V6 evaluation
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
I've already have 360 miles on the 3.7 and I'm still at 1/3 tank. I have the 26 gallon tank. I would if had to fill up the 5.4 w a 30 gallon tank by 330 miles. Already saving me money and not to mention going down to one car payment from two.
So far very happy with it. I believe it'll tow my 5400lbs or lower loads just fine. No need for a 8000+ tow load capacity.
The heaviest I'll need is my 3800lbs race car on a trailer which us 1600 or 500lbs fir a Dollie!!!! V6 will do it n it'll help having the tuner!
So far very happy with it. I believe it'll tow my 5400lbs or lower loads just fine. No need for a 8000+ tow load capacity.
The heaviest I'll need is my 3800lbs race car on a trailer which us 1600 or 500lbs fir a Dollie!!!! V6 will do it n it'll help having the tuner!
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 7
After reading various threads about the 3.7, I have come to the conclusion that this engine is pretty darn capable for what it is. It makes the old 4.2 V6 look like a boat anchor (I know there are a lot of fans of that old motor and it was very durable) but today's truck buyers are looking for power and fuel efficiency which were not the greatest virtues of the 4.2
Think back 10-15 years ago and compare the 3.7's power to that of the two base engines Ford offered, the 300 c.i. straight six and the 302 c.i. V8. The 3.7 doubles the HP of the I6 and has nearly 120 HP more than the V8 and bests them both in torque numbers. Granted, both of the old engines made their peak torque numbers much lower in the RPM range (also remember the I6 only would rev to about 4000 rpm where the 302 would run up to 4500 rpm). We truly have come a long way with engine technology.
I think where Ford is missing the boat here is thinking that the 3.7 equipped F-150 will take place of the Ranger. While a Supercab or Supercrew F-150 is vastly superior to the Ranger in terms of interior room for families and the like, it is going to be hard to replace the stripped down 4 cylinder, regular cab Ranger for the fleet user that requires a small, fuel-efficient truck. Otherwise, it makes some sense to rely on the smaller F-150 configurations to replace the personal use Ranger buyer.
That is why I would like to see Ford bring back the Supercab with the 5.5 foot bed which is now only currently sold as a Raptor. I see a few older Scab 5.5 bed trucks running around and really like them. They are nice and short, will fit in most garages, and still offer decent back seat space which is perfect for kids and good enough for adults to be fairly comfortable. This truck with the 3.7 and possibly a lowered suspension to allow a little easier entry and exit as well as access over the sides of the bed would be appreciated by those who would otherwise have bought a Ranger and may end up looking elsewhere at Tacomas or other mid-size trucks.
Think back 10-15 years ago and compare the 3.7's power to that of the two base engines Ford offered, the 300 c.i. straight six and the 302 c.i. V8. The 3.7 doubles the HP of the I6 and has nearly 120 HP more than the V8 and bests them both in torque numbers. Granted, both of the old engines made their peak torque numbers much lower in the RPM range (also remember the I6 only would rev to about 4000 rpm where the 302 would run up to 4500 rpm). We truly have come a long way with engine technology.
I think where Ford is missing the boat here is thinking that the 3.7 equipped F-150 will take place of the Ranger. While a Supercab or Supercrew F-150 is vastly superior to the Ranger in terms of interior room for families and the like, it is going to be hard to replace the stripped down 4 cylinder, regular cab Ranger for the fleet user that requires a small, fuel-efficient truck. Otherwise, it makes some sense to rely on the smaller F-150 configurations to replace the personal use Ranger buyer.
That is why I would like to see Ford bring back the Supercab with the 5.5 foot bed which is now only currently sold as a Raptor. I see a few older Scab 5.5 bed trucks running around and really like them. They are nice and short, will fit in most garages, and still offer decent back seat space which is perfect for kids and good enough for adults to be fairly comfortable. This truck with the 3.7 and possibly a lowered suspension to allow a little easier entry and exit as well as access over the sides of the bed would be appreciated by those who would otherwise have bought a Ranger and may end up looking elsewhere at Tacomas or other mid-size trucks.
I think a new Ranger could fill a void for a lot of people here. Ford could even call it the F-100 or F-50 so it'll be included in the F-Series sales figures. Revamp the exterior styling and interior styling drop a 2.0L Ecoboost as the base engine and a 3.7L Mustang engine in it as the optional engine. And a 6-speed automatic...I don't see any reason 30+mpg couldn't be achiveable with a smaller. truck in that configuration. Hell I'm getting 19mpg mixed city/highway with my 5.0L V8 4X4 F-150 3.73 rear end. I honestly think a true Ranger replacement could really do Ford some good here.
I heard a rumor that Ford is working on a Transit Connect pickup as a Ranger replacement...But seriously?...A...Transit Connect? Gag.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
