This is a company truck, 2011 Ford F-150 single cab, long bed, 4x4 with the 3.7 V-6 Automatic. I feel compelled to write about this truck. You could not give me this truck! I got this truck brand new with 8 miles last Oct. It now has 19,980 on it, so I spend a fair amount of time in it. The truck is terrible. It seems like it runs good if you, pull out and just stay hard in the accelleration. But if you are in traffic or moving and try to speed up, it has no power, it seems like its stuck in a gear too high, if you coax it by pushing down more on the accellerator, it shifts into passing gear, and littery goes to 6500 rpms and stays there, until you let up. If you idle out of the driveway and then slow down and accellerate to speed, it will jerk and give a loud thump, that sounds like the rear-end is going the other direction. I know it sounds like a transmission problem, but its not, its a combo of a low torque motor and a six speed transmission. This truck sucks. The other techs got new ones the same time and theirs do it too, same thing. If I bought this truck with my own money, I would think seriously about lighting it on fire. I could not even imagine towing with this piece of ____! The truck handles good and the 4 wheel drive works Great. Cant seem to get it stuck, but that motor is terrible. Beware to anybody that is thinking of one, no torque, whatsoever, I dont care what the Horsepower rating says, the 4.6, which were in our last trucks, were excellent, no comparison. Gas milelage is 17.6, That would be mixed highway and around town.
2011 Ford F-150
- Thread starter Panzerman
- Start date
- Status
It is funny that you say it has no torque at 287lbs in a v6. 287 is within 20lbs of torque of a GM 4.8 V8. I believe that v6 should be fine towing anything under 2 tons. I understand it would not win a drag race but it is an entry level work truck.
This is why I am less than impressed by a lot of the new V6s out there. We pickup drivers are used to having instant torque because for years that’s the way auto makers geared and built engines for pickups. Now it is all about fuel economy and lots of folks don’t tow or haul they just want something big to get groceries in. Auto makers are putting in high revving power plants to net big power claims from small displacement six cylinders. The net result is actually less power in the band most people who use their trucks need it. Get used to it because it isn’t going to go away. That 267FT Lbs. of torque sounds great until you understand that you have to rev to 4000 RPM to get at it. See what your fuel economy numbers do if you work that engine in that band.
Judging by your sig you have a 4.3 and I remember around the mid 90's the peak torque output of that engine was around the 2,400 RPM range.
The Ford 3.7 today the torque peak output in 2011 is around 2,400 RPM range and stays close to even up to 5,000 RPM and will drop slightly from there.
So I just think you are going by the infamous butt dyno.
The Ford 3.7 today the torque peak output in 2011 is around 2,400 RPM range and stays close to even up to 5,000 RPM and will drop slightly from there.
So I just think you are going by the infamous butt dyno.
I was attempting to explain why the OP's current truck feels different from his previous truck. He didn't say he was reading a brochure and found the numbers abhorrent. So in that regard yes, I was going by feel and attempting to explain why. You are correct; the 4.3 delivers a peak 260 Ft. lbs of torque at 2400 RPM. Ford states the 3.7 delivers peak torque at 4000 RPM. I cannot find a published torque curve. It may well be as flat as the 4.3. My point was just that the reason the OP is noticing he has to rev it higher is that the engine is built to deliver it higher.
Well, yes, if you are comparing the 3.7 to the 4.6 3V V8, yeah for sure you'd be underwhelmed. I didn't have the 4.6 2V numbers handy, but it peaked at 294 ft lbs at 4000 rpm, also above the 3.7.
Torque Numbers I could find:
Rpm 3.7 4.6
1500 237 269
2000 250 275
2500 244 287
3000 250 287
3500 256 302
4000 275 320
4500 269 315
5000 262 300
5500 265 280
6000 262 255
To be fair, I'd view the better engine to compare the 3.7 to is the 4.2l V6 that availble through the 2008 model year.
Torque Numbers I could find:
Rpm 3.7 4.6
1500 237 269
2000 250 275
2500 244 287
3000 250 287
3500 256 302
4000 275 320
4500 269 315
5000 262 300
5500 265 280
6000 262 255
To be fair, I'd view the better engine to compare the 3.7 to is the 4.2l V6 that availble through the 2008 model year.
Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
I was attempting to explain why the OP's current truck feels different from his previous truck. He didn't say he was reading a brochure and found the numbers abhorrent. So in that regard yes, I was going by feel and attempting to explain why. You are correct; the 4.3 delivers a peak 260 Ft. lbs of torque at 2400 RPM. Ford states the 3.7 delivers peak torque at 4000 RPM. I cannot find a published torque curve. It may well be as flat as the 4.3. My point was just that the reason the OP is noticing he has to rev it higher is that the engine is built to deliver it higher.
I would take anything Ford say about their current powerplant's with gain of salt. Since the engine upgrades last Ford has often undervalued the engine outputs.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_1110_2011_ford_f_150_v6_v8_comparison/photo_66.html
I think Ford will continue to under rate engine output until the competition updates their engines.
I was attempting to explain why the OP's current truck feels different from his previous truck. He didn't say he was reading a brochure and found the numbers abhorrent. So in that regard yes, I was going by feel and attempting to explain why. You are correct; the 4.3 delivers a peak 260 Ft. lbs of torque at 2400 RPM. Ford states the 3.7 delivers peak torque at 4000 RPM. I cannot find a published torque curve. It may well be as flat as the 4.3. My point was just that the reason the OP is noticing he has to rev it higher is that the engine is built to deliver it higher.
I would take anything Ford say about their current powerplant's with gain of salt. Since the engine upgrades last Ford has often undervalued the engine outputs.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_1110_2011_ford_f_150_v6_v8_comparison/photo_66.html
I think Ford will continue to under rate engine output until the competition updates their engines.
It is true though that some of the older engines feel more "gutsy" off idle than the new ones. Cars are the same way - they make lots of horsepower but it's very high up. I have no doubt they produce far more power, probably at every RPM, but the feeling behind the seat is that the older trucks have more pep off idle.
I dont care what the numbers say and the ads say, I am telling that truck is a joke with that engine. That would probably be a perfect engine for a Mustange or a car, but it simply does not do the job as a truck motor. My personal truck is a 3/4 ton Dodge with a Hemi. I dont expect it to pull like that. But the truck I traded for this one was a 2002 Ford F150 with 170,000 miles with a 4.6. You expect the new truck to be "better" than the old truck, thats not the case. The old 4.6 was smooth, reliable power, this 3.7 is eractical high revving, not really doing alot power. Again, I dont care what the numbers say, this engine is terrible for a truck and if I owned this truck, I would be a very angry camper. I can not even imahine it with 150,000 miles on it, if its lazy now. I am 100% with Apwillard, they have high revving HP and torque numbers to sell trucks, but it isnt so hot in real world drivability.
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I dont care what the numbers say and the ads say, I am telling that truck is a joke with that engine. That would probably be a perfect engine for a Mustange or a car, but it simply does not do the job as a truck motor. My personal truck is a 3/4 ton Dodge with a Hemi. I dont expect it to pull like that. But the truck I traded for this one was a 2002 Ford F150 with 170,000 miles with a 4.6. You expect the new truck to be "better" than the old truck, thats not the case. The old 4.6 was smooth, reliable power, this 3.7 is eractical high revving, not really doing alot power. Again, I dont care what the numbers say, this engine is terrible for a truck and if I owned this truck, I would be a very angry camper. I can not even imahine it with 150,000 miles on it, if its lazy now. I am 100% with Apwillard, they have high revving HP and torque numbers to sell trucks, but it isnt so hot in real world drivability.
You are compairing a v8 to a v6. Why?
I dont care what the numbers say and the ads say, I am telling that truck is a joke with that engine. That would probably be a perfect engine for a Mustange or a car, but it simply does not do the job as a truck motor. My personal truck is a 3/4 ton Dodge with a Hemi. I dont expect it to pull like that. But the truck I traded for this one was a 2002 Ford F150 with 170,000 miles with a 4.6. You expect the new truck to be "better" than the old truck, thats not the case. The old 4.6 was smooth, reliable power, this 3.7 is eractical high revving, not really doing alot power. Again, I dont care what the numbers say, this engine is terrible for a truck and if I owned this truck, I would be a very angry camper. I can not even imahine it with 150,000 miles on it, if its lazy now. I am 100% with Apwillard, they have high revving HP and torque numbers to sell trucks, but it isnt so hot in real world drivability.
You are compairing a v8 to a v6. Why?
And again, you need to acknowledge that the trucks you are attempting to compare are different. You have a 2011 with the base engine. The 2002 you are comparing to had an upgraded engine. The 4.6 V8 was NOT the base engine in 2002 - the 4.2l V6 was. (252 ft lbs peak torque at 3400 rpm). The 3.7 has a smaller displacement and similar torque numbers. We had a few of the 4.2 at work, and guess what - we called them gutless wonders. All were replaced with 4.6 V8 equipped trucks.
In addition, we don't know anything about the gearing in the two trucks, and one needs to acknowledge the fact that this generation of F150 is bigger and heavier than the 2002 was.
Add it all up and why are you surprised again? You aren't comparing apples to apples...
In addition, we don't know anything about the gearing in the two trucks, and one needs to acknowledge the fact that this generation of F150 is bigger and heavier than the 2002 was.
Add it all up and why are you surprised again? You aren't comparing apples to apples...
