Depending on temperature and weight the 737 can be a "slow climber" particularly when compared to the 757 which happens to be one of Boeing's best performing designs. In fact, the 737's max altitude can be FL 33.0 to 35.0 when hot and heavy (check your CRZ page and the MAX and Recommended Altitudes should be displayed). I've rarely (trying to remember if ever) flown the 737-800 at FL 41.0 and have come to take the maximum displayed by the FMC conservatively, meaning, that at that altitude the jet is slow close to both it's maximum and minimum speed limits that it is uncomfortable to monitor it as a pilot. Even the recommended FL is usually above what the Company's dispatchers recommend based on their computer modelling which is specific down to the tail number for the jet you're flying. ( ... and I've found their models are so accurate that I can't beat them by climbing early or higher)
Your example is a worst case scenario for any jet. Climbing into a tail wind reduces relative performance as the airplane must both accelerate through decreasing performance shear and yet climb.
For a nice handling hot-rod, the 757-200 is hard to beat. As a pilot, I hate to see those jets getting close to the end of their operating lives. The 737-800 (and 900) does the job efficiently and safely, but it is not anywhere near the airplane the 757 is.
P.S. OAT "Outside Air Temperature" ... warm air is less dense than cold air (which is how a hot air balloon works); warm air means there is less "air" there for the engine to burn and wing to get lift from. Cold air is to an airplane what a turbocharger is to a car ... I've got no idea how your sim works, but FSX models OAT and should give you better performance when cold, worse when hot.