Jump to content

Ford V6 3.7L

Recommended Posts

The Ford V6 you find in many of today cars has a numbers enough to find and use. While not yet used in any aircraft to date I know of yet. It has been used in the Baha 1000 extreme brutal race.


The new 3.7L 4V Ti-VCT V6 engine achieves an industry-exclusive 305 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque while delivering an EPA-estimated 31 hwy MPG*. That’s due in part to twin independent variable cam timing (TiVCT) which allows variable control of intake valve closing. This capability optimizes combustion at full load to provide improved power and low speed torque. It also enables variable valve overlap, which provides better fuel economy and optimizes cold start operation with improved exhaust emissions. *EPA-estimated 19 city/31 hwy mpg – 3.7L 4V Ti-VCT V6 with a six-speed automatic transmission; EPA-estimated 19 city/29 hwy mpg – 3.7L 4V Ti-VCT V6 with a six-speed manual transmission.



Ford PDF says
Dry weight is 205 lbs.
305 HP at 6200 RPM --------- Redline at 6700
285 Ft lbs. of Torque at 4850 RPM

For those that require WOT this engine should work fine.
Ford has beefed up the bottom end reinforced with 6 bolt main caps.

Ford built this power plant with a forged steel crankshaft, standard.
When I compare this engine to others, it still looks good on paper.

In production from a long line of V6 engines that evolved into this
mighty little package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a large family of engines to choose from. I have a 2012 F150 version. I think it is the best option.

with a lower intake manifold.


273 hp (204 kW) at 6250 rpm and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m) at 4250 rpm 2008–present Mazda CX-9 (MZI)


272 hp (203 kW) at 6250 rpm and 269 lb·ft (365 N·m) at 4250 rpm 2009–2013 Mazda 6 (MZI)


275 hp (205 kW) at 6250 rpm and 276 lb·ft (374 N·m) at 4250 rpm 2009-2012 Lincoln MKS


268 hp (200 kW) at 6250 rpm and 267 lb·ft (362 N·m) at 4250 rpm 2010 Lincoln MKT


300 hp (224 kW) at 6500 rpm and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m) at 4000 rpm 2013-present Lincoln MKZ


Ti-VCT 302 hp (225 kW) at 6500 rpm and 278 lb·ft (377 N·m) at 4000 rpm 2011-present Ford F-150 [5]


Ti-VCT 305 hp (227 kW) at 6500 rpm and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m) at 4250 rpm 2011 Ford Mustang

2011 Lincoln MKX[6]

2011 Ford Edge Sport


Ti-VCT 304hp at 6500 rpm and 279 lb-ft at 4000rpm 2013 Lincoln MKS


Ti-VCT 310 hp (231 kW) at 6500 rpm and 288 lb·ft (390 N·m) at 4500 rpm 2012 Ginetta G60

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another builder requested detail photos to work with. So I am sharing then with you. BTW this engine

looks like I can run it in a standard Cozy with out extending the fuselage as the other big engines must do. Waiting on the hard numbers. Oh and with Air conditioning! Yes the AC pump is light weight too!






http://www.modularmotorsportsracing.com/2005_to_2013_mustang_v.htmRebuilder parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you double check this you will find this engine will fit in the cowling of the Cozy Mk IV. Use of the 5th bolt is the way I am going. Designing a engine mount to run this engine on a test stand when ready. The Head tapper from 24" wide at the front of the case to 21" at the bell housing. Thus wide a firewall and narrower near PSRU.

The angle of exhaust is downward and with proper bending a clean install is possible. Oil cooling is already set up. What your looking at is a very light robust engine that Ford tested to extremes you should never see operating it in your AC. This is best find I found looking for quiet some time and brand new I was quoted a crate engine harness and all parts to install. about 12k Crate new. I paid a fraction of that because mine only has 5206 miles on it. :) With such a low entry price I can afford better parts else where. BONUS!







Edited by Cozy846
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could get more enthused about this engine if i saw it fly in bolted to the back end of a cozy.


Custom cowl, engine mount, custom radiator, suitable PRSU, custom exhaust, maybe provision for carb heat and mixture controls. These challenges add hundreds of hours to your build time. You may come to love this orphan but few others will want to adopt this child.


The current resale value of canards is off 25% and the resale value of a car-engined canard is another 25% less than that, and the resale value of an uncompleted car-engine project is stll less. Your insurance costs will be higher. In yhe end, it will cost you just as much as a Lycoming.


