2011 Ford F-150

[dave1251]

You are right on all points. But my points is that the 3.7 torque curve is fairly flat, yeah it takes 4,000RPM's for max torque but it reaches near max torque output around 2,500RPM's and remains pretty steady to its max output. This is not a prefect engine but it is good for what it is and that is a small displacement V6 in a pickup and it is very competitive with engines from previous generations of pickups.

 

[Stephen_G]

The 4.2L Essex was probably the only decent essex v6, i owned a 1992 sable with the 3.8L Essex, 140HP 215 LbFt, problematic engine does not begin to describe how bad those engines were in the FWD models. Headgaskets blow on them pretty much. But in the F150, it is not a bad engine, just make sure you check the engine for headgasket issues frequently.

I would love an Ecoboost F150, friend thinks it is a dumb idea to buy one now, it is an "unproven" Truck engine, it is fine in cars he says, but will it hold up to truck use is what his theory is.

 

[yonyon]

Repeat after me: "There is no replacement for displacement."

If you want to give your truck that low end grunt that it needs if it's going to make you happy you need more displacement. The obvious answers would be to replace the engine or somehow get a crank in there with a longer stroke. If a crank isn't commercially available, that might be very very expensive. You might get more bang for your buck by bolting on some displacement in the form of a positive displacement compressor. The easiest remedy to the problem, of course, is to just swap the whole truck out for one that's already got more motor.

Any which way you go, it's going to cost some money. Someone decided to cheap out when they bought the equipment and now you're stuck with it. If you have to, you just use it until it blows up and when it does try to make sure the person who makes the purchasing decisions understands the concept of suitability to task. If it doesn't blow up that means it's good enough, just not pleasant. If they're paying you enough then you live with it, right?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Stephen_G
The 4.2L Essex was probably the only decent essex v6, i owned a 1992 sable with the 3.8L Essex, 140HP 215 LbFt, problematic engine does not begin to describe how bad those engines were in the FWD models. Headgaskets blow on them pretty much. But in the F150, it is not a bad engine, just make sure you check the engine for headgasket issues frequently.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Essex either. We had a game for every Taurus/Sable/Continental that came in on the hook. Head or transmission. If it was a 3.8, it was the cylinder heads. If it was the 3.0 (which excluded those Taurus based Continentals) it was the transmission.

They go bad in the Mustangs too so the direction the engine was mounted seems to matter very little.

But after a couple of years of bad 4.2s in the F-150 sometime around 2000 Ford finally got their act together on that engine. Seems like '00-'04 (Heritage '04) 4.2s were pretty solid.

 

[hattaresguy]

I have never found V6 half ton 4wd trucks to be a really great combo. With 2wd the V6 is fine and they scoot right along, with 4wd they are a bit slower.

But that new Ford V6 has 300hp which is more than most V8's of only a few years ago, so I would think it should move right along.

 

[apwillard1986]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
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?


Perhaps because the new V6s are marketed that way??

 

[dave1251]

The only V6 I have seen marketed that had the power of a V8 is the 3.5 ecoboost. Have you seen others?