Ford Transit USA Forum banner
21 - 40 of 61 Posts
I read somewhere that getting the 3.7 with the CNG/LPG prep package (at slight cost) might help with engine longevity just for the hardened valves and other changes to the engine, even if there is no chance of ever doing that conversion. Is that a reasonable assumption and would the prep package affect gas milage?
This is what I was told by a Ford mechanic (with salesman in tow). He said that he would get it if it was not too expensive since the engine would last longer. He also said it would probably take longer to break in. I have no good experience with it except that I bought it and do not notice anything negative. I doubt you would feel anything positive either. It just is. I have had my van 1 week and 1500 miles, so can provide nothing more. Gas mileage during my one trip was in acceptable range (I have not gone through receipts yet to calculate accurate mileages).
 
This is what I was told by a Ford mechanic ... He also said it would probably take longer to break in. .....
Valves are hardened so it would probably take longer to break in????
Anyone here aware of any science to confirm that one?
I'm only asking because I'm still seeking advice on the best way to break mine in when it comes (Ecoboost with the only valve hardness choice available).
Now I'm beginning to wonder if there really IS any science to the break in period at all. As I observed already, all Ford says to do is avoid driving too fast for the first 1000 miles, without elaborating on what that could be interpreted as.
Do mechanics really have some special insight that the engineers don't?
Maybe they have had to do an early tear down and looked at some hardened valves and could see that those particular parts weren't yet as broken in as the "soft" versions were at the same mileage? I wonder what completely broken in valves look like for that matter.
Don't mind me, it's Saturday night and I spent the entire day sorting through the stuff in my garage in order to prep the Element for the FL trip since I've come to realize that I will remain van-less for the remainder of the year.
I did find the Fantastic Endless Breeze fan, it was right behind the case of Sierra Nevada Torpedo. Figured it was time to to tap that instead.
 
My thinking is that the process of breaking in is essentially the rubbing of moving parts to make them smoother, to get rid of the machining roughness. If the surfaces of an item are harder, it will take longer to break in, that is, to get smoother. I believe breaking in is less important than it once was due to the finer (higher, tighter--choose the best word) tolerances that parts are made from. Which is probably why they are less concerned with some driving styles (not too fast and hard) than they once were.
 
...The Ford EcoBoost is the first series of boosted engines that is selling in significantly large numbers, ...
Lee Iacocca and Bob Lutz are insulted.
You must work in Ford marketing or be so young you don't remember the K cars or supercharged GM 3.8s. I drove my first Saab turbo 35 years ago and owned my first 5 years later.

I'm not basing basing my comments on heavy trucks, but the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of boosted gasoline vehicles sold in this country over the last 3 decades.
 
jethaden. Your correct. The high tech engines of today don`t require the break in process that the past engines needed. First 1000+ or - drive it normal. No long trips at constant speed. No jack rabbit starts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hood
I've lived with the 302hp 3.7L 3.73 axle in my F-150 since 2011. Great engine but at low rpm you have to give it quite a bit of throttle when encountering mild elevation changes or when wanting to accelerate slightly in town.

I drove the 3.7L 3.73 axle Transit 150 and it accelerated ok, but the missing hp from the detuned engine (275hp vs 302hp) was very noticeable when running hard up an on ramp. The Transit's smaller tires also had the engine spinning at a higher rpm than the F-150 did with the 3.73s which will hurt gas mileage.

I got the 3.5L EcoBoost 3.31 axle in my Transit 150 XLT and it is a wonderful engine! Very light throttle input at low rpms (less than 1500 rpm) moves the Transit smartly. What a difference from the 3.7L which requires a substantial poke at the accelerator. The 3.31 axle and smaller tires results in the same rpm as in my truck w/3.73s (2000rpm at 70mph). And there is no noticeable power loss when driving in the mountains. Yesterday I drove from sea level out past the Blue Ridge Parkway. I filled up before I left and kept the speed to 67mph for about 2/3rds of the tank which included 1 long pull up a steep grade. The avg mpg on the dash was 20.4mpg for 2/3rds of the tank. I kept the speed above 74mph for the remaining 1/3rd of the tank (with some city driving too), and when I filled up the tank after over 420 miles the total avg was 19.3 mpg on the dash. Unfortunately, calculating it by hand indicated 17.88mpg. I'm certain the 3.7L would have been much worse, and I would have missed the power and torque of the EcoBoost.

