3.5 or 3.7 for a full sized transit van?

[AbleGuy]

I’m looking into buying a low roof, short wheel base full-size Ford transit van to do a mild camper conversion to.

I’ve seen a couple of them for sale, and in the cases where the more enlightened sellers feel it’s actually a good idea to share info on the motor in them, it seems I’d have a choice to make ultimately between getting one with the 3.5 or 3.7 engine.

I’m just wondering if any of you who have had a transit with either of these power plants could give me a heads up as to what you feel are the pros and cons of each one. Thanks in advance.

 

[NatersXJ6]

I think there is probably a fair amount of soul searching to do on whether or not you fear turbos.
I can’t speak for the van setup, but I will tell you the 3.5 in my Expedition (similar size and weight) is simply one of the best driving experiences I’ve ever had. It just makes life easy.

The one caveat is that it is the absolute worst and messiest oil change experience of my life. I believe that is due to the engine design not the vehicle. Someone at Ford should be severely beaten and then made to scrub in driveways for the rest of their life.

 

[carleton]

3.5 is great to drive, plenty of power even with an outfitted van/highroof.
Pretty sure the 3.7 & the 3.5 get similar gas mileage, so really: more power, better resale value with the 3.5.

 

[ober27]

We're currently researching which van we will buy to replace our GMC Savana. Our local mechanic suggested we stay away from the Ecoboost. His shop does all the maintenance for two local fleets, he said he's replaced several turbos and the cost to replace them is outrageous. He said based on his experience the cost of ownership on the Ecoboost is much higher than the RAM or GM vans. I know his opinion differs from many of those I've read here, but this is the experience of a shop owner I've come to trust over years. Good luck with your decision and search.
Good

 

[deserteagle56]

We're currently researching which van we will buy to replace our GMC Savana. Our local mechanic suggested we stay away from the Ecoboost. His shop does all the maintenance for two local fleets, he said he's replaced several turbos and the cost to replace them is outrageous. He said based on his experience the cost of ownership on the Ecoboost is much higher than the RAM or GM vans. I know his opinion differs from many of those I've read here, but this is the experience of a shop owner I've come to trust over years. Good luck with your decision and search.
Good

I suggest your "local mechanic" formed an opinion years ago and no matter what, no one is going to tell him different. Does he also have to keep replacing turbos on turbodiesels? Turbo is a turbo.

Before my recent retirement I worked for a very large company that had a lot of turboed F150s. None of them ever required a turbo replacement. Go on the F150 forums - you'll see lots of complaints about various problems but turbos isn't one of them.

The Ecoboost has been out for 11 years now. I wouldn't be surprised if, just as with any other newly introduced product, the early Ecoboosts had their problems. They seem to be pretty solid now.

 

[vintageracer]

I helped purchase a used Transit 350 earlier this year for a Nashville music artist tour. Talk about hard to find!!! There NO new ones available on on 1 used one for sale in the Nashville Metro area. All the new ones are already sold to all the delivery companies and Enterprise.

Found a 2018 350 Transit with 78K miles with the 3.7 engine. One BIG deal is the water pump location on the 3.5/3.7. Fortunately the 3.5/3.7 installed the transit van is like any other old school vehicle with the water pump on the front of the engine and easily replaced since the engine is mounted front to back. A couple hours labor and the part. On ALL the other Fords with the 3.5/3.7 mounted sideways (FWD) replacing a water pump is a $2,000 ordeal as the water pump is under the timing cover along with all the labor to change.

I bring this up as there are always little issues with many vehicles today that can become BIG ISSUES rather quickly. Doing a little research on the front end can save you a lot hassle and money on the back end!

The 3.7 ran great in the van. The van went on tour for 2 months and 8K miles with no issues. Fuel mileage is just average. The buyer also bought the Ford Car warranty that was offered by the Ford dealer. Expensive? YES! Very comprehensive in coverage? YES! For a van on the road the 3 year/50K mile warranty may actually be a very good deal depending upon your use.

 

[Jonnyo]

i have own both the 3.5 ecoboost and the 3.7 NA engine both on Transit 350hd dually so every rig vs what you will get.

