New Ford 3.7L - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 12-24-2010
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 42
New Ford 3.7L

WTH? why can't ford get there **** together and put some r n' d into the Ranger?
I was just looking at the new line up of 150's, and the new 3.7 L is:
-less displacement
-Way more horsepower
-way more torque
- and to top it off, gets better fuel economy, and this is in a truck weighing 1500 pounds more.
I wonder if Ford recognizes that there is a market for small trucks. There ads say that they don't have a bunch of people in a focus group eating donuts... maybe that's exactly what they need.
Anyway, just my two cents
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-24-2010
sniper_101's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sask, Canada
Posts: 1,902
There has been countless discussions on this, keep that in mind. When Ford drops the current Ranger, I'm sure they'll offer at least the 3.7 of the F150's line up in the replacement model. Other than that, I won't say anything, because I haven't followed the 5.3million up-coming Ranger threads in the last few months.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-24-2010
fourliter dan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 2,229
rangers are getting axed, and the eco is supposedly the awnser.... goooooood engine tho
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-24-2010
robert99ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana/Mississippi
Posts: 5,807
I drove an F150 with that 3.5L and damn was it nice
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-25-2010
Bird76Mojo's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central, IL.
Posts: 1,264
I hate that Ford is dropping the Ranger. I'll NEVER want or own an F150. I don't like full size trucks and I don't need that kind of towing capability.


Question is, who's gonna be the first guy on here to drop a new Ecoboost into a Ranger???



GB :)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-25-2010
btm757's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norfolk / Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird76Mojo View Post
I hate that Ford is dropping the Ranger. I'll NEVER want or own an F150. I don't like full size trucks and I don't need that kind of towing capability.


Question is, who's gonna be the first guy on here to drop a new Ecoboost into a Ranger???



GB :)
Wish I had the resources
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-25-2010
The SuperDookie Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 817
How bout TT Ecoboost! :)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-25-2010
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
LOL @ weakoboost. I would prefer a real turbo engine.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-25-2010
Red_Ak_Ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
LOL @ weakoboost. I would prefer a real turbo engine.
LOL yah I'd prefer something unreliable and not supported by the dealer! Cause I suck at investing my money wisely.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-25-2010
fourliter dan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 2,229
i'm sure you do man, rightfully so, but for a factory engine the numbers are all in the right places... i was a non believer to at first, but it think there rad now.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-25-2010
Leddy420's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 27
365hp, 420 ft lbs, with a 10L/100km fuel rating?.....

I wish my ranger had that engine.

Why would they toss it in the Taurus but not the Ranger?

I'm kind of pissed now cause I never thought of this and I've had my 2011 for two weeks

...although every car I've owned with a turbo engine just got me two things: speeding tickets, maintenance costs.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-25-2010
The SuperDookie Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
LOL @ weakoboost. I would prefer a real turbo engine.
YouTube - 5.0 2011 ford mustang GT vs tuned ford SHO

Tuned, but that's still no weakoboost ya tool
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-25-2010
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by The SuperDookie Ranger View Post
YouTube - 5.0 2011 ford mustang GT vs tuned ford SHO

Tuned, but that's still no weakoboost ya tool
Your showing this video in hopes of changing ones mind, due to the fact it can keep up with a mustang GT. This requires the viewer of the video to be impressed with the GT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leddy420 View Post
365hp, 420 ft lbs, with a 10L/100km fuel rating?.....

I wish my ranger had that engine.

Why would they toss it in the Taurus but not the Ranger?

I'm kind of pissed now cause I never thought of this and I've had my 2011 for two weeks

...although every car I've owned with a turbo engine just got me two things: speeding tickets, maintenance costs.
420 fpt - interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Ak_Ranger View Post
LOL yah I'd prefer something unreliable and not supported by the dealer! Cause I suck at investing my money wisely.
Real turbo engines scare dealer technicians and mechanics. They typically don't want to go anywhere near them due to liability reasons. The few that have them also carry the knowledge and ability to do their own work, negating the need for dealer intervention.

A much better building block for a Ford Turbo engine would be the YBT.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-25-2010
sniper_101's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sask, Canada
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
.
Jp7 - I completely respect your knowledge on all things lighting related, and appreciate the info you have shared with a lot of us here on R-F on the subjects you're experienced in. Combined with the nice, clean work you have done on your Ranger and Evo. However, you are the biggest **** disturber on this forum the second the word "turbo" is mentioned in a topic. I can bring up countless Ecoboost related threads you have contributed nothing helpful to, but besides to discredit the engine that by everyone's standards but your own is an amazing feat of OEM design and anticipation.

