[Rico]

The 3.7l they're using has less HP and less torque. The mileage advantage is also very minimal. Not even the diesel fares well in that match-up, minus a better mileage advantage. Spec-wise, the Ecoobost beats out the Ford gas V8 and even beats out the V10, on top of being more efficient.

The two engine choices offered for cab-chassis/cutaway seem pretty weak in comparison for commercial applications like buses and cube trucks.

In fact the Ecoboost would actually be way more useful in the cab-chassis/cutaway than it would in the van itself.

 

[Del]

The 3.7l they're using has less HP and less torque. The mileage advantage is also very minimal. Not even the diesel fares well in that match-up, minus a better mileage advantage. Spec-wise, the Ecoobost beats out the Ford gas V8 and even beats out the V10, on top of being more efficient.

The two engine choices offered for cab-chassis/cutaway seem pretty weak in comparison for commercial applications like buses and cube trucks.

In fact the Ecoboost would actually be way more useful in the cab-chassis/cutaway than it would in the van itself.

I do wonder about the potential of that nano 2.7 ecoboost supposed to come out with the new 150..

 

[Rico]

I do wonder about the potential of that nano 2.7 ecoboost supposed to come out with the new 150..

To be honest, that would probably be even less capable than the engine choices available now.

The 3.5l Ecoboost is be plenty capable for the CC/cutaway and the applications they would be used for, and is currently more capable than the Ford gas V8.

Why would it only be featured in the van while only the weaker 3.7l and diesel is featured in the cab/chassis and cutaway?

It simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Chance]

To be honest, that would probably be even less capable than the engine choices available now.

The 3.5l Ecoboost is be plenty capable for the CC/cutaway and the applications they would be used for, and is currently more capable than the Ford gas V8.

Why would it only be featured in the van while only the weaker 3.7l and diesel is featured in the cab/chassis and cutaway?

It simply doesn't make any sense.

What is your definition of "capable"?

If greater HP then yes. If more torque then also yes. But the EcoBoost gets the greater HP and torque at the expense of boost which stresses an engine more. If installed in a van the engine won't work as hard on average, but in a cab or cutaway the wind drag of a large box will make the engine work harder and wear out faster.

And for mainly commercial applications maximum power is secondary to lower cost. So in summary we'd have to first settle on what the buyer wants. My personal guess is that durability or low demand will affect what Ford offers more than power and torque numbers.

 

[Rico]

What is your definition of "capable"?

If greater HP then yes. If more torque then also yes. But the EcoBoost gets the greater HP and torque at the expense of boost which stresses an engine more. If installed in a van the engine won't work as hard on average, but in a cab or cutaway the wind drag of a large box will make the engine work harder and wear out faster.

And for mainly commercial applications maximum power is secondary to lower cost. So in summary we'd have to first settle on what the buyer wants. My personal guess is that durability or low demand will affect what Ford offers more than power and torque numbers.

Well, Ford apparently did this with an Ecoboost engine:

Seems to be much more wear and tear than anyone would ever see in a shuttle bus or U-Haul truck.

Although to be fair, it depends on how much all of this, even the teardown, is all an advertising trick.

 

[Chance]

....cut.....

Seems to be much more wear and tear than anyone would ever see in a shuttle bus or U-Haul truck.

......cut.......

What benefit would a company like U-Haul or airport shuttle business have in turning over a more expensive, more powerful, and thirstier engine to a driver that probably doesn't care all that much what happens to it?

I could see an EcoBoost engine in a privately-owned Class-C motorhome based on cutaway Transit chassis, but even that probably wouldn't have that much demand.

By the way, the new 2.7L EcoBoost makes much more sense to me. If it works well, it has potential to save fuel over standard V6, while still delivering plenty of power and torque. Unfortunately it may be a while before it makes it from F-150 to Transit. I personally like the specs of 2.7L much more than that of 3.5L EcoBoost.

 

[Rico]

What benefit would a company like U-Haul or airport shuttle business have in turning over a more expensive, more powerful, and thirstier engine to a driver that probably doesn't care all that much what happens to it?

I could see an EcoBoost engine in a privately-owned Class-C motorhome based on cutaway Transit chassis, but even that probably wouldn't have that much demand.

By the way, the new 2.7L EcoBoost makes much more sense to me. If it works well, it has potential to save fuel over standard V6, while still delivering plenty of power and torque. Unfortunately it may be a while before it makes it from F-150 to Transit. I personally like the specs of 2.7L much more than that of 3.5L EcoBoost.

How exactly would the 2.5l Ecoboost, or even the 3.7l and I5 diesel currently offered in the CC/cutaway, be more capable for those applications? Are those engines actually capable of hauling around bus bodies, and for any extensive period of time? Nevermind that the 3.7l has very little mileage advantage, almost nonexistent, over the 3.5l Ecoboost.

There's a reason bus manufacturers don't use the Sprinter chassis, even though a chassis with a giant Mercedes logo on the front of it would make for perfect luxury shuttles and buses.

