Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

7Mary3

Member
  • Content Count

    2,186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

7Mary3 last won the day on December 26 2011

7Mary3 had the most liked content!

About 7Mary3

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

875 profile views
  1. The 6.7L Powerstroke had a composite lower oil pan with the plastic drain plug for 1 year. They leak!
  2. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Without a doubt, those exhaust manifolds are impressive. Did you know some GM LT's have similar manifolds, and aftermarket headers actually flow WORSE than the stock manifolds!
  3. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    The '475' was a 477 used in medium duty F-800's and F-880's (yes, F-880) from 1974 to 1979. It was supposed to be 'lighter duty' version of the 477 for medium duty trucks, but I think it was exactly the same engine. Ford needed the 475 to compete with the Chevy 427, and that came from Ford truck engineer James Wagner (get a copy of his book 'Ford Trucks Since 1905' if you don't have one already, he covers this). The 475 was dropped from the F series after 1979, but the 534 was actually built until 1981 for the C series. I remember talking to another Ford Truck engineer once about the 534 and he told me that the 429 made more usable power and used a lot less gas doing it by the late 70's! Maybe not a totally fair comparison, the old Super Duty didn't do well after they installed all the emission controls are retarded the timing. The more modern Lima ran cleaner. The Super Duty had a 'plank' head, like a Chevy 409 or MEL engine, not efficient. Surprisingly. Ford did design a nice new intake manifold for all the Super Duty engines around 1977. It was a one-piece design with smooth runners, the original Super Duty intake was a horrible 3 piece affair that had 3 90 degree turns from carb. to port!
  4. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    I wouldn't say the FT's were bad, it's just that they were down on power compared to the competition at the time (mid-70's). We had a lot of F-series with 361 XD's (that basically meant 4 bbl. carb.), and a Chevy 366 would absolutely walk a 361. So would a medium duty Dodge with the 360-3 or 361-3. The 370 Lima was much better as well with a 4 bbl.. The FT's did tend to run not if worked hard. I remember having a lot of radiators on those trucks rodded out, any blockage made things worse. Didn't have to do too many major repairs to FT's, but I remember one 361XD we had that burned a bunch of valves.
  5. 7Mary3

    7.3 hp/tq numbers?

    I saw the video and was wondering what the significance of those numbers was. But, I don't think it's H.P. and torque. I figured it out: https://windsorite.ca/2019/02/ford-employees-raise-over-500k-for-united-way/ It is how much money Ford Windsor employees raised for Untied Way. Good job!.
  6. In the second picture it looks like I can see where the DI injector will go!
  7. I might disagree with that! Though that block looks fairly large, I see a lot of light weight casting techniques in it. Notice the webbing, contours around bolt holes, thin walls in low stress areas. Looks to me like someone spent some time engineering excess weight out of it. One of the features that make the Chevy LS such a popular swap engine is that there are several versions that have aluminum blocks, and LS's so equipped are very light for their output. The flip side of that is GM never bothered to re-dimension the LS block for iron, and I have always thought the iron LS's are too heavy. Looking at the 7.3L, I have a feeling it might not be too heavy all things considered. I would really like to know what that block weighs.
  8. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    The 317 'Cargo King' and later 332 versions of the Lincoln Y-Block were excellent truck engines. Very durable, good cooling, and a very tall block, they probably were better than the 'FT' truck engines that followed, and could have been developed further. Ford found themselves at a disadvantage in the mid-70's, even the FT 391 was easily out-performed by the Chevy 427 and Dodge 413 in medium duty trucks. Ford responded with a special '475' version of the Super Duty V-8 for medium duty trucks, it had power and durability but very poor fuel economy. The fix didn't come until 1979 when Ford released the 370 and 429 'truck' versions of the Lima. Interesting that the 429 Lima eventually outperformed the 534 Super Duty!
  9. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Heads look borrowed from an LS. Combustion chamber, large valves, spark plug position, long intake ports/head extending over valve lifters......
  10. That was the original plan, but there were durability issues with the large version of the 6.2L (7.0L?) in medium duty trucks. That's not to say the 6.2L has any issues in it's applications.
  11. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Gaseous fuel upfits are almost a certainty for the 7.3L. It might be one reason Ford stuck with port fuel injection, as it makes the conversion easier. Direct injection CNG/LNG systems are being introduced though.
  12. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    I think the 7.3L will beat it power-wise, but the 6.6L will be a tough and reliable engine. GM spent MUCH less to bring this engine to market. And I'll bet GM Performance will have hi-po crate versions out in the next catalog. Wonder how the 6.6L would do with a blower on it............ BTW- the 6.6L will use an improved version of the current 6L90 6 speed transmission. LS's like to rev., probably doesn't need 10 gears.
  13. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Looking at that video, I'll wager the 7.3L does have siamesed bores. Noticed the machined slots between the bores? Might not be enough material between the cylinders to cast the water passage, so they precisely machine a slot. Doesn't have to be too deep.
  14. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Also remember the FE 427 was replaced by the less-oversquare FE 428 in part because of difficulties with core shift in the 427 block. Of course that was with mid-60's casting technology. FWIW, it looks like the GM 6.6L has relatively thick cylinder walls judging from the cut-away views in the plant video.
  15. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    The new GM 6.6L has a 103.25mm (4.065") bore and a 98mm (3.85") stroke. Bore centers are 4.40", same as all LS engines. The iron 6.6L block does have siamesed bores, but features inter-bore cooling passages. Siamesed bores do not represent a problem if the cooling system is designed right. I have heard some say that the Small Block 400 had problems related to its use of siamesed bores, but that isn't true. The 400's oil control issues were due to cylinder wall distortion caused by head bolt torque. The head bolt holes were too close to the cylinder walls, and when the bolts were tightened the cylinder walls would bulge out slightly and interfere with ring sealing. The problem is easily corrected by using a torque plate when boring and honing. One advantage of siamesed bores is that it makes the block casting stronger and more stable. The 6.6L must have done well in testing, not only is GM confident enough to use it in their medium duty trucks but Navistar and Isuzu will as well. As for the 7.3L, the Ford engineer did comment about coolant flow around the cylinders. I wonder exactly how much flow is between the cylinders, if in fact they are not siamesed as well. The 7.3L's bore is 107.2mm (4.22"), and with a bore center of 4.6", the distance between the cylinders .38" (9.6mm). The GM 6.6L has .335" (8.5mm), a slight difference. What puzzles me a bit is why didn't Ford go to a 4.75" or even 4.90" (Lima) bore spacing since this engine is a 'clean sheet'. GM went with 4.40 because the 6.6L is a variant of an existing engine family.
×