The Official 3.3L V6 Workhorse Thread
12-14-2017, 06:51 PM
#11
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Lebowskii
You're joking, right? Do you own one? Then why would you make an idiotic comment like that? It has 290 hp and can haul and tow just fine. The 6 speed transmission works great too. Is a 10 speed automatic really necessary? Of course not. I had a 2012 with the Eco and the turbos went out at 160k so I would never waste good money on another one. Just because the 3.3 comes with the base model XL doesn't mean it can't do anything the other engines can. I can haul more cubic yards of mulch and other items in my truck than any of you guys can with your short beds which is why I bought it. It tows great too and will cruise down the freeway just fine at 80 mph. Your "farm duty" comment is one of the most stupid statements I've read anywhere on the internet in a long time.... 
The following 6 users liked this post by madmatt83:
77Ranger460 (11-11-2019),
bryan_c (05-15-2021),
iFord (01-24-2020),
legendarybc (07-07-2019),
RLCJC2020 (11-23-2022),
and 1 others liked this post.
12-14-2017, 06:58 PM
#12
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Let’s keep it constructive
guys, we are passionate about our trucks and we all have different uses for them or reasons for getting them. Let’s not fight or get defensive over what we chose to buy. I am just killing some time now waiting for my kid’s Taekwondo class to end.
I thought the farm truck thread was written as a positive feedback and in no way a knock on XL trucks.
When my dad sold the farm and went to replace his rusting dodge (still ran perfect but it was losing its battle with winters up here and road salt). I convinced him to at least get the newer 3V 4.6 with the 6sp when he bought the 2010 XL reg cab he has.
I know it’s a little lighter than my Crew with the 5.4 and tow package. But I find it an even more fun truck to drive as it doesn’t have the sluggishness that you get with all the weight of larger components due to the tow package. So even though it is down on power, weight and simplicity make it more agile and fun to drive.
As to the lack of 4wd, I have Blizzaks for winter, and I could get from point A to B faster and safer than a 4wd with all terrains when it is cold and snowy here. Truetrac helps with the moving forward part. Throw winter tires on the 4wd and you have definite superior capability. But I don’t need that much.
Lower step in height, tighter better feel steering, sharper handling, better gas mileage and less to go wrong with it are all the reasons I looked for a RWD when I was shopping for my used truck.
I thought the farm truck thread was written as a positive feedback and in no way a knock on XL trucks.
When my dad sold the farm and went to replace his rusting dodge (still ran perfect but it was losing its battle with winters up here and road salt). I convinced him to at least get the newer 3V 4.6 with the 6sp when he bought the 2010 XL reg cab he has.
I know it’s a little lighter than my Crew with the 5.4 and tow package. But I find it an even more fun truck to drive as it doesn’t have the sluggishness that you get with all the weight of larger components due to the tow package. So even though it is down on power, weight and simplicity make it more agile and fun to drive.
As to the lack of 4wd, I have Blizzaks for winter, and I could get from point A to B faster and safer than a 4wd with all terrains when it is cold and snowy here. Truetrac helps with the moving forward part. Throw winter tires on the 4wd and you have definite superior capability. But I don’t need that much.
Lower step in height, tighter better feel steering, sharper handling, better gas mileage and less to go wrong with it are all the reasons I looked for a RWD when I was shopping for my used truck.
The following 4 users liked this post by RacerRoo:
12-14-2017, 06:58 PM
#13
I bought a Transit with a 3.5 EB, I liked it so much I got an F150 with the 2.7 EB. To each his own, if you want to help me with the depreciation charge, I will trade both of my EB vehicles in for the 3.3 that you are advocating as superior. 
12-14-2017, 07:12 PM
#14
Senior Member
Can’t comment on the Ford v6 but we have two basic Ram trucks with a v6 where I work. They do just fine. With the 3.73 rear end they will have plenty of power with the Ford v6.
The following users liked this post:
iFord (01-24-2020)
12-14-2017, 08:12 PM
#15
Senior Member
To the OP, if still around after the above. Yes it is very difficult to find info on the 3.3. Most things written on the 3.3 are the same things Ford was saying before put on the market. I have put over 4000 miles on mine. I am very happy with it. It has plenty of power for my needs. It can be over the speed of interstate traffic while still on the on ramp, if that is your thing. It does get better fuel mileage, on 91 oct than on 87 oct. 91 oct average 22.218 , 87 oct average 21.480. Best tank so far 22.81 mpg 91 oct. Worst tank 20.89 mpg 87 oct. All mileage taken off fuel app. Truck shows a little better.All fill ups were at least four tanks before changing oct. Feel free to message me or email if you like
12-15-2017, 08:28 AM
#16
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Hey 2018RegCab, thanks for those numbers... What is that driving mix of hwy and city? What is your truck configuration? Also, do you have non ethanol gas when you go to the 91 oct? Up here in Ontario some brands of 91 with be ethanol free and that makes a difference in mileage as well. Though I do suspect at 12:1 compression, the 3.3 may be making the most of higher octane.
