and a RacePak digital dash and data logger.

With those changes made, the Raptor will use the factory high-output 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost and 10-speed transmission. You can bet the Ford engineers will make sure the engine and transmission have the right settings, not just for this competition but also for the new "Baja" off-road mode. When the Raptor goes on sale in the fall it will offer six settings: Normal, Street, Weather, Mud/Sand, Baja and Rock.

The Raptor will race in the five remaining 2016 Best in the Desert events:

  • Mint 400, Las Vegas: March 10-14
  • Laughlin Desert Classic, Laughlin, Nev.: May 5
  • Vegas to Reno, Las Vegas: Aug. 17-20
  • Bluewater Challenge, Parker, Ariz.: Sept. 10-Oct. 6
  • Pahrump Nugget 250, Pahrump, Nev.: Dec. 1-4

Manufacturer image

 

Foutz Raptor Racing Int II

Foutz Raptor Racing Hero II

 

Comments

The Vegas to Reno race will be a nice little challenge for the motor and new transmission. You can bet the temps will be well above 100. a

Ford's not so stellar monthly sales figures are release and guess what?

Ford releases a bit of Ford propaganda.

They are as bad as governments trying to deflect not so good news.

The F-series still sold over 13,500 more trucks than number 2.

BAFO releases his usual "I hate Ford because ALL-1 left me butt hurt" propaganda.

He is as bad as a broken record.

I would have liked the 5.0 in the raptor. The 3.5 turbos don't kick in until 1700rpm and the boost really takes off after that. But below 1700rpm you just have 3.5 v6. Considering that a lot of times you are crawling in 4low, this engine just won't have the torque characteristics I like in an off road truck.
I recently drove a 2.7tt F150 in 4 low. It was very jerkey. It was really hard to moderate at low speeds. Suddenly the boost would kick in and you jerk the truck and lose traction. Specially in the snow I was driving in.

There's the Bi Gal from oz. Crawl back down under your rock.

@Kambiz

1. The Raptor is made to be a high speed off road, not a low speed truck.

2. At 1,700 rpm the 3.5L EB is at 90% of its torque rating per Ford which would be 378 lb-ft. That is just 9 lb-ft shy of what the 5.0L peak out at another 2,150 rpm so I still think it is making more torque than just a "3.5 V6" before 1,700 rpm as well. According to the engine dyno below then old 5.0L that had similar torque numbers makes as much torque as the 3.5L EB does at 1,500 rpm without spooling up the turbos. If you spooled up the turbos (which takes a fraction of a second) then the 3.5 EB makies considerably more torque at 1,500 rpm over the 5.0L Especially in 4 low where the very short gearing will get you to 1,500 rpm very quick. Also, that boost power delay before 1,500 rpm is no different then the torque delay you have with most n/a engines that don't move much until after 3,000 rpm.

http://cars.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e2015431f2b44d970c-pi

3. You got to know how to drive diesel and gas turbocharged vehicles. It is not for everyone, and you can't use the same "mash the pedal" concept that n/a engines require. As with anything, once you get used to it then you learn how much throttle to give.

The F-series still sold over 13,500 more trucks than number 2.

BAFO releases his usual "I hate Ford because ALL-1 left me butt hurt" propaganda.

He is as bad as a broken record.
Posted by: Cummins | Feb 3, 2016 12:00:20 AM

HAHAHA sure... Ford, competing against an imaginary company, took the number 1 spot... Back in REALITY however, GM sold the most fullsize pickups... Pickups with real suspensions design to do work, not grind their bumpers off with 1900 lb in the bed like the F150. Looks like Ford's 10k off rebates have helped it keep up with the market leader.

The F-series still sold over 13,500 more trucks than number 2.

BAFO releases his usual "I hate Ford because ALL-1 left me butt hurt" propaganda.

He is as bad as a broken record.
Posted by: Cummins | Feb 3, 2016 12:00:20 AM

HAHAHA sure... Ford, competing against an imaginary company, took the number 1 spot... Back in REALITY however, GM sold the most fullsize pickups... Pickups with real suspensions design to do work, not grind their bumpers off with 1900 lb in the bed like the F150. Looks like Ford's 10k off rebates have helped it keep up with the market leader.

"At 1,700 rpm the 3.5L EB is at 90% of its torque rating per Ford which would be 378 lb-ft. That is just 9 lb-ft shy of what the 5.0L peak out at another 2,150 rpm so I still think it is making more torque than just a "3.5 V6" before 1,700 rpm as well. "

Granted Ford likes to benchmark their engines using 93 octane. The Ecojunks don't make their advertised numbers on the pump junk gas 87 that Ford " recommends".

I'd take the ecobost over the 5.0 Coyote. Who wants to try to hear that V8 burble over the engine knock. Just search for 5.0 knock on youtube. The 5.0 don't have the reliability of the boost.

Kambiz,
I do think the V6 diesel would be good in a Raptor, better than any EcoThirst. It will offer enough speed for desert runs and low down grunt for some serious off roading.

The biggest problem for the Raptor is is size, way to large to be taken, unless it is on a wide open track.

Better still would be a "Raptorised" Ranger. They are smaller and would offer superior off road capability over a Raptor.

Ford's target market for Raptors are the "hairdresser set" with plenty of cash. It makes them look good on 5th Avenue or parked at Lowes or Home Depot.

The Raptor should be able to navigate those speed humps really well.

Maybe Lou should be negatively critical of the Raptor load and tow. The worse among the 1/2 ton pickups.

Reading some of the uneducated comments on how and when torque is best off roading is entertaining.

1700rpm??? What do you guys just want to spin your wheels when in low traction situations?

Low down grunt is off idle, not above 1 200rpm even.

The 3.5 EcoThirst will produce enough torque off idle to move the vehicle in most situations. But it will chew through the fuel at those inefficient rpms for the EcoThirst.

With such a poor payload the Raptor would struggle on a two day outing for two people. To carry the necessary fuel in the bed for the thirsty engine, a tent, food/drink, plus the other necessary camping gear would overload the truck significantly.

The Raptor might be good at the local four wheel drive park where you pretend to be a off roader, but even then make sure there is a gas station nearby to make it home.

I would like to a Raptor in one of the production classes of the Dakar. None were entered this year. A couple of South African built Ford Rangers who went hard in the first couple of Stages

Ford's target market for Raptors are the "hairdresser set" with plenty of cash. It makes them look good on 5th Avenue or parked at Lowes or Home Depot.


Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Feb 3, 2016 3:29:50 AM

Well guys, looks like BARFO is in the market for a Raptor. He just described himself. He sure will look pretty towing his horse float during gay pride week.

Please tell me that Fat Chick From Oz is not talking about FE while rock crawling. I mean seriously what a buffoon

The sad thing is, is this buffoon Fat Albert thinks he know vehicles. He calls out someone that questioned torque at 1700 rpm and said you need it around 1200 to keep your wheels spinning like he is some sort of off road god. Then he goes on his anti aluminum, anti Ford, anti Raptor babble talking about FE at 1200 rpm. But this tool seems to think the engine is directly connected to the wheels. This fool seems to forget that these trucks have transmissions with torque converters and this Raptor havs a 10 speed transmission. This 10 speed likely has a low 1st and 2nd gear and that 3.5L would likely be loaded hardly at all. not enough to get the turbos to spool up to make boost. The gearing will do the work for it so the 3.5L is basicly idling just off throttle at 1200 rpm

Low down torque- you guys are hilarious- the converter wouldn't transmit more torque down there. The American market has said good bye to all but the last few niche market manual gear boxes. That said, the turbo motors can push as much and more low end torque through the trans as any bigger NA motor.
Now, when it comes to torque delivery in low-trac situations, especially in low range, it is NOT the kind of engine used that causes the problem, but rather dodgy throttle mapping.

BAFO... Yeah, Ford is trying to sway the 15 people that view this website.

LMBO it will be fun to watch this fail like the new race GT. Better get the frame straightening machine ready and the glue/rivet guns ready too.

Yup, gearboxes, traction control and electrical issues plagued the new GT. The silver lining is that Ferrari couldn't touch the GTs fastest lap time of 1:44.391

@PUTC - I assume they will be at the Parker 425 as well for this weekend. Look forward to that race.Trophy trucks are way more fun to watch than the stock class tho.

Ford trucks. Com?

I like the lowrance though.

Well with the USA news today Fiat/Ram planning to kill off thier car lines & Consumer Reports rating the JEEP family near the worst to own, what's left, Ram?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/research/fiat-chrysler-to-kill-off-family-sedans-refocus-on-jeep-and-ram/ar-BBp1Vep?li=BBnb4R5#image=BBp21vz|14

http://www3.forbes.com/business/15-new-cars-to-avoid/

Kambiz – The engine going into the 2017 Raptor is significantly different than the one currently in the F150. It has more in common with the new Ford GT SuperCar. It has “zero lag” turbo’s. There isn’t going to be any significant turbo lag or spool up.

