Ford Transit 3.5 eco versus 3.7

kntr

Observer
I've been looking at the Ford Transit for awhile. I cant decide on the 3.5 eco or the 3.7. I can find used 3.7s for way cheaper. My plans would be a Quigley 4wd upgrade, 2" lift and 265s down the road. I wont be towing anything. It will just be used for overnighters and as a DAILY driver.

Which one gets better gas mileage? Not that it really matters but I'm just curious.
Reliability?
Is the eco have that much more power and is it really noticeable?

Opinion?
 

Van Compass

Observer
You will probably get about the same mpg 3.7 vs. 3.5EB. The ecoboost is a fun motor to drive, lots of torque on tap to get you moving. Nothing "eco" about it IMO.

Get 4:10s for the 3.7 if you plan to run larger tires (if you can find a used one with 4:10s). 3.73 will be more common.

3.7 might be more reliable in the long run. No turbo to wear out.

Quigley will not work on used vans anymore (feedback from our customers). Going to be Quadvan or Expovans if you want to convert a used van to 4x4.

We have a 4x4 conversion planned, but we have not started. You will want the ecoboost for our conversion.
We plan for 3/4 ton axles, 35" tires, coil over front suspension. Modern F250/350 parts under the Transit.
 

mgmetalworks

Explorer
In the first couple weeks of owning our Ecoboost Transit, I took off from a light quick just to mess with the Nissan Z next to me and he really had to blow the cobwebs out of that thing to get around me. The look on his face when he saw IT WAS ON was priceless. Never have I seen a guy more determined to get around a van that right then. haha!
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
You will probably get about the same mpg 3.7 vs. 3.5EB. The ecoboost is a fun motor to drive, lots of torque on tap to get you moving. Nothing "eco" about it IMO.

Get 4:10s for the 3.7 if you plan to run larger tires (if you can find a used one with 4:10s). 3.73 will be more common.

3.7 might be more reliable in the long run. No turbo to wear out.

Quigley will not work on used vans anymore (feedback from our customers). Going to be Quadvan or Expovans if you want to convert a used van to 4x4.

We have a 4x4 conversion planned, but we have not started. You will want the ecoboost for our conversion.
We plan for 3/4 ton axles, 35" tires, coil over front suspension. Modern F250/350 parts under the Transit.

1. If you drive like a sane person the Ecoboost gets great mileage. Get a boost gauge, if you are making boost you are burning more fuel.

2. The turbos are just as reliable as the ones used in a diesel and no one thinks twice about those
 

86scotty

Cynic
I would not recommend the 3.7 for a 4wd or big tire upgrade. The 3.5 is a great and reliable engine that has been well proven in F150's for years now.

There are plenty of 3.5's out there, keep looking.
 

deserteagle56

Adventurer
I've been looking at the Ford Transit for awhile. I cant decide on the 3.5 eco or the 3.7. I can find used 3.7s for way cheaper. My plans would be a Quigley 4wd upgrade, 2" lift and 265s down the road. I wont be towing anything. It will just be used for overnighters and as a DAILY driver.

Which one gets better gas mileage? Not that it really matters but I'm just curious.
Reliability?
Is the eco have that much more power and is it really noticeable?

Opinion?

Can't speak to the differences between the 3.5 ECO and the 3.7 because I've never owned a 3.7. And I have no idea if the 3.5 ECO in the Transit is the same, or programmed the same, as the 3.5 ECO in my F150. I can tell you this...I love the 3.5 ECO. I picked up my 2016 F150 in May of 2016 and now have just shy of 20,000 miles on it, absolutely trouble free. As with all my vehicles, my fuel data gets entered into an Excel spreadsheet that calculates actual mileage. Don't be fooled by what the vehicle's computer tells you - there's a reason a lot of people call it the lie-o-meter. Mine consistently reads 1-2 mpg better than hand calculated. My 2007 Quigley E350 with the 6.8 V10 has a lifetime average of 11.9 mpg according to the spreadsheet. My 2016 F150 Scab with the 3.5 Eco - lifetime average 20.9 mpg. To me, that's an astonishing difference considering that the 3.5 will flat run away from the V10, especially in the mountains. The 3.5 Eco is a lot like driving a diesel - most of the engine's torque comes on strong below 2,000 rpm; rarely does the truck have to shift going up a steep grade. It's the torque curve that makes the 3.5 Eco such a great engine - look up the torque curves for both engines and compare. Do you want an engine that will be singing at 4,000 rpm when going over a pass - or one loafing along at 2,000? Best part of all is if you do a lot of driving at higher altitudes where normally aspirated engines struggle. Those turbos pack in the air and it just makes me smile to drive over 10-11,000 foot passes with no appreciable loss of power.

Don't let the turbos scare you...I've owned diesel pickups for many, many years and never had any trouble with a turbo!
 

86scotty

Cynic
This ^^ is ^^ the ^^ best ^^ summary ^^ I've ^^ seen!!

FYI, I drive for a living nowadays in my 3.5 Ecoboost. I've put 30k on it in the last 4 months. I switched to 245/75-16 (for no logical reason except that I love them) and my mileage dropped from 17 to 15 running 75 on the interstates mostly, 3:31 rear. I have also had V10 Econolines and the EB leaves them in the dust. I friend recently 5-star tuned his Transit Ecoboost and I haven't driven it yet but he says it's even better, which is saying something.
 

torqluvas

Observer
You will probably get about the same mpg 3.7 vs. 3.5EB. The ecoboost is a fun motor to drive, lots of torque on tap to get you moving. Nothing "eco" about it IMO.

Get 4:10s for the 3.7 if you plan to run larger tires (if you can find a used one with 4:10s). 3.73 will be more common.