12-15-2017, 09:31 AM
#17
You're joking, right? Do you own one? Then why would you make an idiotic comment like that? It has 290 hp and can haul and tow just fine. The 6 speed transmission works great too. Is a 10 speed automatic really necessary? Of course not. I had a 2012 with the Eco and the turbos went out at 160k so I would never waste good money on another one. Just because the 3.3 comes with the base model XL doesn't mean it can't do anything the other engines can. I can haul more cubic yards of mulch and other items in my truck than any of you guys can with your short beds which is why I bought it. It tows great too and will cruise down the freeway just fine at 80 mph. Your "farm duty" comment is one of the most stupid statements I've read anywhere on the internet in a long time....
12-15-2017, 09:33 AM
#18
To the OP, if still around after the above. Yes it is very difficult to find info on the 3.3. Most things written on the 3.3 are the same things Ford was saying before put on the market. I have put over 4000 miles on mine. I am very happy with it. It has plenty of power for my needs. It can be over the speed of interstate traffic while still on the on ramp, if that is your thing. It does get better fuel mileage, on 91 oct than on 87 oct. 91 oct average 22.218 , 87 oct average 21.480. Best tank so far 22.81 mpg 91 oct. Worst tank 20.89 mpg 87 oct. All mileage taken off fuel app. Truck shows a little better.All fill ups were at least four tanks before changing oct. Feel free to message me or email if you like
12-15-2017, 09:35 AM
#19
Maybe it's my years on a farm, maybe it's my appreciation for simplicity and efficiency, but I have come to the conclusion that a 3.3 v6 with the 3.73 rear end 2WD truck is my configuration of choice. Yet everywhere I look online, I don't see any feedback on this powertrain combination. It's like everyone dismisses it without a second thought. Can anyone that has one confirm or disprove my reasoning below:
1. Engine reliability should be great. Engine has dual injection and no turbos. With the 3.73 rear end it should rev easily and not be very stressed. I love the concept of the 2.7, but it worries me that it will start leaking oil like a sieve after many years with the aluminum and iron construction and all the sealing points. Plus given the 3.3 is the fleet workhorse engine, I don't imagine Ford would risk a weak design and damage their brand reputation with the "working" crowd.
2. Proven transmission. My current 2010 5.4 has the 6 speed and I think it is a great transmission. They seem to not have any issues with maintenance and I believe they are considered bulletproof. Maybe they did the same great job on the 10 speed... but there is a risk right?
3. Great fuel economy... I could see this engine giving consistent low fuel consumption. I know the 2.7 should be better... but sometimes having those turbos means you make use of them and then mileage will vary greatly. Plus that 2.7 worries me that it will start leaking oil like a sieve after many years with the aluminum and iron construction and all the sealing points.
4. Maintenance is less with no turbos to require more frequent oil changes and you can run a cleaner through the intake in case there is still any carbon build up down the road.
5. Weight should be that much lower with the small engine up front making any configuration closer to a 50/50 weight split than with a bigger engine.
6. I am one of those crazy lovers of just RWD. The F150s now are that much more balanced with weight front and rear and having the available E locker means you don't have to really worry about getting stuck. I know I have never even come close to stuck with my 2010 with a Truetrac rear diff. Plus with the lower weight and less drivetrain losses, this should help the 3.3 feel even more sporty.
Thoughts anyone?
1. Engine reliability should be great. Engine has dual injection and no turbos. With the 3.73 rear end it should rev easily and not be very stressed. I love the concept of the 2.7, but it worries me that it will start leaking oil like a sieve after many years with the aluminum and iron construction and all the sealing points. Plus given the 3.3 is the fleet workhorse engine, I don't imagine Ford would risk a weak design and damage their brand reputation with the "working" crowd.
2. Proven transmission. My current 2010 5.4 has the 6 speed and I think it is a great transmission. They seem to not have any issues with maintenance and I believe they are considered bulletproof. Maybe they did the same great job on the 10 speed... but there is a risk right?
3. Great fuel economy... I could see this engine giving consistent low fuel consumption. I know the 2.7 should be better... but sometimes having those turbos means you make use of them and then mileage will vary greatly. Plus that 2.7 worries me that it will start leaking oil like a sieve after many years with the aluminum and iron construction and all the sealing points.
4. Maintenance is less with no turbos to require more frequent oil changes and you can run a cleaner through the intake in case there is still any carbon build up down the road.
5. Weight should be that much lower with the small engine up front making any configuration closer to a 50/50 weight split than with a bigger engine.
6. I am one of those crazy lovers of just RWD. The F150s now are that much more balanced with weight front and rear and having the available E locker means you don't have to really worry about getting stuck. I know I have never even come close to stuck with my 2010 with a Truetrac rear diff. Plus with the lower weight and less drivetrain losses, this should help the 3.3 feel even more sporty.
Thoughts anyone?
12-15-2017, 09:38 AM
#20
I completely get the OPs point. I purchased a 65 step side with a straight six and three on the tree that spent most of its life as a farm truck. His configuration makes complete sense to me. BTW turned that old farm truck into a fire-breathing beast of a hotrod. It was fun for a few years.
Guys, he doesn't need the big engine for farm duty, he needs cheap to maintain and reliable.
Guys, he doesn't need the big engine for farm duty, he needs cheap to maintain and reliable.
Last edited by Rontbeamer; 12-15-2017 at 09:40 AM.