Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
How about some quarter mile times, while pulling a 16' car hauler trailer with two tons of landscape gravel on it, and a pickup bed full of tools and supplies?
Now you're talking.
Then you might want to consider the 3.5 V6 EcoBoost which has more torque than even the 6.2 V8 and the lowest rpm for peak torque.
Of course you have to buy a more luxurious package for the EcoBoost.
The 3.7 is rated to tow 6100 lbs. I'm pretty sure it will handle that load just fine. It's within a few ft-lbs torque of the 2V 4.6 and only has to spin on average about 500 rpm higher for peak torque. (depending on where you get your figures...I saw a low of 2250 rpm and a high of 4000 for the 2V 4.6. I think the 2250 was a misprint because that was also the figure for the 5.4)
Pretty soon, Ram is going to be all alone with it's 3.7 sucking wind at 210 hp. Maybe Chrysler will offer a 3.6 Pentastar, Maybe not. Fortunately, you can get a 4.7 310 hp Ram 1500 SLT Quadcab for about $30,000, and that would be my choice with the STX ext cab next at that price
No. You missed the point.
My suggestion to the person who posted earlier, was to not rattle off some 0-60 and quarter mile times, like we're chatting about sports cars.
These are pickups. Give me some "real world" numbers, with a load on the pickup and it ready for some work.
I think Spazdog's point, with which agree, was that even the 3.7L engine is within spitting distance of the 4.6L V-8 in terms of power and torque. I think he was addressing the concern that "only real trucks have V-8 engines". The 3.7L engine (a V-6) should handle the work about as well as the old 4.6L engine (a V-8). And the Ecoboost V-6 puts many V-8s to shame, even while fully loaded with a trailer and gear.
Exactly.
The venerable 4.3 Vortec is only availiable in stripped W/T trim. It's been long of tooth and short of wind for a long time. I don't know why GM hasn't already killed it and installed the 4.2 Atlas LL8.
Maybe it's just too expensive to produce. Maybe it doesn't offer a significant fuel economy benefit over the LY2 4.8 V8. I don't know.
The 3.7 PowerTech is probably going to be around a bit longer. But it needs to go as well.
And the Essex is already dead. It was a weird engine anyway. Seems like it had more in common with the Buick 231 than any Ford V8. Ford did manage to iron out all the wrinkles and finally make it a very reliable engine. (after years of failures in Tauruses and Windstars) but the 60° Cyclone 3.7 is light years ahead of the Essex 4.2 in every category.
It's just not fair to compare this new generation of V6 to it's "90° V8 with two cylinders cut off" predecessors.
It's just like all the people that bemoaned the passing of the 5.0 when the '97 F-150 got a Modular. "
Oh that little bitty 4.6 will never tow like a 302...that OHC V8 is going to break down all the time...etc..."
Originally Posted By: WagonBoss
Just for those that question the rounded-off pricing of an STX here is just an example (I don't know how to post the pdf of the window sticker). 2011 F150 Supercab Base price: $32,685, add $1k for 5.0, plus trailer tow package, STX decor package, tailgate step, and satellite radio plus shipping makes the MSRP $36,520. For discussion purposes this is $35K with the 3.7 and is just an example. The Chevy LS stickers at $32,960. Sure you can order one cheaper, but a stripped model in stock is impossible to find in this neck of the woods. You still don't get carpet in an STX - XLT's and FX4 push the $40K mark. Ludicrous! But, price aside I'm more interested in which is the better value (or something else maybe). I'm more interested in gas mileage and comfort for the cost more than brand.
Yeah, I should have looked at the prices for your market.
Trucks are definitely marketed different here. Pick-up trucks
are passenger cars here. It's either a source of great pride or shame that my state is the
world's largest Pick-up truck market. Competition is stiff. Maybe the pricing is better here because they sell so many trucks. I'm the odd man out here for using a passenger car as a weekend DIY "truck" (fortunately, if it doesn't fit in the Mazda's hatch, it will probably fit in the PT with the seats out)
Man, I love trucks. I hate the bad fuel economy. It's an exciting time. Trucks are getting closer to reasonable fuel economy numbers. I just wish they were still as affordable as they used to be. Time will tell whether the EcoBoost is the way of the future or a bust. But getting small V6 fuel economy and BIG V8 capability sounds like a winner to me.