3.7 might be more reliable in the long run. No turbo to wear out.

Quigley will not work on used vans anymore (feedback from our customers). Going to be Quadvan or Expovans if you want to convert a used van to 4x4.

We have a 4x4 conversion planned, but we have not started. You will want the ecoboost for our conversion.
We plan for 3/4 ton axles, 35" tires, coil over front suspension. Modern F250/350 parts under the Transit.

Did I read that right, solid front axle under a Transit? Gonna be a beast. Will the Transit even hold that puppy? Seems like a lot of weight under the front end, when looking under a Transit now everything in the front looks so much tinier than the Econolines.
 

torqluvas

Observer
Subscribd to this thread. Been wondering about these two powerplants myself.

Can't speak to the differences between the 3.5 ECO and the 3.7 because I've never owned a 3.7. And I have no idea if the 3.5 ECO in the Transit is the same, or programmed the same, as the 3.5 ECO in my F150. I can tell you this...I love the 3.5 ECO. I picked up my 2016 F150 in May of 2016 and now have just shy of 20,000 miles on it, absolutely trouble free. As with all my vehicles, my fuel data gets entered into an Excel spreadsheet that calculates actual mileage. Don't be fooled by what the vehicle's computer tells you - there's a reason a lot of people call it the lie-o-meter. Mine consistently reads 1-2 mpg better than hand calculated. My 2007 Quigley E350 with the 6.8 V10 has a lifetime average of 11.9 mpg according to the spreadsheet. My 2016 F150 Scab with the 3.5 Eco - lifetime average 20.9 mpg. To me, that's an astonishing difference considering that the 3.5 will flat run away from the V10, especially in the mountains. The 3.5 Eco is a lot like driving a diesel - most of the engine's torque comes on strong below 2,000 rpm; rarely does the truck have to shift going up a steep grade. It's the torque curve that makes the 3.5 Eco such a great engine - look up the torque curves for both engines and compare. Do you want an engine that will be singing at 4,000 rpm when going over a pass - or one loafing along at 2,000? Best part of all is if you do a lot of driving at higher altitudes where normally aspirated engines struggle. Those turbos pack in the air and it just makes me smile to drive over 10-11,000 foot passes with no appreciable loss of power.

Don't let the turbos scare you...I've owned diesel pickups for many, many years and never had any trouble with a turbo!

20.9 mpg average on a newer F150? I have friends with them and they're seeing anywheres from 13 mpg city to 16 mpg city, but I think the epa was stating 17 mpg city. What are you seeing iwth your F150 eco in the city?
 

Van Compass

Observer
Did I read that right, solid front axle under a Transit? Gonna be a beast. Will the Transit even hold that puppy? Seems like a lot of weight under the front end, when looking under a Transit now everything in the front looks so much tinier than the Econolines.

The stock subframe will be removed. New supframe with a standard steering box and trackbar will be put in place. Large radius arm brackets will be added. Coil-over shocks mounted to the strut mounts in the chassis. Still a dream... we have been fighting to get the correct CAD files to design everything at the computer before we cut apart the van.
 

torqluvas

Observer
The stock subframe will be removed. New supframe with a standard steering box and trackbar will be put in place. Large radius arm brackets will be added. Coil-over shocks mounted to the strut mounts in the chassis. Still a dream... we have been fighting to get the correct CAD files to design everything at the computer before we cut apart the van.

Wow, that will be a lot of added weight up front. Subscribd. Any ideaz on time frame for this?
 

deserteagle56

Adventurer
Subscribd to this thread. Been wondering about these two powerplants myself.
20.9 mpg average on a newer F150? I have friends with them and they're seeing anywheres from 13 mpg city to 16 mpg city, but I think the epa was stating 17 mpg city. What are you seeing iwth your F150 eco in the city?

Can't help you there...I live out in the middle of Nevada; the nearest "city" would be Reno and that's about 170 from me. I try NOT to ever go there. If I leave my driveway and turn left it is 102.5 miles to the nearest pavement.

But you are absolutely correct - if you have a lot of stop-and-go, stoplights/stop signs, I can see that really pulling down the mileage. Plus, I notice that even in the small towns around here guys seem to think it's a drag race every time the light turns green...watched a guy yesterday afternoon leave a strip of rubber ~ 20 feet long when he took off. Not conducive to good fuel mileage...but that 3.5 Eco is fun if you like to play. It's amazed me, a couple times when I had to make a quick pass on a 2-lane, at how quickly that thing will go from 45 to 85 mph.
 

torqluvas

Observer
Can't help you there...I live out in the middle of Nevada; the nearest "city" would be Reno and that's about 170 from me. I try NOT to ever go there. If I leave my driveway and turn left it is 102.5 miles to the nearest pavement.

But you are absolutely correct - if you have a lot of stop-and-go, stoplights/stop signs, I can see that really pulling down the mileage. Plus, I notice that even in the small towns around here guys seem to think it's a drag race every time the light turns green...watched a guy yesterday afternoon leave a strip of rubber ~ 20 feet long when he took off. Not conducive to good fuel mileage...but that 3.5 Eco is fun if you like to play. It's amazed me, a couple times when I had to make a quick pass on a 2-lane, at how quickly that thing will go from 45 to 85 mph.

Well theres you go. If you dont have many stop and go or even hills, then your mileage will be much better in flat Nevada.
Hahaha thats my buddies sometimes.
 

kntr

Observer
I test drove both the 3.7 and eco 3.5 today.
OMG the ecoboost is a completely different animal. I must have one.
I will keep looking for an ecoboost.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,529
Messages
2,875,555
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top