2018 Ranger Raptor

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Ford17

Haha great ending.

[Nu66et]

Was that supposed to be exciting?

Im struggling to see where theyre showcasing a RR is more capable than a Territory other than being able to get all 4 wheels off the ground.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by Ford17

...

The name Kenny Block comes to mind.

Nice vid.

[articulatedsphinx]

Has anyone noticed the European version has a weird looking rear sports bar thing.

I wonder why? Probably due to some pansy euro-zone rule or something...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

Has anyone noticed the European version has a weird looking rear sports bar thing.

I wonder why? Probably due to some pansy euro-zone rule or something...

image

Looks like the Euro version gets the Wildtrak sportsbar and roller lid setup.

[articulatedsphinx]

That would be pretty cool, but I bet it adds even more weight and less cargo room.

I would have thought for sure it was some rule. You know the EU has some pretty crazy rules about bull bars and stuff too.

[RANGEREST]

Originally Posted by Nu66et

Was that supposed to be exciting?

Im struggling to see where theyre showcasing a RR is more capable than a Territory other than being able to get all 4 wheels off the ground.

haters gonna hate

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Haha great ending.

Nice,

Thanks MAGPIE.

[Dr Smith]

The end reminds me of those surfers going through the Hawaiian pipline, almost engulfed by water only to shoot out the end....Yeah sure it would be nice with a 190kW V6 tdi but let's not forgot T6 was almost completely developed by Australian Ford employees and it sells everywhere round the world...not even the mighty marketing spin doctor Holden could ever make such a claim.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nu66et

Was that supposed to be exciting?

Im struggling to see where theyre showcasing a RR is more capable than a Territory other than being able to get all 4 wheels off the ground.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by jpd80

image

Gold JDP

[prydey]

Originally Posted by articulatedsphinx

You know the EU has some pretty crazy rules about bull bars and stuff too.

i'm surprised at the amount of stuff that is approved, or deemed legal here considering the amount of low down protection heavy vehicles are required to have. things like FUPS (front underrun protection systems) I believe are mandatory on heavy vehicles, and yet 4wd vehicles can just about swallow a small car under the front of them. It doesn't make sense.

[Polyal]

Sooo any news of an Everest Raptor?

Little niche there perhaps.

[csv8]

"The Bi-Turbo engine seems a little under-gunned in the performance inspired Ranger Raptor, it will be interesting to see how it suits the Everest, which comes with a different mindset to the ‘race ready’ Raptor badge." Pat Callinan 4x4
https://mr4x4.com.au/2019-ford-evere...sletter+%23223

[Vesper Martini]

It will be well received in the Everest, with the extra power over the 3.2 but mostly for the economy. which will put it ahead of its main competitor Prado still sporting a 6 speed.

[prydey]

one of the things affecting the performance of Raptor compared with the normal Ranger, is the increase in kerb weight.

Everest won't have this problem. It will be in the same car as the 3.2 and should out perform it in every way.

Most, if not all the issue surrounding Raptor is the actual name Raptor and the perception of what that entails. Due to the heritage of the name in the US, most journo's and punters have judged Ranger Raptor against what they perceive the Raptor name stands for.

Nothing to do with the actual car itself. If it was called the Ranger Dirtrunner (or anything other than Raptor) they would be singing its praises from the rooftops.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by prydey

Nothing to do with the actual car itself. If it was called the Ranger Dirtrunner (or anything other than Raptor) they would be singing its praises from the rooftops.

Agreed. Companies should know that certain badges come with expectations.

Milk them at your own peril.

Its still a cool car, but you mention Raptor and people expect it to be of a certain level and offer the buyer something well above the average.

Its akin to a company having a brand like Commodore, building an empire, then replacing it with something that has very little with its original intent or DNA...

[simon varley]

the internal codename was way cooler.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Polyal

but you mention Raptor and people expect it to be of a certain level and offer the buyer something well above the average.

to a degree. people that hang out on car forums and follow a particular brand are not a majority, in my opinion. people that actually buy this car may not be aware of the Raptor DNA in the US.

the proof will be in the pudding. even then, if it only sells a few hundred a month, it will be written off as a failure by all and sundry on here, even with zero knowledge of the profits on each.

[articulatedsphinx]

Somehow the Everest with the same motor is now "amazing". Def the name "raptor" that's triggering people!

https://youtu.be/45qi2VQ9P9w

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by simon varley

the internal codename was way cooler.

Don't know why they don't just use it here. Would suit the intent when you think about it.

[csv8]

Originally Posted by simon varley

the internal codename was way cooler.

What was the internal codename ?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Agreed. Companies should know that certain badges come with expectations.

Milk them at your own peril.

Its still a cool car, but you mention Raptor and people expect it to be of a certain level and offer the buyer something well above the average.

The First F150 Raptor in 2010 was powered by a 310 hp 5.4L V8, so modest plebian power.
2011 to 2014 versions were only marginally better with a 411 hp 6.2 V8 that drank fuel
with official highway fuel economy around 18 litres per 100 km - that's the heritage.

Its akin to a company having a brand like Commodore, building an empire, then replacing it with something that has very little with its original intent or DNA...

That's an unequal comparison.
The Ranger's empire was built on the back of diesel sales, not HP petrol engines.

Ranger Raptor was developed with all of Ranger's global markets in mind, all of them
except Australia and maybe New Zealand were expecting a diesel based vehicle with the
best possible fuel economy, denying that is ignoring what 99% of those markets want.

FYI,
The 2.3 EB was not on the table until well after final lock in and only then because
it was the only the North American centric I-4 engine that would fit with least disruption.

[spvd02]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The First F150 Raptor in 2010 was powered by a 310 hp 5.4L V8, so modest plebian power.
2011 to 2014 versions were only marginally better with a 411 hp 6.2 V8 that drank fuel
with official highway fuel economy around 18 litres per 100 km - that's the heritage.


That's an unequal comparison.
The Ranger's empire was built on the back of diesel sales, not HP petrol engines.

Ranger Raptor was developed with all of Ranger's global markets in mind, all of them
except Australia and maybe New Zealand were expecting a diesel based vehicle with the
best possible fuel economy, denying that is ignoring what 99% of those markets want.

FYI,
The 2.3 EB was not on the table until well after final lock in and only then because
it was the only the North American centric I-4 engine that would fit with least disruption.

This is actually false. Highway economy was quoted at 18mpg, which is 13L/100km, with 17L/100km in the city. These figures are much better than you are suggesting, and are pretty good considering the size and weight of the vehicle.

I also very much doubt that other markets were expecting a fuel-miser. It was being promo'd everywhere as a performance vehicle, not a Prius competitor. I think you will find that 99% of people would have raised an eye-brow when hearing that a 'performance' version of a Ranger was being released with a 2L diesel. Denying that is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

Ford are not delivering what customers want. They are frantically trying to change people's perceptions about this vehicle by not even talking about the fact it's a 2L. They must not have been given much of an option when choosing an engine. Maybe it would've been seen as a threat to US F150 Raptor sales if it performed anywhere near as good, so they are ham-stringing it for power? Dunno, just a thought...

[articulatedsphinx]

Can I just add something about all these BS reviews again.

Everest 2019 Bi-Turbo (2413kg Kerb Weight)

CarsGuide: "But this working partnership is a better match here, in the Everest, than it is in the Raptor, in terms of smooth delivery of power and torque at low and high speeds, as well as doing everything in an unfussed manner – low-key but still effective. "

Which Car:

"The 2.0-litre twin-turbo unit is a little vocal on cold start up but soon settles into a more mellow timbre, providing a real contrast to the 3.2-litre, which always sounds about as sultry as one of Marge Simpson’s sisters.

An allied bonus of paying the piffling $1190 impost for the 2.0 over the 3.2-litre engine is the inclusion of Ford’s ten-speed automatic transmission, rather than the six-speed unit that continues in 3.2-litre models. Look at the numbers and the 2.0-litre seems to hold all the aces. It’s more powerful by 14kW, generates 30Nm more torque, returns 7.1L/100km as an all-wheel-drive model rather than 8.5L/100km for the five-pot, and tows 3100kg rather than 3000kg. Having said that, there were some of my colleagues who preferred the more long-legged rangy feel of the old powerplant over the more terrier-like delivery of the 2.0-litre."

Ranger Raptor (2332 Kerb Weight)
Same engine and same transmission...less weight. "M8 the engine is ****, only orange juice and milk.."

So somehow, the same engine and transmission in one vehicle is a "bonus" and they sing its praises in the Everest, but a total cataclysmic disaster in the Raptor? I realise that the 2L is not what people wanted, but I really don't understand the ongoing bias towards the powertrain? Ford has still brought to market something that no other manufacturer had the cojones to do. Even Toyota wouldn't bring their TRD here. Instead they bring a bumper and sticker pack. Maybe they will put a better engine, maybe they won't, but it's still better than what we had before.

Not to mention the Everest is nigh on 74k for the Titanium which is the same price as a raptor!

[jpd80]

Well said articulatedspynx,
Competitors to the Ranger Raptor are not for the most part delivering
anything outstanding that puts the RR at a disadvantage. The intended
buyers will love this Ute for what it does, running along open dirt roads
and on the sand but maybe not so in extreme rock crawling or boggy
swampy crossings...

"only milk and orange juice comes in two liters" is becoming the refrain
of unrequited love expressed by Ford's HP buyers. This Raptor is a toe
in the water to test the depth of high end buyers, a taste of what's to
come on next generation where there will be more 3.0 V6 emphasis....

For those who say, "Stuff it, I'm buying an Amorok V6", the irony is that
you're buying a platform that will most likely be dead in three years time.......

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Well said articulatedspynx,
Competitors to the Ranger Raptor are not for the most part delivering
anything outstanding that puts the RR at a disadvantage. The intended
buyers will love this Ute for what it does, running along open dirt roads
and on the sand but maybe not so in extreme rock crawling or boggy
swampy crossings...

"only milk and orange juice comes in two liters" is becoming the refrain
of unrequited love expressed by Ford's HP buyers. This Raptor is a toe
in the water to test the depth of high end buyers, a taste of what's to
come on next generation where there will be more 3.0 V6 emphasis....

For those who say, "Stuff it, I'm buying an Amorok V6", the irony is that
you're buying a platform that will most likely be dead in three years time.......

You raise an interesting point, I found the 2017 sales of Amarok at 78,000.
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news...igures_17.html

Not enough even if that is increased by say 10% this year to develop a new platform when you have massive outlays for dieselgate etc......hence the start of discussions with Ford where you have R&D for North American version now included with the Ranger's global sales achieved up until now.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by spvd02

This is actually false. Highway economy was quoted at 18mpg, which is 13L/100km, with 17L/100km in the city. These figures are much better than you are suggesting, and are pretty good considering the size and weight of the vehicle.

Incorrect, the official fuel economy figures for 2011 Raptor is:
City..................11 US mpg....21.3 litres/100km
Hwy................14 US mpg...16.8 litres/100km
Combined.........12 US mpg....19.6 litres/100km

Link to figures......https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...=0&rowLimit=10

They must not have been given much of an option when choosing an engine.

The development team were limited to engines available to the project.
2.5 petrol, 2.2 puma, 3.2 Puma and 2.0 Panther.
2.3 EB was a late inclusion for Ford NA on the
final refresh of this product cycle and after the
lock-in date for RR.

[spvd02]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Incorrect, the official fuel economy figures for 2011 Raptor were
City..................11 US mpg...21.3 litres/100km
Hwy.................14 US mpg...16.8 litres/100km
Combined.........12 US mpg...19.6 litres/100km

Link to figures......https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...=0&rowLimit=10


The development team were limited to engines available to the project.
2.5 petrol, 2.2 puma, 3.2 Puma and 2.0 Panther.
2.3 EB was a late inclusion for Ford NA on the
final refresh of this product cycle and after the
lock-in date for RR.

Hmm... It seems my Google search gave me false info. Not sure why the.figures vary though :

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2010/road-test-2/

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by spvd02

Hmm... It seems my Google search gave me false info. Not sure why the.figures vary though :

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2010/road-test-2/

That's the figures for the 2010 Raptor with the older 5.4 3V that was in the early BA Falcons,
you do remember what a wheezer of an engine that was against out 4.0 I-6...
That's what I'm getting at, the first of the Raptors weren't that spectacular from
get go and actually had regular engines that didn't stand out from the ordinary F150..

The figures I quoted were for the 2011 Raptor with the 411 HP 6.2 V8..
Sure, it had more power but again, the 6.2 2V V8 was no stand out in performance
compared to the regular F150....



I know you guys are ticked off but there's some really good news coming on next product cycle
now that the Americans are on board. A lot of the desires expressed here also align with what
US buyers will be expecting on next Gen T6, the first glimpse of that will be Bronco in late 2020.

The info is already in front of us by simply looking at what Ford now has accessible for RWD:
2.0 I-4 TDI
3.0 V6 TDI (3.2 I-5 will be gone)
3.3 V6 petrol
3.3 V6 hybrid
3.0 Ecoboost
3.0 Ecoboost PHEV