Also, as i've said before, canard airplanes are not good platforms for developing engines. They land fast and not very well in off-airport situations. If your engine does not run perfectly from day one, you or your wife will not want to fly it

  • Like 1

Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could get more enthused about this engine if i saw it fly in bolted to the back end of a cozy.

That is the Idea.


Kent thank you for your post. First let me explain why I am doing this backwards.


When I began looking into building a composite canard I wanted a Long Ez. Plans were not sold any more and I was not able to get a local guy to sell his project. I then looked into the Cozy and found it worthy. Then I notice people quitting there projects. I asked every one whom was selling there plans or projects to find out why. I was in the process of buying a set of plans more than a project. ( I helped my Dad build several aircraft growing up so this was cool stuff ). I did locate a set of plans and I found out the guys quitting ( not all but some ) Gave up at the point of high expenses to obtain the 28-32,000.00 USD price tag on a Lycoming. Then instruments and radios just bumped them out of the desire to finish. Ok you can build the airframe to a point on a low budget then hit a wall.


I do not find factory Lycoming's or Continentals the paramount of engine selection. I have seen them fail. When new there are very reliable. Rebuilt a few times and fatigue sets in and there is no way to prove how many time a power plant has been used unless you have the original log books to know. Air cooled engine come with handicaps that I think it is time to look else where.


The early auto engines were heavy and old metallurgy prone to fail if pushed to justify the weight of a iron block and heads. Aluminum engines were too weak. Failures some think are reason to abandon such ideas. Ok if we did that we would have never gone any where because every new step is never 100% certain.

If one reads all about this engine. you'd know it will not require a mixture control. This is to adjust the fuel air ratio at altitude and ran rich on take off because the Air Cooled engine is prone to detonation if run lean. Liquid cooled with ECU/ECM or what ever one wants to call them get constant inputs and adjust the fuel thousands of times per second. Giving the engine exactly what it needs when it needs it. So this will not be altered. While it has direct cylinder injection there is not fuel evaporating water to freeze through the manifold to require Carb Heat. But I will install it any way and use it as has been, this is why not, not harm no fowl.


Some believe dual ignition and dual spark plugs are required too. Old school Air-cooled run low compression and Magnetos with high amounts of lead in the fuel. With a Rich mixture this is a concoction that requires that redundancy. Other than redundancy for a back up ECU and input sensors required to keep it running is all that We ( not just me ) are looking into.


If you place an IO-540 on a test stand and this ( 3.7 V6 ) engine side by side to run them through hell. I know which one cannot take it. So I will fly the other. It survived a brutal endurance test no engine I have ever used could take and live. I was a Chevy guy key word here "was" I now have no brand loyalty. Try WOT for 6 weeks 24/7 ( 6200rpm ) The 540 might make 3300rpm for a day. Then 3.7 did not quit or cry.


There was a crash on our field ( 30F Lakeview Lake Dallas TX ) back in the day. Engine failure on take off. My Dad pulled the Pilot out of his burning aircraft ( an Antique what craft I do not remember I was told of this ) They became close friends and he credited my Dad for saving his life risking harm to save him. The Engine had been rebuilt one too many times. As far as I know there is no way to dead line one after 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 rebuilds. So buyer beware. The connecting rod and crank snapped is what I remember. ( Ken Hilts NTSB it ) So I'll research it later. My Dad salvaged AC wreckage so I saw quite a few boo boo's

Edited by Cozy846
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those out there building there Cozy ( maybe other )


Need not quit just because he finds the leap to finish there project such a Grand Canyon. The bridge to this gap is possible. There are 302 Small block Fords ( bigger better 347 SB Ford )in a Cozy.


Do not quit just because you cannot toss 3 stacks of 100's at an engine and still sleep in the same house as your wife.


The direct drive 302 can run at 1/2 speed forever ( relatively ) 3000 rpm for this engine is nothing for it to deal with. If I was not into mine (3.7) I would seriously look at the SB Ford in all alloy.

Dart 31345235 Aluminum Ford Small Blocks - Aluminum - SB Ford Block - $5,990.17

Ford Racing Mustang Cylinder Head C3 Aluminum 302/351 $1,149.99 X 2 = $2299.98 a pair

Ford 289-302-351W Serpentine Conversion Kit - Alternator & Power Steering $554.00

Ford Small Block 255 302 351w High Flow Aluminum Water Pump $56.99

Lunati 70534001K3 347 C.I. Small Block Ford Voodoo Crankshaft & Rod Kit $949.97


Those are the big hurdles but this is do-able.


This has been done, maybe not to above parts. http://www.contactmagazine.com/roundup.html


Do not QUIT. My 2 cents,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,98 left.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to do a better job of addressing your points than you did addressing mine, which, by the way were (1) you will spend just as much, (2) you will take twice as long to finish (3) your resale value will be bad.   :)   But to your points:


Build costs:  Either way--your's or mine--It's gonna cost the price of a top quality new car.  $40,000+  Your $5000 motor is going to need $8000-$10000 worth of custom engine mount, PRSU, radiator and other bits.  For $5000 more you could have have a good rebuilt Lycoming, bolt it on with standard mount, exhausts, etc and go flying.


Why people quit building:  It's not cost.  It is the size of the job.  While building is interesting, at times, it's a slog; it's a big project that takes a lot of time.  Some builders move slowly and the less they do, the less they want to do.  Enthusiasm wanes.  Life gets in the way.  Finally, they see it has been 5 years and they haven't done much and they see 5 more years of work ahead of them.  [by the way, it's a nice day for a ride and that new motorcycle needs an oil change.]


Aircraft engine failures:  You are way too negative on Lycomings.  I really don't think you understand them.  Read "Skyranch Engine Manual" and "Top End".   Engines that are maintained and inspected don't fail, or at least, don't fail without warning.  They don't throw rods without first showing babbet-metal in the oil so you cut open your filter and check for metal.  They will run even when a cam lobe has worn-down to nearly nothing.  Exhaust valves do not lose a head and hole a cylinder without showing valve-stem wear and discoloration that is revealed by a borescope inspection.  Broken rings are revealed by a compression check.  There are no petite parts in a Lycoming.  They are massive and reliable.


Which engine can run harder:  A Lyc is designed to run at 2700 rpm for 2000+ hours.  They are loafing at that conservative RPM.  There is no need to turn them faster because that RPM is about optimum for propellers.  There is very little else on them that can fail.  Even if your engine can run 6200 RPM 24/7, can you insure that your PSRU will do that?  Will the radiator and hoses hold up?  Will the electronics take the heat?  What are the failure modes of your engine/prsu/radiator/ignition?  Lycoming failure modes are well-known, easy to check for and if bad parts are out there, the FAA will usually let you know. 


Rebuilt engines:  Rebuilt aircraft engines can be just as reliable as new.  Even so, before they fail, they give warning.  Those who have sudden failures are often using third-time reconditioned cylinders, crankshafts out of "minor prop strikes", ebay exhaust valves, re-used bearings, reground lifters, and stuff like that.  They are flying engines that have sat unpreserved for years.  


No aircraft engine gets 9 rebuilds.  Cylinders are usually junked after two runs--40 years of use.  Cases that cannot be reconditioned are junked--after 40-50 years!


The Eggenfellner Subaru aircraft engines once excited me.  I love Subarus; put Subaru engine in two Vanagons where they reliably turn twice as fast as in the cars.  I thought I might try an Eggenfellner conversion.  They have been a disaster.  Unanticipated failure modes began to show up.  Many RV builders took cold showers on those engines and removed them for Lycoming new and rebuilt engines.


Keep an open mind.  I knew nothing about A/C engines when I bought my first airplane and thought the way you do about "old technology", "simple" rotaries and cheap hot-rod parts but I have decided that Lycomings are very good engines for the job they do.  

  • Like 1

Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[photo of Gary Spencer's V-8 Long-ez]


Ask yourself why Gary was successful with this installation.

- He was an experienced hot-rodder and engineer

- He kept it simple:  no prsu, used a Holly carburator

- This was not a crate engine.  He used aftermarket aluminum block, head, water pump, intake, forged crank, forged pistons. MSD ignition, custom prop extension and made his own exhausts


His cost was $13,000 in 1986 dollars.  That's $27,000 in 2015 dollars


Source: Contact magazine, issue 70.

  • Like 1

Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not the alone Kent but any one into Your choice will remain on your team. How many Lycoming's-Continentals have you owned operated and rebuilt? There costly and a kin to owning a Harley to [Japanese] bikes.

I'll have to wait a few days before I can go ride. Wet Concrete and all.


I do know these engine. My Dad took over an Airport FBO when I was 6 years old. I watched him build aircraft until I helped him. From 1968 on I have been very aware of the goings on in G.A. I had to work on them. We put our money into Phillips XC multi viscosity oil and lowered the wear in them quite a bit. But no matter what. You'll end up pulling a jug off or two if you own one over time. I just cannot justify paying the Lawyers fees in the purchase price. Product liability insurance has done more to kill G.A. than stupidity, arrogance and flying off into weather. I have paid lawyers too much already and I am not the only one that avoids them.


