Ask the Car People.SM


F-150 3.7 Engine

21 messages,  Last post on Jun 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

You are in the Ford F-Series Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford F-150, Ford F-250, Ford F-350, Engine, Truck

Messages Page 1 of 2

#1 of 21 F-150 3.7 Engine by temj12

Apr 23, 2011 (5:31 pm)

I have just purchased a 2011 F-150 with the new 3.7 engine. I have driven the truck 800 miles, but it is too early to form an opinion. If you have the 3.7 engine, I would like to know your opinion of the engine.

#2 of 21 Re: F-150 3.7 Engine [temj12] by stonesi

Apr 25, 2011 (8:15 am)

Replying to: temj12 (Apr 23, 2011 5:31 pm)
I test drove the 3.7 liter motor in a 2wd regular cab, and thought in was a great motor! Accelerated nicely, and felt very smooth. It has a high payload rating, just can't tow as much as the 5.0 or eco-boost. Better fuel mileage though. I ordered a 2wd, reg. cab, XLT, fully loaded with the 3.7 liter motor. MSRP was just over $30,000, got it for $300 over invoice ($28,000) and I'll get to use the $3,000 worth of rebates available. There are very few regular cabs or 2wd drive trucks made anymore. However they are the best work truck for me.

#3 of 21 Re: F-150 3.7 Engine [stonesi] by temj12

Apr 27, 2011 (9:48 pm)

Replying to: stonesi (Apr 25, 2011 8:15 am)
Thank you for replying. I looked at the regular cab, but I decided to go for the Super Crew this time. I have the XL. I wanted power windows, doors and mirrors. You don't see that much in the XL regular cab. The engine is very smooth, as you say. I have had it on the interstate once and it is strange when the engine is turning low revs due to the six speed transmission. The 2007 that I have has the five speed and the rpms run higher. The 2007 is a regular cab with the small rear doors that Ford used at the time. I liked the extra room it had behind the seat, even though it was a regular cab. What surprised me with the 2011 regular cab, was the space behind the seat. It was just as much as my 2007, but without the doors.

#4 of 21 3.7 vs 3.5 Ecoboost by temj12

Oct 19, 2011 (11:51 am)

I purchased a 2011 F-150 Supercrew with a 3.7 engine. I read comments on the 3.5 turbo, but not on the 3.7. Is that already an engine that is in the past? I like the engine, but I have not driven the 3.5 turbo. Apparently, it does not get equal billing in being the engine of choice by Ford.

#5 of 21 F-150 3.7 V6 by chlyn

Nov 12, 2011 (11:56 pm)

I bought an XLT 2 months ago, and I just got back from a 2000 mile journey down south and back. I was towing my little 2000 pound R-Pod, and the truck did fine except I wasn't that happy with the MPGs while towing. Maybe mileage will improve later, but for this trip I only got 12 miles per gallon. The truck handles well, looks great and I'm still glad I bought it, but I have to say I was expecting a little better economy while towing with this truck and engine. I also have to say I got a great deal, way better than the websites like Edmunds says are available. Dealers are hungry for sales, and maybe in this economy, now is probably an especially good time to strike a deal. Just a thought. Or maybe I just ran into a great deal by accident.

#6 of 21 Re: F-150 3.7 V6 [chlyn] by temj12

May 30, 2012 (11:08 am)

Replying to: chlyn (Nov 12, 2011 11:56 pm)
I like the 3.7 engine, although I have not used it for towing. I don't find that I get any better gas mileage than I did with the V-8. The advertised road mileage is 23 mpg, but I don't get more than 20.5. That part is a disappointment. It is actually rated at 1 mpg more than the ecoboost. I am curious as to whether the ecoboost gets its rated 22 mpg on the road.

#7 of 21 Re: 3.7 vs 3.5 Ecoboost [temj12] by wwest

Jun 05, 2012 (7:39 am)

Replying to: temj12 (Oct 19, 2011 11:51 am)
Turbo-charging an engine requires that it be derated, "detuned", for off-boost driving, that's ~99% of the time. ~98% of the time that you will be getting lower MPG than could be had with the very same engine not derated, a more standard, N/A compression ratio, 12:1 for a DFI engine.

#8 of 21 Re: F-150 3.7 V6 [temj12] by temj12

Jun 05, 2012 (10:30 am)

Replying to: temj12 (May 30, 2012 11:08 am)
I like the 3.7 engine, but I have been disappointed in the mileage also. Like you, the best that I get on the road is 20.5. I get 15 to 16 around town. It will not get the mileage posted on the sticker. I assume the sticker mileage is what you get if all things are optimal. That just is not the case when most of us drive. I have a 2007 F 150 with the 4.2 engine and I get better mileage than with the 3.7. Of course in all fairness, it has something just over 200 hp. I get 18 to 19 around town.

#9 of 21 Re: 3.7 vs 3.5 Ecoboost [wwest] by bigmclargehuge

Jun 07, 2012 (7:37 pm)

Replying to: wwest (Jun 05, 2012 7:39 am)
What is this nonsense about sacrificing fuel efficiency 98% of the time?
 
On-boost is far more than 1% of the time. In the city it is close to 50% of the time in motion, and on the highway, 20-30%. And that 20-30% is the 20-30% in which a truck drinks a fantastic amount of fuel just to move its mass. Even light acceleration watches instantaneous mpg plummet in a truck.... But less so in a boosted one, because under any throttle application, torque arrives at lower
rpm in a boosted vehicle, throwing the whole 'CR created more efficiency at any given rpm' concept out the window in practical application.
 
You're still falsely assuming that the turbos are not engaging during all acceleratory runs, and all hills.
 
You read Wikipedia and now you are married to the idea that CR is the only way to make efficiency gains, which is false. When it comes to high-torque applications, nothing can touch the EB's efficiency (minus a diesel). That is at ANY rpm or throttle application.
 
Accelerating under boost is more efficient than NA acceleration, including NA, DI, with similar torque ratings. Combustion efficiency caused by high CR works best in low-torque applications. At anything other than an idle, NA engines cannot get enough air through vacuum alone to produce as high a torque at as low an rpm as a boosted engine. They have to rev to achieve higher vacuum, and hence the creates wasted heat through friction of the cylinders with the extra revs.
 
And even on the highway, idle is not 100% of the time. Even Nebraska has slight inclines, merges, passing...
 
CR is only a theoretical indication of efficiency at any given rpm. When you add the variable of what an NA engine has to rev to to achieve meaningful torque, the efficiency skews highly towards Ecoboost.
 

#10 of 21 Re: 3.7 vs 3.5 Ecoboost [bigmclargehuge] by bigmclargehuge

Jun 07, 2012 (7:37 pm)

Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Jun 07, 2012 7:37 pm)
How does it feel, wwest, to be totally outclassed intellectually: http://www.f150forum.com/f70/how-similar-ecoboost-other-turbocharged-engines-156- - 880
 
I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines. They confirm I've been correct, and you have been belligerently ignorant.
 
Every single thing you've said about turbocharged engine operation has been wrong. You wasted significant time, numerous pages of text, $12, and your last remaining functioning brain cells adamantly defending points that were wrong.
 
Stop trolling Ecoboost forums, or at least troll one like F150 forums where half the posters are mechanics. Because 1-on-1 you just get more belligerent, even when I was talking total sense to you.
 
It would be entertaining to see you defend your 'guesses' in that crowd. Its even a way better value than your subscription to Ford parts, where you gained only a false perspective

Messages Page 1 of 2

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement