Ford 3.7L V-6: Anyone thought of this as a swap option?

[chucky2]

I asked this a while back over at www.rangerpowersports.com, didn't sound like anyone had heard of one being done and at the time I had just decided to roll forward with putting another 4.0L SOHC V-6 in my '03 Ranger when the time comes.

Fast forward a year or two, was just wondering if anyone has looked at the viability of say a F-150 3.7L V-6 being swapped into our Ranger platform?

I looked online for a size comparison and couldn't find one, same same for trans match up info. The power numbers along with what I'd think weight reduction seem like it'd be a great swap.

Any info would be appreciated...

Chuck

P.S. Short of this, greengeeker's thread is looking very promising...

 

[cammeddrz]

trans match up info.

what I can tell you is that the 4.0 is part of the cologne v6 engine family. this family is the 2.8/2.9/4.0 OHV/4.0SOHC these are the only engines that ford produced with that bellhousing bolt pattern

 

[chucky2]

I don't suppose we'd be so lucky as to have an F-150 3.7L engine+tranny combo fit in our trucks? Or, would an adapter plate of some sort work?

 

[cammeddrz]

an entire trans/t-case swap from a full size has been done over, and over.....and over

use the search function

 

[chucky2]

Interesting, will do. Too bad the 3.7L wouldn't just bolt right up...

 

[Surrey]

The problem with the 3.7 is the fact they are pretty damn new, and there are not many in the wreckers or anything yet.

Give it another 5 years, and we'll have some bitchin' 3.7l EcoBoost Rangers Im sure.

 

[cammeddrz]

^^ yes, they are new. which makes them rare, and "rare" means expensive

I can't help but to think that a 4.0 OHC on boost would put the same hp/torque numbers, or better seeing as how they are 210hp naturally aspirated.

it wouldn't have the "ecoboost" name, and likely wouldn't have the awesome mileage an ecoboost advertises. but hey according to recent findings, apparently, neither do the ecoboosts

 

[adsm08]

The 6R80 trans bolted to the 3.7 in the trucks has a large bell but overall is smaller than a ZF, which I know have been put in Rangers by a few people.

The one thing I will say about this idea, as I have said before, is go drive something else with a 3.7 in it before even thinking about this. I know they look impressive on paper, but i have been sorely disappointed by the 3.7 in everything I have driven it in. For the work involved the 3.5 turbo would be a far more satisfying result. Same trans, same bell, and I know people have put bigger stuff in smaller places.

 

[adsm08]

but hey according to recent findings, apparently, neither do the ecoboosts [/I]

Ecoboost mileage is all about how you drive it. I know how to drive them for max economy, and could probably get 25 MPG or better if I really tried.

On the other hand, I know how I drive, and in real life I would not get 25, I would get 12 and a bunch of speeding tickets.

 

[chucky2]

Heck, I was just thinking more along the lines of fuel economy along with power plus moderninity. With such a swap if I had an engine issue I could potentially go into the Ford stealership and tell them to diagnose it as a 2011 F-150. I guess I could do the same thing with a VW diesel swap like greengeeker is doing, well, sorta.

Even the 3.5 from the Mustang would fit the bill, an EB 3.5 wasn't even on my radar...

 

[adsm08]

Mustang didn't get a 3.5. Mustang has a 3.7.

The only vehicles I know of that got the non-turbo 3.5 were the Edge, Explorer, Fusion, and Taurus.

 

[chucky2]

Shoot you're right! Still hoping someone with the know how/access does a compare, would be interesting to see.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The one thing I will say about this idea, as I have said before, is go drive something else with a 3.7 in it before even thinking about this. I know they look impressive on paper, but i have been sorely disappointed by the 3.7 in everything I have driven it in. For the work involved the 3.5 turbo would be a far more satisfying result. Same trans, same bell, and I know people have put bigger stuff in smaller places.

The 2011 3.7 Mustang was just a hair slower in the quarter than a 2010 4.6 Mustang...

I watched an automatic Mustang with 2.XX gears pummel the snot out of two late model LS1/2 GTO's in the 1/8 mile one night.

 

[bobbywalter]

The problem with the 3.7 is the fact they are pretty damn new, and there are not many in the wreckers or anything yet.

Give it another 5 years, and we'll have some bitchin' 3.7l EcoBoost Rangers Im sure.

^^ yes, they are new. which makes them rare, and "rare" means expensive

I can't help but to think that a 4.0 OHC on boost would put the same hp/torque numbers, or better seeing as how they are 210hp naturally aspirated.

it wouldn't have the "ecoboost" name, and likely wouldn't have the awesome mileage an ecoboost advertises. but hey according to recent findings, apparently, neither do the ecoboosts

3.7 has been a cost effective swap since just a few months after the 150's got them.

the ecoboost was literally hotrodded before it was widely released, which looked promising. the real issue is ford wont give full access to the tuners with the current software/hardware architecture. makes ford a bunch of douchebags to me. this is changing.

you have a hybrid situation of running mustang electronics if you want to run a manual 4x4 application and live in the sticks. even running a 4x4 complete system with an automatic from a 150 takes a bit more work then i initially concluded after picking through some pullouts a few years back.

to do a pullout swap i have it around 33-3600 at the moment. if i had the cash the b2 would be running that setup or a small diesel. i am trying to get the costs to half.

only thing stopping it is because of my current health/medical situation and employment capacity.


those will change one way or another.

The 6R80 trans bolted to the 3.7 in the trucks has a large bell but overall is smaller than a ZF, which I know have been put in Rangers by a few people.

The one thing I will say about this idea, as I have said before, is go drive something else with a 3.7 in it before even thinking about this. I know they look impressive on paper, but i have been sorely disappointed by the 3.7 in everything I have driven it in. For the work involved the 3.5 turbo would be a far more satisfying result. Same trans, same bell, and I know people have put bigger stuff in smaller places.

i was surprised by that initially from you a bit back. but i hold it as a barometer.....one thing i dont like is the shifty little freewheeling asshat programming of the auto in the mustangs.....they bring the gay for sure....the trucks are not too much better.


i figure to program those issues to taste but the bigger places i been working with just are not interested in this because its balls to the wall on the flex and taurus and stangs.

driving the powertrains back to back with a stock f series 302 or 4.6 they shame the v8's to me. i mean its pretty bad all around. a reg cab 3.7 up against a 92 bronco was bad....no chance for the bronco at all.


the mustangs were pulling 25-27 abusively..sometimes lower and higher of course....hi teens in the 150 not trying. seems pretty good to me.

 

[bobbywalter]

they did ok at the dunes last week too, i was over there working.