The Official 3.3L V6 Workhorse Thread
06-24-2019, 11:18 AM
#151
Senior Member
I considered the 3.5 N/A when we bought the 2017. I have one in my other vehicle and it's been pretty good so far - they can use a mild tune but so do many others. However I got the 2.7 ecoboost in the F150 for a number of reasons - mostly the start stop and the better city mpgs. as it does alot of city driving. However I wanted to point out a comment made in the early part of the 3.3 engine question.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
The following 2 users liked this post by Napalm:
GrasslandHVAC (11-10-2019),
iFord (01-24-2020)
06-24-2019, 11:24 AM
#152
I considered the 3.5 N/A when we bought the 2017. I have one in my other vehicle and it's been pretty good so far - they can use a mild tune but so do many others. However I got the 2.7 ecoboost in the F150 for a number of reasons - mostly the start stop and the better city mpgs. as it does alot of city driving. However I wanted to point out a comment made in the early part of the 3.3 engine question.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
I have gone well into the high 20's on my 3.3 for Highway driving with staying 5-10 below posted limit . I even managed 30-32 for 15 miles.
I average around 22 mpg mixed and that's with going over the speed limit. So yes you would actually do better with mpg with the 3.3.i don't know why you think you couldn't...
Last edited by Anth88; 06-24-2019 at 03:35 PM.
06-24-2019, 04:14 PM
#153
I considered the 3.5 N/A when we bought the 2017. I have one in my other vehicle and it's been pretty good so far - they can use a mild tune but so do many others. However I got the 2.7 ecoboost in the F150 for a number of reasons - mostly the start stop and the better city mpgs. as it does alot of city driving. However I wanted to point out a comment made in the early part of the 3.3 engine question.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
The 3.3NA motor is not going to be any easier to work on. I don't quite understand why that keeps being perpetuated. Maybe the intake tract is simpler than on the ecoboost in that there is less tubing - but in functional repair and trouble shooting - they are equivalent. YOu will - like with all new (since 2005) vehicles - need to have some form of diagnostic computer to read out what the computer needs.
does it need more frequent oil changes - not really. do you need to use a better quality oil - perhaps by a little. TO be fair I put castrol edge in my Explorer with 3.5NA mill and I put pennzoil platinum in my 2.7Lecoboost. main reason - bottles are different and the viscosities are different. I run both per OLM and change both when they get at or near 20%. So despite the whole "OMG it has turbos it has to fail" panic you see in some areas - I would argue they do very well and are just as easy to maintain today. Infact there's a guy running a 300K mile 2.7L ecobost.
For me - it nets me 24 or so on the highway provided I don't run 80+, and I get around 20-21 in city - my composite average tends to run around 21.4-21.9 on most weeks. I don't think I would get that out of the 3.3 but I also don't think it would be a whole lot different. I do agree it should get the 10 sp too - but I see the price point marketing that it's aimed at. Note in the new explorer it will get the 10sp. Irony right.
At any rate I think it's probably still a good but like others said - when I put this out on my excel sheet the 2.7L ecoboost made up the better economics - going on rated economy. so far after 2 years of owning it - it's proven to be correct. Bigger part of that I think is the start stop and I admit that. for me city traffic is more an issue. The new 2018 or 19 I think has start stop even on the 3.3NA mill. So that might well net out.
06-24-2019, 07:37 PM
#154
2018 XL Sport 4x4
edit: I just came across a diagram that showed it's serpentine belt driven... question answered. :-)
Last edited by javelina1; 06-24-2019 at 07:43 PM.
06-24-2019, 08:55 PM
#155
Senior Member
06-24-2019, 09:13 PM
#156
2018 XL Sport 4x4
07-07-2019, 12:57 AM
#157
Bought my 2019 Ford F150 XL. 4x4...and wanted a stout reliably engine. We are a Ford truck family with 4 in the line up
2 eco boosts
1... 3.5 na
and mine a 2019 3.3 na...6 speed 6R80 bullet proof ( now) transmission
Everyone constantly wants the turbos ( my kids ) for speed and power....ny 3.3 is plenty fast and is tow capable for reasonable loads..
I'm getting 19-20 mpg overall...city ...hwy...is about 50/50 using the cheapest fuel I come accross (87 octane)
This will most likely be my last vehicle purchase and I'm looking fot a 10 year or more use vehicle with as few anticipated issues as possible...hense my attraction to the 3.3 na ...6 speed transmission. .
Only have 2,000 miles on it but am very impressed with it....and I have 2 other vehicles ...Jeeps ....and I have owned and driven other trucks...chevy and rams.
I also am not one to try and justify a purchase and look through rose colored glasses if it sucks I will say it sucks ....
I like the engine...the trans and the aluminum body.
Just my observations
2 eco boosts
1... 3.5 na
and mine a 2019 3.3 na...6 speed 6R80 bullet proof ( now) transmission
Everyone constantly wants the turbos ( my kids ) for speed and power....ny 3.3 is plenty fast and is tow capable for reasonable loads..
I'm getting 19-20 mpg overall...city ...hwy...is about 50/50 using the cheapest fuel I come accross (87 octane)
This will most likely be my last vehicle purchase and I'm looking fot a 10 year or more use vehicle with as few anticipated issues as possible...hense my attraction to the 3.3 na ...6 speed transmission. .
Only have 2,000 miles on it but am very impressed with it....and I have 2 other vehicles ...Jeeps ....and I have owned and driven other trucks...chevy and rams.
I also am not one to try and justify a purchase and look through rose colored glasses if it sucks I will say it sucks ....
I like the engine...the trans and the aluminum body.
Just my observations
The following 3 users liked this post by szym:
07-07-2019, 02:09 AM
#158
The company I work for recently bought a 2018 XLT fleet truck with the 3.3. It will really surprise ya, especially in sport mode. I am very impressed with the little engine but then again, I am still impressed with my Ranger 3.slow.
07-16-2019, 01:30 PM
#159
3.3L V6 performance action here :) 0-100mph and 20-95 MPH testing
Just picked this up for our business
2019 XLT with 17 rims with the new 3.3. Payload is 1680 ..Not bad actually once its gets moving. Looking forward to seeing the MPG as our drivers drive slowwwwwww
2019 XLT with 17 rims with the new 3.3. Payload is 1680 ..Not bad actually once its gets moving. Looking forward to seeing the MPG as our drivers drive slowwwwwww
The following 2 users liked this post by 9663mu:
HockeyMike (04-13-2020),
RoyCameron (07-16-2019)
08-20-2019, 04:10 AM
#160
3.3L Gutless?
I'm not going to dredge up the old post but someone was asking about a 3.3L to tow a popup or 20' Travel Trailer. Some people called it Gutless even in empty condition.
I've driven a 3.3L in a Base RCSB XL 4x2 and a Scab XL 101A Chrome 4x2 and I didn't really see it that way
RCSB 0-60 Under 7 Seconds (About 4000 lb light of fuel)
Scab 0-60 Under 8 Seconds (About 4500 lb light of fuel).
2018 3.3L 290 hp / 265 Torque
1983 5.8L 2V 136 hp / 262 Torque
My how tines have changed.
Personally I would have suggested a 2.7EB with the 53B over the 3.3L with 53B because you get a lot for your $995 (To bad they aren't $495 after EB Rebate anymore) but 0-60 in 7.0 seconds Gutless? A Truck quicker than the original Ford Lightning Gutless? My are we spoiled today.....
I've driven a 3.3L in a Base RCSB XL 4x2 and a Scab XL 101A Chrome 4x2 and I didn't really see it that way
RCSB 0-60 Under 7 Seconds (About 4000 lb light of fuel)
Scab 0-60 Under 8 Seconds (About 4500 lb light of fuel).
2018 3.3L 290 hp / 265 Torque
1983 5.8L 2V 136 hp / 262 Torque
My how tines have changed.
Personally I would have suggested a 2.7EB with the 53B over the 3.3L with 53B because you get a lot for your $995 (To bad they aren't $495 after EB Rebate anymore) but 0-60 in 7.0 seconds Gutless? A Truck quicker than the original Ford Lightning Gutless? My are we spoiled today.....
Last edited by Gene K; 08-20-2019 at 04:16 AM.
The following 3 users liked this post by Gene K: