I have found it interesting to hear reviewers (mainly big companies or well known reviewers) say that they feel there is no reason to upgrade to the 3.7L over the 2.0 eco. Now I am a younger guy, but I have owned and driven 4cyl, 4cyl turbos, 4cyl boxer turbo, v6, v8, and v10 cars with all different displacements in FWD, RWD, and AWD. With that said I noticed a considerable difference in power between the 3.7L and 2.0eco. Do not get me wrong the 2.0 is a great motor (have it in my wife's escape and love it!) but I just don't see these motors as being close enough for a true car enthusiast to say it really doesn't matter. It is as if they are saying you won't notice a difference.
I suppose this is more of a rant than anything, my bad, but I just didn't understand where people are coming from on this. Again, both are great motors...not putting one ahead of the other overall, but if we are talking seat of your pants feel I just think the 3.7 should be getting the nod. I suppose it is possible reviewers are also considering mpg?
Being that the 2.0 is newer with direct injection and a turbo, I would think longevity (less potential maintenance) of the 3.7 would negate much of the difference in mpgs. Perhaps that is flawed thinking though.
Anyone agree or feel that there really isn't a big "feel" difference between the two?