Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

F-150 3.7 Engine

temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
I have just purchased a 2011 F-150 with the new 3.7 engine. I have driven the truck 800 miles, but it is too early to form an opinion. If you have the 3.7 engine, I would like to know your opinion of the engine.


  • stonesistonesi Member Posts: 4
    I test drove the 3.7 liter motor in a 2wd regular cab, and thought in was a great motor! Accelerated nicely, and felt very smooth. It has a high payload rating, just can't tow as much as the 5.0 or eco-boost. Better fuel mileage though. I ordered a 2wd, reg. cab, XLT, fully loaded with the 3.7 liter motor. MSRP was just over $30,000, got it for $300 over invoice ($28,000) and I'll get to use the $3,000 worth of rebates available. There are very few regular cabs or 2wd drive trucks made anymore. However they are the best work truck for me.
  • temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
    Thank you for replying. I looked at the regular cab, but I decided to go for the Super Crew this time. I have the XL. I wanted power windows, doors and mirrors. You don't see that much in the XL regular cab. The engine is very smooth, as you say. I have had it on the interstate once and it is strange when the engine is turning low revs due to the six speed transmission. The 2007 that I have has the five speed and the rpms run higher. The 2007 is a regular cab with the small rear doors that Ford used at the time. I liked the extra room it had behind the seat, even though it was a regular cab. What surprised me with the 2011 regular cab, was the space behind the seat. It was just as much as my 2007, but without the doors.
  • temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
    I purchased a 2011 F-150 Supercrew with a 3.7 engine. I read comments on the 3.5 turbo, but not on the 3.7. Is that already an engine that is in the past? I like the engine, but I have not driven the 3.5 turbo. Apparently, it does not get equal billing in being the engine of choice by Ford.
  • chlynchlyn Member Posts: 1
    I bought an XLT 2 months ago, and I just got back from a 2000 mile journey down south and back. I was towing my little 2000 pound R-Pod, and the truck did fine except I wasn't that happy with the MPGs while towing. Maybe mileage will improve later, but for this trip I only got 12 miles per gallon. The truck handles well, looks great and I'm still glad I bought it, but I have to say I was expecting a little better economy while towing with this truck and engine. I also have to say I got a great deal, way better than the websites like Edmunds says are available. Dealers are hungry for sales, and maybe in this economy, now is probably an especially good time to strike a deal. Just a thought. Or maybe I just ran into a great deal by accident.
  • temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
    I like the 3.7 engine, although I have not used it for towing. I don't find that I get any better gas mileage than I did with the V-8. The advertised road mileage is 23 mpg, but I don't get more than 20.5. That part is a disappointment. It is actually rated at 1 mpg more than the ecoboost. I am curious as to whether the ecoboost gets its rated 22 mpg on the road.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Turbo-charging an engine requires that it be derated, "detuned", for off-boost driving, that's ~99% of the time. ~98% of the time that you will be getting lower MPG than could be had with the very same engine not derated, a more standard, N/A compression ratio, 12:1 for a DFI engine.
  • temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
    I like the 3.7 engine, but I have been disappointed in the mileage also. Like you, the best that I get on the road is 20.5. I get 15 to 16 around town. It will not get the mileage posted on the sticker. I assume the sticker mileage is what you get if all things are optimal. That just is not the case when most of us drive. I have a 2007 F 150 with the 4.2 engine and I get better mileage than with the 3.7. Of course in all fairness, it has something just over 200 hp. I get 18 to 19 around town.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    edited June 2012
    What is this nonsense about sacrificing fuel efficiency 98% of the time?
    On-boost is far more than 1% of the time. In the city it is close to 50% of the time in motion, and on the highway, 20-30%. And that 20-30% is the 20-30% in which a truck drinks a fantastic amount of fuel just to move its mass. Even light acceleration watches instantaneous mpg plummet in a truck.... But less so in a boosted one, because under any throttle application, torque arrives at lower
    rpm in a boosted vehicle, throwing the whole 'CR created more efficiency at any given rpm' concept out the window in practical application.

    You're still falsely assuming that the turbos are not engaging during all acceleratory runs, and all hills.
    You read Wikipedia and now you are married to the idea that CR is the only way to make efficiency gains, which is false. When it comes to high-torque applications, nothing can touch the EB's efficiency (minus a diesel). That is at ANY rpm or throttle application.
    Accelerating under boost is more efficient than NA acceleration, including NA, DI, with similar torque ratings. Combustion efficiency caused by high CR works best in low-torque applications. At anything other than an idle, NA engines cannot get enough air through vacuum alone to produce as high a torque at as low an rpm as a boosted engine. They have to rev to achieve higher vacuum, and hence the creates wasted heat through friction of the cylinders with the extra revs.
    And even on the highway, idle is not 100% of the time. Even Nebraska has slight inclines, merges, passing...
    CR is only a theoretical indication of efficiency at any given rpm. When you add the variable of what an NA engine has to rev to to achieve meaningful torque, the efficiency skews highly towards Ecoboost.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    How does it feel, wwest, to be totally outclassed intellectually: http://www.f150forum.com/f70/how-similar-ecoboost-other-turbocharged-engines-156- - 880
    I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines. They confirm I've been correct, and you have been belligerently ignorant.
    Every single thing you've said about turbocharged engine operation has been wrong. You wasted significant time, numerous pages of text, $12, and your last remaining functioning brain cells adamantly defending points that were wrong.
    Stop trolling Ecoboost forums, or at least troll one like F150 forums where half the posters are mechanics. Because 1-on-1 you just get more belligerent, even when I was talking total sense to you.
    It would be entertaining to see you defend your 'guesses' in that crowd. Its even a way better value than your subscription to Ford parts, where you gained only a false perspective :)
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    edited June 2012
    I can get 26-27mpg highway in an EB F-150, 21 in mixed driving, and I rarely go a tank under 19 in the city. That's average mpg, not instantaneous.

    Anyone doubts it, come visit me in Albuquerque. The EB loves the altitude and low humidity.

    It's hilly here. The truck is on light boost for 20-30% of the time.

    The reason I think I get better mileage than most is that I have a light foot. The EB is an engine for hyper milers.

    NA is equally for boy racers. Vtec yo! Or as wwest would say, SkyActive Yo! :P
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    You make a good point. Yes, turbo-charging is just another way of increasing CR, "effective" CR, but CR none-the-less.

    The idea behind the use of super-charging, turbo or otherwise, is to allow a smaller engine to produce as much POWER as a larger N/A engine, lower frictional losses, etc.

    Provided a way could be found to more adequately CHILL the pre-compressed (and PRE-HEATED) air arriving from the turbocharger output the base CR could still be the standard ~12:1 for a DFI engine. Effective CR could then rise above, what, 15:1...?
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines..."

    Right, clearly no conflict of interest in that group, nor any narrowly focussed intelligence either.

    I do not "guess" if my statements are not intellectually well founded and knowledgeable of the subject matter I would not expose myself to the type of false ridicule that you so willingly provide.

    I'm quite comfortable that my message gets through to enough readers to make my time worthwhile.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    The reason many GA aircraft engines are turbocharged, our T210 for instance, is that the engine is required to continue producing a decent HP level as the airplane climbs and the air becomes more and more rarified.

    So yes, while I sincerely doubt that 20-30% estimate I don't doubt that at the elevation you most commonly drive the engine is on-boost more of the time than an equivalent here in the Seattle area.

    But think this through...If the engine could somehow magically have the standard DFI CR of 12:1 and still be boosted then how much smaller, and thereby more fuel efficient, might the engine displacement be and still produce satisfactory POWER for your needs?
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    [quote=BigMcLargeHuge;1771479]2011 Ecoboost owner here, and was hoping to get some clarity on the operation of the twin-turbo V6 from experienced tuners and mechanics.

    I was arguing with someone (That would be me) who claims the turbos operate like NOx. I.e. boost is either all or nothing (assuming he'd never driven the Ecoboost because it certainly feels like an incremental building of boost).

    No, my position has always been that EcoBoost/Twinforce simply uses the wastegate as an extention of the throttle plate. Once the engine reaches PEAK POWER (accelerator pedal position ~mid-point...throttle plate fully open?) in N/A mode the wastegate begins being gradually closed in order to bring on higher, boosted, power levels.

    Perhaps he is used to old big turbos with significant lag, but from his experience, he assumes that all turbine wheels are very heavy, and therefore the purpose of the waste gate is to allow exhaust to bypass the exhaust wheel, the turbine stationary (not stationary, but NOT producing boost) until the 'naturally aspirated' V6 has 'torqued out' and then the waste gate is closed, and being at full throttle, only then is enough exhaust gas produced to spin the turbine.

    Pretty well stated except for "my assumption" "all turbine wheels are heavy" which is clearly a relative issue.

    A few of his assumptions did not make sense to me: first off, he assumed that the Ecoboost uses positive-displacement turbines that are very heavy, so if the waste gate was closed at anything under half-throttle, the engine would be choked out by backflow.

    Insofar as I am aware there is NO such animal as a positive displacement turbocharger. Turbines are ALWAYS heavier then the design engineer would like.

    He even went so far as to compare it to a Boeing 727 turbojet (about 1meter in diameter) saying that turbines take tremendous energy to spin at all. I found that disproportional scale a bit ridiculous, and that example also ignores the fact that even large turbines can idle, thus so should a small turbine spin at the speed of exhaust gases passing through it.

    This statement was made in the context of the fact that early on in the life of the 727 it was discovered that on final approach there was a need, requirement, to keep the turbines somewhat spooled up in case the sink rate (wind shear) became to great or the need for a go-around arose.

    This is not my first turbocharged vehicle, so my understanding of the ecoboost is that:

    1) the turbos are not positive displacement, (agree, absolutely) as a seized turbo only saps power, since gases can still pass through, just without spinning the intake impeller.

    It would be my opinion that a stalled impeller/turbine assembly, assuming a closed wastegate, would severely sap the engine power.

    2) the wheels are lightweight alloys with low-friction bearings, so the waste energy of combustion (even at idle) can spin the turbine wheel (albeit slowly) (I've listened to EB trucks with aftermarket exhaust and the whistling noise at all rpms is the turbine wheel breaking up the flow of the exhaust, ie spinning, correct?)

    No dispute.

    3) boost is mild under mild load/accel and ramps up as load/accel is demanded. It's not all/nothing.

    No, boost is essentually ZERO until the engine's peak power point is reached under load.

    4) the waste gate remains closed until manufacturer max boost is achieved. Then the waste gate opens to prevent over spinning the turbo.

    Correct, except over-spinning the turbo would not be the initial issue if the design is correct, over-boosting the engine would be.

    5) there are vent valves / blow-off valves on the intake side that allow the turbo to pressurize up to that point, but only allow appropriate intake pressurization in combination with throttle-plate position (because too much air would cause predetonation).

    Modulating the wastegate position suffices as a "vent valve". Blow off valves are used only to release boost pressure if/when the accelerator pedal is released while/when the engine is under boost.

    6) back pressure on the engine is low, like lower than a catalytic converter, as cats can't equalize rotating speed with the flow of exhaust. Certainly not enough to seize and engine if exhaust is allowed to pass through it at less than full throttle.

    No opinion.

    Am I on the right track citing literature from other turbocharged engines or is EB so different as I cannot claim these points?

    I must side with Ford, and likely the USPTO, on this point. The EcoBoost/twinForce design concept is quite radically different from traditional/historical super or turbo charging designs. Traditional designs did not use DBW to migrate the throttle function from one means, the throttle plate, to another, the wastegate. Most simply used engine vacuum, or lack thereof, really, to control teh closing of the wastegate.

    Or am I totally off and EB waits until it 'torques out' in 'NA mode' and turbochargers use waste gates like a 'clutch' to engage like opening a NOS bottle?