I’ve driven a F150 with EB 3.5. I had one for 10 days in the winter during poor road and weather conditions. It had zero issues with gas pedal modulation and I did not have any issues with turbo lag. The only hesitation I noticed from “foot meets floor” gas pedal application was due to the transmission shifting down and it wasn’t any worse than my F150 with 5.4.

The Ecoboost accelerated better by avoiding mashing the pedal to the floor. It pulled harder up 7-10 % grades if you avoided a downshift and allowed mid rpm torque to move you along. Revving to redline was a waste of time. In many respects it behaved more like a 5.4 with an extra 80 hp than what one would expect from a V6 turbo. Comparing it to a diesel power-band isn’t really that far off the mark.


I’m curious as to why you would want to use 4lo in snow?


The only things I actually did not like about the truck I had was the electronic locking diff or more specifically how the computer nannies interfered with it. The nannies would disengage the locker automatically at 35 mph and re-engage only when under 18 mph(IIRC). Traction and stability control when disengaged will automatically re-engage at 35 mph. That is a huge PIA when travelling off-road in deep snow or soft ground.

There are too many bloggers here that don’t speak from experience so I am eager to discuss this further with you and any input or additional information is welcome. I’d never consider an F150 with the EB2.7 but I’d love to hear more.


Nice to see a new blogger.

@BARFo - so all of a sudden you are interested in payload?

WTF?

The Raptor crew was over 1,000 lbs for cargo.

One again you play around with specs to align with your ideology.

"where you pretend to be a off roader"

Didn't you go on and on and on about your day playing at an off-road park?

Not a fan of its front end, but I do love that colour scheme.

You guys just need to not reply to BAFO's comments, just ignore him and he will go away, you just have to remember all his other names he uses and ignore those as well.....

back to the important stuff, awesome job Ford on this truck!

Kambiz,
The "new" 3.5 going into the Raptor will no boost.

The person named Lou doesn't have a clue in relation to boost vs lag with turbo'd engines.

No boost equates to no power. In these situations as will occur with this new alumniniumised Raptor will be more throttle to attempt to gain the necessary power at low rpm's.

This equal much more fuel, especially when rock crawling in comparison to a diesel.

Remember boost and lag are two different animals.

People like Lou who only know magazine data shouldn't be listened to.

I do find it incredible some of the misinformation passed on this site by the "know nothings".

The boost vs lag comment was very misleading.

The person who made the comment should realise if you are projecting the image of a old hand, knowledgeable off roader and pickup dude make sure you are correct with your comments and aren't trying to sell a product.

Off idle there is no way you will have boost, unless it is mechanically enhanced and powered by a source other than the exhaust.

Lag is the time it takes the turbo to spool up and provide the necessary boost when engine exhaust has sufficient energy.

Ford does something cool (100ish MPH off road) and Al gets grumpy...

Toss Al another Chevy with black trim, stickers and Pepboys add ons... watch his pulse rise.

I don't think companies advertising is nearly as bad as companies going bankrupt, begging for and getting gov money that never gets paid back...

The Raptor is a toy first and truck second and if I recall properly it still has slightly more payload capacity than a Fiat Rebel. For those looking to tow or haul... I would avoid a high performance off road supertruck. I hear the Corvette only has room for 2 and a small trunk as well Al. Whoda thunk that?

Went to the auto show in DC last weekend.

Got so see/sit in a Titan XD. It was a SL model and it was nice... I still don't get it though the cost/capability compromises and the market its looking to serve/create.

Saw the pretend trucks the Colorado/canyon diesels and the new Taco. Since I got a family, value my money and like to pick up things by the skidload im done with them. So expensive for what you get and those rear drum brakes on the taco scream cost cutting.

Saw the Rebel it seemed nice.

Saw the new Raptor and the Aluminum Super Duty. Both were cool but you coudnt get into either (closed). The Ford section was the best represented as far as trucks went. There were only 4 fiat Rams counting the Rebel, and Chevy only had 5 trucks present nothing special about any of them other than 1 was all blacked out. Ford had 8 trucks present including the raptor and new SD. I like the redesign of the tail gate step. The new mustang was a draw as was the focus rs and fiesta st... no one seemed care about the refreshed fusion and they hid the flex. It was also at that time seeing the most activity.

Over at chevy the vette seemed to be the big draw, not often you get to sit in one so it had a small crowd. The new Camaro as well. Nothing really exciting there.

