Hello all. Just curious to know if anyone has experience with an F-150 with the 3.7. I’ve been hunting around for a used V6 half ton with 4x4 and there seems to more of these than any Dodge or GM offerings. Rated mpg seems ok but not great compared to the pentastar or ecotec 4.3. I plan to test a few out this week.
3.7 litre F-150
- Thread starter Warlord
- Start date
- Status
They have no power but they are pretty reliable.
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
I was shopping at one time for a pickup, and read on several F150 forums that the 3.7 is super reliable and at 300hp is no slouch in the power department. As mentioned, it does need to rev to make that power, but to be fair, so do most NA engines.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: oldhp
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
3.7 is not a ecoboost. If you are going rag on something at least be knowledgeable about the subject.
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
3.7 is not a ecoboost. If you are going rag on something at least be knowledgeable about the subject.
Originally Posted By: oldhp
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
there is no 3.7 Ecoboost. there is however a 3.5 Ecoboost.
the 3.7 is the NA 3.5 with a bigger bore/piston
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
there is no 3.7 Ecoboost. there is however a 3.5 Ecoboost.
the 3.7 is the NA 3.5 with a bigger bore/piston
Originally Posted By: oldhp
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
Do you mean 2.7 ecoboost? The 3.7 is a non turbo. Same engine as found in the mustang.
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
Do you mean 2.7 ecoboost? The 3.7 is a non turbo. Same engine as found in the mustang.
The only negative point about them is the power band is up top. They might not have the power of today's larger engines, but they sure have enough for whatever you're going to do with a light truck short of towing some heavy load or drag racing.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: oldhp
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
3.7 is not a ecoboost. If you are going rag on something at least be knowledgeable about the subject.
I'm not that up on Fords...EXCUuuuuSE ME. It was the Eco-turbo "small V-6" I wasn't "RAGGING" on anything. Just giving example. That OK with you???
Originally Posted By: oldhp
Co-worker just traded his 1 year old 3.7 Eco-boast in for a 5.0. His reason was he couldn't stand the lack of torque and having to redline it to get power. IDK, I've never driven one.
3.7 is not a ecoboost. If you are going rag on something at least be knowledgeable about the subject.
I'm not that up on Fords...EXCUuuuuSE ME. It was the Eco-turbo "small V-6" I wasn't "RAGGING" on anything. Just giving example. That OK with you???
I should clarify that I generally drive like a granny and haul around my boat which weighs about 2000 lbs. Sometimes I’d throw a light camper in the back. So the base V6 trucks would be plenty for me I imagine.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JLTD
I was shopping at one time for a pickup, and read on several F150 forums that the 3.7 is super reliable and at 300hp is no slouch in the power department. As mentioned, it does need to rev to make that power, but to be fair, so do most NA engines.
Both Ford and Mopar's V6s are small compared to GM's 4.3L Vor(Eco)tec. But the former two are relatively modern OHC designs and the GM is a oversquare pushrod engine.
A V6 in a non-Toyota/Nissan truck can be dog-like but but it's a improvement over the small V8s that both Ford and Mopar used, even if needs to be revved up to hit those horsepower figures. I'm sure the new 3.7L V6 F-150/Pentastar Ram 1500 are a vast improvement over their old V6/small V8 efforts. To be fair, even GM's V6 received some trickle-down from the same LSx V8s it shares an architecture with.
I was shopping at one time for a pickup, and read on several F150 forums that the 3.7 is super reliable and at 300hp is no slouch in the power department. As mentioned, it does need to rev to make that power, but to be fair, so do most NA engines.
Both Ford and Mopar's V6s are small compared to GM's 4.3L Vor(Eco)tec. But the former two are relatively modern OHC designs and the GM is a oversquare pushrod engine.
A V6 in a non-Toyota/Nissan truck can be dog-like but but it's a improvement over the small V8s that both Ford and Mopar used, even if needs to be revved up to hit those horsepower figures. I'm sure the new 3.7L V6 F-150/Pentastar Ram 1500 are a vast improvement over their old V6/small V8 efforts. To be fair, even GM's V6 received some trickle-down from the same LSx V8s it shares an architecture with.
I have a few friends with this engine either in a F150 or a Transit. I know for a fact that a 3.7 in a transit will run circles around my 5.4 2v while towing.
The truck version has an external water pump - that's a plus!
The truck version has an external water pump - that's a plus!
I have a 3.7 in a T-150 (Not F-150).
It is perfectly adequate power wise, it does like to rev, but it isn’t a problem, just step on it and the transmission does the figuring. Don’t tow with it, but it carries a good bit of equipment.
It is perfectly adequate power wise, it does like to rev, but it isn’t a problem, just step on it and the transmission does the figuring. Don’t tow with it, but it carries a good bit of equipment.