    No, not like a clutch, at least not in the on or off sense, more like as extention of the throttle plate functionality.

    Experienced descriptions are much appreciated. Thanks in advance.[/quote]

    I hope this helps to clarify my position...

    One additional point. In my personal opinion it would be desireable for the wastegate position to be controlled, modulated, such that the impeller, when ever possible, be always spooled up right to the level of being in NEUTRAL, no boost, but no drag on the incoming airflow rate. Basically no "work" being done.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Wwest, every single face in the room ( including the smileys at the bottom ) have a broader intellect than you.

    You ADMITTED you were guessing, your statements are not only intellectually unfounded, they are the complete and total opposite of reality, despite all available evidence.

    Ignorant would be one thing, but to read and come up with your conclusions is worse.

    Your message of pure unadulterated lies? You should be so proud, lol :confuse:
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Your opinion of yourself can't possibly be this inflated?

    I mean really, what are the odds that 100% of persons you disagree with have more experience than you, and yet you are the only person on earth who 'gets it?'

    Impossible. You've had the wrong 'message' for years. Get over yourself.


    I love when people know everything there is to know about something when they have absolutely 0 actual experience with what theyre talking about.

    You idea of manifold vaccum is 100% incorrect. The prescense of vacuum in the manfold is what keeps the wastegate CLOSED in traditional systems. If the wastegate was always open under vacuum conditions, no boost pressure would ever be generated as all of that precious exhaust gas would be bypassing the turbine the entire time preventing boost generation.

    The fact is, the wastegate OPENS as the desired boost psi is realized in the manifold.

    This is such basic turbo operation theory im actually a little embarrassed to have to explain this to you.

    Makes me wonder.......... have you EVERY owned or even driven a turbo vehicle?

    The very existence of a vacuum pump on a mid 90s diesel chevy truck is only to keep the wastegate closed until desired boost psi is realized.

    On a conventional gas engine (gas engines make vacuum because of the presence of a throttle plate-- diesels do not) manifold vacuum "sucks" the wastegate closed allowing the turbing to spin which of course makes the compressor spin (they are rigidly connected) which generated boost psi in the manifold.

    thats all for now............... class dismissed.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I'm well aware of forced inductions benefits at high altitude,
    But it is also extrapolated down to sea level. Same functionality, only slightly less efficiency.

    So yes, while I sincerely doubt that 20-30% estimate I don't doubt that at the elevation you most commonly drive the engine is on-boost more of the time than an equivalent here in the Seattle area.

    That's only of total time in motion. 100% of the time a boosted engine is being used for things that make engines matter, they are on boost.

    Only time off-boost is coast, braking, idling, or very low-speed steady-state (43mph on a flat road).
    All acceleration involves boost, and in 'mixed' driving with as many up-hill sections as down (obviously), 20-30% is a fine estimate at 16,000 ft or 600.

    Your supposition of 1% is based on an embarrassing understanding of the mechanism involved (particularly wastegate operation).
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    "..I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines..."

    Right, clearly no conflict of interest in that group, nor any narrowly focussed intelligence either.

    Narrowly focused intelligence, eh? Seems like it ended up being Willard West that had the narrowly focused intelligence over there. :P

    I do not "guess" if my statements are not intellectually well founded and knowledgeable of the subject matter I would not expose myself to the type of false ridicule that you so willingly provide.

    Intellectually well founded eh? Not only did you reverse in your head what was actually being described on Ford Motorparts, you were certainly 'guessing' at everything else :P

    I prever evidence... which I always had, just not recorded

    I'm quite comfortable that my message gets through to enough readers to make my time worthwhile.

    Glad you're so proud of spewing BS for SEVERAL YEARS! :P
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    ...about the 3.7L V6 base engine, not the 3.5L EcoBoost V6. I've given you guys some rope, but I'm breaking out the scissors.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
  • temj12temj12 Member Posts: 450
    Thank you! This has gone on too long.
Sign In or Register to comment.