Ford Transit 3.7
- Thread starter heavy260
- Start date
I’ve had 2 as company vans-a 2015 & a 2018. First one lost the torque converter around 75K, was a bear to get replaced because of the subframe/large K-member/cradle that goes under the transmission, 3 months down at the dealer. The ‘18 burned oil from day one, and also had persistent coolant leaks-Ford dealers DIDN’T CARE. The combination of crap Ford engineering, thieving stealerships, & lack of a full frame means NO WAY I would own one. I made 120K on the ‘15, 118K on the ‘18, 90K on the (3.5/10R80) in my sig. RUN AWAY, DON’T WALK… Any rusty GM one would be better-even an Econoline would be better with the 4R100 or 5R110/W.
Last edited:
I’ve gotten 20 on a 3.7 one, heavily loaded, on flat country roads, cruise set @ 55-58, summer fuel & minimal A/C use.
Amazingly the 3.5 one I have now is actually quicker than the 3.7 ones I had. One of the van’s few saving graces, along with a fairly comfortable driving position/experience.
The ones with the 3.7 seem to be the best. My buddys shop maintains a fleet of them and he has sent me pictures of some of the ones that come through the shop with over 600k on the factory engines.
Aren't the 3.5's the twin turbo unit? Should spank the NA 3.7 pretty handily.
dnewton3
Staff member
Let's get some details straight ...
The cyclone engine series has a lot of variants.
Displacement in n/a form ... 3.3L, 3.5L, 3.7L (the 3.5L and 3.7L in transverse and longitudinal; the 3.3L in longitudinal only AFAIK)
Displacement in EB from ... 3.5L (both transverse and longitudinal applications)
In the case of the Transit, the 3.7L is n/a only and longitudinal.
The Cyclone engine series in n/a form is very reliable and long-lived in general. Whereas there will always be an example of poor quality, the overall nature of the Cyclone in n/a, longitudinal applications are very reliable. Even in transverse form, the water pump is the only real PITB.
These n/a engines run very clean; they don't generate a lot of soot/sludge to deal with. They wear very well; low wear metal rates. They also are reasonably fuel efficient for their size and application.
The cyclone engine series has a lot of variants.
Displacement in n/a form ... 3.3L, 3.5L, 3.7L (the 3.5L and 3.7L in transverse and longitudinal; the 3.3L in longitudinal only AFAIK)
Displacement in EB from ... 3.5L (both transverse and longitudinal applications)
In the case of the Transit, the 3.7L is n/a only and longitudinal.
The Cyclone engine series in n/a form is very reliable and long-lived in general. Whereas there will always be an example of poor quality, the overall nature of the Cyclone in n/a, longitudinal applications are very reliable. Even in transverse form, the water pump is the only real PITB.
These n/a engines run very clean; they don't generate a lot of soot/sludge to deal with. They wear very well; low wear metal rates. They also are reasonably fuel efficient for their size and application.
We are talking 3.5, and 3.7 Duratech motors. Not the twin turbo 3.5 Ecoboost.
Glad to hear some of the 3.7s are getting 600K on them. I just bought a 2012 F150 with the 3.7. It has 207,000 on it. I will be doing all the fluids on it.
For some reason I was thinking the 3.5 was only the EB now in the transists.. My mistake.
It is easy to get all the motors mixed up. It took me awhile to make sense of it all.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2024
- Messages
- 152
It must have taken 4 transit van bodies and one motor to run 600k miles. The Transit is the biggest turd ever from a reliability and durability standpoint. I'd almost want a Sprinter first....almost. Chevy Express and Econoline are WAY better in those areas.
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
save yourself the headache. chevrolet express van.
It’s certainly what we know as far as drivetrains. Never had an issue with any of the trucks or full size SUVs we’ve owned.
Similar threads