The 3.5 is a sport car like van...so fast..so fun.... get bad mpg if you use the boost but very good if you drive it slow and gentle

3.7 is solid simple engine that as less to go wrong. it s not as powerfull, will rev up more and search for gear a little more in the hills. But if your life is driving hwy at 55-75....both do it very well at similar mpg. 3.7 is plenty strong...but it s not a sport car like the 3.5.

happy with both!

 

[ThundahBeagle]

We're currently researching which van we will buy to replace our GMC Savana. Our local mechanic suggested we stay away from the Ecoboost. His shop does all the maintenance for two local fleets, he said he's replaced several turbos and the cost to replace them is outrageous. He said based on his experience the cost of ownership on the Ecoboost is much higher than the RAM or GM vans. I know his opinion differs from many of those I've read here, but this is the experience of a shop owner I've come to trust over years. Good luck with your decision and search.
Good

First, most expensive thing to "go" on a turbo engine is.. the turbo. And I have heard you need higher octane? Just seems not for me

 

[ThundahBeagle]

I’m looking into buying a low roof, short wheel base full-size Ford transit van to do a mild camper conversion to.

I’ve seen a couple of them for sale, and in the cases where the more enlightened sellers feel it’s actually a good idea to share info on the motor in them, it seems I’d have a choice to make ultimately between getting one with the 3.5 or 3.7 engine.

I’m just wondering if any of you who have had a transit with either of these power plants could give me a heads up as to what you feel are the pros and cons of each one. Thanks in advance.

3.5 vs 3.7
It most seems like we are talking about Nissan VQ's here

 

[deserteagle56]

And I have heard you need higher octane?

You heard wrong. Recommended fuel per owner's manual is good 'ol regular (87 octane around here). You can certainly run 91/93 octane; the engine will react by putting out a bit more power, just like any other engine that can adjust its timing for higher octane. I've never run anything but 87 octane in mine (65,000+ miles now); owners I've talked to who have run the higher octane levels claim a tiny bit better mileage than they got on regular.

I have read that some highly tuned, high compression turboed sports cars do require high octane. Not the Ford Ecoboost engines though.

 

[LionZoo]

By 3.5, do you mean the 3.5 Ecoboost or the 3.5 naturally aspirated motor that replaced the 3.7 in 2020 and later Transits?

 

[AbleGuy]

By 3.5, do you mean the 3.5 Ecoboost or the 3.5 naturally aspirated motor that replaced the 3.7 in 2020 and later Transits?

That’s a great Q, and I’m gonna have to say, ‘either/both,’ ?

BTW, when did it become a thing for vehicle sellers to not bother to include my engine info in their ad posts? Is this simply from ignorance/laziness, or do successive gen buyers just not GAS about knowing this info?

Anyway….I’m still in the process of shopping for a used Transit to convert and I won’t know my engine choice until I find a couple that are relatively close by to me and also, more importantly, have lower mileage than the ones I’ve currently been stumbling across.

My initial thoughts would be to try to avoid the ecoboost though.

Thanks for all of your contributions here guys.

 

[Highlander]

The new NA 3.5 mated with the 10 speed should not be too sluggish.
As I heard that engine is architecturally different from the eco boost and rather simpler. Also you can get it with a 4.3 diff ratio too.

@Grassland know quite a bit about the Ford engines. Lets tag him here.

 

[LionZoo]

BTW, when did it become a thing for vehicle sellers to not bother to include my engine info in their ad posts? Is this simply from ignorance/laziness, or do successive gen buyers just not GAS about knowing this info?

This bothered me so much as well! After awhile, I just assumed that if you don't indicate the motor, it's the naturally aspirated gas motor. The Ecoboost is the more desirable engine, so it seems that when someone had it, they put it in the ad.

I got an Ecoboost just based on what became available. I'm a simpler is better guy, so I very much wouldn't have minded the NA motors, but I will say the Ecoboost is really hilarious in how fast it accelerates such a huge van. Also, they're decently reliable motors.

 

[b. rock]

Having driven a 3.7 at altitude...if you plan on passing through the Rockies, get the Ecoboost.

Never heard much on the powerstroke options in these. Wasn't it an inline 5? With diesel prices these days, might find a sweet deal on one.