My question is for those that had a 5.4 or a 4.6. That now have the little 6 banger does it have enough torque to get the truck rolling compared to the old V8's. I know this little six banger has 2 more horse power than my 05 with the 5.4 but my 365 ft pounds of torque are much higher than the 2hundred what ever it is torque this six banger has. I'm thinking of maybe getting a new truck next year. A reg cab short wheel base XLT like my current truck is and the one before it was. Had the 4.6 in my 2000 and the 5.4 in my current 05. Not sure the little six banger will be enough power for me even though I don't tow use the bed much just a daily driver. Just like the power of a V8. But with gas prices staying above 3 bucks and flirting with 4 bucks that last few years MPG's of the little six banger might win me over to buy one but not sure if the truck will be fast enough for me with the little six banger under the hood. As I'm old school you ain't a man unless you have 8 cylinder's under the hood kind of guy. That why I had nothing but V8's since 1991.

 

I've had a '98 F150 with the 4.6. Have had an '04 with the supercharged 5.4. I've had an '06 Expy with the 3V 5.4. This 3.7 has only 278 lb ft torque. It is lower than the V8's and if it weren't for the 6-speed auto, you would really notice. The 6-speed takes up a lot of the slack.

I understand people wanting a V8. I really do. I sometimes think that I'd be better off with the 5.0. This 3.7 is not a V8. It is a stout V6, no more and no less. It'll make most trucks move out as good as the older ones with the 4.6.

If you don't want to keep paying ever increasing gas prices on something that may sound cool, but burns fuel just to do so, test drive a 3.7 and see for yourself. My truck has been very consistent. It feels plenty powerful in almost all situations. The only time I wish it had more grunt is when I put the pedal to the floor and towing up the hills.

While I'm here, how about some more mpg data: Did a trip to Maine and back this weekend. Filled up before we left. Had some around town on the first quarter tank then the rest towing the little trailer through the hills of NH. Filled up after going 489mi and got a 19.87 with a 19.3 onboard. Was very pleased to see these numbers pulling the little trailer. Onboard was reading even better on the return. We'll have to see what it looks like when it's time to fill up again.

 

My 3.7L regular cab 2wd with 3.73 gears ran 15.40's at the drag strip bone stock. To me, that's pretty impressive for the base V6 engine in a full size truck. That is faster than my old 4.7L Dakota and a heck of a lot faster than my '99 F-150 with the 4.6L. I don't know what the 5.0L are running these days.

Gear ratio plays a big part in how fast a vehicle feels and in fuel economy. I don't think I'm getting any better mileage than the 5.0L guys though. The 3.73 gear hurts my mileage but when I wind up the motor accelerate, the truck moves out nicely. Most of my driving is city driving with poorly timed stoplights. The 3.7L and 3.73 combination works just fine in that situation. Let's put it this way...my other ride is a '13 Boss 302 and I am not disappointed by the 3.7L engine as a daily driver.

I think the 3.7L with the 3.55 ratio should get great mileage but might feel like a real dog because it would take longer to build engine RPM into the power band. The 3.7L likes to rev. The 3.73 ratio lets it rev.

Suppose you get the 5.0L with the 3.31 gear, it may not feel fast when leaving a stoplight but you may get decent mileage. I have no idea what that combination would run at the drag strip. I'd be interested to know. [edit: 5.0L with 3.31 gears in a RCSB will run mid 14's. Yeah, it's gonna feel fast because it is.] On the other hand, the 5.0L with the 3.55 ratio might be the best balance between speed and economy. You might have to drive a few different trucks to determine which "feels" fast enough for you and balance that against the real world mileage the trucks get.

 

http://5startuning.com/onlinestore/e...-eco-pack.html

5 Star has a package for 2wd 3.7's that has a X3 programmer with custom tunes and a set of 3.15 gears.

 

The funny thing is Wittom, at 65-70, my brother gets better mpg. To and from Maine for vacation this past week he got 21.3mpg avg. It's a 2012 5.0 Supercrew 5.5' bed 4x4 3.55 rear end. It sucks, but I really think the 5.0 is the best all around motor in terms of fuel economy without sacrificing power. I've observed this thread since you made it and seen the ecoboost threads. So far, the 5.0 seems the most consistent and I'm seeing it with his truck. Pretty interesting

 

I agree that the 5.0 is capable of some really good mpg numbers. I'm not yet convinced that it's better than the 3.7. I'd concede that point if I could see the data, similar to what I've posted here.