You know what it is only my opinion and take it for what it is worth. I think today's trucks are more powerful, more fuel efficient, and the power curve for torque and horsepower is just were I need it to be. Which is close enough that I can adjust my driving habits to accomplish the task at hand. If you do light hauling and towing, the kind were the most of your work your truck is going to do is going to the Home Depot and towing your bass boat, I think the 3.7 is right for you. If you plan on towing and hauling more you need to "upgrade" your powertrain. You can get by with the base model but you need to curb your expectations to match. The worst thing the base v6 model today has more torque and horsepower meeting the rubber than anything from "back in the day" anyone who is trying argue that is doing so for the sake of yearning for yesterday. There are somethings today that were better off yesterday. But engine output is not, I am sorry feel does not equal data. Now if you were to say towing with my 19-- pickup was a lot more fun compared to today. I am sorry but I would have to 100% without a doubt agree with you.
I dont think it as much a problem with the engine power but the gearing. It sounds like it waits until the last possible bit of throttle to actually call for a downshift as a fuel economy play. At which point since its a 6 speed its probably dropping a couple gears. If it was reprogrammed to allow smoother shifting patterns where it will allow just a TC unlock, or a unlock with a single gear downshift depending on the amount of throttle being used it would be much better Im sure.
Its a really stupid way to program, IMO. Sure, it probably aces the EPA loop, but put it in the hands of a real person and pretty soon they learn if they want to actually get anywhere they need to mat it _all_ the time.
Its a really stupid way to program, IMO. Sure, it probably aces the EPA loop, but put it in the hands of a real person and pretty soon they learn if they want to actually get anywhere they need to mat it _all_ the time.
I recently had Ford update the transmission program on my F150. It fixed all those problems you mention.
The goal of electronically controlled 6 speed automatics:
To shift into an unacceptably high gear, faster than ever.
With this reprogram, the trans clearly holds a lower gear longer. It feels exactly like an automatic should now. Very much like an old school automatic. I like it!
The F150 forums talk all about this, and what the differences are in the programming. The stock programs supposedly learn your driving habits. But, in reality, they all seem to increase line pressure for firmer shifts, regardless of driving habits. Causing the clunks, hard shifts and annoying behavior.
The goal of electronically controlled 6 speed automatics:
To shift into an unacceptably high gear, faster than ever.
With this reprogram, the trans clearly holds a lower gear longer. It feels exactly like an automatic should now. Very much like an old school automatic. I like it!
The F150 forums talk all about this, and what the differences are in the programming. The stock programs supposedly learn your driving habits. But, in reality, they all seem to increase line pressure for firmer shifts, regardless of driving habits. Causing the clunks, hard shifts and annoying behavior.
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
And again, you need to acknowledge that the trucks you are attempting to compare are different. You have a 2011 with the base engine. The 2002 you are comparing to had an upgraded engine. The 4.6 V8 was NOT the base engine in 2002 - the 4.2l V6 was. (252 ft lbs peak torque at 3400 rpm). The 3.7 has a smaller displacement and similar torque numbers. We had a few of the 4.2 at work, and guess what - we called them gutless wonders. All were replaced with 4.6 V8 equipped trucks.
In addition, we don't know anything about the gearing in the two trucks, and one needs to acknowledge the fact that this generation of F150 is bigger and heavier than the 2002 was.
Add it all up and why are you surprised again? You aren't comparing apples to apples...
In 2010 the base engine was the 4.6. I am not a Ford person, but I believe I was told the 4.6 was the standard base engine, even in 2002, for the 4 wd models. They only put the 4.2 in 2 wheel drive models. It just sucks, that the 4.6 was replaced by a engine that does not get really any better fuel milelage and seems to have less power. Thats what it is all about though advertising a V6 with V8 numbers for people who would think two less cylinders automatically compute to better fuel milelage.
And again, you need to acknowledge that the trucks you are attempting to compare are different. You have a 2011 with the base engine. The 2002 you are comparing to had an upgraded engine. The 4.6 V8 was NOT the base engine in 2002 - the 4.2l V6 was. (252 ft lbs peak torque at 3400 rpm). The 3.7 has a smaller displacement and similar torque numbers. We had a few of the 4.2 at work, and guess what - we called them gutless wonders. All were replaced with 4.6 V8 equipped trucks.
In addition, we don't know anything about the gearing in the two trucks, and one needs to acknowledge the fact that this generation of F150 is bigger and heavier than the 2002 was.
Add it all up and why are you surprised again? You aren't comparing apples to apples...
In 2010 the base engine was the 4.6. I am not a Ford person, but I believe I was told the 4.6 was the standard base engine, even in 2002, for the 4 wd models. They only put the 4.2 in 2 wheel drive models. It just sucks, that the 4.6 was replaced by a engine that does not get really any better fuel milelage and seems to have less power. Thats what it is all about though advertising a V6 with V8 numbers for people who would think two less cylinders automatically compute to better fuel milelage.