I rarely say things like this on online forums, because I try to be respectful at most times, and treat other members how I would like to be treated, especially considering the season, but I have a feeling almost everyone who reads these threads will in some way, agree.

Again, no disrespect, but it's old and quite frankly irritating.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-25-2010
Toreador4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 3,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by The SuperDookie Ranger View Post
How bout TT Ecoboost! :)
lol WUT?

and Bob RWenzing will have the first Ecoboost ranger....i will let him use mine as the test guinea pig for it
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-25-2010
Red_Ak_Ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_101 View Post
Jp7 - I completely respect your knowledge on all things lighting related, and appreciate the info you have shared with a lot of us here on R-F on the subjects you're experienced in. Combined with the nice, clean work you have done on your Ranger and Evo. However, you are the biggest **** disturber on this forum the second the word "turbo" is mentioned in a topic. I can bring up countless Ecoboost related threads you have contributed nothing helpful to, but besides to discredit the engine that by everyone's standards but your own is an amazing feat of OEM design and anticipation.

I rarely say things like this on online forums, because I try to be respectful at most times, and treat other members how I would like to be treated, especially considering the season, but I have a feeling almost everyone who reads these threads will in some way, agree.

Again, no disrespect, but it's old and quite frankly irritating.
I agree. You're being as annoying as me posting in all the southern snow threads "Hurr it snows more in Alaska". Everyone knows a custom made turbo is better. Gosh, maybe ford wanted something reliable and revolutionary. And maybe they actually didn't want every customer to have enough horsepower to kill himself.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-25-2010
eernger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreador4x4 View Post
lol WUT?

and Bob RWenzing will have the first Ecoboost ranger....i will let him use mine as the test guinea pig for it
LOL! Mine gets to be the second test mule! haha
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-25-2010
The SuperDookie Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 817
Jp7....Your just an ignorant ****in no it all, GTFO
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-25-2010
brianjwilson's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_101 View Post
Jp7 - I completely respect your knowledge on all things lighting related, and appreciate the info you have shared with a lot of us here on R-F on the subjects you're experienced in. Combined with the nice, clean work you have done on your Ranger and Evo. However, you are the biggest **** disturber on this forum the second the word "turbo" is mentioned in a topic. I can bring up countless Ecoboost related threads you have contributed nothing helpful to, but besides to discredit the engine that by everyone's standards but your own is an amazing feat of OEM design and anticipation.

I rarely say things like this on online forums, because I try to be respectful at most times, and treat other members how I would like to be treated, especially considering the season, but I have a feeling almost everyone who reads these threads will in some way, agree.

Again, no disrespect, but it's old and quite frankly irritating.

Same here, tired of reading the arrogant posts. The best part is, this isn't even an ecoboost thread.

It's not a lot different from people bashing the raptor because "you could build something better". Well no sh:t you can, that isn't the point. They are trying to build a strong, efficient reliable engine for use in a truck. So far in their testing it looks like it will be a great engine and it is getting a ton of hype.

And not everyone wants a riced out evo anyway. I would be embarrassed to be seen driving your car personally, despite the fact that you think it is the best car ever. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it would work for everyone else's best interest.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-25-2010
The SuperDookie Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 817
Same, all you ever do is brag about your evo. No one cares about ****ty foreign jobs. Come to a meet here in Ohio and bring your damn evo. I will assure you that you will be impressed with a mustang! Not a ****in rice burner.

Ok I got it out of me.........
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-25-2010
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by The SuperDookie Ranger View Post
Same, all you ever do is brag about your evo. No one cares about ****ty foreign jobs. Come to a meet here in Ohio and bring your damn evo. I will assure you that you will be impressed with a mustang! Not a ****in rice burner.

Ok I got it out of me.........
Who said anything about an evo?

Insults with someone quoting that they have a "throttle body spacer" on thier truck bear so much weight with me... I consider the source.

My impressions on the 3.7 come with actual R&D work I've done on the 3.5.

The engines do exactly what they are designed to do: Provide more power by using turbochargers strictly for economy.

I can see the reality of someone saying the 3.5/3.7 is a great economy engine, with plentiful power.

The wastgates are open at 1900rpm.

First lets look at the 4 things biggest faults on the Sho engine.

