Ford Transit USA Forum banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can someone help me figure out the difference between some of the engine options for the 2017 Transit passenger wagon? I know very little about cars or engines, so I have no idea what I should be looking for. One van I'm considering has the upgraded 3.5L GTDI V6 and the other has the standard 3.7L TIVCT V6. It is a low roof, regular wheelbase and we won't be towing things, so we don't need a ton of extra power. Thanks so much!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Go to Ford website and download the brochure....

http://www.ford.com/trucks/transitvanwagon/brochures/?gnav=header-tools

Takes a little digging, but there are tables in there which give the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings) and towing capacities for the various wheelbase/roof height/engine combinations.

If you're not towing the 3.7 is adequate.

The 3.5 is quite zippy and tows a lot more.....

The diesel tows the most, in the right body/axle combination and in theory should last many more miles. But, they are going to be slow miles. And diesel fuel is more expensive than gas in most locations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
Go to Ford website and download the brochure....

http://www.ford.com/trucks/transitvanwagon/brochures/?gnav=header-tools

Takes a little digging, but there are tables in there which give the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings) and towing capacities for the various wheelbase/roof height/engine combinations.

If you're not towing the 3.7 is adequate.

The 3.5 is quite zippy and tows a lot more.....
Aside from the power difference, 3.7 is a high-rev engine, and the 3.5 is a low-rev, torque-y engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
A wagon can get pretty heavy when fully loaded with Americans (10 people averaging 250lbs is over a ton). If you're going to be fully loaded often and live in a hilly place a 3.5 might be the way to go. Personally, because I don't need to outrun police or do jackrabbit starts, the 3.7 is fine for me. I wouldn't worry about the 3.7 NOT being up to task, it's just that the 3.5 and 3.2 diesel have even more power. 3.5 and 3.7 get about the same mpg, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Hmmmm, I wouldn't consider 5500 RPM "low"......

3.5-L
The first Ford vehicle to feature this engine was the 2007 Lincoln MKR concept vehicle under the name TwinForce.[43] The engine was designed to deliver power and torque output equivalent to a typical 6.0-L or larger-displacement V8 while achieving at least 15% better fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse emissions. In the MKR, the concept TwinForce engine was rated at 415 hp (309 kW) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque, as well as run on E85 fuel.[44] When the same prototype engine reappeared in the Lincoln MKT concept in 2008 North American International Auto Show, the name was changed to EcoBoost. Official EcoBoost production began on May 19, 2009 at Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1.

The production engines use the Duratec 35 V6 engine block. The fuel charging and delivery systems can attain high fuel pressures up to 2150 psi, necessary for efficient operation of the direct fuel injection system. It uses two BorgWarner turbochargers which can spin up to 170,000 rpm and provide 12 psi of boost. The turbos are set up in a twin-turbo configuration. The engine can consume up to 25% more air over the naturally aspirated counterpart. Through the use of direct injection, the engine needs only regular-grade gasoline to run. The EcoBoost V6 was first available as an engine option for 2010 Lincoln MKS, followed by 2010 Ford Flex, 2010 Ford Taurus SHO, and 2010 Lincoln MKT.[45] The fuel-charging and -delivery systems were co-developed with Robert Bosch GmbH.[46]

In 2009, Ford modified an experimental 3.5-L V6 EcoBoost engine with both E85 direct injection and gasoline indirect fuel injection, which achieved a brake mean effective pressure of 395 psi (27 bar), which translates to roughly 553 pound-feet (750 N·m) of torque and 316 horsepower (236 kW)@3000 rpm (flat torque curve from 1500–3000 rpm).[47]

Applications[edit]
310 hp (231 kW) @5500 rpm, 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) @2250 rpm
2015- Ford Transit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thank you everyone! That was very helpful. I doubt we'll get even close to hauling a ton very often - we'll have 2 adults in front and 5 passengers in the back (the biggest of those being a hefty 37 lbs). They'll grow, but none will probably be even close to 250 lbs, or even 200 lbs :) The van that has more of the features we want (better color, privacy glass, running boards - you know, the important stuff ;) ) is the one with the standard engine, so this makes me feel better about going with that one. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
Yeah adequate is a good description of the base motor. Mine is fine but never really moves the van with any urgency.

It is very smooth and the transmission works well with the power output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Hmmmm, I wouldn't consider 5500 RPM "low"......
Both engines CAN go high RPM but the 3.7L pretty much HAS to to get you moving with any speed. The EB can get you moving quite quickly without revving high - mine rarely goes above 3000-3500 RPM unless I'm feeling particularly feisty... >:D

I was sorta-kinda wanting to go 3.7L for "simplicity" (though even it isn't particularly "simple" anymore) but I just hate listening to an engine that winds up every time I accelerate from a light. I didn't get to test-drive a 3.7L very long but it was noticeably higher-revving than the EB I drove. I also don't like engines that have to downshift the transmission on every uphill on the highway and that was reported to be an issue here. The EB can hold its gear much longer than the 3.7L.

The 3.7L would certainly have been sufficient for my needs, indeed sometimes I grumble about the EB because the throttle is way too touchy on it - if I do more than barely touch it I'm rocketing off down the road! I don't regret picking the EB though, it's really nice having plenty of power in reserve. (All of my past vehicles have been rather anemic in that department.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
[quoting is not working in my browser, right now -- in fact, this entire site has been pretty messed up, today]

oscarvan, on the 3.5L: "Hmmmm, I wouldn't consider 5500 RPM "low"......"

Meh, I have never had mine at 5500 RPM, in 1 1/2 years. I can go about my business every day, and rarely hit 2500 RPM, and, that includes merging and passing on the highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
This is probably only an issue if you're ordering a van. When shopping for in-stock vans, sometimes you can't get everything you want.
Decide the "Must Have" list first, such as "it must be a wagon", and then go down to the "would like to have" list, such as "I'd like 3.31 rear end" etc. Then a "don't care" list, such as factory floor mats.

The lists will be different from person to person, with perhaps "Red Paint" being on the must-have list, or engine type being on the "don't care" list.

There is also an "Absolutely Not" list, the diesel was on that list for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Aside from the power difference, 3.7 is a high-rev engine, and the 3.5 is a low-rev, torque-y engine.
Meh, I have never had mine at 5500 RPM, in 1 1/2 years. I can go about my business every day, and never hit 2500 RPM, and, that includes merging and passing on the highway.
I'm confused. You bought a Transit with a "high-rev engine" that you never get above 2500 rpms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
I'm confused. You bought a Transit with a "high-rev engine" that you never get above 2500 rpms?
No, I have the 3.5L "low-rev" engine (see my sig). My note about running below 2500 RPM was in reply to oscarvan, who quoted spec. that showed 5500 RPM for the 3.5L... but, that would be for peak horsepower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
I drove both and went with the 3.5 ecoboost. I love that motor, handles just about anything you throw at it. We have seven kids, the oldest being 9 so they are not that heavy of a payload either. However when we are all in the van with strollers, car seats, and all the other crap my wife takes every where, you can feel the weight; the 3.5 makes short work of it, I would never be happy with the 3.7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
No, I have the 3.5L "low-rev" engine (see my sig). My note about running below 2500 RPM was in reply to oscarvan, who quoted spec. that showed 5500 RPM for the 3.5L... but, that would be for peak horsepower.
I see it now. I would agree. I've owned 2 F150s and now my T250 with the 3.5EB. I can't say that I've never been above 2500rpms, but I can say that there is rarely a need to do so. My last F150 would cruise at 60mph at around 1500rpms and rarely downshift. I am a big fan of this motor. I put 100k on the first F150 and 70 and my 2015 F150 before I decided I needed a Transit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
The ecoboost does make make great power at low RPM. There is one intersection I drive through periodically where Im doing 50-60 on a county road and have to slow down to substantially to make a 90* left turn. As I make the left turn there is a short hill in front of me that is probably about a 40* incline. The first time I made the turn in the our van I thought the van trans was bad because it wasn't down shifting, I was thinking "what the **** is wrong with this thing, why isnt it shifting?". I quickly realized the it didn't down shift because the torque convertor stayed locked up and the engine was pulling the hill at about 1200rpms, it didn't need to shift. Every time I take that route is still catches me off guard, after decades of driving I'm still waiting for that down shift that doesn't come. It really is a great little motor.
 
1 - 20 of 53 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