I have been waiting for a used 3.5 ecoboost engine model to become available for my family (crewvanman has been helping me look). I am going to need my transit to pull a small camper through Appalachian roads. From your experience, can the standard 3.7 engine handle such a task?
How good is the standard 3.7 engine?
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Joined
·
214 Posts
I find the 3.7 to be just fine, but I don't drive like I'm running from the cops. No issues with power or acceleration going over the Rockies or the Sierra. I haven't towed anything with it, but I'm sure it would be more than capable of towing 5000lbs up and over the mountains. Not that I would know (wink), but the 3.7 is easily capable of going 110mph+ on the flats.
I think it comes down to how much towing you are going to do; once a month or less doesn't really warrant the need for a more expensive motor just to go a few miles per hour faster on rare occasions when you are towing up a hill. If you are towing every weekend, or as part of your business, the ecoboost or diesel might be worth it. In my opinion, I'd save the money for something else and just be content with arriving 10 minutes later on a 150 mile trip towing a trailer in the mountains. It's not like anyone is going to be passing people and taking corners hard while towing, anyway, so excess horsepower/torque is kind of pointless.
Some speculation on the ecoboost being easier on the tranny, because less shifting is needed, but I don't know. Again, it depends on how much total time is being spent towing; 1% of your annual driving miles? 5%?
I think it comes down to how much towing you are going to do; once a month or less doesn't really warrant the need for a more expensive motor just to go a few miles per hour faster on rare occasions when you are towing up a hill. If you are towing every weekend, or as part of your business, the ecoboost or diesel might be worth it. In my opinion, I'd save the money for something else and just be content with arriving 10 minutes later on a 150 mile trip towing a trailer in the mountains. It's not like anyone is going to be passing people and taking corners hard while towing, anyway, so excess horsepower/torque is kind of pointless.
Some speculation on the ecoboost being easier on the tranny, because less shifting is needed, but I don't know. Again, it depends on how much total time is being spent towing; 1% of your annual driving miles? 5%?
With the weight of my DIY conversion, the 3.7 always downshifts on hills, generally only to 5th, "mountains" to 4th. With it full of boxes going through Appalachians (moving stuff from FL to MI), it had to work more than I ideally would have wanted. But, it had no problem making the hills at the posted speed limit (or potentially higher), which is all I drive anyway. Just have to get used to 4000 rpm, which this engine is happy to do. The ECO may be cool, but the 3.7 is perfectly adequate. Just my opinion. Note I have the 4.10 rear end so engine speeds are higher all the time than a low or mid roof. Also note that the tow ratings for the 4.10 3.7 are actually higher than the 3.31 ECO (at least they were in 2015).
Joined
·
214 Posts
Oh yeah, I have the 3.73 rear end. drove mainly at 3000rpm on the highway.
On the last few trips I've taken down state highways and back roads I've noticed the EB w/ 3.31 downshifts plenty too. If the road has lots of rollers I've taken to just locking out 6th because it gets annoying. That's with my minimally converted van loaded with a kayak, towing nothing...
That would be one difference I guess. With the 3.31 rear at 65 MPH I'm around 1800 RPM. Dropping to 5th at 65 puts me around 2200. I went with the EB because I don't like "screamers" though I expect I'd have been fine with the 3.7 too. (Though I do have to admit the EB acceleration can be fun to play with at times!
)I haven't noticed a mileage penalty for locking out 6th. I'm sure there's a tiny one but one time I locked it out on the super-hilly side roads leaving a lake then forgot about it when I got to the interstate. Drove the rest of the way home in 5th, average MPG on the dash and instant MPG on the ScanGauge were close enough to normal (if they were even different) for me not to notice.
Joined
·
259 Posts
3.7 is adequate for all my current and future needs. I based this off of my 2001 ford e250 extended with a 6 cylinder handling everything I threw at it including 250k miles of hauling dirt bikes, a dump trailer, and advantures. It still is in use as my dads work truck! Viva la 3.7!
I have the 3.7 and tow a 16' flat-bed trailer loaded with some interesting stuff from time to time and it performs equal to or better than my old Savana 5.0 did with the same trailer. A little camper trailer will be hardly noticed IMHO.
The 3.7L likes to spin. If you end up going that route, get used to downshifting and not winning any races and you'll have quite the functionally adequate van to accomplish most anything you can throw at it.
Do I wish I had an EB? Sure! Moar Powah! The handful of times I put a 6500lb trailer on the 3.7L I wished I had some more balls under the hood, especially when I hit the hill country. But the 3.7L got me where I needed to go.
Do I wish I had an EB? Sure! Moar Powah! The handful of times I put a 6500lb trailer on the 3.7L I wished I had some more balls under the hood, especially when I hit the hill country. But the 3.7L got me where I needed to go.
Joined
·
540 Posts
I always describe the 3.7 the same way, generally adequate. Went up to the White Mountains again (nothing in tow) but there were some super slow pokes in the twisty fast bits. My wife put the pedal down and passed with ease. On the way back I passed a couple more. One thing I'll add is I'm not sure the eb, or diesel hate idling as much. Stop n go traffic makes the gas tank unhappy.
Joined
·
214 Posts
From the info I can glean, the ecoboost and 3.7 get about the same MPG. There may be some user variables involved; the ecoboost drivers may want to "see what it can do" more often, thus resulting in lower MPG.
Hey, look at that dead horse! I'm going to flog it! I still say that the ecoboost 2.0 liter would be a great engine for the Transit, same HP and more torque than the 3.7, and because of displacement should get 30-40% better fuel economy (real-world would probably be 20-30%). Merikuns would never buy a full size van with a 2.0 liter even if it had 1000 HP, though.
Back to the 3.7, after doing a lot of reading of personal reviews and opinions and long term reliability studies, the 3.7 was my #1 choice on the engines offered. Cost was also factored in; the extra $1500 or $6000 conclusively ruled out the other motors. If the price was right on a used van, I would avoid either motor, though. Maybe the diesel.
Hey, look at that dead horse! I'm going to flog it! I still say that the ecoboost 2.0 liter would be a great engine for the Transit, same HP and more torque than the 3.7, and because of displacement should get 30-40% better fuel economy (real-world would probably be 20-30%). Merikuns would never buy a full size van with a 2.0 liter even if it had 1000 HP, though.
Back to the 3.7, after doing a lot of reading of personal reviews and opinions and long term reliability studies, the 3.7 was my #1 choice on the engines offered. Cost was also factored in; the extra $1500 or $6000 conclusively ruled out the other motors. If the price was right on a used van, I would avoid either motor, though. Maybe the diesel.
We had a used 2015 low roof for about 4 months that was gutless, got awful mileage (14.5 highway around here in central West Virginia), and was constantly downshifting on even the slightest hills.
We traded it for an Ecoboosted 2016 mid roof and we're much happier with it. Mileage for the same circuits around here is 17.5+, and I got 19.5 on a trip down to Carter caves, KY, a couple weeks ago. Power is really nice to have if I need it, and it doesn't downshift much at all, even on the hills. I don't think it's ever gone down to 4th on the hills except when I was pulling the 3000 lb camper and I had the van loaded pretty heavily.
Towing the camper home at 65mph got me an average of 14.7 mpg. I didn't think that was bad at all.
sent from Moto X
We traded it for an Ecoboosted 2016 mid roof and we're much happier with it. Mileage for the same circuits around here is 17.5+, and I got 19.5 on a trip down to Carter caves, KY, a couple weeks ago. Power is really nice to have if I need it, and it doesn't downshift much at all, even on the hills. I don't think it's ever gone down to 4th on the hills except when I was pulling the 3000 lb camper and I had the van loaded pretty heavily.
Towing the camper home at 65mph got me an average of 14.7 mpg. I didn't think that was bad at all.
sent from Moto X
I have a mid length mid height with the 3.7 with the tow package(3.73 rear end). Van with this combo works great.
Tows a rpod with ease over mountain roads and gets 14 towing if one sticks to 65. Get about 18 highway with no wind. The engine likes to rev, sometimes up to the 7k red line in the tow mode if I floor it. Only thing the van needed was a good insulation job, DIY type.