The 3.5l Ecoboost at least matches the V8 and the V10 that the bus and truck fleets are currently using.

 

[orton]

Kind of odd that the cab chassis and cutaway can not be purchased with the Ecoboost 3.5. The 350 high roof long wheelbase can not be purchased with the 3.7 non-turbo. Only Ecoboost and diesel for that configuration.

 

[carryon]

are we comparing the 2.7 to the 3.5 ecoboost here? kind of lost in the discussion

 

[Chance]

How exactly would the 2.5l Ecoboost, or even the 3.7l and I5 diesel currently offered in the CC/cutaway, be more capable for those applications? Are those engines actually capable of hauling around bus bodies, and for any extensive period of time? Nevermind that the 3.7l has very little mileage advantage, almost nonexistent, over the 3.5l Ecoboost.

There's a reason bus manufacturers don't use the Sprinter chassis, even though a chassis with a giant Mercedes logo on the front of it would make for perfect luxury shuttles and buses.

The 3.5l Ecoboost at least matches the V8 and the V10 that the bus and truck fleets are currently using.

It appears from your comments that you define capability mostly based on fuel economy and/or power and torque. That's certainly one way to look at it.

I think there is a lot that goes into which engine works in which vehicle, and which one can survive its intended use. I think a 3.5L EcoBoost trying to do the same heavy-duty job as a V10 would not survive as long in some vehicles (like in a F350 and not to mention a F650). A V10 is beefier in my opinion than a EcoBoost 3.5L.

By the way, the new engine is a 2.7 and not 2.5. Just clarifying because previous 2.5L Ford engines came in 4-cylinder. The new 2.7L is a V6. Seems to be a brand new design and not an extension of a V6 that was designed for light-duty automobiles.

 

[Rico]

I think there is a lot that goes into which engine works in which vehicle, and which one can survive its intended use. I think a 3.5L EcoBoost trying to do the same heavy-duty job as a V10 would not survive as long in some vehicles (like in a F350 and not to mention a F650). A V10 is beefier in my opinion than a EcoBoost 3.5L.

But that's the problem.

How would the 3.7l and I5 (the engines that are actually in the CC/cutaway) fare any better?

If anything, those two engines would fare even worse, compared to the V8 and V10.

 

[rabbitdiesel1]

One of the big reasons for retiring the econoline was to get away from gas guzzling V8s and V10 engines. If your going to put those engines in the Transit then you might as well keep the econoline. The 3.5 ecoboost has good power but really doesn't get any better mileage than a V8. People complain about the extra cost of a Diesel engine but the ecoboost is more than 1800$ over the 3.7 and unlike the diesel it won't save you 1 penny in fuel cost. The 3.2 is not a wimpy diesel. Ford could put a bigger diesel in the transit but it's not necessary. The days of V10 delivery vans are over. Some will miss the V10's, especially OPEC.
Lynn

 

[rabbitdiesel1]

I just read my reply, I wasn't trying to be a wise guy. There are power people and there are economy people. It's obvious I'm an economy person. When you put 200,000 miles on a 48 HP VW diesel, everything else seems over powered.

Lynn

 

[Rico]

One of the big reasons for retiring the econoline was to get away from gas guzzling V8s and V10 engines. If your going to put those engines in the Transit then you might as well keep the econoline. The 3.5 ecoboost has good power but really doesn't get any better mileage than a V8. People complain about the extra cost of a Diesel engine but the ecoboost is more than 1800$ over the 3.7 and unlike the diesel it won't save you 1 penny in fuel cost. The 3.2 is not a wimpy diesel. Ford could put a bigger diesel in the transit but it's not necessary. The days of V10 delivery vans are over. Some will miss the V10's, especially OPEC.
Lynn

Then why keep the 3.5l Ecoboost in the Transit at all in the first place?

That's my problem.

The 3.5l makes less sense in the van than it does in the CC/cutaway.

If they're going to allow 3.5 in the Transit van, then why not also allow it in the Transit CC/cutaway where its torque and HP would be put to much better use?

 

[rabbitdiesel1]

Rico, I must admit, you have a good point.

Lynn

 

[Chance]

But that's the problem.

How would the 3.7l and I5 (the engines that are actually in the CC/cutaway) fare any better?

If anything, those two engines would fare even worse, compared to the V8 and V10.

Rico, I've been trying to dance around a blunt answer that makes my point clearer for fear it will sound harsh, but since we are not making progress, here it goes.

In my opinion you are looking at this backwards. A 3.7L V6 is in many ways a detuned 3.5L V6. They are very similar engines except for the turbo which creates more power and more torque at the expense of much higher BMEP. and while that extra power and torque may feel great to the driver it comes at the expense of higher stresses.

If both engines were running at same 100 HP at 2500 RPM then there isn't much difference, but when the commercial driver puts his foot into it, the turbo engine can produce about 50 percent more torque. That will make the vehicle accelerate or climb a hill faster but it comes at the expense of higher stresses. So in my opinion detuning the engine by removing the turbo limits how much power the driver will use on average. They may end up using more RPMs in the long run to offset lower torque, but apparently that's not deemed a problem.

The diesel may be a different issue entirely, but in my opinion limiting the V6 engine to something like 260 lb-ft of torque instead of 400 lb-ft is not a bad thing other than reduced performance (which is less important to commercial buyers). Like you said, it doesn't reduce fuel economy so why not?

Many private owners on the other hand will buy higher power and torque because it feels better to drive. It's really a luxury few "need" but want anyway. Businesses think differently -- it's more about the bottom line.

 

[Rico]

Rico, I've been trying to dance around a blunt answer that makes my point clearer for fear it will sound harsh, but since we are not making progress, here it goes.

In my opinion you are looking at this backwards. A 3.7L V6 is in many ways a detuned 3.5L V6. They are very similar engines except for the turbo which creates more power and more torque at the expense of much higher BMEP. and while that extra power and torque may feel great to the driver it comes at the expense of higher stresses.

If both engines were running at same 100 HP at 2500 RPM then there isn't much difference, but when the commercial driver puts his foot into it, the turbo engine can produce about 50 percent more torque. That will make the vehicle accelerate or climb a hill faster but it comes at the expense of higher stresses. So in my opinion detuning the engine by removing the turbo limits how much power the driver will use on average. They may end up using more RPMs in the long run to offset lower torque, but apparently that's not deemed a problem.

The diesel may be a different issue entirely, but in my opinion limiting the V6 engine to something like 260 lb-ft of torque instead of 400 lb-ft is not a bad thing other than reduced performance (which is less important to commercial buyers). Like you said, it doesn't reduce fuel economy so why not?

Many private owners on the other hand will buy higher power and torque because it feels better to drive. It's really a luxury few "need" but want anyway. Businesses think differently -- it's more about the bottom line.

My point isn't if the engines can move a bus body faster.

It's if they can move a bus body at all.

You never see buses with output that low. Not on the E-Series or F-series chassis. Not on the Chevy Express chassis. The 3.5 wouldn't be the luxury. It would be the minimum.

The output of the Transit cutaway's engine choices are comparable to that of the Sprinter cutaway.

Which busmaker manufactures buses on the Sprinter chassis?

Answer: None of them do.

And yet, with all of this, Ford goes ahead and list things like bus packages for the Transit.

 

[orton]

If you look at the photographs of the 3.7 non-turbo and the 3.5 Ecoboost you will see that they share the same basic block design. I believe the 3.7 should be a very reliable engine since it is stressed less than the Ecoboost due to lower output.
I currently drive a 08 diesel Sprinter with 280 ft-lbs of torque, 3.92 rear end and a 5 speed automatic. I suspect the 3.7 Transit with 249 ft-lbs torque, 4.11 rear end and a 6 speed automatic will have very similar performance to the Sprinter. The Sprinter performance is adequate for my use. If I want to drive faster I have other vehicles that go fast.

 

[Chance]

My point isn't if the engines can move a bus body faster.

It's if they can move a bus body at all.

You never see buses with output that low. Not on the E-Series or F-series chassis. Not on the Chevy Express chassis. The 3.5 wouldn't be the luxury. It would be the minimum.

The output of the Transit cutaway's engine choices are comparable to that of the Sprinter cutaway.

Which busmaker manufactures buses on the Sprinter chassis?

Answer: None of them do.

And yet, with all of this, Ford goes ahead and list things like bus packages for the Transit.

The base Transit V6 engine will have about the same power as the Ford Triton 5.4L V8 that is standard in E-350 cutaway, cab, and stripped chassis. With proper gearing it should be able to accelerate and climb hills just fine -- albeit at higher RPMs due to smaller displacement. That's a small price for efficiency.

I don't understand why you think a small shuttle bus needs more than 200 HP or so in order "to move at all". In many parts of the world, including Europe, small trucks and buses with around 100 HP, and sometimes even less, move cargo and people daily. Some may get close to 200 HP like a Sprinter, but rarely do they have engines pushing 300 HP like an Econoline with a V10.

I recall driving a Ford F-600 with an inline 300 cubic inch engine that probably had less than 150 HP net. And my father had many F-250 4X4 work trucks that had that same engine, yet we moved heavy loads and towed trailers a Transit will never tow (due to structural limitations). I'm just saying that power is often overrated.

 

[Chance]

If you look at the photographs of the 3.7 non-turbo and the 3.5 Ecoboost you will see that they share the same basic block design. I believe the 3.7 should be a very reliable engine since it is stressed less than the Ecoboost due to lower output.

....cut......

The main difference, other than turbo, is the larger bore. I personally think Ford probably reduced the bore in the 3.5 so cylinders could be thicker to withstand the higher pressures. And it's interesting to note that for new F-150 the 3.7L is becoming a 3.5L as the standard engine.