Ford Raptor- anybody have one?

[LazySusanFarms]

Google Raptor weak rear frame and you won't buy one. Several Raptors have shown up with out of alignment rear beds due to off road use and a weak sub frame.

 

[RollingsFarms]

the Raptor is a niche truck and it fits that niche VERY well. there's NOTHING close to being like it on the market that I know of. Dodge was working on something (not the PowerWagon) but I don't recall the name. RamRunner maybe? a horse rancher that lives across from some land of mine on the other side of town has a black Raptor with the 5.4(the first one's that came out). I haven't had a chance to talk to him about it but that is a bad*** looking truck. that wide aggressive stance is just mean looking. in my opinion the Raptor is made for the guy....or girl, that likes to go out to the dunes on the weekends and rip it up, find some trails in the woods and haul butt like you wouldn't DREAM of doing in a stock truck because you'd beat it to death. not the kind of truck I would be interested in, but still a cool concept nonetheless. I'd sure like to race one with the 6.2 with my 6.2 just to see what he had:thumbsup:

 

[forgeblast]

My buddy got one kind of a mid life purchase. Looks nice, no real bed in the back to haul anything, mpg is not too impressive, and it just about squeeks into his garage. Handling is nice.
He lives close to work, so the mpg thing doesnt really bother him. Over all not the truck I would want.

 

[BleedGreen]

I am looking at a new truck right now - and as a long time GM man we have narrowed it down to an F150 (FX4 or Lariat) or a Ram 1500 Laramie. I have to say I have read (and been told) many good things about the the EcoBoost engine, but have not been impressed myself. Anyone want to talk me out of the 5.0? $1,100.00 more for the EcoBoost, city MPG about the same, it doesnt "sound right" to me (yes I know!) and seems to be very weak at mid speed - takes forever from 40 to 60 mph - which scares me in a possible accident scenario - that is what I am thinking...

BTW I looked at the Raptor as well and what a beautiful truck - just cant justify the additional money.

 

[aczlan]

Google Raptor weak rear frame and you won't buy one. Several Raptors have shown up with out of alignment rear beds due to off road use and a weak sub frame.

Hmmm. Looking online, I find this: http://www.fordraptorforum.com/f5/why-you-should-feel-good-about-your-raptor-frame-3253/
From the first post:

Assumptions:
The "kicker" or "dirt speed bump" is one Raptor tire diameter accross, and is shaped like two ramps joined together (like a flattened triangle).

Case #1:
Kicker height is 18" (flattened to 12" by your tires)
Truck speed is 60MPH (88 fps)
The bottom of the tire has to move up 12" in .0166 seconds. this is an average speed of 60.24 ft/s
To generate this suspension speed, the truck would have to free fall 56 FEET!!!!! That's an impressive number, but what does it mean?

It means that the truck is recieving an impact equavalent to the first 12" of a 56 FOOT DROP WITH THE SUSPENSION ALREADY HALF COMPRESSED! My best guess is that the suspension acounts for about 6" of that, the tires for maybe another 3-4", the axle for some fraction of an inch, the truck vertical motion for another small fraction of an inch (no time to respond), and the rest? It all goes into deforming the frame by 1"-2".

This also tells me that even if the frame were boxed in that area, or if it was 3 times thicker, it would still bend. Even if the frame was reinfored enough to hold, the next likely point of failure is the axle, which would bend, stranding you.

Case #2:
Kicker Height is 12" (flattened to 9" by the tires)
Truck speed is 45 MPH (66ft/s)
The bottom of the tire has to move up 9" in .0221 seconds, an average speed of 33.94 ft/s vertical.

To generate this suspension speed, the truck would have to free fall about 18 feet! This is a MUCH less severe impact! More importantly, the impact is only 9" long (insert obvious joke here). Additionally the truck may be able to absorb it without requiring metal to deform.

The suspension can absorb 6", the tires their 3", the axle a tiny bit, the truck can move upwards a bit more, and all you probably have is tortured bump stops.

So those of you who have jumped their Raptors (and the most vertical air I've seen is maybe 8-9 feet) and said they don't have bent frames? This is because hitting an 18" kicker at 60MPH is about 7 TIMES as severe. PLUS your suspension is fully extended when you jump, cushioning the fall better, unlike the speed bump example.

Conclusion? If you hit something like a speed bump or "kicker" taller than your available suspension travel, plus tire "squash", at HIGH speed, you will bend metal.

Another post on the same subject:

For the case in point:
12" high compacted bump
6" of remaining suspension travel
3" of tire compression
The only way to avoid a crash in your suspension (DAMAGE) is to move the frame rails up 3" druing the bump rise.
So you need to move half the truck ~3,000# UP 3" in .0166 seconds. The most efficient way is with an even force, therefore acceleration would be constant.
x = 1/2 * a * t^2
x = .25 (corrected)
t = .0166
a = 21773 ft/s^2
so... acceleration required is 56g
Force required by the suspension to move the truck enough to not crash the frame into the axle? 170,000 pounds or force (was 2M, my unit conversion fail).
Still, Good luck with a stronger frame.

So, if you hit a mound of dirt taller than the available suspension travel at 60MPH, you WILL bend something. Stands to reason and would happen on any vehicle. IMO, it is better to bend the frame a little and still be able to drive out than to bend an axle and have to be towed out.

Aaron Z

 

[deerefan]

I am looking at a new truck right now - and as a long time GM man we have narrowed it down to an F150 (FX4 or Lariat) or a Ram 1500 Laramie. I have to say I have read (and been told) many good things about the the EcoBoost engine, but have not been impressed myself. Anyone want to talk me out of the 5.0? $1,100.00 more for the EcoBoost, city MPG about the same, it doesnt "sound right" to me (yes I know!) and seems to be very weak at mid speed - takes forever from 40 to 60 mph - which scares me in a possible accident scenario - that is what I am thinking...

BTW I looked at the Raptor as well and what a beautiful truck - just cant justify the additional money.

I do not think you can go wrong with the 5.0. I noticed a similar 40-60 mph "dead spot" in the 2 eco boost trucks I drove. Both had 3.73 gears. Not sure why.

 

[RobertN]

A friend of mine has one. It is nice.

But, keep in mind, it is a Hot Rod; it is made as a a desert runner. It is a niche truck, like that Dodge RAM1500 with the Viper V10, the Ford Lightening, or that older Chevy S10 Cyclone(?) with the twin turbo V6 and all wheel drive. None were tow trucks, but each was FAST...

An old friend, since passed away, had one of those Chevy S10 Cyclones; it would bark all four tires when you shifted if you were on the throttle hard...

 

[BleedGreen]

I do not think you can go wrong with the 5.0. I noticed a similar 40-60 mph "dead spot" in the 2 eco boost trucks I drove. Both had 3.73 gears. Not sure why.

Yet the 5.0 with the same gears is just fine... Glad it is not just me feeling it. I did end up driving another EcoBoost at another dealer and it did the same thing. Plus I just cant get over the engine sound. As I stated before, "I know" it is a Turbo-Charged V6 but it just doesnt sound right! Just my :2cents:

 

[Diamondpilot]

The word I have gotten on the so called Eco Boost dead spot is its there to protect the drive line. Remember, this thing is putting down serious torque at low RPM's and with a 1/2 ton drive line and 420 FT TQ it could easily twist some things.

I have towed with my Fathers Eco with 3.73 gears and it will hands down walk away from any V8 gas truck I have driven including the big blocks with a good load behind it.


Chris

 

[deerefan]

The word I have gotten on the so called Eco Boost dead spot is its there to protect the drive line. Remember, this thing is putting down serious torque at low RPM's and with a 1/2 ton drive line and 420 FT TQ it could easily twist some things.

I have towed with my Fathers Eco with 3.73 gears and it will hands down walk away from any V8 gas truck I have driven including the big blocks with a good load behind it.


Chris

To me, that is poor engineering. Why put a capable motor in a truck with a sub par drivetrain? It seems logical the drivetrain should be built to easily handle that engine and a little more. It is a very capable engine. I towed 10k lbs + over 300 mile round trip and was impressed. Averaged 8.8 mpg. I won't go as far to say it would walk away from the other trucks. The 3/4 ton GMC with the 6.2 pulled the same weight as I was and got a little better mileage, around 9.3. For a 1/2 ton truck to be hanging around the 3/4 ton gassers, I was impressed. I am disappointed to find out about the sub par driveline.