I knew a couple guys in the Aircraft Engine repair business. "Any thing can fail for a great deal of reasons." paraphrased. Last count I built 14 engines and built 12 aircraft. I find it strange that means nothing to some. I flew them and none of my work has ever failed.


The guy that wants an auto conversion is not limited to as every one else has done thinking. Some have made mistakes. This idea that it is a bad idea, adds time to the build because it has not been done yet, Fine. For those guys, why are they spending hard time building an aircraft that has tough resale value any way? They do it because they can. It was what made sense. He won't worry about quick decent to use the bathroom! With this engine he can come down a lot faster.


I do not see your numbers but I detect a bias. I have owned Lycoming. I have owned Continental. I have done the maintenance and looking into the filters helps. Key word helps. The engines I have seen fail I did not ever touch and what was or not done to them is water long gone. Any thing can fail so fly what you believe in.


My point about the robust destructive testing was to point out the state of art that is now available at a much lower price than you have lead to. Your right the 540 is not pushed at all, it makes lots of power with a large displacement designed to cool at defined parameters. Avoid shock cooling and they will be fine.


I paid $1000.00 for my engine with all accessories so I am way ahead. I also have my own shop and I have built a few things so fabrication is for others an issue. The donor was brand new and it landed in my lap. Lucky me but I have found 5 more casually lurking around to help others so entry is not high for every one.


If one did buy a new Ford F150 he could get it for 22 to 27,000.00 Cash. Because if you parted it out and sold off the rest of the truck you could make back most of the money. Or buy a T-boned new engine as I have and reinstall it for under 2000.00. Sell the truck and take a small hit. Not recommended but I have seen it some before. A lot of work and not for the un-skilled.


Some will never ever be able to turn wrenches on any thing and make it work. The Ford Parts Salesman I talked to quoted 6500.00 for the complete crate engine. Harness would need be rewired and the ECU redundancy is a option. The rest is not as needed. Light enough to run Air conditioning and plenty of power to drive that. I am not asking 302 horse power from my V6, I want just 280 for take off and 220 for cruise. Economy cruise TBD.


I am here to show what I am building and the option it will have. I did not tell other how to build there AC. We are free to choose. Once the only horse power was by the horse and that was the ideal. Some one figured out a better way.


Aircraft Builder Piper Cubs, PA-12 Reconstructed damaged C-172 C-152 and others. Covered Feathers for a few AT6's and a B26. Rebuilt 14 engines and flew my work. Flight experience's were mostly single engine land. I loved the EAA and the experimental aircraft movement. I am apart of aviation I going to test bed my choice for my AC.


Engine builder, Welder, Machinist, Sheet Metal Dope and Fabric fabricator. I have well connected friends and access to some impressive minds. Things I do not know of I get help.


I will close with this. Any one can talk down any thing. Are we not here to learn more about what we can achieve? I get the don't try that by so many and a list of all the failures. Those failed for reasons that are self evident. If I were trying from what they used I would also fail. I have a better idea and I have the ability so I have no a reason to quit. Ever success story has countless people telling them it cannot be done. If one accepts this path the reward will be self evident in extended range and low cost of operation. Motoring on with endorsements of a few engineers and well known aerospace engineer whom has no desire to enter this my team vs your team debate.


"I readily absorb ideas from every source, frequently starting where the last person left off."

Thomas Edison


Best regards Build your dreams because they are your dreams.

3 V6's are proceeding :)

Edited by Jon Matcho
Changed 1 word due to offensive language / Rules and Guidelines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost the Cozy with a Small Block Ford in it. Many off the shelf parts and there is no load on the engine. Operating well under it's abilities.


Propellers vary in diameter so selection there is another post. I am looking into making my own wood props. Canards I am told are hard on them with FOD.


If your abilities are limited, this is not the way to go.



http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-AOPA-Disagree-With-FAA-Cylinder-AD-223608-1.htmlJust found


Serious AD on AC Cylinders

Edited by Cozy846
Link to comment
Share on other sites



My 3.5 and 3.7 engine information was intermixed. Direct injection is the 3.5 My Bad.


The new cylinder heads use an intake port design that is much higher and more direct, allowing the 29-lb/hr sequential fuel injectors to shoot fuel directly at the back of the intake valves when they are closed, or under high-load operating conditions, spray fuel into the chamber when the valves are open, to reduce knock.


See more at: http://v6mustangperformance.com/news/ford-mustang-3-7l-v6-engine-explained/#sthash.hPxpJUtN.dpuf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information