Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

Sevensecondsuv

Member
  • Content Count

    1,569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Sevensecondsuv last won the day on September 18 2018

Sevensecondsuv had the most liked content!

About Sevensecondsuv

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Good to see the big gasser wars are back! It's been a while!
  2. Those valves are YUGE!!!! Also the ports are really raised up there. The heads look very promising!
  3. At this point a new lighting would require some really serious horsepower. Otherwise it'd just be another Tremor (not that those weren't cool too). Im thinking 600 hp, so that leaves the full GT-spec 3.5eb or a supercharged coyote as the existing engine options for a new lightning. The existing raptor-spec 450 hp 3.5 isn't enough. A 7.3 could hit the 600+ hp target easily enough in naturally aspirated form, but I'm not sure the powerband would be well suited to a truck at that point.
  4. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    So GM finally has an answer to Ford's V10 torque of 457 ft-lbs it's been rated at since 2005. Only the V10 does it 750 RPM earlier. I don't think this 6.6 is going to be much competition for the new 7.3. On paper the 6.6 LS looks like a V10 that pulls 40 hp harder at the expense of low-end grunt. Yawn.
  5. To me, the raptor is a no-brainer application for the 7.3. The engine matches the persona of the truck to a tee. The weight penalty isn't that big and far less of a problem in a truck than a mustang. Perhaps make it an option if need be. The mustang on the other hand I'll admit is a stretch. It would almost certainly require an aluminum block version and I doubt Ford is going to eat that development cost for a single "boss 429" edition of the Mustang, awesome as that would be. However, the raptor could use the aluminum version too, so maybe it's not as far fetched as some may think....
  6. In other words, the difference between having your 7th grader in the truck with you or not. For me, it'd be worth it for the sound alone!
  7. Make of it what you will.... https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121413_ford-f-150-raptor-and-mustang-could-get-a-7-3-liter-v-8-heavy-duty-heart
  8. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    I wonder how much room there is the accommodate more stroke in the new 7.3. With a 4.22" bore it's currently oversquare at 445 CI displacement with the 3.96" stroke. The old Windsors and then the modulars were both good for at least another 3/8". Combining a 4.22 bore with a 4.375 stroke gives 489 CI or a full 8.0L. If the heads flow as much as I expect them too based on recent Ford designs, this new 7.3 is going to have some huge potential with only minor upgrades like intake and cam.
  9. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Don't forget about egr too. That combined with sucking residual oil thru the PCV system will really gunk up the intake valves.
  10. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Anything that will bolt to a mod motor. The 6.7 comes with an adaptor ring to convert the round SAE pattern to standard mod motor pattern. All current transmissions used behind the 5.0, 6.2, 6.8, and 6.7 have the mod motor bell pattern. I'd probably go with the 10R80 for an auto or the Tremec TR-6060 or TKO-600 for a manual. The 6R80 will hold 1000+ hp with upgraded clutches and a safe tune / shift schedule in mustangs, so it's plenty strong enough. As for a manual, a built 7.3 is going to be so torque-happy that it may be nearing the limits of a streetable clutch that will fit inside a modular bell.
  11. Sevensecondsuv

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!! Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune. I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain. This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF. It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.
  12. Sevensecondsuv

    New light & medium duty news

    Not in superduty form it wouldn't. But it's not hard to imagine how few tweaks it would take to turn it into a 600/600 engine. Look at it this way - the 5.0 makes 92 hp/litre. Apply that to 7.3L and the number is eye-opening. Add boost and it gets dizzying. That's the benefit of displacement. Now before someone points out that the 5.0 has the benefit of a sweet 4v dohc valvetrain, remember it's primarily a crutch to get around the tiny bore. With 4.22" bores and an oversquare design, 2 valves will flow more than enough. And the pushrod valvetrain could be easily modified to handle 7000 RPM using basic, established methods proven over decades of racing development of pushrod engines.
  13. The greenhouse silhouette is straight panther. There was also rumors of a program to do a 6.9L V12 out the 4.6L mod motor which was intended for some kind of flagship based on the panther. I wonder if it had something to do with this concept?
  14. Sevensecondsuv

    New light & medium duty news

    I suspect you're right, although it doesn't have to be that way. GM does just fine with those crappy old tech LS motors in their performance stuff. It's not like the industry doesn't have at least 5 decades of experience under it's belt getting pushrod motors to spin as fast as anybody wants. Giving the 7.3 an aluminum block and a little attention to lightening the valvetrain would yield a formidable mustang powerplant.
  15. Sevensecondsuv

    New light & medium duty news

    Not to mention the 3 foot long straight six. Although the 3v valve covers on the 5.4 and 6.8 were enough of a problem to keep the 2v versions in production for an extra decade, so I'd venture a guess that width is the limiting factor. It would make sense that ohc heads on a tall-deck, big-bore block would have simply been too wide.
×