The Transit's gas mileage (just as in the F-150) will drop quickly if the rpm is above 2000 rpm.

Spend some time behind the wheel with both engines, driving them normally at light throttle. You will be amazed at the difference, and when you punch it, the EcoBoost will put a smile on your face. It was still pulling hard uphill when I ran into the speed limiter at 98mph.
 
Lee Iacocca and Bob Lutz are insulted.
You must work in Ford marketing or be so young you don't remember the K cars or supercharged GM 3.8s. I drove my first Saab turbo 35 years ago and owned my first 5 years later.

I'm not basing basing my comments on heavy trucks, but the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of boosted gasoline vehicles sold in this country over the last 3 decades.
Neither. I like Ford vehicles OK but don't care for the corporation all that much. And I've owned a lot of Fords over many decades.

Whether we look at a turbo flat six Chevrolet Corvair or a supercharged Buick, I don't consider the boosted versions of these cars to have sold in large numbers. By far most of the cars within these models were naturally aspirated.

It is only recently that high volume cars or trucks like the F-150 EcoBoost (to exclude expensive exotics or super cars) are selling a large percentage of those vehicles with turbo.

We should also ask ourselves why most boosted engines in the past were discontinued after a few years. Let's just hope history doesn't repeat.

By the way, I like the physics of turbocharging a lot for what it offers or can offer. It's the track record of previous gasoline-engine designs that concerns me most. Granted other technologies have advanced significantly so maybe this time will be different.
 
Discussion starter · #30 ·
Great argument for EcoBoost!

This is a great argument for EcoBoost!

What kind of gas are you typically using to fill it up? Brand-name 87 octane?

I am fine with paying for the upgrade to EcoBoost. Can anyone think of a solid reason NOT to get the EcoBoost?


QUOTE=rmcnelly;67906]I've lived with the 302hp 3.7L 3.73 axle in my F-150 since 2011. Great engine but at low rpm you have to give it quite a bit of throttle when encountering mild elevation changes or when wanting to accelerate slightly in town.

I drove the 3.7L 3.73 axle Transit 150 and it accelerated ok, but the missing hp from the detuned engine (275hp vs 302hp) was very noticeable when running hard up an on ramp. The Transit's smaller tires also had the engine spinning at a higher rpm than the F-150 did with the 3.73s which will hurt gas mileage.

I got the 3.5L EcoBoost 3.31 axle in my Transit 150 XLT and it is a wonderful engine! Very light throttle input at low rpms (less than 1500 rpm) moves the Transit smartly. What a difference from the 3.7L which requires a substantial poke at the accelerator. The 3.31 axle and smaller tires results in the same rpm as in my truck w/3.73s (2000rpm at 70mph). And there is no noticeable power loss when driving in the mountains. Yesterday I drove from sea level out past the Blue Ridge Parkway. I filled up before I left and kept the speed to 67mph for about 2/3rds of the tank which included 1 long pull up a steep grade. The avg mpg on the dash was 20.4mpg for 2/3rds of the tank. I kept the speed above 74mph for the remaining 1/3rd of the tank (with some city driving too), and when I filled up the tank after over 420 miles the total avg was 19.3 mpg on the dash. Unfortunately, calculating it by hand indicated 17.88mpg. I'm certain the 3.7L would have been much worse, and I would have missed the power and torque of the EcoBoost.

The Transit's gas mileage (just as in the F-150) will drop quickly if the rpm is above 2000 rpm.

