By on July 22, 2014


We don’t even know power or fuel economy figures for the next-generation Ford F-150, but these spy shots of the next-generation Raptor have emerged.

All we know so far is that the Raptor will appear as a 2016 model year. No word on powertrains or technical details – maybe we’ll see an Ecoboost version this time around?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

19 Comments on “2016 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor Spied...”

  • avatar

    Won’t be the same without the 6.2l, hope Ford pulls through and finally does something right.
    There’s no mystique, and no unbreakable grin to be had with a TTV6.

    • 0 avatar

      The Boss 6.2L is most likely dead in the F150, but Mark Fields saved it before. The problem is that the 5.0L and the 3.5EB are creeping up on, and exceeding, the power numbers of the 6.2L. The new Navigator/Expedition will have a version of the 3.5EB that has 460 ft-lb of torque.

      That being said, I love the growl and fury of the 6.2L.

  • avatar


    Surely the noise of the snarling V8 will be missed but the Raptor’s biggest flaw was it’s heft. At 6200+lbs, it is a porker. The 3.5TT engine alone weighs over 230lbs less than the 6.2L. (

    Combine that with the weight savings from the aluminum body and wherever else they end up trimming lbs and we will end up with something that will have no competition from the rumored “Raptor-ish” Colorado ZR2 from GM.

  • avatar

    With it being several hundred pounds lighter than the outgoing model, I expect an increase in performance.

    • 0 avatar

      The 2015 F150 SuperCrew Lariat is 732 lbs less than the 2014 version. I’m also happy with the 2.7EB putting out 325 HP and 375 ft-lb of torque. I want that engine in a Fusion.

  • avatar

    The 3.5EB could provide sufficient thrust, but if the 6.2 goes away I’ll cross my fingers for a 5.0EB out of left field. I assume they’d be a little worried about heat on what is essentially a desert race truck though. With several hundred pounds less to lug around, the NA 5.0 may be enough motor. This truck just screams out for big displacement though.

    • 0 avatar

      Other than for nut-tugging purposes, what’s the reason for large displacement anymore? We are able to get more power out of smaller engines these days. More power/tq equate to not only more towing and payload, but also more efficient vehicles as a whole.

      This whole idea of “If it aint stuffed with a 9.5L V8, it isn’t going to win any favors from me!” mentality will hopefully die a quick and painless death in short order.

      • 0 avatar

        So you are hoping Mr. Big Trucks departs then.

      • 0 avatar

        The Raptor exists in large part for nut tugging purposes.

        • 0 avatar

          Well that’s true, too but there’s no reason that it can’t tug nuts while being technologically innovative or at the very least- current. I’m glad Ford is likely putting new tech into it. Hell, look how long it took them to get rid of the SRA on the Mustang.

      • 0 avatar

        Fuel economy benefits of a turboed mini engine vs a bigger NA, aren’t nearly as big in the real world as in tightly controlled tests. And many prefer driving big NA engines, which have gotten pretty efficient as well for their power these days. So, in a car built for recreation (I mean, aside for Humboldt County “Farmers”, who needs a Raptor?), what’s wrong with 5-10% worse economy for 10+% increase in driving pleasure?

  • avatar

    That’s pretty well camouflaged! I never thought that was an F-150

  • avatar

    Why the extended cab business. As a Luddite, my idea of a pickup is a singe front seat.

    That plus a short style side bed and a performance truck is a walk in the park.

    The mere idea of a pickup being a raised 4 door sedan with a 10 foot bed on back is inane. And, outside of suburbia and a worksite, is impossible to park. They are land yachts.

    If I really wanted to haul stuff, I would get something bigger than 1/2 ton. Or tow something big. Either way, the back seat rounds to zero.

    The bane of automotive design is the ‘do it all’ mentality. A special purpose vehicle — like a sport truck — should do one thing well. Like go fast. And have enough space to throw a few things in the bed. And be able to tow your motorcycles or whatever.

    And keep the price low enough that people would actually consider driving them — unlike the BMW/Mercedes priced luxe trucks of today.

    • 0 avatar

      My local Jeep dealer recently took in a 2013 Raptor on trade. I asked a salesman for what they bought and he said a Rubicon JKU. I have to wonder what the reason for the trade as the cost of doing so wouldn’t have been easy?! Maybe the Raptor was just too much work to park?

      • 0 avatar

        I have no trouble parking my Raptor anywhere…I suspect most get traded in early due to the atrocious mileage. But I knew that going in so not an issue for me.

        My big question for the new one, if they do build it, is engine choice. I’m thinking a blown version of the 5.0.

        • 0 avatar

          I had a raptor and loved it, but just traded it in. Several reasons:

          * Bed.. That 5.5 foot bed ultimately was more limiting than I expected. It was hard even to fit a bicycle in the back, much less anything I might pick up at Home Depot.

          * Mileage, of course. Like you I knew that going in, but realistically I seldom saw > 13mpg, which makes highway trips sad.

          On the other hand, I paid $53,000 for it, put 15,000 hard miles on it (including some high-speed trips on the dirt down in Death Valley), and sold it for $50,000. Then paid $53,000 for an F-350 6.7L CC LB that will manage my home depot trips just fine (not to mention gravel hauling). And gets 18MPG.

          I imagine lots of owners are like me. Had an itch to do something fun, did it, and got it out of their system. If I could own 2 trucks, one of them would be a raptor. But with one truck, the raptor is too much dune-buggy and not enough truck.

  • avatar

    Looks like they are running “old” Raptor” front and rear panels since they do not line up.
    I’d like to see a 5.0 with turbo’s but most likely it will come out with a tuned 3.5 EB.
    The Raptor was too heavy for its intended design purpose but since I’ve only ever seen two if them that looked like they were off-roaded, weight isn’t an issue to mall crawlers.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Matt Posky: *now responsible
  • smicallef427: “While the facility has a storied history with Ford’s relationship with Mazda, the site is not...
  • FreedMike: It was true, but they survived it.
  • Lou_BC: Ford went from the Microsoft mess to QNX.
  • FreedMike: So, this guy wants to whine about “Big Gubmint Intervention.” Okay. Like the entire market for...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber