• Which Truck is Faster? Twin Turbo Ford Raptor or a Supercharged GMC Canyon? (Video)

    2018 ford raptor gmc canyon twin turbo supercharged
    Ford Raptor twin turbo or supercharged GMC Canyon?

    This is a classic TFL mashup drag race with a simple question. Which truck is faster: a twin-turbo Ford Raptor or a supercharged GMC Canyon? It’s also a ‘Run What You Brung’  and a ‘Dude, I love my Truck!’ episode.

    The all-new Raptor packs a lot of high-performance off-road equipment into one truck. It includes a high-output 3.5L EcoBoost V6 that is rated at 450 hp and 510 lb-ft of torque (at the crank). The Ford V6 is backed up by a 10-speed automatic transmission.

    Matt brought his 2015 GMC Canyon All-Terrain that packs a 3.6L V6 and a 6-speed automatic transmission. Matt added a RIPP supercharger with an intercooler to produce up to 370 horsepower to the wheels as verified by dyno tuning. The Canyon is also rolling on larger-than-stock Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac tires.

    The Raptor is significantly heavier than the Canyon, so this could be a good and fairly close race.

    Spoiler: The supercharged GMC is a bit slow off the line, but then gets into the power nicely at higher rpm. It started gaining back on the Raptor by the end of this 1/8 mile straight-away. Watch the video for all of the fun.

    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    128 thoughts on “Which Truck is Faster? Twin Turbo Ford Raptor or a Supercharged GMC Canyon? (Video)

    1. Hats off to Matt.

      Modding is a true love for automobiles. Everything you touch and change has an equal and opposite effect somewhere else. It’s the challenge of managing side effects that is so much fun and frustrating. You can manage a lift and bigger tires by braking earlier and taking curves slower, but heat is not so easy to deal with. I ended up with four cooling fans in my V8 swapped Ranger and it did pretty good around town and in the sand but there is no way I could tow any distance with it without puking coolant. Even with all my cooling mods I ended up having to remove the antifreeze and run straight distilled water with royal purple “water wetter” and an anti corrosion additive.

      1. Daniel – – –

        D: “Everything you touch and change has an equal and opposite effect somewhere else.”

        This is brilliant, and so, so true. Kind makes ya’ think that all those engineers that vehicle companies have on staff really know what they’re doing after all (^_^).. They have to optimize across the board, not maximize for any one specific condition (like we try to do).
        Even something as simple as aa cold-air induction kits, which gives a nice boots when it s hot and dry, suddenly hesitates and feels weak when it’s a cold 35 deg F and drizzling….


    2. Roman – – –

      This was a lot of fun. Thanks,— and congratulations to Matt. But actually, I was surprised at how well the Raptor did, considering its weight.


    3. The race really wasn’t as close as I would have thought.
      There is always a downside to every improvement. That heat sounds to be a real problem.

      Btw, that Canyon sounded horrible!!

    4. Wow, the raptor is bad ass. They ought to bring a lightning is and see what happens. Nice trucks. Keep these cool videos coming I love what you guys are doing.

      1. Seriously, a 2×4 RCSB with the raptor motor would be a rocket ship. I be we would see low 13’s or even 12 second quarters. There is a couple of crew cab 3.5’s that have run in 13.75 range and a stock 5.0 RCSB that ran a 13.46

    5. For something like this, the canyon should have a tvs supercharger in my opinion. I’ve had a few and they rip off the line and don’t drop off up top like the old roots blowers.

      Sweet truck though!

      1. Mallett Cars has a TVS kit but its like $7k to start from what I hear. Ouch. I think its torque curve is dead flat and it makes about the same peak hp so I bet its a lot nicer than the RIPP kit.

    6. f150 3.5tt was faster than raptor to 60 i think it is faster than raptor in 1/4 also .the canyon wont beat either one

    7. Keep in mind he’s running a centrifugal supercharger. A turbo has a big advantage at altitude because the compressor isn’t at a fixed ratio to engine rpm. Because the air is thinner, it can spin to a higher rpm with the same exhaust energy. Superchargers spin at a fixed ratio and really can’t compensate for the thin air other than drawing a little less hp. A roots style blower (dodge hellcat, camaro zl1) builds boost at low rpm but chokes at higher rpm. A centrifugal blower like the one Matt installed takes quite a bit of RPM to build boost, meaning not much advantage foot braking, but it’s capable of much higher pressures at high rpm.

      Bottom line, at sea level this would be a much closer race.

      1. Is matt from sea level? Or did his truck dyno 370 whp at 5000′? I couldnt watch the video with sound.

        1. It doesn’t specify, but dyno numbers can vary wildly from day to day and machine to Machine so there’s no reason to count on the 370 as being an SAE certified number

          1. Ok, but lets say he did dyno it at altitude. It was sitting right next to the raptor when they raced, both trucks experienced the same conditions so both trucks would likely face the same losses or gains.

            The point is, the guy spend like $5000 + possibly 1-2000 in labor and still got his ass handed to him by a stock truck.

          2. The guy is over on the colorado forum and I just asked him about the Dyno chart. Said it was done in North Denver close to 5400′

    8. I thought the Canyon would win. It’s much lighter and its at the wheel power is probably not much different than the Raptor. It did have slightly oversized tires, but so does the Raptor. The 4.10 in the Raptor helps offset that. No idea what axle ratio was in the Canyon.

      1. 3.42 I believe. The altitude affects supercharged engines slightly more than turbocharged engines as daniel mentioned. Also, I’ve met a few guys that got a biig performance boost from just a trans tune. The factory GM 6-sp tune is designed for max fuel economy and conservative shift timing. The Raptor’s 10sp is a very fast shifting transmission, keeping it in the sweet spot more of the time.

        1. I think you might be surprised. With the supercharger and bigger tires I bet the Canyon is pushing the high 4000# range. The raptor might not be THAT much heavier.

    9. Id like to see this Canyon’s 1/8 mile time, vs stock time.
      The visuals sure don’t seem to represent a lighter truck running 430(maybe more, engine HP) vs a heavier 450 HP truck.

      All my learnin has been that the supercharger should come off the line quicker than the turbocharger.

      That certainly wasn’t the case here.

      1. The Canyon has a 3.42 axle and larger than stock tires. The Raptor has a 4.10 axle with stock sized tires (albeit larger than “upgraded” Canyon tires)

      2. That’s not the case with the Ford twin turbos. Both the 2.7tt and 3.5tt have small Turbos with near i stant boost.

        This also explains why they die out up top in the higher rpms.

        1. That’s true for the standard EcoBoost engines. As has been noted by Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and others…the Raptor has a little more lag than the regular EcoBoost trucks. Blame the higher boost turbos, I guess. Still very quick.

      1. 2.7tt would destroy this supercharged GMC pulling say 8000lb up the Ike.

        My bet is this truck has cooling issues pulling itself up the Ike after all these mods?

        Crazy thing is – I bet the new 2.7tt with 10spd is just as fast as a stock Raptor since the new gen 3.5tt is slightly faster!

        1. The Raptor is faster. At TFL’s high altitude and not quite scientific test procedures, the standard F-150 EcoBoost 10-speed was quicker than the Raptor. However, Car & Driver tested both a 2017 Crew Cab F-150 EcoBoost 10-speed (gen-2 motor) and a 2018 Raptor Crew. The regular EcoBoost truck scored a 5.7 second 0-60 time and the Raptor scored a 5.1 second 0-60 time.

          Here are the links:


          1. Hello Troverman,

            You often quote Car & Driver and MotorTrend as the standard for 0-60 MPH and all other performance data. Indeed, the big magazine companies have big budgets to perform precision testing. However, why does Car & Driver lists the 2017 Ford Raptor at 6.1 – 6.3 seconds 0-60 MPH in this in-depth article? https://www.caranddriver.com/features/2017-ford-f-150-raptor-in-depth-feature

            Why is the 2017 Raptor listed at 6.1 sec and 2018 Raptor with the same engine and drivetrain listed at 5.1 sec? What scientific procedure did they use to get a faster time?

            Real-world conditions change all the time, which is why we think the best performance comparison is side-by-side (same day, same time, same environment).


            1. Andre – As you likely know, the big magazines usually post “corrected” numbers. They run the vehicle, and record the results, ie 6.5 seconds 0-60. Then they use fuzzy math to “correct” that number, saying that if the run was done at sea level, with 42* air temperature and 10% humidity, but a warm track surface, they would have actually run a 6.1 second 0-60, and that’s the number they post.

              It is much appreciated that TFL actually runs the camera over the data logger to give us “real” numbers, not “corrected” numbers. Those numbers will change from one day to the next and even more so in different locations, but they will always be the real number recorded at that time.

          2. Troverman, just to emphasize on different days, Alex Nishimoto from Motor Trend had the inclination that the supercharged Tacoma was only 0.2 seconds faster than a stock Tacoma in the 1/4 mile because he pulled statistics from a different day. How ridiculous is that. I have seen it pull much faster times than what he recorded but he actually states that the supercharger only shaved 0.2 seconds off the time which is a ridiculous claim when it clearly does a lot more than that. A lot of journalists make false claims like this and it is rather disheartening to read articles with bad information whether purposeful or not but sometimes when common sense is lost you just get frustrated or at least for me I do.


    10. This serves to reinforce my determination that while truck shopping, to purchase a unit that will meet my performance criteria stock as opposed to modified. This would apply to off road capability as well.

    11. Maybe GM will turbo the 3.6 sometime. A supercharger seems to work well with the big grunt GM 6.2 pushrod. However, it seems a well tuned turbo works better with the smaller DOHC engine.

        1. Correct!
          The problem with V8’s being turbocharged is mostly centered around the difficulty of packaging and heat management.

          It’s not the fact that it’s 2cyl’s bigger it’s the fact that V8’s by design are almost exclusively 90* V’s where almost all modern V6’s are 60* V’s!

          This free’s up a tremendous amount of room in the engine bay for turbo’s and adequate airflow for heat management.

          In fact looking at Ford’s F150 with the 3.5tt and especially 2.7tt they have way more room in the engine area than the same truck with the 5.0!

          The 5.0 is a 90* V with HUGE cylinder heads being a DOHC design with vvt. The V6’s are DOHC as well, but with only a 60* V. Even with Turbo’s hanging off of both sides they are still smaller than the 5.0 packaging.

          It’s not really the Turbocharging plumbing that complicates things – it’s the engine design!

          Now if Ford turbo’s a 5.0 V8 they could copy their 6.7 V8 Diesel design and package the Turbo inside of the V to make the proper room?

          However, they won’t be able to go twin turbo because of limited room inside of the V. This will not be as effective as the 60* V6’s twin turbo’s per displacement.

          This will lower efficiency and lower mpg’s!

          1. Drifter 64 + Daniel
            Thanks for the education on why making a turbo charged v8 Isn’t as easy as it sounds! It is true. Your never to old to learn!

          2. Correct on most points but I would say if Ford wanted a twin-turbo V8, they would make it. I think the biggest problem would actually be fuel consumption.