Spend some time behind the wheel with both engines, driving them normally at light throttle. You will be amazed at the difference, and when you punch it, the EcoBoost will put a smile on your face. It was still pulling hard uphill when I ran into the speed limiter at 98mph.[/QUOTE]
 
Brand name 87 octane. I love this thing! It is a pleasure to drive at light throttle, which amazes me. And it's so quiet when accelerating. The 3.7L F-150 droned every time you gave it a little gas. I was shocked at how quiet an F-150 EcoBoost was, and the Transit is no different.
 
Brand name 87 octane. I love this thing!
If that's what is recommended, that definitely surprises me. I've had two different turbo cars over the last 10 years and known many other folks driving turbos, and they have all been recommended/required to use premium octane fuel.

Makes me wonder about some of the detailed specs on the EcoBoost. Is it a fairly low compression engine? Or is it a low-boost setup?

Heck, what does it max at for boost? I'd guess that like many non-performance turbo vehicles it does not have a boost gauge. (shoot, my '99 Audi A4 doesn't have a boost gauge)
 
Discussion starter · #33 ·
Brand name 87 octane. I love this thing! It is a pleasure to drive at light throttle, which amazes me. And it's so quiet when accelerating. The 3.7L F-150 droned every time you gave it a little gas. I was shocked at how quiet an F-150 EcoBoost was, and the Transit is no different.
I am now feeling comfortable about ordering the Ecoboost. Thanks!

And I now understand Top Tier Fuel:

Top Tier Gasoline

I'm thinking the price spread between Top Tier and cheap gas has decreased, thanks to gas-price apps like GasBuddy.
 
If that's what is recommended, that definitely surprises me. I've had two different turbo cars over the last 10 years and known many other folks driving turbos, and they have all been recommended/required to use premium octane fuel.

Makes me wonder about some of the detailed specs on the EcoBoost. Is it a fairly low compression engine? Or is it a low-boost setup?

Heck, what does it max at for boost? I'd guess that like many non-performance turbo vehicles it does not have a boost gauge. (shoot, my '99 Audi A4 doesn't have a boost gauge)
From the owner's manual:

"3.5L V6 EcoBoost
We recommend regular unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. Some stations offer fuels posted as regular with an octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. We do not recommend fuels with an octane rating below 87. To provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty usage, such as trailer tow."
 
If that's what is recommended, that definitely surprises me. I've had two different turbo cars over the last 10 years and known many other folks driving turbos, and they have all been recommended/required to use premium octane fuel.

Makes me wonder about some of the detailed specs on the EcoBoost. Is it a fairly low compression engine? Or is it a low-boost setup?

Heck, what does it max at for boost? I'd guess that like many non-performance turbo vehicles it does not have a boost gauge. (shoot, my '99 Audi A4 doesn't have a boost gauge)
It is 10:1 compression but it is direct injected. Direct injected turbo engines can run higher compression ratios with lower octane gas because it is injected as it is burned.
 
It is 10:1 compression but it is direct injected. Direct injected turbo engines can run higher compression ratios with lower octane gas because it is injected as it is burned.
Great point.

On the other hand those same advances in technology also allow newer non-turbo (naturally aspirated) engines to run even higher compression ratio. The standard 3.7L has 10.5:1, and other manufactures are making NA gasoline engines with 12:1 or even higher.
 
Greetings,

10:1 is conservative in today's engines, and always run exactly what is recommended for fuel grade, brand name gas (it's just too risky to do otherwise, and you get better gas mileage too.) High torque (usable hp), less rpm's is infinitely better for safe driving. From what people are saying, the 3.7 l is a p-poor engine that can only be run at high gearing and high revs. Like the diesel, which I cannot afford the maintenance markup, the twin turbo econoboost engine maintenance would be more critical in timeliness and maybe a reason for some failures in the past: people are not maintaining it properly or reading the fuel required as posted above a few posts back.

The econoboost 3.5l is a technical marvel and a diesel beater: treat it well, and it will return the favor to you (theoretically.) As an engineer, it is the only engine that should be offered or at least considered imo. ymmv. If the 3.5l engine is not any good, then I need to look at the Chrysler vans: but traditionally, Ford engines are faster and get better gas mileage (except Dodge's sound good and they generally go a long time too :)
 
21 - 40 of 61 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top