Tows a rpod with ease over mountain roads and gets 14 towing if one sticks to 65. Get about 18 highway with no wind. The engine likes to rev, sometimes up to the 7k red line in the tow mode if I floor it. Only thing the van needed was a good insulation job, DIY type.
Joined
·
214 Posts
Given the extra HP of the 3.5, and the same MPG, the 3.5 would offer more benefit without penalty IF you find yourself needing more power. and the extra cost isn't too much for you (perhaps you are a public employee).
The wildcard is the reliability and maintenance cost between the two. From what I read, both are fairly reliable. The 3.5 even went through an attempt to destroy it over the course of a year and survived. I don't recall any repair/replacements needed to the external parts (namely turbos) though.
The wildcard is the reliability and maintenance cost between the two. From what I read, both are fairly reliable. The 3.5 even went through an attempt to destroy it over the course of a year and survived. I don't recall any repair/replacements needed to the external parts (namely turbos) though.
I have a 3.7 low roof, and have no issues with power for every day driving. Power to weight ratio is similar to a lot of cars. 275hp in a 5000lb van is the same as 165hp in a 3000 pound car. I have a somewhat sporty 2 door 5 speed manual Honda Accord Coupe, and the Transit will outrun it in a straight line.
I seriously doubt there is a difference in reliability between the 3.7 and 3.5. It solely comes down to paying more for more power. If someone thinks the turbo's decrease the reliability I will state the downshifting is killing the 3.7 trans reliability so it's a wash maybe.
I do know I am reading lots of bias on here. The 3.7 crowd are more than happy to state their engine is perfect. But we all like to justify our purchases and bring more people into alignment with our ideals.
Seriously make sure you drive both before deciding. If the 3.7 feels peppy enough and you don't tow heavy or often save some money and buy that engine.
Now I spent years driving slow under powered vehicles. I also own an Excursion with the smaller 5.4 engine, which is adequate but isn't impressive.
I know the 3.7 would have worked for me, but I like pep. I don't drag race either, but the 3.5 accelerates so smoothy and effortlessly the experience is such a treat. With such little movement of the pedal the van jumps up and goes over 40 mph without even so much as deflection of your ankle. And it does it silently without crazy revs.
I do know I am reading lots of bias on here. The 3.7 crowd are more than happy to state their engine is perfect. But we all like to justify our purchases and bring more people into alignment with our ideals.
Seriously make sure you drive both before deciding. If the 3.7 feels peppy enough and you don't tow heavy or often save some money and buy that engine.
Now I spent years driving slow under powered vehicles. I also own an Excursion with the smaller 5.4 engine, which is adequate but isn't impressive.
I know the 3.7 would have worked for me, but I like pep. I don't drag race either, but the 3.5 accelerates so smoothy and effortlessly the experience is such a treat. With such little movement of the pedal the van jumps up and goes over 40 mph without even so much as deflection of your ankle. And it does it silently without crazy revs.
Reliability is hard to judge. 3.5 has more stuff with the turbochargers but they allow engine to run much lower rpm's. Because of high rpm 3.7 may wear out faster. Could argue it either way.
Do know the 3.5 is more fun. Not often but there are times the extra power is useful.
Do know the 3.5 is more fun. Not often but there are times the extra power is useful.
Joined
·
540 Posts
There's a ton of bias going the other way as well all throughout the forum. Our EU friends get by with 2.2L engines in this chassis, so to say 3.7L is not adequate for most situations would be biased.
I don't think anyone is saying the 3.7L is perfect, it's a higher revver but we're not talking F1 or MotoGP type of Revs. We're talking 2,500-4,500rpm in most cases, which modern engines are fine doing. Like most standard engine offerings it's vanilla and gets a moderately filled vehicle upto 60mph in a reasonable amount of time.
The big thing to keep in mind is if one isn't buying new, it may not necessarily be easy to find an EB. Another mistake is to drive an EB first and then the 3.7, there's little likelihood that one is going to opt for something slower after driving something faster. Trying the premium option alone may be enough to turn one off of the slower but still adequate option. A great example of this is the stupid Acura MDX that I had prior to the Transit. After driving Traverses/Acadias/Enclave, CX9s, Pilots, Highlander etc. few people have the mettle to resort to the slower less nimble option, and I for one am not one of them.
