Thinking about a 3.7 V6 F150? I've got one.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 388
Likes: 1
From: Fox Lake, WI
Thanks to optional equipment. Or atleast that is what I heard. The 8 spd will be standard, but the grille shutters, fuel start/stop system and air suspension are all optional, my understanding. All of which accounts to thousands I'm sure. Likely not worth a couple mpgs in the end, at least not to me.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
MrEvil, that's pretty much what I thought. I was hoping that the 5.0 would provide smoother, more linier acceleration in the lower rpm band, but it felt basicly the same as my 3.7. I'm sure that I would have been quite pleased with the acceleration had I got on the throttle, but driving like that would make it impossible to average the 20mpg I have with the 3.7, in a truck with any engine.
glc, the Pentastar 3.6 does look good. It does have more hp than the 3.7 but is a little lower in the torque. They claim that there is 90% of the torque available from 1800 to 6400rpm, with peak being at 4175, where as the 3.7 reaches it's peak at 4000. Negligible differences really. The 8 speed is the only transmission available with the 3.6. I know that at some point all of the autos are going to be 8, or more, speeds, but the more speeds the auto transmission has the less enjoyable it is to drive. That's what I think anyhow. I think that Dodge will do well with their new V6.
forestertundra, you had the opportunity to drive the 5.0 more that I did. The one that I looked at had the 3.73 gears. I think it would have been very difficult to match the 20mpg average I've achieved with this 3.7, with the 5.0 and thoes gears. If it had 3.55's I might have been more willing to work with this dealer. As for low end grunt, yes the 5.0 is quite different from the previous Triton engines and different from what other trucks are available with. I've reached a point in my life where I'd rather try to get more miles per gallon than be the first off the light. That is subject to change at any time though.
jntibs, I tend to look at the 3.6 Pentastar numbers with skepticism as well. I'd be surprized if many people achieve the numbers they are advertising. Time will tell.
glc, the Pentastar 3.6 does look good. It does have more hp than the 3.7 but is a little lower in the torque. They claim that there is 90% of the torque available from 1800 to 6400rpm, with peak being at 4175, where as the 3.7 reaches it's peak at 4000. Negligible differences really. The 8 speed is the only transmission available with the 3.6. I know that at some point all of the autos are going to be 8, or more, speeds, but the more speeds the auto transmission has the less enjoyable it is to drive. That's what I think anyhow. I think that Dodge will do well with their new V6.
forestertundra, you had the opportunity to drive the 5.0 more that I did. The one that I looked at had the 3.73 gears. I think it would have been very difficult to match the 20mpg average I've achieved with this 3.7, with the 5.0 and thoes gears. If it had 3.55's I might have been more willing to work with this dealer. As for low end grunt, yes the 5.0 is quite different from the previous Triton engines and different from what other trucks are available with. I've reached a point in my life where I'd rather try to get more miles per gallon than be the first off the light. That is subject to change at any time though.
jntibs, I tend to look at the 3.6 Pentastar numbers with skepticism as well. I'd be surprized if many people achieve the numbers they are advertising. Time will tell.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
More data...
Fueled up the other day. $3.95 a gallon!
Got a 20.78 by hand with a 20.3 on the onboard readout. I think it was about 406 miles traveled.
I think it's about that time of the year where the mpg starts dropping a little.
Fueled up the other day. $3.95 a gallon!
Got a 20.78 by hand with a 20.3 on the onboard readout. I think it was about 406 miles traveled.I think it's about that time of the year where the mpg starts dropping a little.
Last edited by wittom; Sep 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Been a while since I've posted anything here. Several weeks ago I tried 2 see just how good of mileage I could get if I tried. Driving my 40-mile round trip commute, i went a little over a week and racked up about 300 miles IIRC. When I filled up, the dash said like 26.4, but I only got about 25.5 MPG. I did need 2 drive at like 45-50MPH down the highway though, but still impressive IMO. I usually get 21-22 MPG driving 60-70MPH.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 1
From: spring, texas
Power to Weight?
