I rented a 2015 Transit 250, 3.7 gas, medium roof, medium length with 8k miles on it from Enterprise. The only unknown is the rear end, but would assume it would be the 3.73. The cargo van was loaded from front to rear of medium weight and driven from Dallas TX to Grass Valley CA through west TX, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, into California, and the same return.
In manual calculations of mpg over the 3800 mile round trip we got 14.5, 16, 16.2, 15.2, 14.9, and 15.35 for an average of 15.358. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed, but in fairness to the vehicle, the speed limit out there is mostly 75, and we often drove 80+. In addition, there are many elevation pulls out there plus intermittent high winds. The only other variable was one fillup at 85 octane and one at 86 instead of the normal 87.
Sooo, now you have a real good report on how the 3.7 performed under these conditions. My question to the forum would be how the Ecoboost would have done on the same trip??? it would also be interesting to hear what the forum members think how much the 3.31 rear would have saved over the 3.73?
If anyone would like to know our overall opinion, read on. When I picked up the Transit empty at Enterprise, I could not believe how noisy and rough riding the van was, but once we got it loaded it was quiet, smooth, and comfortable. The seats were supportive on the long drives and the visibility was great. The cargo area and doors were user friendly. In anticipation of buying a very similar unit, I was very pleased with almost everything. For the long hauls a larger gas tank would have been helpful. The biggest surprise was the power of the 3.7. I was expecting to spend the $1800 extra to get the Ecoboost, but I found the 3.7 to be very satisfactory and it worked smoothly with the transmission. We had been renting Chevy cargo vans with V8's for the same trip, and found this to not downshift so drastically on the steeper grades. If the Ecoboost did not provide better mpg, I would see no need to upgrade to it for more power. If your loads are heavy, you may feel that need.
In manual calculations of mpg over the 3800 mile round trip we got 14.5, 16, 16.2, 15.2, 14.9, and 15.35 for an average of 15.358. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed, but in fairness to the vehicle, the speed limit out there is mostly 75, and we often drove 80+. In addition, there are many elevation pulls out there plus intermittent high winds. The only other variable was one fillup at 85 octane and one at 86 instead of the normal 87.
Sooo, now you have a real good report on how the 3.7 performed under these conditions. My question to the forum would be how the Ecoboost would have done on the same trip??? it would also be interesting to hear what the forum members think how much the 3.31 rear would have saved over the 3.73?
If anyone would like to know our overall opinion, read on. When I picked up the Transit empty at Enterprise, I could not believe how noisy and rough riding the van was, but once we got it loaded it was quiet, smooth, and comfortable. The seats were supportive on the long drives and the visibility was great. The cargo area and doors were user friendly. In anticipation of buying a very similar unit, I was very pleased with almost everything. For the long hauls a larger gas tank would have been helpful. The biggest surprise was the power of the 3.7. I was expecting to spend the $1800 extra to get the Ecoboost, but I found the 3.7 to be very satisfactory and it worked smoothly with the transmission. We had been renting Chevy cargo vans with V8's for the same trip, and found this to not downshift so drastically on the steeper grades. If the Ecoboost did not provide better mpg, I would see no need to upgrade to it for more power. If your loads are heavy, you may feel that need.