1) Turbo oil feed lines starve the engine at higher boost levels (I've ruined 2 turbos on a test 3.5 this way)
2) The fuel system is absolutely peaked out at factory setup. (pulse-widths are dangerously high out of the box)
3) There is no room for bigger turbo's on the right hand side of the motor due to the way Ford Mounted the transfer-case right on top of the compressor outlet. (more of a packaging problem compared so to the engine itself)
4) Almost forgot, open deck block makes for a weaker bottom end seriously limiting beefy building.

Combine all this with the fact that Ford just delayed the 2.0T due to problems making reliable power/emissions standards/fuel economy.

Quote:
"you could build something better". Well no sh:t you can, that isn't the point.
Your right, that's NOT the point.

The point is that the 3.7/3.5 as it comes is too difficult of an engine to build into a serious turbo engine. Not that I don't enjoy a challenge, but building a new 5.0 turbo is a much more realistic situation than building a real-turbo 3.5/3.7. Just like if your going to build a house, you need a good foundation. The 3.5/3.7 does not have a good "foundation" for constructing an engine to satisfy turbo enthusiasts. It can however give middle-aged dads a turn on.

Last edited by Jp7; 12-26-2010 at 05:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-25-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Okeechobee,FL / Singapore
Posts: 563
I'm thinking Mark will if his 5.0 doesn't stop pissing him off.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-26-2010
The SuperDookie Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Who said anything about an evo?

Insults with someone quoting that they have a "throttle body spacer" on thier truck bear so much weight with me... I consider the source.
Oh your right you ****in dumbass, Who said anything about my damn truck. It's not made to race **** head. I own a truck for 4x4.

Why the hell are you ******* Ecoboost. If anything it's an engineering marvel. It was designed to show that you can get fuel economy while having big power. But I guess that's not good enough for you. Maybe they should just dump a ricer motor in it and then you will be satisfied.

1) The motor wasn't built to make big power or to build big power with. Like you said a middle aged man would get a turn on, but I highly doubt he's ganna walk into the dealership wanting to throw a bigger set of turbo's on it. Not everyone wants to tear up their nice cars, guess it doesn't matter for you since your working on a junk *** evo foreign job.
2) Your wrong about open deck motors, You can do plenty of bottom end work on them, more of a challenge but I guess your not use to that considering all you have done is ***** about it.
3) http://mustangs.about.com/od/modelye...boost-ford.htm nuff said. Now GTFO

BTW.....not everyone gets off to a turbo in their car, some ppl like to have that extra kick in their new car. I'm sorry not everyone wants to build powerhouse motors like your evo. Were not perfect like you

Last edited by The SuperDookie Ranger; 12-26-2010 at 01:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-26-2010
brianjwilson's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Who said anything about an evo?

Insults with someone quoting that they have a "throttle body spacer" on thier truck bear so much weight with me... I consider the source.

My impressions on the 3.7 come with actual R&D work I've done on the 3.5.

The engines do exactly what they are designed to do: Provide more power by using turbochargers strictly for economy.

I can see the reality of someone saying the 3.5/3.7 is a great economy engine, with plentiful power.

The wastgates are open at 1900rpm.

First lets look at the 4 things biggest faults on the Sho engine.

1) Turbo oil feed lines starve the engine at higher boost levels (I've ruined 2 turbos on a test 3.5 this way)
2) The fuel system is absolutely peaked out at factory setup. (pulse-widths are dangerously high out of the box)
3) There is no room for bigger turbo's on the right hand side of the motor due to the way Ford Mounted the transfer-case right on top of the compressor outlet. (more of a packaging problem compared so to the engine itself)
4) Almost forgot, open deck block makes for a weaker bottom end seriously limiting beefy building.

Combine all this with the fact that Ford just delayed the 2.0T due to problems making reliable power/emissions standards/fuel economy.



Your right, that's NOT the point.

The point is that the 3.7/3.5 as it comes is too difficult of an engine to build into a serious turbo engine. Not that I don't enjoy a challenge, but building a new 5.0 turbo is a much more realistic situation than building a real-turbo 3.5/3.7. Just like if your going to build a house, you need a good foundation. The 3.5/3.7 does not have a good "foundation" for constructing an engine to satisfy turbo enthusiasts. It can however give middle-aged dads a turn on.
It's almost like Ford didn't design it to be built into a "serious" turbo engine, huh? (whatever that means)

You just said, it's more of a "great economy engine, with plentiful power" and can "Provide more power by using turbochargers strictly for economy." I would say it is targeted more towards middle aged dads, and they are also the people who could likely afford and want to buy new half ton trucks.

Sounds like they peaked the engine to the max of what it could safely and reliably handle out of the box. In other words, they are trying to get the most power (again reliably) out of a smaller and lighter engine to balance economy and performance.

If the wastegates are open at 1900RPM, what that says to me is that it is tuned more for low end torque which is exactly what you want in a truck. Sure they could use bigger turbos that take longer to spool up (assuming the engine was build for it) but that wouldn't appeal to truck buyers as much anyway. Of course they are limiting the boost because the engine and turbo oiling system probably aren't designed to handle more. This also explains why the torque curve jumps up so quick and remains relatively flat. I would say that is exactly what they want.
Quoted from an inside line article: "Truck customers should think of the Ecoboost truck engine as a gas-powered engine with diesel-type capability and characteristics," said one of Ford's V6 engine program managers. "The twin turbochargers and direct injection give it the broad, flat torque curve that makes towing with a diesel so effortless-- and hard acceleration so much fun." He finished.

It's also probably worth noting that, at least in the F150, the 3.5L EB is not the considered the strongest engine in the line up.



So to me, all of the bashing you do in the ecoboost threads is irrelevant and still just comes across as arrogant. Yes, you could start with a bigger, stronger and heavier foundation but then you would sacrifice the economy that they are trying to achieve.

Last edited by brianjwilson; 12-26-2010 at 08:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-26-2010
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Oh your right you ****in dumbass, Who said anything about my damn truck. It's not made to race **** head. I own a truck for 4x4.
Please understand, I'm not ******* your truck. Your credibility just went down the toilet when I saw you actually own a throttle body spacer. Reminds me of a rich kids car I tuned as of late:

Car looked nice, tastefully modified (on the outside) - I was expecting to see a gt28 under the hood (never know what to expect): then I popped the hood and see a whale intake and a cold air filter "yeah this is a real joker" as soon as I saw that. Totally changed the customers image. You can tell how much people know about performance just from dealing with vehicles like this from day to day.

Quote:
Why the hell are you ******* Ecoboost. If anything it's an engineering marvel. It was designed to show that you can get fuel economy while having big power. But I guess that's not good enough for you. Maybe they should just dump a ricer motor in it and then you will be satisfied.
Ecoboost is just a few steps below Subaru (ej25) in my experience. Both have glass bottom ends. Unfortunate thing is Ecoboost has no tuning base, and no parts (Interested to see if this changes in the future though)

Quote:
... your working on a junk *** evo foreign job....
I work on anything I have the software to tune, just happens that Japanese software is much easier to get.

Quote:
Your wrong about open deck motors, You can do plenty of bottom end work on them, more of a challenge but I guess your not use to that considering all you have done is ***** about it.
Then why do all the serious blocks have a closed deck? I guess they wasted their time making the VR38 closed vs the VQ37 which is made from very similar tooling.

VQ35HR20vs20VR38201.jpg?t=1293419060

Quote:
I'm sorry not everyone wants to build powerhouse motors like your evo. Were not perfect like you
That's ok, you would insult me either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianjwilson View Post
you could start with a bigger, stronger and heavier foundation but then you would sacrifice the economy that they are trying to achieve.
I disagree here:

Turbo's scare away most Americans for exactly the reasons you've said. (lag) You actually can gain quite a bit of economy from having an engine capable of handling a bigger compressor because you have to consciously decide to boost it. Most daily drivers actually get better mileage with adult driving with a bigger snail. (on gasoline)

There are closed deck, strong factory motors that give good economy. The problem with the ones that jump out at you is the mechanical compression is low.

My point (if it seems arrogant or not is irrelevant to me) is that the Ecoboost is realistically incapable of being a serious turbo engine. The bitter taste I have comes from a year or 2 of hope that it would be something I could love to work on, but dissapointment sets in. I'd prefer the current DOHC 2.3, with a build I'm sure would yield some really phonomenal results, putting any Ecoboost to shame.

Last edited by Jp7; 12-26-2010 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: Brand New Never used 97-04 Ford Mustang Cobra Rotors OEM FORD RACING Oh Police Interceptor Engine & Drivetrain 21 04-29-2014 10:05 PM
Die-Hard Ford-ie, Ford-ite, Ford-iast ... cuddlepuppy59 Member Introductions 15 11-15-2013 02:42 PM
New to owing Ford, not new to Ranger - Newfoundland Canada FPSJeff Member Introductions 4 10-23-2010 09:18 PM
NEW Ford Fiesta...The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have Sea-Bass General Ford Ranger Discussion 78 09-10-2008 11:09 AM
my new emblem from the new ford edge Ranjeredge03 Exterior Semi-Tech 28 05-30-2007 09:35 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.