Ok, I looked it up and the 4.6 became the base engine in 2004 for the Ford F150. In 2002 a 4.2 was the base engine.
The 4.2 was available with 4x4 in the 97-04 heritage F150's. We owned plenty of them, driven, and used in 4x4 (not optional for our use). Still have two of them that I know of...
The 4.2 disappeared for the new 2004 debut, then reappeared with the 2005 model year F150 and was available until 2008. They were uncommon in that application.
Also recognize that Ford has killed off the Ranger, which was available in a 4 cylinder "economy" fleet version. The 3.7 V6 equipped F150 is their "solution" for those applications (if you ignore the size of the truck anyways...)
The 4.2 disappeared for the new 2004 debut, then reappeared with the 2005 model year F150 and was available until 2008. They were uncommon in that application.
Also recognize that Ford has killed off the Ranger, which was available in a 4 cylinder "economy" fleet version. The 3.7 V6 equipped F150 is their "solution" for those applications (if you ignore the size of the truck anyways...)
Heavy full size truck, large truck, 3.55:1 axel with large tires, and you want it to accelerate like a sports car? I had a 2005 Chevy Silverado 4x4 with the 4.3L. and an automatic transmission. It would not win any acceleration contests, but it got the job done. I will say the bump stop on the Ford 6spd auto is very annoying!
Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
This is why I am less than impressed by a lot of the new V6s out there. We pickup drivers are used to having instant torque because for years that’s the way auto makers geared and built engines for pickups. Now it is all about fuel economy and lots of folks don’t tow or haul they just want something big to get groceries in. Auto makers are putting in high revving power plants to net big power claims from small displacement six cylinders. The net result is actually less power in the band most people who use their trucks need it. Get used to it because it isn’t going to go away. That 267FT Lbs. of torque sounds great until you understand that you have to rev to 4000 RPM to get at it. See what your fuel economy numbers do if you work that engine in that band.
When were these V6es made?
The Dodge 3.7's 235 lb·ft torque peak is at 4000 rpm.
The Tundra 4.0's 266 lb·ft torque peak is at....you guessed it, 4000 rpm
Really, the only V6 full-size truck engines that come in with torque peak at a lower engine speed was the GM 4.3 with 260 lb·ft at 2800 rpm. The Magnum 3.9 was close at 3200 rpm, but that was for all of 225 ft-lbs.
The Ford 3.7's predecessor, the Essex 4.2, made it's 252 lb·ft torque peak at 3400 rpm. The 3.7 has 100 more horsepower. One freakin' hundred more horsepower! and it has to rev all of 600 more rpm to get 15 more lb-ft of torque out of half a liter less displacement.
You can bring up the Ford 4.9, but that's an inline and it displaces 1200cc more. Also the GM 292 that made 215 lb-ft of torque at 1600 rpm but again it's an inline and displaces 1100 cc more. If the Ford Cyclone displaced 4.8 liters, I'm absolutely certain that it could turn 215 lb-ft of torque at 1600 rpm.
Or are we thinking of the GMC 305V6? Again, 5 liters of displacement
This is why I am less than impressed by a lot of the new V6s out there. We pickup drivers are used to having instant torque because for years that’s the way auto makers geared and built engines for pickups. Now it is all about fuel economy and lots of folks don’t tow or haul they just want something big to get groceries in. Auto makers are putting in high revving power plants to net big power claims from small displacement six cylinders. The net result is actually less power in the band most people who use their trucks need it. Get used to it because it isn’t going to go away. That 267FT Lbs. of torque sounds great until you understand that you have to rev to 4000 RPM to get at it. See what your fuel economy numbers do if you work that engine in that band.
When were these V6es made?
The Dodge 3.7's 235 lb·ft torque peak is at 4000 rpm.
The Tundra 4.0's 266 lb·ft torque peak is at....you guessed it, 4000 rpm
Really, the only V6 full-size truck engines that come in with torque peak at a lower engine speed was the GM 4.3 with 260 lb·ft at 2800 rpm. The Magnum 3.9 was close at 3200 rpm, but that was for all of 225 ft-lbs.
The Ford 3.7's predecessor, the Essex 4.2, made it's 252 lb·ft torque peak at 3400 rpm. The 3.7 has 100 more horsepower. One freakin' hundred more horsepower! and it has to rev all of 600 more rpm to get 15 more lb-ft of torque out of half a liter less displacement.
You can bring up the Ford 4.9, but that's an inline and it displaces 1200cc more. Also the GM 292 that made 215 lb-ft of torque at 1600 rpm but again it's an inline and displaces 1100 cc more. If the Ford Cyclone displaced 4.8 liters, I'm absolutely certain that it could turn 215 lb-ft of torque at 1600 rpm.
Or are we thinking of the GMC 305V6? Again, 5 liters of displacement
- Status