[DennisV]

Transit figures from order guide found here


F-150 figures from Ford website






F-150 HP = 302 Torque = 278


Transit HP = 266 Torque = 249


That's a 12% drop in HP and 10.5% drop in torque.


Seems a bit drastic considering they are using the same transmission. I'm guessing they are trying to squeeze the most mpg possible out of that motor.


I'd prefer the extra power myself.

 

[robottn]

Transit figures from order guide found here


F-150 figures from Ford website






F-150 HP = 302 Torque = 278


Transit HP = 266 Torque = 249

I am surprised that the figures are different but I suspect you may be correct that Ford is tuning for MPG
That's a 12% drop in HP and 10.5% drop in torque.


Seems a bit drastic considering they are using the same transmission. I'm guessing they are trying to squeeze the most mpg possible out of that motor.


I'd prefer the extra power myself.

I am surprised that the figures are different, I agree Ford may be tuning the 3.7 for MPG in the Transit?
For me better MPG is a plus. I drive very conservatively, rarely tow a trailer, & carry between 800-1500 lbs of tools & cargo.
I have considered the Ram 1500 pickup with the 3.6 & 8 spd as that drivetrain would work well for me, but the convenience of a van's side door for access cannot be beat for my application. I wish Ford was installing a transmission with more than 6 spds as I think 8-10 spds will be standard in a few years.

 

[carryon]

tuned down for mileage? very possible.

 

[ted]

is there a power chart showing what the torque and hp is like throughout the RPM range?

 

[mlts22]

I've wondered about CVTs, except they tend to not be usable on anything but ultra-lightweight vehicles (like the Subaru Justy of yore.) That would definitely make the gear issue a moot point.

 

[Del]

i dont mind the 6 speed, it can hold you in the powerband longer...

CVT= YUCK

Ford abandoned CVT's years back with the abomination that was the freestyle.