MrEvil, that's pretty much what I thought. I was hoping that the 5.0 would provide smoother, more linier acceleration in the lower rpm band, but it felt basicly the same as my 3.7. I'm sure that I would have been quite pleased with the acceleration had I got on the throttle, but driving like that would make it impossible to average the 20mpg I have with the 3.7, in a truck with any engine.
glc, the Pentastar 3.6 does look good. It does have more hp than the 3.7 but is a little lower in the torque. They claim that there is 90% of the torque available from 1800 to 6400rpm, with peak being at 4175, where as the 3.7 reaches it's peak at 4000. Negligible differences really. The 8 speed is the only transmission available with the 3.6. I know that at some point all of the autos are going to be 8, or more, speeds, but the more speeds the auto transmission has the less enjoyable it is to drive. That's what I think anyhow. I think that Dodge will do well with their new V6.
forestertundra, you had the opportunity to drive the 5.0 more that I did. The one that I looked at had the 3.73 gears. I think it would have been very difficult to match the 20mpg average I've achieved with this 3.7, with the 5.0 and thoes gears. If it had 3.55's I might have been more willing to work with this dealer. As for low end grunt, yes the 5.0 is quite different from the previous Triton engines and different from what other trucks are available with. I've reached a point in my life where I'd rather try to get more miles per gallon than be the first off the light. That is subject to change at any time though.
jntibs, I tend to look at the 3.6 Pentastar numbers with skepticism as well. I'd be surprized if many people achieve the numbers they are advertising. Time will tell.
glc, the Pentastar 3.6 does look good. It does have more hp than the 3.7 but is a little lower in the torque. They claim that there is 90% of the torque available from 1800 to 6400rpm, with peak being at 4175, where as the 3.7 reaches it's peak at 4000. Negligible differences really. The 8 speed is the only transmission available with the 3.6. I know that at some point all of the autos are going to be 8, or more, speeds, but the more speeds the auto transmission has the less enjoyable it is to drive. That's what I think anyhow. I think that Dodge will do well with their new V6.
forestertundra, you had the opportunity to drive the 5.0 more that I did. The one that I looked at had the 3.73 gears. I think it would have been very difficult to match the 20mpg average I've achieved with this 3.7, with the 5.0 and thoes gears. If it had 3.55's I might have been more willing to work with this dealer. As for low end grunt, yes the 5.0 is quite different from the previous Triton engines and different from what other trucks are available with. I've reached a point in my life where I'd rather try to get more miles per gallon than be the first off the light. That is subject to change at any time though.
jntibs, I tend to look at the 3.6 Pentastar numbers with skepticism as well. I'd be surprized if many people achieve the numbers they are advertising. Time will tell.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I'm not smart enough to calculate power to weight ratios, but....
My truck, regular cab, 4X4 with the 3.7 has a GVWR of 6650, where as the 5.0 version of the truck that I have weighs in at 6800. If we were to try to figure out hp, I think that the 3.7 version would have about .045hp per pound and the 5.0 would have .053hp per pound. If we were looking at torque, the 3.7 would have about .042 lb/ft per pound and the 5.0 would have about .056 lb/ft per pound.
The 5.0 is no doubt more powerful. The thing that I found driving the 5.0 version of the truck that I have is that in the low rpm's, under 2500, the 5.0 didn't feel any different than the 3.7. So you've got to get into the throttle to feel the power of the 5.0. I've become accustomed to averaging 20mpg, and would like to say at or best that number. I don't think that I could do it with the 5.0.
My truck, regular cab, 4X4 with the 3.7 has a GVWR of 6650, where as the 5.0 version of the truck that I have weighs in at 6800. If we were to try to figure out hp, I think that the 3.7 version would have about .045hp per pound and the 5.0 would have .053hp per pound. If we were looking at torque, the 3.7 would have about .042 lb/ft per pound and the 5.0 would have about .056 lb/ft per pound.
The 5.0 is no doubt more powerful. The thing that I found driving the 5.0 version of the truck that I have is that in the low rpm's, under 2500, the 5.0 didn't feel any different than the 3.7. So you've got to get into the throttle to feel the power of the 5.0. I've become accustomed to averaging 20mpg, and would like to say at or best that number. I don't think that I could do it with the 5.0.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
GVWR isn't curb weight. That's what you have to use to calculate power/weight ratios.
Neither the 3.7 or the 5.0 are built for low end torque - both engines love to be wound up like a cheap watch.
Neither the 3.7 or the 5.0 are built for low end torque - both engines love to be wound up like a cheap watch.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I pretty much knew that, hence the disclaimer.
I was unable to locate the curb weight for the two different configurations. Ford only had a minimum curb weight, from what I could see. I'm sure that the curb weights are out there on the internet somewhere, but I don't have the patience to find them.
I was unable to locate the curb weight for the two different configurations. Ford only had a minimum curb weight, from what I could see. I'm sure that the curb weights are out there on the internet somewhere, but I don't have the patience to find them.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 1
From: spring, texas
Dodge vs Ford
I pretty much knew that, hence the disclaimer.
I was unable to locate the curb weight for the two different configurations. Ford only had a minimum curb weight, from what I could see. I'm sure that the curb weights are out there on the internet somewhere, but I don't have the patience to find them.