            1. Correct Troverman and this is why Ford’s CEO was fired in my opinion. A V8 Turbo charged is coming from Ford under new management in my opinion. Just my opinion, it has to happen just for acoustics alone, there are also old timers who will not buy a V6 and this is lost sales. They likely lose a few sales to Ram and GM because they have no V6 that is better than the V8’s. Many including my Dad do not want to hear the salesman say that their V6 is better than their V8 so they walk out and go to Ram Toyota or GM. They are not educated and they leave and never come back to Ford.

      1. An OHV engine benefits the same as a DOHC engine. Actually, the pushrod engine will be easier to turbocharge simply because they are quite a bit more compact. DOHC V8’s a typically HUGE. The 5.0 Coyote takes up a lot more space than the 6.2 LT1. GM went with a supercharger for the 6.2 because fitting it in the engine bay is a lot easier in the Corvette and Camaro vs a twin turbo setup.

          1. No doubt it makes power, but I’d like to see it tow 8500lbs up the Ike in 80-90* weather!

            I’m almost certain it has massive cooling issues anywhere but the dyno and drag strip!

            Probably lots of initial lag off the bottom with those massive size Turbo’s.

            1. yeah you can see that truck doesnt make much torque and those turbos are sized for high rpm power. throw 2 small ones on there for quick spool and limited high rpm power which ford would be fine with

            2. You guys all think you are so smart and yet you are so gullible, even Roman, I have to call you out here as you just posted numerous videos of the FCA TrackHawk with 707HP. Every dimension on that vehicle is smaller than the ZR2 and it will pull 7200Lbs up the gauntlet at idle and you can likely put a cold beer on the engine at the start and drink it ice cold at the top of the gauntlet.

              Is it only FCA that knows how to put power into a midsized vehicle, did GM Toyota and Ford just take a sht somewhere or do you think they are protecting full sized sales by keeping a midsized truck slower than full sized? To me it has nothing to do with heat, we have smaller SUV’s out there with massive HP that pull more than the ZR2 under full manufacturers warranty.

              Please explain that if you guys are so smart or are you part of the cover up for the bias market in the midsize truck market.

            3. Here I will help you out TrackHawk 707HP
              Track Width 65.7 vs 65.9 for ZR2
              Wheel base 114.8 vs 128.5
              Length 189.3 vs 212.7
              Width without mirrors 76.5 vs 76.7 ZR2
              Rated Towing 7200Lbs vs 5000Lbs ZR2

              Therefore heat is not the problem a bias industry to protect full sized trucks sales is the problem

            4. Darn Rambro, you are on to our conspiracy!

              Or it’s possible that a poor front/rear weight distribution and a solid rear axle could create some dangerous situations with 707 hp. It’s also possible that manufacturers don’t think people will pay $75,000 for a mid size truck…

            5. Why 75,000 Daniel. The Tundra made a 504HP V8 in a 30,000 dollar truck that came with a 7 year manufacturers extended warranty if you wanted with a 7000 dollar bolt on supercharger fully installed under full manufacturers warranty from Toyota in any Tundra configuration you wanted, even two wheel drive regular cab up to June of 2015 from 2007 with 550Lb-ft of torque. The expense from the Trackhawk comes from many things that raise the cost of even pickups to the 100,000 dollar mark not just engine power. Why do you hide behind your own BS, get a bulldozer and remove your shit so you can see the view behind your crap.

            6. Oh Daniel, with regards to the weight and your safety concern, why did the Colorado in 2012 which was even smaller than a midsize truck house a heavy V8 and pass safety regulations due to weight. You will have to do better to silence the sheep Daniel.

            7. ” The Tundra made a 504HP V8 in a 30,000 dollar truck that came with a 7 year manufacturers extended warranty if you wanted with a 7000 dollar bolt on supercharger fully installed under full manufacturers warranty from Toyota in any Tundra configuration you wanted, even two wheel drive regular cab up to June of 2015 from 2007 with 550Lb-ft of torque.”

              Toyota also pulled that supercharger from the market after warranty claims started piling up. The coated aluminum crank bearings, the piston design, and the relatively lightweight connecting rods on the 3UR-FE were not up to the task.

            8. Toyota never pulled the supercharger from the truck due to the Tundra. In fact TFL had on with over 100,000 miles on it from 2007 and it was running strong. Toyota pulled all the superchargers from their entire lineup due to Cafe standards constantly changing, so re-tuning the superchargers every year to meet stricter standards on emissions was no longer profitable and took too much resources to. Uild a motor that could be charged or that did not need to be charged. Its harder to build motors across their entire lineup that can be charged or not charged all while meeting CAFE standards. It got to be too much. There was never a problem with the Tundra. Unless you hear propaganda and believe it. No manufactuerer is going to offer a supercharger and warranty it from 2007 to 2015 if they had recalls to deal with. That is ridiculous.

            9. Oh boy Rambro is on a tangent.

              No doubt the Trailhawk will be nice, but here you go again claiming how great something is before it’s even been delivered!

              It’s really not a 4wd it’s just a street car Awd with single speed transfer case.

              Why aren’t you complaining about the low hanging air dam and complete lack of ground clearance?

              What happened to your relentless argument of electric and how Internal Combustion Engines are a thing of the past?

              Did you notice they never talk about the mileage in the reviews of it? In today’s world of full size trucks that are rated up to 26mpg gas ecoboost 2.7 and 27mpg ecodiesel 3.0 mileage is a big deal!

              Therefore it becomes a toy or exotic that most can’t afford or find practical.

              Let’s see how many FCA sells compared to an F150 or even a Raptor then you can argue how great something is!!!

              The reason you see Factory Supercharger vs Twin Turbo V8’s is the exact argument I made previously- packaging! No room to properly twin turbo a 90* V8 and manage heat with towing requirements.

              When you get your new Tundra look to see how little room is left next to your frame rails and upper suspension arms for twin turbo’s?

              To make a turbocharged engine the most efficient and lag free the turbo needs to be as close to the cylinder head as possible. In the latest technology turbocharged engines the exhaust manifold is internal inside the cylinder head like the 2.7tt and Audi, Porsche, and BMW use!

            10. Drifter64, actually the ZR2 has 8.9 inches of ground clearance vs 8.1 inches for the Trackhawk so not much difference there.

              Now you have shit roped this into how great I think the Trackhawk is when I only claimed a midsize vehicle can have more HP than a midsize truck and not overheat. That is my claim, nothing more. The Trackhawk pulls 7200LBs under warranty in AWD form with smaller dimensions than a midsize truck with 2.3 times the amount of HP than a larger ZR2 that pulls less weight and it is under full warranty so I strongly assume it will not overheat and likely wont care if it is pulling 7200Lbs. That is the point Drifter, nothing about how great the Trackhawk is at off road or how great it is on fuel mileage or not.

              Now we get into the argument of price since I proved a midsize vehicle can have HP without overheating then lets move onto price and try to stick to the facts rather than turning this into plagiarism and backpedalling. Stick to what I am saying and contest that if you will. The Tundra was a 37,000 dollar truck with 4×4 with 504HP and 550Lb-ft of torque under full manufacturers warranty for 7 years if you wanted, some are still under warranty today and Toyota has done so since 2007. So why would a Tacoma cost more than a Tundra if the Tacoma had 504HP. FCA can get more HP than that in a tighter package that tows more than the Tacoma with 707HP, so heat is not a problem and the V8 is not a problem since the smaller Trackhawk can harness an even larger V8 with no heat issues and since the Tundra only costs 37,000 with an installed supercharger, why would a Tacoma with 504HP cost more than 37,000 dollar supercharged Tundra?

        1. Everything is simpler on the pushrod engine until you start talking 4 valves per cylinder. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’d need a lot more lobes on your pushrod cam. I think that’s why it’s simpler to operate more valves from an OHC design and push more air/fuel through the cylinder easier. That’s why I figured the smaller 3.6 would respond better to turbo and avoid parasitic crank loss, too. Of course, you would have to look at what pressure the cylinders could hold safely.

    12. Seems like the GMC could have power braked to spool up the supercharger to help the launch. Still have to admit the Raptor is awesome for a factory rig.

        1. The only thing power braking does with a supercharged engine is to load the torque converter. But loading it does not always give you the best time. The flash from the instant hit can help with a quicker 60′.

    13. That Caynon looks great. What a difference removing that air dam and installing a leveling kit can make. These trucks look so much better with just tiny changes.

      The fact that he’s missing that air dam may also be affecting his temperatures. Removing it might only drop your fuel economy by 0.5 MPG, but it will negatively impact airflow for cooling while pulling a heavy trailer. The GM and Ford 6-speeds have always been known for running hot when you put a lot of power through them or put a lot of load on it (snow plowing, towing, etc).

      1. Grizz, what do you mean by “running hot”?. These transmissions have built in thermostats to try and keep them over 200F. In fact Ford calls out making sure the transmission is over 200F before checking the fluid level. If you check it and adjust it cold, it will be overfilled when it is at working normal temps.

    14. The new 3.6L motor with 308Hp vs the 305HP in this 3.6L is a completely different engine than the new one, even the tranny shifts harder out of the whole now in the new ZR2. Mallette also makes a supercharger for the new ZR2 that has immediate torque and HP off the line that likely would have won here but not under warranty. Just that a supercharged ZR2 can do a lot better than this under a mild stage one boost; is my point.

    15. I think it was Mike Sweers that stated something to Roman about heat management under the hood and that guy is so full of crap. He controls the guys that do the real engineering but the problem is he is a third party to the engineering. What someone knows vs what he is told vs what he remembers is like getting third party information. It is just crap. Talk to the real engineers that do the work not the ones who pass it along and screw it up, but that is not how it works, unfortunately.

        1. Heat management in a smaller truck vs a larger truck vs HP allowable. Small SUV’s have more HP than the midsized trucks and pull more load so everyone thinking a midsize truck cant have more power due to size because of less area for heat management is just wrong in my opinion.

          1. I’ll repeat my above reply, trucks have poor front/rear weight distribution. They also have sold rear axles that lead to dangerous handling when that much power is applied through them in a corner or on a bump. There is finally the price to consider and the unlikelihood that many will pay that much for a midsize truck.

            1. I will repeat my above posts, the Tundra comes in at 30 grand plus 7 grand for a supercharger under full warranty in 2015 with 504HP and 550Lb-ft of torque as for size the 2012 Colorado already came with a V8 in it and weight was not an issue for safety in those trucks and they were smaller than a 2018 Colorado. AWD is another option but a Colorado weighs 4500Lbs, I never seen a 2wd 3300 Lb Corvette with 650HP have problematic complaints where their tires wont grab traction unless it is on purpose. You buy what you buy and you have to know how to drive it. A truck or anything else is no different.

            2. Tundra with 500 hp is far different from a Tacoma / Colorado with 700 hp.

              The Tundra is nearly a 3/4 ton truck, built heavy duty with strong axles and brakes. Give the Tundra 700 hp and I bet it’s going to have some issues.

              Any of your high horsepower examples (except the G-wagon) have IRS. That is significant. Managing power and weight transfer in corners and bumps with a straight axle is exponentially more difficult and less successful. And comparing the front/rear weight distribution of a Corvette and a pickup is laughable.

              And when it comes to your older gen Colorado with the 5.3 V8, how much power was that truck actually making? The 5.3 isn’t much heavier than the 5-cyl that was in it standard

            3. Daniel, stop with the crap. I never said a midsize has to have 707HP. The 5.3 today makes 355HP. Did it gain weight somehow since 2012. 355HP in the Colorado would take on or beat the Raptor in acceleration. Since you state the Tundra is bigger and obviously more expensive than a Tacoma than why would a Tacoma with 504HP cost more than a 30,000 dollar Tundra with a 504HP supercharger. Explain that one to the sheep Daniel, their ears are very perky at this point. Make it good one, have some beans and let out that big dump you want to take

            4. So Daniel how much heavier are the rear tires on a half ton with a straight axle with 504HP vs a midsize in the rear end that makes it acceptable. So power is limited in straight axles. So its not heat then. Trucks cant have hp because they have a straight axles and poor weight distribution. Tell me does the weight distribution change in a half ton vs a small truck like the 2012 Coloarado to the midsize Colorado in 2016. Is the ratio the same? Is there a maximum HP number vs weight on a rear tire with a live axle? Can you verify this?

              I dont believe it. Traction is all dependant on the driver, the tires and the conditions. Just because you have a solid axle does not mean you limit HP. There is also the option to offer AWD like the 4runner limited and the Ridgeline. Full time AWD. Last time I checked AWD vehicles dont cost 75,000 dollars and that power can be limited in first and second to make sure parts dont break. If you can buy a Tundra with a full warranty with 4×4 for 37 grand supercharged with 504HP then why would a Tacoma with the same parts cost more than that. Now instead of 4×4 add AWD full time. Is the live axle in the back still a problem with full time AWD.

      1. What Mike Sweers didn’t want to say was that the rear axle setup on the Tacoma can’t handle that kind of power. Even the weak 3.5 V6 has managed to bust the stock diff while whipping donuts in the dirt.

        Like others have pointed out, it’s a small 8″ ring gear with a relatively high 3.91 or 4.30 gear ratio, meaning the teeth are pretty small (thin). On top of that, it’s a high pinion axle and the gears are reverse cut. That means to move the truck forward, the pinion is pushing against the coast side of the ring gear teeth. Therefore the the pinion is being pushed away from the ring gear and putting all the force on the weakest part of the tooth.

        Toyota would need to source a stronger axle or flip the current axle over (reducing ground clearance) in order to offer a more powerful engine option and not have even more rear diff issues. Maybe they could market it was a street performance package?

    16. I can see someone buying one of these little econotrucks to haul melons or sell shrimp out of a cooler on the side of the road or maybe cleaning 125 pools a month. I don’t get buying an upgraded econotruck for slightly less money and fuel than an actual full size then adding thousands of dollars in bolt on’s or ‘offroad’ packages with the rad stickers. Now it’s completely pointless all the way around. Still smaller, slower and just generally lower class….at same cost.

        1. Rambro,

          You keep saying the Tundra comes with 504hp for $30k

          You are wrong- it came with this for a very limited time and a substantial up charge to purchase and install!

          It also won’t beat a Stock Raptor with 35″ tires when comparing the best tested times from Tfl at elevation.

          I would love to see this test, side by side to shut you the hell up about a truck that no longer exists!

          PS – The Tundras needs to wear 35’s to be even more embarrassing.

          1. Drifter, Buddy below is correct, you can claim this from the video but even the Tacoma with 236HP beat this Colorado when it had 305HP. This Colorado has always been slow because the tranny in my opinion was tuned to save fuel off the line and many complained about how sluggish it was out of the hole and this is likely why GM re-did the motor and tranny completely. Roman stated the ZR2 needed a longer run and the owner stated the same as the ZR2 was catching the Raptor, it is just that this model of ZR2 is very slow out of the holeshot. Racing is more than just HP, you should be ashamed of yourself to make such a claim, I thought you knew better.

            As for the Tundra, as Andre states above, different days have different affects on vehicles. If Car and driver can get 5.1 seconds out of the Raptor but only 6.1 seconds last year than what changed? The Tundra has done 4.4 seconds on Motor Trend with the Supercharger. And the Tundra won the stock class in the Baja if you want to Troll, I am game, bring it on.

        2. Rambro I just read ur bullsh from above about the 5.3 in a Colorado and how it makes 355hp and would take on or beat a Raptor?

          WTH did you not watch the video or read anything about the thread your spewing sht about?

          The guy in the supercharged GMC had a dyno sheet from tuning claiming 370hp to the wheels. That’s well over 400hp at the crank – if true and it got destroyed by your favorite – a V6 Raptor!!!

          1. The GMC guy never mentioned anything about tuning the transmission. He would have gain quite a bit with just a simple transmission tune. Torque management and the factory shift calibrations really hurt acceleration times. Also, the fact that they were only running an 1/8th mile race gives the Raptor an advantage off the line with that 10-speed trans and better gearing.

            1. From what I watched A simple transmission tune wouldn’t gain sht.

              It would need at least a new torque converter with different stall speed, then it would need more internal gears, then it would need different axle gear ratios, then it would likely need different diameter pulleys to try to increase the low end boost problems, then an entire new cooling system so he can now drive it in the summer.

              None of this is simple by any means and certainly not just a simple tune!

              After all this work and money he should of just bought a Raptor to begin with if he wanted a fast truck.

              Or better yet, a simple F150 XL 3.5tt and save a sht load of money and headaches!!!

              Somewhere I read that it is now for sale on the YouTube comments section and the owner is going to buy a full size now.

              Any guesses on what he wants???

    17. Drifter,
      You are absolutely correct on what was stated in the video.

      But I don’t believe that Colorado was making anywhere near that kind of power on the day of the test race. It was only a 1/8 mile race and he lost by 3 truck lengths.

    18. Rambro, a solid axle cannot handle a bump on one side without transmitting forces to the other side. It upsets the entire vehicle and leads to instability. That’s not such a big deal at mundane power levels but start going crazy like your talking about and you end up with rollovers or being wrapped around a telephone pole. A properly designed independent suspension is necessary if you are going to get serious about harnessing big power.

    19. Rambro, obstacle two…

      Weight distribution. Ideally a vehicle will have an even split of weight between each axle. This aids in handling and turning engine power into acceleration rather than tire smoke.

      Pickup trucks carry 65%+ of their weight over the front axle, making it very difficult to handle big power

    20. Rambro, obstacle 3… cost

      Yes, you can engineer solutions to many of those problems, but you also need upgrades beyond the engine. You need a transmission that can handle the power, you need a cooling system up to the task, you need beefier driveshafts, axles, transfer case, brakes, etc…
      You need to recertify the vehicle with EPA, run crash tests for NHTSA etc… etc… etc…

      Now you need to sell them at $75,000 to recover costs, just like FCA has to on the track hawk. How many are you going to sell?

      1. Daniel, Obstacle 1 with regards to a solid axle which is related to traction, 50 HP on Icy roads is more dangerous than 504HP on pavement. You claim a truck can handle HP, yet the Raptor comes in with 450HP and worse yet you can buy a regular cab F150 with 3:73 gears that is lighter than a Tacoma or ZR2 with 375HP in work truck form with a stiff suspension to boot, how come that is OK and that truck already beat the Raptor in crew cab form with 3:55 gears so the 3:73 gear in the regular cab F150 with the 3.5EB would lose traction, not be able to control itself roll over and crash into telephone posts, boy a lot of workers must be suing Ford right now for making such a terrible vehicle.

        Obstacle #2 is weight distribution, this is more of the same in hopes to deploy your failing argument since an F150 already beat the Raptor and we have F150 that are lighter than a ZR2 with the HP a midsize truck requires in order to beat all full sized trucks.

        In summary number 3 cost. So I proved you can have immense HP in a smaller package that pulls more load in the 707HP Trackhawk, so heat is not a problem and it holds a larger V8 in a smaller package than a ZR2 and it pulls more load under full warranty. As for traction in obstacle 1 and two the regular cab F150 that is lighter than a ZR2 with the 3.5EB that will beat all full sized trucks in a drag race is all the HP the ZR2 actually needs to beat the raptor since a larger F150 can already do it. So the ZR2 does not need 707HP, I just proved it can have more HP and not overheat. It just needs about 400HP lets say depending how that is tied in to gearing and the tranny.

        Now cost, the Tundra costs 37,000 dollars with a fully installed supercharger, no other costs involved like what Drifter falsely claims. 37 grand for 550ft-lbs of torque and 504HP in a Tundra with 4×4, so WHY would a Tacoma with 504HP cost more than a larger Tundra, why do you claim 75,000. All the Tacoma needs is 400HP or the ZR2 with 400HP and no heat issues and cost is proven from 2007 to 2015 to not reach for the stars. In fact when the Tacoma was supercharged it ran neck and neck with the old Raptor. But that was 304HP. So why would a 504HP Tacoma cost more than 504HP 37,000 dollar Tundra.

        I feel like the anchor man on Fox news talking to a bunch of Hillary fans who just protect their argument and ignore the facts, bunch of hapless wonders.

        1. Rambro,
          In today’s world not 14yrs ago, a new Tundra would cost well over $60k with a factory installed Supercharger if they ever offered it again!

          My hell, the Trackhawk is listed at $86k you actually think Toyota would consider building something competitive for almost 1/3 of the price?

          You need to come back down to reality a bit and quit working the Fake News and conspiracy theories!

          1. Like I said Drifter, you ignore the facts and twist the reality. In 2015 you could buy a Regular cab Tundra supercharged for 37 grand in 4×4, how in 2017 do we jump to 60,000 dollars and why would a midsize cost the same as a full sized truck with the same HP. Again my Trackhawk reference is that the Trackhawk is 707HP and smaller than a midsize ZR2 in every aspect and has no heat problems. A ZR2 does not require 707HP only 400 but even at 504HP a supercharged Tundra was cheap and under full warranty available from 2007 to 2015. Again you deflect to 707HP costing too much? What is wrong with you? Understand that a midsize does not need 707HP. 504HP could be bought in 2015 for 37 grand in a full sized truck under full warranty, screw your head on straight. A Tacoma would cost less than 37 grand since it is smaller. Even at 50 grand or 60 grand it would sell well enough and the advertising alone would pay for the build.

          2. So 2015 was 14 years ago? Even 2007 was not 14 years ago, Carlson Tucker on Fox news would have a field day with you. Unbelievable.

    21. 14yrs was my twist at fake news just as you have done in this whole debate when you say “you can buy a Tundra for $37k with a warranty”

      It’s not reality – neither one exist anymore!!!

      What is reality? Well, if you expect to see a V8 supercharged full size truck it’s going to be priced North of $80k just like the Trackhawk!

      A supercharged V8 midsize truck will almost certainly never exist for many reasons beyond the reach of your keypad!

      A Supercharged V6 midsize could happen, but it would be a sleepy dog just as in this comparison and mileage would be way down!

      However, a twin turbo V6 is most definitely going to happen in a midsize with hopefully close to 400hp and the performance we expect!

      …and nobody buys a single cab truck anymore except fleets and they prefer long beds with nothing in them – so another bad analogy.

      Didn’t Toyota recently stop making single cab Tundras???

      1. In June of 2015 you could buy a supercharged Tundra for 37 grand and a double cab or crew cab wasn’t much more unless you get into Platinum editions which match the luxury of a Trackhawk which is what drives the price up and not so much the power. That is fake news to say power is going to drive the price up beyond what people are willing to pay. Now you use more propaganda and turn this into whether or not a midsize will get a V8 that is supercharged? What? Do you ever stay on topic or answer a question honestly without verbal diarrhea?

        Oh, and yes Tundra did stop making regular cabs and Titan started making regular cabs and regular cab short beds are no longer available and crocodile tastes like salted chicken. Any other useless points you want to Add?

        1. “unless you get into Platinum editions which match the luxury of a Trackhawk which is what drives the price up and not so much the power”

          Really? That’s so interesting. Please, do elaborate, what separates the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland from the Trackhawk? You’ve made it clear that the power doesn’t change the price much, only $7,000. So that must mean that the custom stitching in the headrests is what bumps the price an additional $33,000?

          1. No Daniel, my argument was based on the Tundra 7000 more to supercharge it under full warranty, no other mods. The Trackhawk is a luxury version of a luxury truck that sells in that price range. I do not know enough about the differences in the Overland. Jeep can charge a premium on the vehicle as well just because they can and we are talking 707HP vs what. I only used the v8 and 707HP to show that it fits in a smaller package than the ZR2 without heat problems. The midsize ZR2 does not need to go to 707HP to be on par with the full sized trucks in this bias industry.

        2. Rambro,
          How much is a new 2017 Tundra TRD Pro and Tacoma TRD Pro without a supercharger that you can actually buy today?

          Answer: $49K and $44k before fees and equipped the way most people buy them!

          Now, add $10k at the least in todays money$$ to each if they actually came from the factory with a supercharger pkg!

          1. Drifter the supercharger installed was 7000 not 10K in 2015, it has only been 2.5 years, you cannot justify 3 grand in 2.5 years. Next thing is that you are talking about Pro models and these things come loaded with every option available in upper trims. You can get a TRD Off Road for 10 grand less than a Pro model and even for less if you go to the base model. Hardly a 80K vehicle, less than half of the propaganda price you stated above.

            1. My Tundra is a lease at 1% financing over 64 months with a buyout of about 19 grand. To buy it would have been about 50 grand with 3000 in options but they took 3000 off the msrp so 50,000 in Canada. The same truck I priced in the USA on the USA website is 44,000 which is an SR5 TRD Off Road package in the Crewmax which is more money than the double cab. A double cab in the USA with the TRD Off Road package in 4×4 is about 40, 740 on the USA website, 38 grand without the Off road package, then add 7 grand to install and pay for a supercharger. No where near 80 grand.

            2. So at least we can now agree that the way you bought and equipped yours and the other average person is going to pay roughly around $50k Canada $44k US for a new 4×4 Tundra.

              Then add at least $7k for a Supercharger installed with no warranty and dismal gas mileage!

              Way past $37k today!!!

            3. Ok Drifter 38k for a 4×4 Tundra with double cab no off road package but is still very capable. Add Say 8 grand by todays standard. So 46K for a base Tundra supercharged. Now why would a Tacoma cost more than that if it had 504HP.

    22. Rambro – What is it exactly that you are asking for?

      You want 400 hp?
      You want 5 second 0-60?
      You want to pull 8,000 lbs?
      You only want to spend $37,000?

      Please list your criteria. Then we can help you understand what would be necessary to meet those targets. Then you can decide which targets you are willing to sacrifice in order to preserve the others. The finally you can become a world-renowned vehicle design engineer and retire with a golden parachute. Everyone will be happy

      1. Daniel, they already make a truck with

        5s 0-60
        can pull 12,200Lbs
        and it is less than 37,000

        It is called an F150 regular cab with 3:73 gears, now put that into a midsize truck with 4 doors and voila. But as this article suggested, heat was a problem which it is not in my opinion and I think I more than provided my argument behind it.

        1. …….AAAAAAAaaaand Daniel! It is one of the best trucks for mpg. Let the crickets sing.

          But that truck being lighter than a ZR2 must drive into telephone polls and roll over into ditches all the time, so they don’t exist due to poor distribution of weight, stiff suspension with work tires, boy this must be one dangerous truck, what was Ford thinking? Maybe a recall is coming due to low traction and the fix is to add a truck cap permanently affixed to the box to redistribute to a correct magnitude acceptable to Daniel engineering.

    23. What I hope happens from FCA is a Turbocharged inline 6cyl

      Possibly in the 3.5 to 4.0L range. This would be an awesome powerplant and be the answer to many shortcomings that exist with current power plants.

      There’s nothing better in my opinion than the torque characteristics of an inline six. There’s also nothing more naturally balanced as we as robust and simple!

      I hope the rumors are true with FCA and they have a refined Turbocharged 4.0L inline 6cyl making 400hp and 500ftlb of torque!

      An inline 6cyl gives the luxury of intake systems on one side and exhaust and turbo systems on the other side – plenty O room!

      This will make an incredible truck motor and yes it could also be a premium midsize engine. Hell, a smallish Jeep Cherokee fit an inline 6cyl in it perfectly for 14yrs!

      1. I hope so. And I hope its a brick house so I can go buy one and strap a compound turbo setup to it like a cummins and destroy everything.

      1. Its funny though that an F150 with less HP and heavier than the ZR2 just beat the Raptor though. So if this ZR2 that is lighter than the F150 with 370HP at the wheels could not beat the Raptor then something is obviously wrong with the tranny in the ZR2

        1. for all we know the F150 3.5EB is underrated like the 2.7 was. The 2.7 made within 10hp of the 1st Gen 3.5EB and was stronger than the GM 5.3 across the board despite lower specs than both.

          5Star tuning clocked the regular 3.5 at 335hp and 420 ft-lbs on 87 octane. Their raptor was 377/425 on 87. That is 12% more power but the raptor weights ~10% more.

          So you have the F150 that is lighter by 5-700 lbs and has smaller tires that make up for the gearing difference and are easier to turn.

    24. Good point, and probably part of the story.

      However the explanation that makes the most sense is that it is a centrifugal supercharger.

      They only make boost with rpm’s so at launch it suffers from Altitude sickness just like a na engine. This also explains why it starts to hold its own later on as the rpm’s stay high.

      1. Yup, the zr2 is probably not making over 250 hp and far less below 4000 rpm. The Raptor on the other hand is probably getting 350 or more to the wheels

        1. why would the ZR2 be at 250? he dyno’d 370 and 5000′ of elevation is about 15% loss in power. Wouldnt that be 315 or so?

          Even if he was making 370, I dont think he could take down a raptor.

          1. And even if the 370 was at sea level, all the guy has to do is pulley down the supercharger so that it spins faster and makes a higher pressure ratio. He could run 14 lbs a boost at sea level and then just add a slightly smaller pull and run 14 lbs at altitude.

            Thats how a turbo can do it. You just dont have to buy a new pulley.

            1. Dyno numbers are rarely comparable to SAE certified numbers. And a centrifugal supercharger doesn’t make that much power under the curve compared to a Turbo system. Yes it could have a pulley swap, but that’s not really ideal

    25. Lot of back and forth with the tundra and superchargers and how much one cost. Yet red every post not one person mentioned anything about the 1st gear ratio is in the 10spd automatic is. Let me clue you all in 4.69 where the gm 6 spd automatic is around 3. Something. Now I don’t about you all when you have that high of a 1st gear coupled to a 4:10 rear gear I don’t know if the GMC had 470 hp it probably would have a hard time beating the raptor.
      It is almost comical and sad at the same time to read such nonsense back and forth about superchargers when the race really came down to gearing.

      1. The answer is that performance is a result of a complete package. Yes there was a difference in gearing though the larger tires on the Raptor consumed some of that difference, but that’s just one aspect. It’s a fact that while centrifugal superchargers make great peak hp numbers, they don’t have a lot of power “under the curve”. It’s a very peaky power band. He isn’t much lighter than the Raptor. And we don’t know what numbers the Raptor would have put down if it had dynoed the same day and same place. The results spoke for themselves, a $30,000 truck with $5-10,000 in mods was not enough to beat a $60,000 properly engineered truck in the mountains. Cheap Fast and Reliable are rarely in the same sentence. Perhaps Matt will continue with more mods and we’ll see a second match-up at sea level and perhaps the results will be different

        1. I’m just pointing out that no one mentioned that the 1st gear was much higher in 10 spd automatic then it is in the 6 spd automatic. In my opinion that was the difference. That high gear spooled up the turbos much quicker than the supercharger v-6. You got all cought up in supercharger and turbo charger Debate that you forgot the gearing. Sure the the tires are bigger on the raptor but it wasn’t enough to effect the performance on the drag strip. Daniel the gearing was the difference. End of story.

          1. Marc,

            I have to agree with Daniel on this, he’s right on track and your in the same boat as the guy above claiming a simple transmission tune would fix the GMC.

            It’s going to take a lot more than just different trans gears to run with a properly engineered factory performance truck, especially if you ran them all with 35″ tires like the Raptor is pulling!

            It would need at least a new torque converter with different stall speed, then it would need more internal gears, then it would need different axle gear ratios, then it would likely need different diameter pulleys to try to increase the low end boost problems, then an entire new cooling system so he can now drive it in the summer.

            None of this is simple by any means and certainly not just a simple tune!

            After all this work and money he should of just bought a Raptor to begin with if he wanted a fast truck.

            Or better yet, a simple F150 XL 3.5tt and save a sht load of money and headaches!!!

            Somewhere I read that it is now for sale on the YouTube comments section and the owner is going to buy a full size now.

            Any guesses on what he wants???

            1. I truly believe if he threw another 100 hp to it still probably wouldn’t have beaten the raptor , because of the gearing both transmission and rear end gear of the gm wouldn’t have aloud it to jump of line as quick as the raptor. If he changed the rear end gear to 4:10 it might been a little more closer but it still wouldn’t off set the gearing in transmission. Drag racing one oh one. Gearing gearing gearing and weight.

      2. Who really cares what the race came down too. Gearing, hp, torque, doesnt matter.

        I dont believe that he was making more HP than a Raptor though. Maybe the same depending on fuel octane and what not, but the guy has colorado plates and I am guessing its 370 at altitude.

    Comments are closed.