Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
just curiosity, but from what i have been reading, it seems that the ecoboost transit is a bit of a hot rod. i know for the ecoboost f150's there are tuners and intakes that can add 80-100hp. would anyone hot rod their transits? would it be a problem to add more power to the transit, structural issues perhaps? in the f150 the ecoboost makes 365hp and 420 ft lbs, why is the transit version detuned to 320hp and 400 ft lbs? fuel economy, structural integrity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
The power this thing has was really surprising. I have no desire to hop it up, as it has more power than needed or expected, but also because I don't want to mess with durability. I'd like to get 300k miles out of it, and I don't want to put additional stress on the drive train. My guess is that it probably doesn't have the performance oriented exhaust of the F150, but who knows? Maybe the fact that most of them will be used commercially made them do it to enhance longevity. Just a guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
My guess is that it is detuned to run on 87 octane, then detuned some more for the fun of it. It can already do good burnouts, so 400 hp might cause some traction issues. I, for one, would want all the power in exchange for running 91 octane.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
My guess is that it is detuned to run on 87 octane, then detuned some more for the fun of it. It can already do good burnouts, so 400 hp might cause some traction issues. I, for one, would want all the power in exchange for running 91 octane.

Jason
I didn't know the F150 runs on 91 octane. That has to be part of it, then. I need all the help I can get at the gas pump, so I'm glad it runs 87. The option would be nice. I had a Pontiac Solstice that produced max horsepower on 91, but allowed for 87. I couldn't feel a difference, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
I test drove the EB in the rain. With the van empty, I inadvertently triggered the traction control several times. I can't imagine having more power with those little wheels ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
The F-150 is rated for 87 octane. I don't know why they detuned the 3.5L EcoBoost or the 3.7L for that matter - F-150 3.7L had over 300hp from that engine.

Could be due to a more cramped engine bay affecting the intake/intercooler plumbing, or rated capacity of the rear axle, or they just didn't need 365hp in this thing.

The standard Transit 3.5L/3.31 axle ratio and 16" tires produce the same rpm at 60mph as my F-150 did with 3.7L/3.73 gears and 18" tires. In this area, F-150 3.5L EcoBoost 2wd models had either the 3.55, 3.31 or 3.15 axle ratios with much larger 18" or 20" tires, and would turn a lower rpm at 60mph.

So the 3.5L EcoBoost/3.31/16" wheel combo on the Transit should get off the line as well or better than the 2011-2014 F-150 despite carrying more weight.

Mine impresses me every time I drive it. Especially low rpm light throttle acceleration in town or on the highway. It will rapidly accelerate to pass another vehicle with little throttle and doesn't need to downshift 2 gears to do so. I rarely floor it and it accelerates hard with about half throttle, quietly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
just curiosity, but from what i have been reading, it seems that the ecoboost transit is a bit of a hot rod. i know for the ecoboost f150's there are tuners and intakes that can add 80-100hp. would anyone hot rod their transits? would it be a problem to add more power to the transit, structural issues perhaps? in the f150 the ecoboost makes 365hp and 420 ft lbs, why is the transit version detuned to 320hp and 400 ft lbs? fuel economy, structural integrity?
I'd guess that the stock 3.5 EcoBoost F-150 is also a bit of a "hot rod" by normal standards (365 HP is more than a Ford V10) for many buyers, which explains why Ford added the new 2.7 V6 EcoBoost to the F150. From what I've read even that small an EB makes a hot rod.

In the quest for higher MPGs, I expect the 2.7 EB to make it to the Transit as soon as production can handle the needed volume. Perhaps even a detuned Mustang 4-cylinder EcoBoost may get used eventually for smaller and lighter vans.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
312 Posts
When I did the ride & drive last June, I was shocked at the power the EB had. This was after just jumping out of our Sprinter that I drove over there....not even in the same universe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I'm thinking of putting a tune on the 3.7 motor bringing it back to the same or a little more than power than what Ford offers in their cars. The 3.5 EB is a great motor, just $1900 for more power than I need since I won't be towing and lightly loaded. MPG should be better since I won't be tempted to be on boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
SR75,

It sounds like you have settled on getting the 3.7L, but if you haven't ordered one yet please consider the following:

I had the 300+hp 3.7L in the F-150 I can tell you it was a great engine and would shift at 7,000 rpm. It made pretty good power by 3,000 rpm, but below that it was weak. This resulted in the need to give it much more throttle just to get moving or deal with a slight climb or need to increase speed. This kills any mpg improvement you might see, and over time I became frustrated with the amount of throttle I had to give it.

The Transit w/3.7L and 3.73 axle will spin at a higher rpm than the F-150 did w/3.73 gears due to the difference in tire size. This will help get it moving at the cost of gas mileage. And anything over 2,000 rpm on the highway will kill your gas mileage. I test drove a 3.7L 130" LR 8 passenger XLT, and it was pleasant, but the missing 25-30hp from the F-150 version was very noticeable when hitting an on-ramp with a short merge lane.

The wonderful thing about the EcoBoost is it makes a great deal of torque at a very low rpm and peaks at 400 ftlbs at 2250 rpm. It moves the Transit easily with light throttle and is seriously quick with only half throttle (you don't have to rev the pee out of it). With the 3.31 axle ratio, it turns the same rpm as my F-150 did w/3.73 gears (2,000 rpm at 70mph).

I doubt anyone will get better mileage with the 3.7L and folks will likely get better mileage with the EcoBoost with a light foot (and as I said earlier, it moves the Transit easily with light throttle). I don't have any problem beating the 14 mpg city estimate on mine as long as I don't get caught at many long stoplights. I live on the east coast and like to travel to the Blue Ridge mountains, and the EcoBoost doesn't break a sweat pulling up the steeper grades at altitude, and won't need to downshift if running near 2,000 rpm because it's already making serious torque.

Every time I drive the EcoBoost it amazes me with the light throttle, low rpm response, and makes the Transit very enjoyable to drive. The extra cost of the EcoBoost is hardly noticeable if financing the Transit with a longer term loan. I don't know why anyone would settle for the 3.7L if the Transit is for personal use and not for fleet service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
This graph is for the 2011 F-150 engines. Just look at how the 3.7L vs 3.5L EcoBoost make torque. The Transit's EcoBoost peaks at 400 ftlbs at 2250 rpm and is certain to have a similar torque curve as in the graph. The 3.7L in the Transit will make less peak torque than the F-150 version and will probably have slightly less low rpm torque.

This explains why the Transit EcoBoost is such a joy to drive at less than 2,000 rpm.


(keep in mind this chart represents torque at full throttle)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
....cut..... I don't know why anyone would settle for the 3.7L if the Transit is for personal use and not for fleet service.
I can't speak for others, but will say that for me I wouldn't feel like I'm "settling" for the 3.7 V6. Even if both engines cost the same initially I would take the 3.7-liter naturally aspirated over a turbo. Turbos work fine but I enjoy simplicity more.

Every person is different, as are their needs. I don't need that much power, or torque for that matter. I also don't have a problem with engines spinning faster than 2000 rpm, or the transmission shifting down one or two gears when needed. I grew up driving cars and trucks that required shifting on a regular basis, so it's not a negative for me. To me it makes the vehicle feel more alive. I know many prefer lots of low-end torque so that vehicle drives in one gear much like electric vehicles, but that in itself doesn't add much value to me.

I don't think my preferences are better than yours, just different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I don't know about you guys, but if you hate getting forced into the shoulder when trying to merge, the 3.7 will not suffice with a load. Most cars and trucks on the road easily out accelerate bigger vehicles. They have trained themselves not to fall back for us. We are too slow. When I try to get on the freeway people block entry most of the time. Not now... No one is prepared for the 3.5 afterburner that is under my hood. Being humble and getting passed by every car and truck while you struggle to hit 65 has it's place for under-powered vehicles. I am too old for that. The old adage- "You can never have too much horsepower" seems to fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I'd guess that the stock 3.5 EcoBoost F-150 is also a bit of a "hot rod" by normal standards (365 HP is more than a Ford V10) for many buyers, which explains why Ford added the new 2.7 V6 EcoBoost to the F150. From what I've read even that small an EB makes a hot rod.

In the quest for higher MPGs, I expect the 2.7 EB to make it to the Transit as soon as production can handle the needed volume. Perhaps even a detuned Mustang 4-cylinder EcoBoost may get used eventually for smaller and lighter vans.
The 2.7 Ecoboost makes 325 hp. Ford probably detuned the 3.5 for the Transit so that when they switch to the 2.7 in the near future, they can claim that the new, smaller engine makes more power and allows more mpg. True progress.

Jason
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top