I was unable to locate the curb weight for the two different configurations. Ford only had a minimum curb weight, from what I could see. I'm sure that the curb weights are out there on the internet somewhere, but I don't have the patience to find them.
Suspended
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 572
Likes: 6
Found the 3.7L. loves 2 lane county roads below 62 mph and also E85 on very hot 100 degree days. Actually the 3.7L has a camshaft designed with a little torque bump in it for the lower highway rpms.
Last edited by papa tiger; Sep 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Fueled up today. I guess it's been a while. I haven't driven the truck as much in the past month. Did a highway trip where I was in a bit of a hury. Some around town. About 370mi. Got a 19.99 by hand with a 19.7 onboard. That 19.99 could have been a 20.XX but I had to fill up my gas can in light of the impending hurricane, and I didn't pay close enough attention to the exact number of gallons I put into the truck before filling the gas can. Close enough though.
Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I guess I proably could get decent mpg with a 5.0 or EB, but it would be hard to not use the additional power.
I like my 3.7 but I've got to say, after driving around in my wifes 2010 Mazda 3 hatch with a little 2.5 I4, six speed manual, weilding 167hp and 168 lb. ft. torque, my truck feels slow. In addition, I put the tunes back in last weekend and the truck feels even more doggedly.
The truth is, I'm pining for more speed. That's not where I was when I bought the truck. The truck does it's intended duties well, which is the reason I got it. What I've concluded is I need to get another vehicle, a toy, if I'm going to have something quicker and that corners a bit. That doesn't fit in the budget at this time so I guess we'll have to take the wifes car more often.
I like my 3.7 but I've got to say, after driving around in my wifes 2010 Mazda 3 hatch with a little 2.5 I4, six speed manual, weilding 167hp and 168 lb. ft. torque, my truck feels slow. In addition, I put the tunes back in last weekend and the truck feels even more doggedly.
The truth is, I'm pining for more speed. That's not where I was when I bought the truck. The truck does it's intended duties well, which is the reason I got it. What I've concluded is I need to get another vehicle, a toy, if I'm going to have something quicker and that corners a bit. That doesn't fit in the budget at this time so I guess we'll have to take the wifes car more often.
I must say that I have the same two vehicles as you, except my truck has the 5.0, and it makes the mazda 3 GT feel like its going backwards. Having read through this whole thread, I can say that you would probabaly see identical mileage in one of the bigger engines, maybe a bit worse in town. I have seen your issues with the cruise control, and my 5.0 will go over 11% grade in 6th gear and not shift down once.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
My truck is a 4x4 5.0 SCREW with 3.55 gears, and that image was taken with me driving like an idiot. I can achieve over 22 MPG when I take it easy. I havent driven the 3.7 so I cant compare, but if you have the funds and want some more speed I wouldnt hold back based on MPG.
3.7 is a great engine and an even better deal for sure, but I wouldnt peg it as the MPG winner yet. Anyway glad to see everyone enjoying there trucks.
Last edited by Colby; Oct 29, 2012 at 02:23 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
You can tell how much I drive my truck. It's been more than a month since I last filled the gas tank!
Filled up yesterday. 18.68 by hand with a 18.3 on board. 429mi traveled. Not what I'd like to see but I'd done more spirited driving than usual. When I first filled the tank we were late for something so I was driving to make good time, not mpg. I thought that I could regain my loss but the further I got through the tank, the less I felt I could make and improvement, and the less I cared about mpg.
Colby, I'm pretty certain that I could get comparable mpg with a 5.0, the thing is to do so I'd have to resist getting on the throttle. I think that would be harder to do if I know that there was more power to be had. Like I mentioned earlier about test driving a 5.0 truck just like the one I have, at low revs the two engines feel about the same. For the time being, I can't justify the expense of upgrading.
I'd love to have a 3.7 Mustang with a 6-speed manual. I might some day.
Filled up yesterday. 18.68 by hand with a 18.3 on board. 429mi traveled. Not what I'd like to see but I'd done more spirited driving than usual. When I first filled the tank we were late for something so I was driving to make good time, not mpg. I thought that I could regain my loss but the further I got through the tank, the less I felt I could make and improvement, and the less I cared about mpg.
Colby, I'm pretty certain that I could get comparable mpg with a 5.0, the thing is to do so I'd have to resist getting on the throttle. I think that would be harder to do if I know that there was more power to be had. Like I mentioned earlier about test driving a 5.0 truck just like the one I have, at low revs the two engines feel about the same. For the time being, I can't justify the expense of upgrading.
I'd love to have a 3.7 Mustang with a 6-speed manual. I might some day.