2018 Ranger Raptor

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Fair point Rob, then why not start the test in Bathurst and drive it out there rather than commence it at the foot of big red if factoring in the drive too and from was the intention of the exercise, its what they didnt do before, but did do after putting Raptor through its paces that stands out.
The run from Cobar to Bathurst adds nothing to the review other than distort the final consumption figures.
We know what a Ranger with 2.0l/10A is capable of on the black top.

Journo's are just trying to stay relavent and their main goal is to get people to read their articles, not buy the cars. To me it's just one person's version of events and opinions. A few journo's have driven it now and all of them want to try to remain credible. There is enough reviews out there now that you can search and find one that matches your own views. Most of them are failing in my view. As with most people that have been around cars for a while, there is a lot of preconceptions about small capacity motors and it's blindingly obvious it's a major hurdle for most, trying to change their mindset to align with modern technology.

[Nu66et]

People actually expect claimed fuel consumption to be matched in real world conditions?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Nu66et

People actually expect claimed fuel consumption to be matched in real world conditions?

You can match claimed consumption figures if your real world driving is similar to the test procedure.

I beat the claimed urban figure on all my cars quite easily. Then again, I do shift work so traffic is not a big issue.

That's why they test to a standard as everyone's situation is different.

[articulatedsphinx]

Originally Posted by prydey

Journo's are just trying to stay relavent and their main goal is to get people to read their articles, not buy the cars. To me it's just one person's version of events and opinions. A few journo's have driven it now and all of them want to try to remain credible. There is enough reviews out there now that you can search and find one that matches your own views. Most of them are failing in my view. As with most people that have been around cars for a while, there is a lot of preconceptions about small capacity motors and it's blindingly obvious it's a major hurdle for most, trying to change their mindset to align with modern technology.

The funny thing is no one bats an eye when Audi or VW wring near 300hp out of a 2L, which they have been doing for years.

Right now the Hyundai N , yes Hyundai uses a 2L which makes 202kw/353nm!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

I know fuel consumption is important to some. Does it sound too snooty to say I don't particularly care? even 14L/100 wouldn't phase me. My big thing is making sure the fuel tank is big enough. I just don't want to be stuck somewhere while outback.

I've ordered myself one of these bad boys (200L rapid genius tank), for when I do CSR. I hate jerry cans. The portable tank is actually quite compact, looks way bigger in the picture.

Since diesel weighs 0.8kg/L + the tank (36kg) will weigh about 196kg give or take.

image

Fair enough, but i dont think 14l is representitive either, i'd say closer to 17-18l hence my previous comment of 400ishkm's from the tank.
That tank is a great idea but even thats a trade off as it will reduce your available payload to 550kg.
Add occupants, accessories, camping gear, essentials and your getting up there.
Not a deal breaker but worth consideration is my point i guess but it seems that anything less than full praise is perceived as negative comment when in reality it is only observations based on available data..

[articulatedsphinx]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Fair enough, but i dont think 14l is representitive either, i'd say closer to 17-18l hence my previous comment of 400ishkm's from the tank.
That tank is a great idea but even thats a trade off as it will reduce your available payload to 550kg.
Add occupants, accessories, camping gear, essentials and your getting up there.
Not a deal breaker but worth consideration is my point i guess but it seems that anything less than full praise is perceived as negative comment when in reality it is only observations based on available data..

No I totally agree with you that there are definitely limitations. I suppose when you target niche things like having a great suspension you have tradeoffs. If you used a 2 axle braked trailer (obviously not while dune jumping etc), you could certainly carry more stuff for camping purposes etc.

What I do wonder however, is people who modify their own vehicles to do stuff like this and assume they aren't changing the payload characteristics as well.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

What I do wonder however, is people who modify their own vehicles to do stuff like this and assume they aren't changing the payload characteristics as well.

Apparently if it has a Toyota badge on it, you can do whatever you like

So many LC owners who feel the need to bolt the entire ARB catalogue to their car.

[naddis01]

Do you think that the 3.2 would have used less fuel? From my experience, I doubt it if driven in the same manner.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Do you think that the 3.2 would have used less fuel? From my experience, I doubt it if driven in the same manner.

given how similar the power and torque curves are, i would say fuel usage would be similar also in the same application.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

The funny thing is no one bats an eye when Audi or VW wring near 300hp out of a 2L, which they have been doing for years.

Right now the Hyundai N , yes Hyundai uses a 2L which makes 202kw/353nm!

When people think Audi or VW, I don’t think ‘reliability’ is the first word they think of either.

[articulatedsphinx]

That’s why you buy em and dump cars before the warranty ends.

Although with ford the 5 year unlimited warranty will boil down to how well they actually live up to their claim. I plan on keeping my raptor for 4 years, unless they come out with the better engine.

Ford has already said they won’t cover blown shocks etc.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Interesting, obviously does what its intended to do but as predicted the 2.0l needs to be pushed hard to achieve it.
They claim 14.1l average for the entire journey but the final 500km is all top gear highway cruising which would have brought the figures down considerably from what it would have shown rolling in to Cobar.

Driver ratings are interesting too, whilst it achieves an 8.5 out of 10 it gets 10/10 for connectivity and comfort at the expense of performance and safety, remove connectivity which is largely irrelevant in the desert and consider comfort as being down to the individuals outcome and its closer to a 7-7.5 out of 10 with safety its weakest link, not exactly confidence inspiring for a vehicle intended for blasting through the desert at break neck speeds.

Connectivity is still important in this type of vehicle because it's not exclusively a desert runner, more versatility as a day to day driver in the city that goes bush when ever and where ever the owner wants which is why the stretches in the various legs were chosen, particularly the final from Cobar to Bathurst.......that is why they tested everything.
The AES issue is being addressed with changed sensor positions as a running change....so safety rating will improve next year.

Originally Posted by BENT_8
Fair enough, but i dont think 14l is representative either, i'd say closer to 17-18l hence my previous comment of 400ishkm's from the tank.
That tank is a great idea but even thats a trade off as it will reduce your available payload to 550kg.
Add occupants, accessories, camping gear, essentials and your getting up there.
Not a deal breaker but worth consideration is my point i guess but it seems that anything less than full praise is perceived as negative comment when in reality it is only observations based on available data..

And thi is the kind of feedback that Ford will need to hear from actual Raptor owners, what their actual experience has been, what works, what needs to change. We are still looking outside in with this vehicle and for any criticism, it may still prove to be a great alternative to Hilux TRD.

Of course you'll never convince the people who just want a Ram 1500 and 5.7 Hemi,
they probably think we're all mad for wanting to pay same money for a smaller truck....

[articulatedsphinx]

The other thing I was just thinking about with regards to fuel economy is the auto stop/start, which is probably included in those numbers.

I will probably have to disable it with FORScan because there is nothing I hate more than auto stop/start

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

The other thing I was just thinking about with regards to fuel economy is the auto stop/start, which is probably included in those numbers.

I will probably have to disable it with FORScan because there is nothing I hate more than auto stop/start

With the different driving modes, stop start is probably cancelled in at least one of them...

The great part about the little diesel is that it takes a ton of abuse to make it drink fuel,
to come away with a 14 l/100 km average and to use under 17 l/100 km in the toughest going
is phenomenal and in the same situation, I bet a 3.2 would be guzzling fuel at a fierce rate let alone
a V6 Ecoboost petrol engine......

[csv8]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

The other thing I was just thinking about with regards to fuel economy is the auto stop/start, which is probably included in those numbers.

I will probably have to disable it with FORScan because there is nothing I hate more than auto stop/start

Agreed. I had one in a Passat hire car and it drove me nuts. Silly idea.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

No I totally agree with you that there are definitely limitations. I suppose when you target niche things like having a great suspension you have tradeoffs. If you used a 2 axle braked trailer (obviously not while dune jumping etc), you could certainly carry more stuff for camping purposes etc.

Adding a twin axle leaf sprung trailer to the back will only bring the Raptors ability back to what a Wildtrack can do whilst pushing the fuel economy out.

Not much point in an $80k ute capable of flying along rough tracks due to its superior suspension setup if the trailer it needs following it is primitive in comparison, your only as strong as your weakest link.

So in summary what seperates a Raptor from its cheaper siblings, its a performance off road utility capable of handling the harshest conditions thrown at it however its powerplant whilst capable is required to work hard to achieve it and as a result when pushed hard will provide a range of around 450km, not much when you consider how vast its intended geography is, so you take 200kgs of extra fuel which increases its range considerably, however that reduces its available payload, so you add a trailer which then negates its off road abilities, the positive is that it then wont be working as hard which should restore its consumption and increase its range, however dragging the extra weight of the trailer negates that.

[RANGEREST]

I'll bet those fuel economy figures are easily bettered, you've got to remember they would have been flogging the guts out of it.
(Edit, I just watched the vid.)
I could make my 3.2 use easily that much fuel if I drove it like I stole it.

[naddis01]

Yes, I can guarantee that my 3.2 would average more than 14L/100 if driven as per the video. I average 11.5 in normal day to day driving which includes a high percentage of highway driving.

[articulatedsphinx]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Adding a twin axle leaf sprung trailer to the back will only bring the Raptors ability back to what a Wildtrack can do whilst pushing the fuel economy out.



Not much point in an $80k ute capable of flying along rough tracks due to its superior suspension setup if the trailer it needs following it is primitive in comparison, your only as strong as your weakest link.



So in summary what seperates a Raptor from its cheaper siblings, its a performance off road utility capable of handling the harshest conditions thrown at it however its powerplant whilst capable is required to work hard to achieve it and as a result when pushed hard will provide a range of around 450km, not much when you consider how vast its intended geography is, so you take 200kgs of extra fuel which increases its range considerably, however that reduces its available payload, so you add a trailer which then negates its off road abilities, the positive is that it then wont be working as hard which should restore its consumption and increase its range, however dragging the extra weight of the trailer negates that.

And how would a TT V6 make that any better? And this 450km range isn’t even set in stone, just a guess. I think we should wait until we have some experience with it. Besides taking a little patriot camper along and parking it and having some fun and then coming back to your campsite isn’t that out of the ordinary.

Once again this all comes down to criticism of the 2L. The same endless drumbeat of naysayers. Don’t buy one lol.

Anyways we will never end this, so let’s agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jpd80]

If you tow a trailer or a caravan, you can un-hook it and go play for the day and return to a camp site..

The world is full of choices so no one has to be prisoner to circular logic that fits a certain narrative..
Take a TTV6 Raptor bush and you'd be far worse off in the amount of Fuel needed to be carried.
There are always reasons why you can't do certain things, that's why it's so important to keep
focused on what can be done to have a great time in the bush.

[Martyvan]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

The other thing I was just thinking about with regards to fuel economy is the auto stop/start, which is probably included in those numbers.

I will probably have to disable it with FORScan because there is nothing I hate more than auto stop/start

Start stop in my cars is habitual turn off everytime i start up. It drives me insane if i forget.... hahaha. And if your vehicle uses 0.6l/hour of fuel at idle... 20 mins of idle stop on an hour commute is only 200ml of fuel so i personally dont see the point of it

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Yes, I can guarantee that my 3.2 would average more than 14L/100 if driven as per the video. I average 11.5 in normal day to day driving which includes a high percentage of highway driving.

What mods have you done.

I would get in the 11's with 99% city driving and I have a reasonably heavy foot.

Originally Posted by prydey

Apparently if it has a Toyota badge on it, you can do whatever you like

So many LC owners who feel the need to bolt the entire ARB catalogue to their car.

I think you mixed up LC with Navara.
I've been up the bush offroading for the past 3 days and the Cruisers were the least modified vehicles up there.

[RANGEREST]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What mods have you done.

I would get in the 11's with 99% city driving and I have a reasonably heavy foot..

My 2011 and 2014 model XLTs both did high 10s around town and towing my 7x5 tradies trailer, and would do 8s on the highway without a trailer, if I sat below 110.
My 17 XLT (with dpf) is currently sitting on 13.7, on the highway the best I can get is 10.7, without a trailer.
Won't be keeping this one for the long term, thats for sure.

[simon varley]

my 17 XLT is getting 9.3 about 50/50 highway and town. mostly unladen but I do drive it hard. I gather that this is a 'good' one but nobody seems to know why.

[Bossxr8]

How ironic is it that the ones who were complaining about it having a 2 litre diesel are also complaining about it's fuel economy.

It would be using 50% more with a petrol engine easily.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by simon varley

my 17 XLT is getting 9.3 about 50/50 highway and town. mostly unladen but I do drive it hard. I gather that this is a 'good' one but nobody seems to know why.

I wouldn't be surprised if your use of the vehicle and driving style make it a "good" one. Even "driving hard".

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

How ironic is it that the ones who were complaining about it having a 2 litre diesel are also complaining about it's fuel economy.

It would be using 50% more with a petrol engine easily.

So right.... here's a factoid, our previous 2008 G6ET when averaging 20km/hr under my wife's driving routine from bayside Melbourne to school then CBD and back was 14.5L/100km. Reset on the weekend, add more highway driving, average speed would go up to 30km/hr and economy would improve to 10.4L/100km I kept a log and some how was the only one that ever filled it)...and I had spirited fun driving it believe me.
In the exact same urban driving routine our diesel Territory is averaging 10L/100km, it weighs 200Kg more and traffic congestion is now greater. increase the mix with more highway and it drops to high 8's-9. We all want more power if given the choice, otherwise most of us wouldn't be on this forum, however not all of us will keep paying the fuel bill....maybe if we paid US fuel prices it would be a different story ...even now where I work/live diesel and petrol are both $1.59/L and I bet our country members would consider that good value. Can I suggest if anyone compares fuel economy you also include your average speed from the trip computer as it might add another layer of info for better comparison.

[articulatedsphinx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei_UhcnkfFc

So definitely not the most aggressive sounding engine, and I imagine some of that is piped in artificially. Think I heard 7 shifts before he/she let off the gas.

Sounds just like a Subaru boxer motor to me, or maybe I'm just crazy

Still excited to get mine! Should be on the boat soon.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

How ironic is it that the ones who were complaining about it having a 2 litre diesel are also complaining about it's fuel economy.

It would be using 50% more with a petrol engine easily.

Are you feeling alright?
If you're referring to me you are wrong, i dont care what is powering it, my point is that as a result of how it must be pushed to perform it has a relatively small range considering the vast distances people who claim to want to reach the far corners of the country are envisioning it taking them.
If you want to fly along 1500km of rugged isolated dirt tracks to get the most out of it you'll need to load it to the gunwales with jerry cans or articulateds fancy tank, both of which reduces its payload for essentials etc.

It would be awesome in the US or other environments where isolation is at the end of the street, with fuel stops every few hundred km's, but im thinking Australia's interior might not be as suited to its drinking habits when pushed as some may believe.
Theres a reason why Cruisers with 140l fuel tank capacities have dominated this landscape..

We'll have to wait and see.

I totally agree that a petrol engined version would be worse again.

[chevypower]

Why doesn’t Ford offer both? Offer the diesel for people who want fuel economy and range, offer the 2.7-3.0 V6 TT for people who want acceleration, speed, and throttle response. Everyone knows the pros and cons of both.