I have several 3.7s in my fleet. Transit (HD 350s), PI, and a 150.
Personally, it is one of my favorite engines for fleet use. (Fleet means I want it right-sized) Very reliable, not high-strung. I will take 3.7 all day and any day.
I will second the 3.7 vs 5.4 comparison. I have some older E350s with the 5.4 and while not under load, the 3.7 is leagues better (and gets about 40% better fuel economy with my use), it is ALMOST there with a load (about 2,000-3,000 of payload) but that is the 350lbs vs 285lbs of torque difference. We load & unload all day long. So with your 2,000, the 3.7 will do that with ease although you will notice the higher revs. It makes peak torque around 4,00rpms compared to 350 at 2500 rpms on the 5.4. Still, for me, that is plenty fine.
My 3.7 Transits do about 15 hours of continual operation a day 5 days a week. The 2016s have about 3000 to 4000 hours each on the engines and I have only had one throttle body issues to date. Our issues with the Transits are brake-component related but that was an issue on the 350s too. Ford just can't build a robust set of brakes for heavy users.
Personally, it is one of my favorite engines for fleet use. (Fleet means I want it right-sized) Very reliable, not high-strung. I will take 3.7 all day and any day.
I will second the 3.7 vs 5.4 comparison. I have some older E350s with the 5.4 and while not under load, the 3.7 is leagues better (and gets about 40% better fuel economy with my use), it is ALMOST there with a load (about 2,000-3,000 of payload) but that is the 350lbs vs 285lbs of torque difference. We load & unload all day long. So with your 2,000, the 3.7 will do that with ease although you will notice the higher revs. It makes peak torque around 4,00rpms compared to 350 at 2500 rpms on the 5.4. Still, for me, that is plenty fine.
My 3.7 Transits do about 15 hours of continual operation a day 5 days a week. The 2016s have about 3000 to 4000 hours each on the engines and I have only had one throttle body issues to date. Our issues with the Transits are brake-component related but that was an issue on the 350s too. Ford just can't build a robust set of brakes for heavy users.
Last edited:
It's funny how 185 hp out of a V8 in a half ton pickup was perfectly adequate 25 years ago, and now 300 hp in a half ton is considered underpowered.
Yeah, and it's also funny how back in the 1960's they were all about low load height and convenience! Tailgate heights that made actually loading sack cement not too bad ...
Now you need a step ladder just to put something in the back, and running boards so my wife can even get up to the seat ...
Now you need a step ladder just to put something in the back, and running boards so my wife can even get up to the seat ...
I'm sure the 3.7 would be just fine. I had a 1998 C1500 4.3 V6 for more than a decade. I towed with it too. No issues with my fishing boat. I put 300,000 kms on it and the company that bought it used it as a work truck till 500,000 kms. They told me they couldn't believe the difference in fuel burn compared to the 5.7 it replaced. 99% of the time it was used to run parts around. The accounting department saw the savings in fuel! The old 4.3 was 200hp.
That reminds me of the old Ford 4.9L I6, it wasn't the most powerful engine nor was it thrifty(it got somewhat better MPG than the 302/351 for the F-150s of that era) but it was certainly strong like bull with most of its torque on tap at low RPMs.
My parent's neighbor had one, it was a good if not big truck for their needs.
My parent's neighbor had one, it was a good if not big truck for their needs.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
It's funny how 185 hp out of a V8 in a half ton pickup was perfectly adequate 25 years ago, and now 300 hp in a half ton is considered underpowered.
I always think the same thing when I see people post about how weak some modern engine is. Some people say my 5.0 is a slug. It has as much torque as a 454SS pickup from 90. You want to see slow drive my old K10 with a 250. It would still get you around.
It's funny how 185 hp out of a V8 in a half ton pickup was perfectly adequate 25 years ago, and now 300 hp in a half ton is considered underpowered.
I always think the same thing when I see people post about how weak some modern engine is. Some people say my 5.0 is a slug. It has as much torque as a 454SS pickup from 90. You want to see slow drive my old K10 with a 250. It would still get you around.
Originally Posted By: hatt
You want to see slow drive my old K10 with a 250. It would still get you around.
I thought the Japanese were bad, but then again a 22R-E powered Toyota Hilux(the predecessor to the Tacoma) or the Nissan Frontier with the Altima's engine isn't that terrible to drive unless you need to punch it.
You want to see slow drive my old K10 with a 250. It would still get you around.
I thought the Japanese were bad, but then again a 22R-E powered Toyota Hilux(the predecessor to the Tacoma) or the Nissan Frontier with the Altima's engine isn't that terrible to drive unless you need to punch it.
- Status
