3.7 V6, my first impression
03-01-2013, 10:26 PM
#11
Senior Member
I remember putting bigger tires on my old trucks. Didn't notice the mileage difference because I didn't have that computer reminding me all the time. Didn't keep track of it manually either because I didn't really care. I think the largest issue with the mileage on these trucks is the constant display. If it wasn't there, we'd just carry on driving and putting gas in them.
03-01-2013, 11:30 PM
#12
Inebriated 4 ur safety
Not likely. On the other side of the coin I could regret buying a 3.7 due to lower resale/trade in value down the road. Or be one of those that come on here looking for upgrades and bolt-on's to the 3.7, because an old chevy with a 350 humiliated me at a stoplight and hurt my masculinity.
But I do laugh at all the people with big tires, lift kits, and 4.11 rear ends that have the nerve to whine about their fuel mileage. If I can make a 550 HP C15 Caterpillar see close to 7 MPG once in a while I think I can get a 5.0 or Ecoboost to squeak or 20 MPG on the highway. Even 18 MPG is not bad in my opinion. For right now Ford outshines the competition by a long shot in terms of power and fuel economy.
I guess GM is adding Direct injection to all their pickups next year, but I think they are using the same tired old engines. The 4.3 is a pig on fuel, has been around since 1985, they need to retire that boat anchor
But I do laugh at all the people with big tires, lift kits, and 4.11 rear ends that have the nerve to whine about their fuel mileage. If I can make a 550 HP C15 Caterpillar see close to 7 MPG once in a while I think I can get a 5.0 or Ecoboost to squeak or 20 MPG on the highway. Even 18 MPG is not bad in my opinion. For right now Ford outshines the competition by a long shot in terms of power and fuel economy.
I guess GM is adding Direct injection to all their pickups next year, but I think they are using the same tired old engines. The 4.3 is a pig on fuel, has been around since 1985, they need to retire that boat anchor
Sorry, when I posted that I was not referring to you personally. I was being sarcastic about all those that get these more powerful engines that are not needed and use more fuel and then complain about fuel economy in their threads. Mine is the same gripe as yours with people whining about their fuel mileage. I say "If you want that big powerful engine then be prepared for all that comes with it including the fuel mileage because I don't want to hear about it especially when all you needed was a 3.7L." Again, not saying that towards you, just at those who whine about their 15-17mpg fuel mileage in general.
03-02-2013, 12:40 AM
#13
So after reading all of the above, would it be possible to do cylinder deactivation on a 3.5L ecoboost or 3.7 na???? All the v8's with deactivation run on 4 cylinders, so it seems like Ford could knock out 2 cylinders on there v6 power plants.
03-02-2013, 07:33 AM
#14
Sorry, when I posted that I was not referring to you personally. I was being sarcastic about all those that get these more powerful engines that are not needed and use more fuel and then complain about fuel economy in their threads. Mine is the same gripe as yours with people whining about their fuel mileage. I say "If you want that big powerful engine then be prepared for all that comes with it including the fuel mileage because I don't want to hear about it especially when all you needed was a 3.7L." Again, not saying that towards you, just at those who whine about their 15-17mpg fuel mileage in general.
03-02-2013, 12:26 PM
#17
Beer Gut Extraordinaire
My dad runs a few 3.7's in his fleet. It's a great engine that works hard. However, he mostly prefers the 5.0L because it has better tow ratings and doesn't cost much more. He's never been able to find a cheap enough Ecoboost otherwise he'd run only those in his fleet. The 3.7 is good but it boils down to price. It's not much more money to get the 5.0 that has over 100 more ft lbs of torque. Either way, he's had much better luck with buying recent fords than any GM he's ever bought (they ran only GM's for 20 years!).
But my mom has the 3.7 in her lincoln..that thing is just a peach!! Linear torque curve with one of the best automatic transmission calibrations I've ever driven IMO.
But my mom has the 3.7 in her lincoln..that thing is just a peach!! Linear torque curve with one of the best automatic transmission calibrations I've ever driven IMO.
03-03-2013, 12:18 PM
#18
Yes, GM engines get good fuel mileage. But you can't do anything with them. 335 lbs of torque at over 4,000 RPM? 3.42 gears? They're a grocery getter. You can haul a payload or pull a 14' fishing boat. But after that, they suck.
03-03-2013, 12:45 PM
#19
Beer Gut Extraordinaire
Yeah, I had a 5.3/4spd with 4.10 max tow gears and it still couldn't tow for a damn. It pretty much let the wind push the boat up the hill and it just hit redline in 2nd gear every time. Couldn't find the right gear, shuddered and shook, no trailer sway control...etc. I averaged 17.7 l/100km unloaded on flat ground.
03-03-2013, 02:14 PM
#20
One Bad MoFoMoCo Owner
For those saying doing buy a 5.0l, and then complain about mileage, and you should have got the 3.7, well, I didn't buy mine for the gas mileage but I an happy with the mileage I am getting.
I have a 2012 5.0l 4x4 SCrew, with 3.55s, and drive like a bat out of hell much of the time. I now have almost 9k miles on this truck, and here are my averages.
City, partial hwy, stop and go traffic, 17.1 mpgs.
Back country roads, 45 to 50 mph speed limits, 23.2 mpgs.
Hwy, at 65 mph, 19.2 mpgs
Hwy, at 80 mph, 17.2 mpgs
I came from a 2003 Durango 4x4, with the 4.7, and that thing got 15 mpgs, no matter how I drove it, or how fast.
So, mileage is pretty good considering that this new engine makes 50% more power, and is hauling around 2,000 more pounds.
And, I never have any trouble passing anyone or worry about making it over a steep hill.
I have a 2012 5.0l 4x4 SCrew, with 3.55s, and drive like a bat out of hell much of the time. I now have almost 9k miles on this truck, and here are my averages.
City, partial hwy, stop and go traffic, 17.1 mpgs.
Back country roads, 45 to 50 mph speed limits, 23.2 mpgs.
Hwy, at 65 mph, 19.2 mpgs
Hwy, at 80 mph, 17.2 mpgs
I came from a 2003 Durango 4x4, with the 4.7, and that thing got 15 mpgs, no matter how I drove it, or how fast.
So, mileage is pretty good considering that this new engine makes 50% more power, and is hauling around 2,000 more pounds.
And, I never have any trouble passing anyone or worry about making it over a steep hill.
Last edited by sullyman; 03-03-2013 at 03:55 PM.