The 5.0 is definitely more powerful. Even if there were a 1-2 mpg hit over the 3.7, it would probably be worth it to most people. Hell, I've looked at 5.0 F150's several times since buying this F150.

The window sticker for my F150 claimed 16 city, 21 highway, with a combined average of 18. I've seen a consistent combined average of 20. I don't think I've seen a 16 but once or twice, and 21 highway happens only a handful of times a year, mostly because it's rare to do a trip that's all highway.

This weekends trip to ME, was with the little trailer and from MA on 202, into NH, to 93, to 104, to 25, to 16 to 302. Very little highway, with mostly rural roads. Because I've got the 3.73's, which are probably necessary with this set up, I get better mpg doing under 70. 3.55's are definitely better highway gears.

I wouldn't ever try to talk anyone out of a 5.0 in favor of a 3.7. The 3.7 has proven it's self to me though. It'll work for what some people are using their trucks for.

 

Seems like a very solid assessment with plenty of on-road experience in support. I have the 5.0 (2013 Plat, 6.5, 3.55, 7350# GVWR) and love it. It roared up three mountain passes when I took it home from the dealer in central WA to Boise (18.1, iirc). The only other data I can share was 19.9 from Boise to American Fork (UT) averaging 73-75 over about 370 miles in clear weather. Did 80-82 (all freeway) on the way back and averaged 18.3 for 780 miles (with some urban mixed in). Getting about 13 city.

Can anyone answer this? We're getting a 2013 Plat for my s-i-l/daughter in the SLC area. Going with the 5.0, 5.5 box, 3.73 locker, 7350# GVWR package, no max tow. What kind of MPG hit, if any, does the 3.73 e-locker make over the 3.55 (figuring they're looking at 75% city driving)? The 3.73 is spinning 5% faster, so does that logically (or factually) convert to 5% less MPG?

No intent to hijack. Didn't think the question was worthy of a new thread. Thanks, if anyone can add.

 

Basically nothing but city driving going light-to-light is going to kill the MPGs there. Cruising on open highway stretches would probably not make a noticeable difference, one gear versus the other, but I've had folks tell me their v6 Buicks get ~13 MPGs doing short city drives to work and back, so don't expect miracles. That's a lot of truck to push and getting off from a stop is where it will use some go-juice.

 

I have another question for those that have the 3.7. Have any of you used E85 and how did it do MPG wise vs regular gas?

 

Oh me, wittom, I was reading this entire thread from beginning, but had to stop here when you said, "stock sucks". Those two words kind of shocked me. I'm liking what I read about the 3.7, and seriously considering it for my next truck to replace my current '02 5.4 Supercrew. But, being a geezer, I don't do much of the modding these days. I'll go back to the post where you made that statement and keep reading. Maybe there's more information on just keeping it stock, and it's not so bad. Anyway, I'm on a heap of truck forums, found this one recently, and like it! Okay, heading back to page 13, I think it was...

 

I think what he means is that a tune on any of these trucks whether it be a V6 or V8, really wakes them up, plus the shifting is so improved. Once you run with a tune on the truck, you really hate to go back to stock. That was my case with my 2005, for sure.

 

Thanks, Blue. Well, I went back and read the rest of thread up to here. Since we need a Supercrew, I think the 3.7 will be out for me. It's definitely a great engine it seems!

 

If you want 4wd, you can't get a Supercrew with a 3.7. 2wd only.

 

I drove 3.5 hours without stopping. I reset the economy gauge after I was on the highway with cruise set to 68 mph to see what the actual highway mileage was with no city mpg readings averaged in. I started with a half tank of gas. This was my average when I stopped for gas after 3.5 hours. I'm happy with the results and with only 3,000 miles on the truck, I somewhat expect that the mileage will get better as it breaks in.

 

I checked my email for the first time in a few weeks and this thread popped up again.

My last three tanks of Conoco 87 octane E10 fuel averaged 20.3, 20.3 and 20.1 mpg. That is about 75% hiway and 25% city driving, that includes rain on about 10 days of driving.

I am sure I'd see 22 mpg on 100% gas.

I remember my newly purchased '95 XL longbed with dual tanks, cruise, 5 speed, with a K&N panel filter and Dynomax aluminized SI/DO catback. I would receive 17 mpg in 5th gear when cruise was set at 60 mph, and received 19 mpg in 4th with cruise set at 60 mph. I received fantastic mileage on a return drive from NV to TX in the mountains, on I-40.

I think Ford has a few more secrets up their sleeve, when it comes to mileage. And, I won't even start the EB mileage war again. Let's just agree to disagree.

It appears that GM has tried to trump Ford with their new powertrains.

James