i see where you are coming from. everyone else wants the same pickup I do, so I'm just seeing what's left... makes some sense.

also, though, ford doesn't make what i want.
XL, ecoboost, 3.73, crew, 5.5' bed.
they make the XLT, with those options, but then the price gets up around 38K

really, for what I need, the 3.7 is probably fine. my boat weighs 3000lbs or so .... but i just cant see a pickup with a v6 ... even the ecoboost, i wonder about people really leaning on 'em.

i don't know what i want

gimme a basic crew cab pickup with a v8 for about 23K - 25K .... i know, i know, good luck...

 

Yep!

 

Have to say something here...there are NO required add-ons to get the EcoBoost...and it costs $750 over the 5.0L engine. No hidden fees or surcharges, that's what it costs. Now the dealer may have ordered the truck with another $1,700 in options, but that has nothing to do with the cost of the engine. If you wanted the $31,300 truck with the EB, you should order the exact same specs and add the EB...and you'll have a $32,050 truck.

I used to feel the same way until I realized how modern truck engines are designed and tested. They really "lean on 'em" for dozens of hours on end on a dynomometer, and push them far harder than any truck owner could ever do. This 3.7L engine is nothing like the V6es of yore...

If all I would ever tow was a 3,000 lb boat I would get the 3.7L in a minute. Being truckless at the moment we tow our 3,400 lb boat with my wife's 3.5L Sienna!

 

I sort of agree with what you are saying .... but kinda not.

i built an XL crew cab 5.0 for 34,850 msrp
the cheapest ecoboost crew cab i could build was an XLT for 37,275 msrp.
difference of almost 2500 msrp.

sure, if the ecoboost is offered in that particular trim level, then it is 750. but when you have to jump two trim levels, then the price goes up by a ton.

like i said before, "because of all the other stuff they make yo buy".

there again, it takes a ton of miles to pay that back.

sure you could argue this isn't apples to apples, but it is the way for is making them.

the only way to get the ecoboost in the poor man's truck is to get the straight cab long box. .... and i think an entire family would have a hard time fittin' in there.

and i still think 35k for a pickup is too much ... but that's just me.

 

Aaahh...now I understand!

That's strange...but you can get a 3.7L V6 in an XL crew cab truck. That's a lotta truck for a 3.7L engine, but I'm confident it would do the job just fine. I wonder why it's not available with an EcoBoost...

 

I keep seeing people write this, and I just can't understand the mentality.

Time and time again owners are proving that a loud exhaust doesn't necessarily = power. That a real truck that does real work doesn't need a V8 to survive. And that it is possible to have pretty decent economy and make good power, and low end pulling power at that.

But to each his own. We have all seen people pass up a good thing (in all aspects of life), and I'm sure I'm one of them, just because of tradition, hard headedess, and wanting to remain in a comfort zone.

 

I can, and I think it comes from the old 4.2L V6 that was available for so many years. I had a 2003 regular cab V6 truck, and I thought it was an absolute dog on the freeway. Didn't do any better on fuel, but never had the grunt to effectively do what I wanted without screaming near redline in 2nd gear. Part of that was the old 4R70w transmission though.

But modern engines have come a long way. My wife's 3.5L, 265 HP Sienna with it's 6-speed auto does a FAR better job towing 3,000 lbs than my 4.2L F150 does. The 3.7L/6R80 is far and away a better package than the older V6es.

 

I'll add the obersvation that most of your rangers with v6's dont get any better mileage than your v8 1/2 tons.

that being said, i realize that the 3.7 is a different animal. especially with the 6sp.

what bugs me about the 3.7 in a truck is that the peak torque is near 5000 rpm, and the peak HP is near 7000 rpm ... and nothing irritates me more than a truck that wont climb a hill without droping gears, especially when unloaded.

i'm just afraid that with peak torque so high in the curve, that it wont be able to lope up a hill without downshifting. Maybe i just need to get over it, but i've tryed and it bugs the crap out of me.

i guess with select shift i could lock it in 6th in manual mode .. but i shouldn't have to ....
there again .. that's me.

plus a 5.0 v8 will get you 19mpg, and a 3.7 will get you 21 ... for the extra low end torque and the minimal sacrafice in mpg ..... i just can't see getting a v6 in a pickup ....

i didn't even look at explorer's that didnt have the v8.... there again, for the extra grunt i give up hardly anything in mpg.

that's just me .... and to be honest, i'm probably passing up a pretty good deal with that 3.7 ... i just can't get over it ... at least with the ecoboost you get some low end grunt back, and if they hold up to abuse over the next couple years, i'll probably jump on a used one.

 

I'm the same way! I'm probably worse, because if I'm driving a vehicle I'm not happy with I'll get rid of it as soon as I can. Maybe why I've gone through 8 new vehicles in the last 9 years.

I do not mean to suggest that you get a truck you won't be happy with. My '03 V6 was a compromise from the beginning because I wanted the truck but at 17 couldn't afford the V8. Most of my frustration wasn't just the lack of power, but how the transmission didn't have enough gears to make the truck do what I wanted to at a given speed.

I'll add that the EcoBoost will absolutely maul the 5.0L at low engine speeds. If you want an engine that doesn't have to downshift this is the BEST one out of them all for you.

 

the mentality is pretty sound IMO

get the V-6 and have the motor singing at near the redline to go up a hill or tow a load.'

have the V-8 and have the motor mid-rpm range and essentially "loafing" along.

In terms of motor longevity and performance, the V-8 will win hands down. I've had the V-6 F-150 (1998, 5 speed with 4.2). It plain old sucked when loaded down, or at speeds above 50 mph. I know the 3.7 is a better motor on paper, but the old phrase comes to mind. "Once bitten, twice shy". BTW, those MPG savings you get with a V-6 are a myth

I still have my doubts about the Ecoboost and real life truck applications. I'm hoping I'm wrong though and it continues to be a true homerun for Ford. Especially if it makes its way into the 2012/2013 Expy and the tired old 5.4 goes away

 

Have you ever owned a 3.7L truck? How the heck can you say these MPG gains are a myth? I've never owned a vehicle that I couldn't meet or exceed the EPA rated highway MPGs. And none of the V8 trucks I've ever driven came close to 22 MPG.

My '03 V6 F150 was rated at 15/19, which equals 14/17 on the new EPA standard. The 3.7L is rated at as high as 16/22, which is a full 5 MPG better on the highway. How can you tell me that these MPG gains are a myth?

BTW...just read your sig. When did you get rid of the Mustang? Also...what's an F-260?

 

I tow a 16' trailer with three atvs behind my Ecoboost and I can't even tell the weight is back there. Unlike the 97 F150 I owned before that had the 4.6 V8, where I had to tow with the overdrive off and that motor screamed pulling small hills with the load.

This Ecoboost just runs like the load is not there.

 

The 4.2L was a dog long before it was ever mounted in it's first truck. Because of that engine, we have all kinds of stereotypes about V-6 capability and possibly rightfully so. Ford has screwed the pooch a few times in the past 15 years.

I will say this though. I've owned Mustang GT's with the old 5.0L, Trans Am's with the 6.6L and 4.9L, Oldsmobiles with the 350, F-150's with the 351, 302 and 300 and a few 4.6L vehicles and I'll take the 3.5L ecoboost any day all day over any of them for any purpose.

This tiny little power plant is mightier than it's given credit for. You watch, GM and all the others are going to have their very own versions soon enough.

 

BTW .... i LOVE that color!!!

nice rig!

 

I think we are all skeptical about the mileage claims for good reason.

my friends with v6 explorers tell me they get 18-20 mpg hwy
my friends with v6 rangers tell me they get 18-20 mpg hwy
my v8 exploder gets 18-20 mpg hwy
my dad-in-law's v8 f150 gets 18-20 mpg hwy
my 2010 5.4 f150 gets 18-20 mpg hwy

there is a pretty solid trend ... about the best you can do with a truck on the highway is about 18-20mpg hwy. our speed limits are a 75mph here, so that contributes to lower than EPA estimated numbers.

the newer motors with variable DOHC will likely do a little better. but point blank, a motor that has to turn 3000rpm up a hill is going to use more fuel than a motor that can do it at 1500rpm, despite the size difference.

A bigger motor with taller gears is likely to use the same fuel as a smaller motor turning shorter gears, especially given the aerodynamics of a brick. even more so when that brick tips the scales at 5000 lbs.

the ecoboost (to keep on topic) does have the potential to be the smaller motor turning taller gears, for a potential fuel savings.

I'm just concerned how it will handle people not changing oil when they should, and hammering on it when its cold out, pulling 11k and just shutting it off at the pump with no cool down, filling up with 85 octane gas cauz it's cheaper, and the other naughty things people tend to do.

yeah, i've seen the torture tests too ... dragging logs up a hill is much harder on the trans than the motor ... baja racers use premium fuel .... dyno time aint driving time .... the towing thing was quite impressive, i have to admit..... but all of that pales in comparison to what the general public is capable of coming up with.