Topic Sponsor
2011+ Engine Related Questions Sub-Forum to the new engines that debuted in 2011.

Finally.... over 24 MPG on a 3.7 !

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-08-2011, 02:38 PM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
2000xl_toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 1,711
Received 14 Likes on 9 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by BLU4TJW
Are you sure you're doing your litres/100km to U.S. gallon conversion correctly? I'd love my 5.0 to get those lofty numbers. I think 3.7 and Eco owners would like them too.
yes I actually just convert my kilometers into miles and my litres into US gallons and then do the standard calculation rather than converting l/100 into MPG. My truck's onboard MPG readout is usually within 0.5mpg (normally optimistic) also.
Old 10-08-2011, 02:40 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
2000xl_toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 1,711
Received 14 Likes on 9 Posts

Default

just for the record though, I do drive with a pretty easy right foot - I've seen my display go as low as 18.5mpg if I'm just hompin on it all through town - but even that is excellent economy for a v8 1/2 ton truck.
Old 10-09-2011, 01:09 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
isthatahemi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,842
Received 1,021 Likes on 729 Posts

Default

Right now my brand spankin SCAB 3.7, 3.73, 4WD is showing 11lhk, it was showing 10lhk. (with 1050kms / 663 miles)on the first tank. This converts to 26-28 imperial mpg, or 21.5-23 mpg. I will do a full write-up, but I'll start by saying this beats the Tacoma I god rid of by 20%. No babying either; over a dozen trips to 7000 rpm, (near the end of the tank, and not in first gear...) traveling 95% highway between 65 - 75 mph.
I am blown away, I will be checking the mileage manually as well.
Wow.
Old 10-09-2011, 01:16 AM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
isthatahemi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,842
Received 1,021 Likes on 729 Posts

Post

Originally Posted by 2000xl_toronto
yes I actually just convert my kilometers into miles and my litres into US gallons and then do the standard calculation rather than converting l/100 into MPG. My truck's onboard MPG readout is usually within 0.5mpg (normally optimistic) also.
Much easier to just take 240 / LHK = US MPG
Or
282 / LHK = Imperial MPG
Old 10-09-2011, 01:39 AM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
BobLobLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21,770
Received 242 Likes on 191 Posts

Default

Last week I got 26 mpg on the freeway. 1 hour trip. I reset the display before I left my house. But I was going slow, there's construction right now on the freeways here so the speed limit is 80 km/h which is around 45 or 50 mph. Cruise was set on 80.

I have a 4x4 supercab 3.73
Old 10-30-2011, 11:22 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
BarryL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Atlantic Beach, Fl
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Is the 3.7 the 5.0 minus 2 cylinders, like the chevy 4.3 was the 5.7 with 2 cylinders hacked off?
Old 11-01-2011, 12:06 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 5,462
Received 1,556 Likes on 990 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by BarryL
Is the 3.7 the 5.0 minus 2 cylinders, like the chevy 4.3 was the 5.7 with 2 cylinders hacked off?
No. The 5.0 is another variant of the modular v-8's. The 3.7 and EB are based on the Duratec v-6.
Old 11-02-2011, 02:05 PM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Jax123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Jville Fl
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by engineermike
No. The 5.0 is another variant of the modular v-8's. The 3.7 and EB are based on the Duratec v-6.
Sure about that? (and I am not) - The 3.7 has all the features of the 5.0 (piston oil cooling, direct injection etc...) and .75 of 5.0 happens to be 3.75. Could this be a coincidence??
But what is surprisingly different is that the 3.7 is a 7000 rpm engine while the 5.0 is limited to 6000.
Let the jury speak!
Old 11-02-2011, 02:23 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 5,462
Received 1,556 Likes on 990 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Jax123
Sure about that? (and I am not) - The 3.7 has all the features of the 5.0 (piston oil cooling, direct injection etc...) and .75 of 5.0 happens to be 3.75. Could this be a coincidence??
But what is surprisingly different is that the 3.7 is a 7000 rpm engine while the 5.0 is limited to 6000.
Let the jury speak!
The Duratec/3.7/EB are 60 deg V6's. The 3.7 is 3.76" bore x 3.41" stroke.

The 5.0 is a 90 deg V8. 3.63" bore x 3.65" stroke.
Old 11-02-2011, 02:42 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Jax123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Jville Fl
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=engineermike;1165722]The Duratec/3.7/EB are 60 deg V6's. The 3.7 is 3.76" bore x 3.41" stroke.

The 5.0 is a 90 deg V8. 3.63" bore x 3.65" stroke.[/QUOTE']

Thanks EngineerMike for clearing that up for me.
Now I know why the3.7 is a rev'er. 60 deg and short stroke equals rpm, Like the Mercury BlackMax outboard.


Quick Reply: Finally.... over 24 MPG on a 3.7 !



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.