I didn't go over to Fiat Jeep but saw they had a lot of vehicles there. Took the Fiat jeep ride since the show wasn't crowded. Was in a trailhawk Cheorkee the one based on the Fiat Dart. They squeezed a lot out of a small car platform.

I walked through the GMC section and saw the new Acadia. I saw their small truck and a denali there.

For hoo hoos and ha has I saw a Lincoln Navigator was 82K... a real bargin with the Escalade being 97K... Kinda mind blowing wasn't prepared for a 100K anything that really wasn't exotic. Especially vehicles that share platforms and many features with a "common" version.

We had a good time it was nice.

@Nitro

No, BAFO will not go away. He will always linger here like he does in the other blogs he responds.

I actually like responding to him for my own amusement because the stuff he spins just to line it up with his ideology (like Lou said) is comical. He will try to make something look great when it benefits his "favorite" (small diesels, small trucks, anything other than US), but then turn it right around as a bad thing when it is regarding his least "favorite" (Ford, gas engines, aluminum, the US) in an articles a few days later. He is more spin that than Hillary Clinton. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh because it is so funny or cry because he his comments sound like he has "sour grapes syndrome".

Maybe it is because he drives around all day with that baby 3.2L Power-less (wannabe Powerstroke) and he wishes he could have he trucks and engines we have so to make him feel better he brings up the only thing that gutless little Power-less engine has which is fuel economy. Just my theory based upon his posts.

So Lou,
You are constantly throwing out those troulling comments regarding your "deep concern" with Ram's payload v tow.

So what about the Raptor, it is far worse than any Ram.

I did see one comment stating that the Raptor is not designed as a load and tow vehicle.

Maybe, just maybe this supports my view that most any pickup is not a truck, they are a SUV or car alternative.

Hmmm ................

But if it ain't a Frod it just isn't quite good enough, isn't that correct Lou?

Grnzel1,
What I'm about to write might make you become a little disillusioned.

Ford's pickup truck press releases are given to more than just PUTC.

Yes, a shock isn't it.

Ford releases the information and then media outlets run with it.

Somehow I don't think PUTC is at the top of Ford's most influential outlets. So, in that respect you are correct.

I view PUTC as a form of entertainment mixed with much information from the B&B.

I'm one of the few who actually tells it as he sees it and not troulle.

@BARFo - did I say NO BOOST? I said ZERO LAG.

Unlike you, I live IN the North American truck market and culture. I've ONLY owned pickups.

You are the internet soldier not me.

Have you driven an Ecoboost 3.5 F150?

Oh, find any documented evidence of a 1950's era one ton pickup with a large camper on it that can maintain 80 mph on the freeway?

I posted a link on the subject...........

You are butt hurt since I've finally got sick and tired of your BARF'o'ver everyone else.

Poor baby from Oz.

Even at TTAC you are regarded as a trull.

@BAFO : I have owned both a supercharged and turbocharged version of the same engine. I understand the difference in the 2 versions of these power adders. A supercharged engine acts virtually like a NA engine with a more linear power delivery. This would be a more desirable power delivery for rock crawling. The turbo engine makes no boost until a sufficient exhaust flow has been established and then the power becomes difficult to modulate. If maximum throttle application is required in ones offroading, then go turbo. If more control over the power delivery is required, then a large NA or Supercharged engine would be a better choice.

trull persona

@Lou_BC

"Even at TTAC you are regarded as a trull."

Yep, this is true. Many people there don't like him either. You would think with all these people against him and his assumptions that he likes to spew as facts that he would get the hint.

Although I think I just found his Youtube page...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5P5P0l7NMe2f2uBs_wLN5Q

What are the most influential truck news outlets? The data provided in PUTC is typically more detailed then the mainstream media outlets. Therefore, linking the low sales numbers to a raptor article in order to deflect media attention is marginal at best when portrayed to a limited, target audience. It was just a matter of coincidence. Media campaigns are designed to influence the market over the long term.

Keep buying your Fiats hopefully the government will not bail them out a third time

BAFO : I have owned both a supercharged and turbocharged version of the same engine. I understand the difference in the 2 versions of these power adders. A supercharged engine acts virtually like a NA engine with a more linear power delivery. This would be a more desirable power delivery for rock crawling. The turbo engine makes no boost until a sufficient exhaust flow has been established and then the power becomes difficult to modulate. If maximum throttle application is required in ones offroading, then go turbo. If more control over the power delivery is required, then a large NA or Supercharged engine would be a better choice.


Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Feb 3, 2016 12:45:55 PM

Please tell me you are kidding. A supercharger is pretty linear but it's boost levels depend on supercharger type aka roots vs centrifugal. It also depends on pullies used and engine design. A turbo is no different. You can have turbos designed for low engine speed operation and high speed operation. The most common form of high engine speed turbos are those used by drag cars and tuners. They crank out high RPM and high Hp. Down low there is not much. That is why they will run very high stall speed converters. The Ecoboost series engines are more of a low engine speed configuration. This is why their peak HP numbers are not very high compared to other similar displacement force induced engines. But they make a lot of low end power. You truly speak of ignorance with no clue.

BC Mike;)
The same, same.

Your are attemting to state that the lag and no boost situations of the "new" 3.5 EcoThirst is not relevant.

You are in effect attempting to push aside a problem with turbo engines.

We were talking about low end torque, not torque above 1 500rpm or so.

Can you not follow the thread?? Or is this beyond you.

The EcoThirst is NOT the best option for an off road vehicle.

First a diesel would be the best option, then a normally aspirated engine.

A turbo gas engine is good at high rpms, ie, racing a car around a race track not off road racing.

Look at the Dakar, what engines are used nowdays? EcoThirst's? No way. They are thirsty and don't have the reliability, and efficiency vs power and torque as a turbo diesel.

Have you ever wondered why tractors, bulldozers, etc don't use EcoThirst engnes?

Doh! Homer.

Somebody pull the hp/tq charts for a diesel and Ecoboost and an NA engine and end this argument.

Somebody pull the hp/tq charts for a diesel and Ecoboost and an NA engine and end this argument.

Grnzel1,
A graph isn't going to help to much.

Maybe a working document/study on the differenet qualties offered by the the diesel vs gasoline engine.

BARFO, you obviously cannot read, comprehend, don't care, or you are just too high from the fumes comming off the airplanes you are waxing. A Diesel engine had terrible lag before variable geometry turbos and sequential turbos were used. A Diesel just does not have the heat needed to spool up a turbo that easily. Once you got cylinder temps hot then the turbos would kick in and you get your torque.

A gasser can have more heat off idle right away and spool up a turbo quicker. Why don't you see VGT turbos or sequential turbos on gas. But a gas engine has a much larger power band over diesel.a diesel is typically 3K and under. You have a gas engine set up with a turbo designed around low RPM you have the ability to make big torque down low. It is all in the setup. There is no right answer for all engines. You have to design around the function your after. You also have the Benifit of gearing in the transmission and torque converters stall to help out. Sorry BARFO you are just to blinded by your hatred for aluminum and Ford to even make a little sense. Go and wax and airplane will you.

It is no difference in a NA engine. You cannot make huge HP and Huge low end torque. They just don't work that way.

Somebody pull the hp/tq charts for a diesel and Ecoboost and an NA engine and end this argument.


Posted by: Grnzel1 | Feb 3, 2016 1:40:52 PM

There are to many variables to make a good direct comparison. Aka cubic inch, type of turbo systems, cam and head combination, fuel injection system, exhaust style, etc.

@LMAO: you have obviously never owned a supercharged or turbocharged engine let alone experience what each does to the same engine design and displacement. Twin screw superchargers (which is what I experienced) are able to produce boost at idle (if not for the by-pass valve) and therefore offer more low RPM response with overall linear power delivery. Turbos are difficult to modulate particularly if rock crawling. What's not to understand?

LMAO: you have obviously never owned a supercharged or turbocharged engine let alone experience what each does to the same engine design and displacement. Twin screw superchargers (which is what I experienced) are able to produce boost at idle (if not for the by-pass valve) and therefore offer more low RPM response with overall linear power delivery. Turbos are difficult to modulate particularly if rock crawling. What's not to understand?


Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Feb 3, 2016 2:16:25 PM

Hahahahaha, yes I have a lot of experience compared to you. Drag racing, SCCOA racing. You do not understand the function of both. If you make boost at idle with a twin screw you have limited RPM range for high HP. The same as a low AR turbo. It will spool up quick but does not have the capacity to carry the HP up high. You can have a gas turbo make boost down low. You can have a turbo make no boost down low but make 30 psi+ up high. I guarantee you are talking garbage about making boost at idle. You stab the throttle you will see O psi on the gauge or around 14.5 depending on the Guage type. You must be the son of BARFO

I will add a VGT turbo diesel you can make a few pounds of boost at idle.



The comments to this entry are closed.