I don't think anyone is saying the 3.7L is perfect, it's a higher revver but we're not talking F1 or MotoGP type of Revs. We're talking 2,500-4,500rpm in most cases, which modern engines are fine doing. Like most standard engine offerings it's vanilla and gets a moderately filled vehicle upto 60mph in a reasonable amount of time.
The big thing to keep in mind is if one isn't buying new, it may not necessarily be easy to find an EB. Another mistake is to drive an EB first and then the 3.7, there's little likelihood that one is going to opt for something slower after driving something faster. Trying the premium option alone may be enough to turn one off of the slower but still adequate option. A great example of this is the stupid Acura MDX that I had prior to the Transit. After driving Traverses/Acadias/Enclave, CX9s, Pilots, Highlander etc. few people have the mettle to resort to the slower less nimble option, and I for one am not one of them.
Joined
·
214 Posts
I'm on the fence; the extra cost, and the availability were the reason I got the 3.7. It SEEMS like a pair of turbos vs no turbos would increase likelihood of breakdown. But again, I think it's all in how you drive it.
Ford is refining it's Ecoboost motors, but current specs for existing versions are as follows:
2.0 275hp, 280 torque (2017 Ford Edge, Escape)
2.3 280, 310 (Explorer) (310, 320 in the Mustang)
2.7 325, 375 (F150)
3.0 400, 400 (Lincoln MKZ)
3.5 310, 400 (Transit) (380, 460 Lincoln Navigator)
Compare this to the 3.7 Duratec in the Transit of 302, 278.
Fuel consumption based on displacement means that the 3.5 should get slightly better MPG than the 3.7. The specs are the reason I say the 2.0 should be offered instead of the 3.7. A very good motor might be the 2.7, used in the Fusion sport and the Lincoln Continental. A lot more power and should yield 30% better MPG, ie. 23-24mpg instead of 18. That also translates to 30% more range per tank, 520 instead of 400. (I seem to get almost exactly 100 miles per quarter tank on the 3.7 in mixed driving. 20.9 gallon tank)
It should be noted that Ford is phasing out the 3.7 in the coming years.
Ford is refining it's Ecoboost motors, but current specs for existing versions are as follows:
2.0 275hp, 280 torque (2017 Ford Edge, Escape)
2.3 280, 310 (Explorer) (310, 320 in the Mustang)
2.7 325, 375 (F150)
3.0 400, 400 (Lincoln MKZ)
3.5 310, 400 (Transit) (380, 460 Lincoln Navigator)
Compare this to the 3.7 Duratec in the Transit of 302, 278.
Fuel consumption based on displacement means that the 3.5 should get slightly better MPG than the 3.7. The specs are the reason I say the 2.0 should be offered instead of the 3.7. A very good motor might be the 2.7, used in the Fusion sport and the Lincoln Continental. A lot more power and should yield 30% better MPG, ie. 23-24mpg instead of 18. That also translates to 30% more range per tank, 520 instead of 400. (I seem to get almost exactly 100 miles per quarter tank on the 3.7 in mixed driving. 20.9 gallon tank)
It should be noted that Ford is phasing out the 3.7 in the coming years.
Joined
·
11 Posts
If you drive at altitude... turbos keep the hp and torque alive. I'll be driving to Telluride, CO a LOT from Tucson (2K MSL) and at 10K feet above sea level there is minimal power loss with the turbos. Figure 50% hp loss with an NA engine - ANY NA engine, especially during the summer.
I'm impressed that the Transit turbos make power down low - what a novel concept, and I have yet to feel the dreaded turbo lag inherent in so many other vehicles.
My last twin turbo was a 1993 Mazda RX - 7, and it was a blast!
I'm impressed that the Transit turbos make power down low - what a novel concept, and I have yet to feel the dreaded turbo lag inherent in so many other vehicles.
My last twin turbo was a 1993 Mazda RX - 7, and it was a blast!
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
