7Mary3 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 hours ago, fordmantpw said: GM has typically not gotten the torque from their truck engines that Ford has. Yes, but GM sandbaged their numbers. Many performance tests bore this out. Comparing the old tech. 8.1 to the 3 valve 6.8 was interesting, the 8.1 had more torque at lower r.p.m.'s and I think made for a better medium duty engine, while the V-10 was probably better in a dually pickup or motorhome. My school bus fleet buddies tell me that the PSI 8.8L derivative of the old 8.1 that's in IC buses is a lot better than the 6.8L in the Bluebirds. Of course a lot has to do with the 8.8L being substantially larger, but these guys also say on propane the 6.8's don't last. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 On 1/30/2019 at 10:21 AM, twintornados said: What?!?!?!?! Pushrods make EVERYTHING better.... Well....I guess pushrods DO make everything better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Looks really good! But, I will say this- No direct fuel injection and no modulated displacement (AFM) this thing is going to eat a LOT of gasoline! 10 speed transmission might help a little, just hope it's as tough as the 6 speed Torq-Shift was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said: Looks really good! But, I will say this- No direct fuel injection and no modulated displacement (AFM) this thing is going to eat a LOT of gasoline! 10 speed transmission might help a little, just hope it's as tough as the 6 speed Torq-Shift was. Do you get much opportunity to use AFM in 2500 and up trucks? The 10-speed is the bigger sucker, it's 10R140, so nearly double the capacity of the F150's 10R80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve557 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 20 minutes ago, jpd80 said: Do you get much opportunity to use AFM in 2500 and up trucks? The 10-speed is the bigger sucker, it's 10R140, so nearly double the capacity of the F150's 10R80. I don’t really think the type of people who will be buying the 7.3 want AFM anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92LX302 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Our PPV Tahoe at work nearly never switch to 4 cylinders due to the extra weight of all the gear and the drag from the light bar. I couldn't see it being useful in a heavier duty truck that does a slight amount of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN12Fan Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 The displacement of the new 7.3 is impressive compared to Ford's other V8s like the 5.0 or even the 6.2. There's a Motor Trend article that says that the 7.3 has a bore and stroke of 107.2mm x 101mm (4.22in x 3.976 in), so it must have pretty wide bore spacing. They also point out that the 7.3 weighs 50lbs less than the old 6.8L V10. https://www.motortrend.com/news/11-powertrain-points-2020-ford-f-series-super-duty/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Steve557 said: I don’t really think the type of people who will be buying the 7.3 want AFM anyway. ...that was my point. AFM only works on light cruise, totally useless if the truck is always loaded or towing something.. Edited February 6, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Waiting to see some of the aftermarket houses (Roush, Hennessy, Saleen, etc) drop one of these beauties into a Mustang....should fit with ease.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 1 hour ago, twintornados said: Waiting to see some of the aftermarket houses (Roush, Hennessy, Saleen, etc) drop one of these beauties into a Mustang....should fit with ease.... Because more weight and less power is good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Interesting: New 7.3L Bore: 4.22" X Stroke 3.96" 427FE Bore: 4.23" X Stroke: 3.78" Then there's this - 428FE Stroke 3.98" Common hot-rodder build was to put a 428 crank in a 427, resulting in: Bore 4.23" X Stroke 3.98" - 445CID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 7 hours ago, akirby said: Because more weight and less power is good? Never stopped them from dropping V10's into them....did you think they would not mod the motor at all??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, twintornados said: Never stopped them from dropping V10's into them....did you think they would not mod the motor at all??? Yeah but that was before the modern ecoboost V6s and V8s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, akirby said: Yeah but that was before the modern ecoboost V6s and V8s. ....and they all just ignore the LS motors from GM due to this?? I would bet that by next years SEMA show, there will be some heavily massaged 7.3L Windsors that will be dropped into some interesting applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, twintornados said: Never stopped them from dropping V10's into them....did you think they would not mod the motor at all??? TT- why would they.? Seems like all the attributes of the 7.3 point to doing what a truck engine should do-provide sustained grunt starting at lower RPM. Nothing like versatility but it seems with this motor, Ford has the bases covered. Want a high revving performance engine?-take your pick- V-8 OHC, V-6 OHC and 4 banger OHC. What to move freight? Got that too. As always we could be in for surprises and I don't pretend to have the knowledge a lot of people have who are frequent posters here , but to me, this puppy puts Ford in good shape- can't wait to see an F-750 with a 6-8 yard dump body and this motor on the road! And don't forget the gaseous option-be it propane or cng. Who knows- we might even see an F-750 gas tractor pulling a 32 ft side loader beverage body. Hope the 6.2 stays in 250, 350, and 450 as not everyone will want or need 445 cubes to get their job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 I heard bore spacing on the 7.3L is 116.8 mm.. With a 107.1 bore, that does not leave a whole lot of room between the cylinders. Wonder if it uses a siamese bore block? That's not necessarily a bad thing, siamesed cylinders make a block casting significantly stronger and there isn't any issues with overheating if the cooling system is designed right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 39 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said: Who knows- we might even see an F-750 gas tractor pulling a 32 ft side loader beverage body. Only if it's an orange crew cab! (inside joke!) 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: TT- why would they.? To quote George Mallory - on why he climbed Mount Everest; "Because it's there" Edited February 7, 2019 by twintornados 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Has there been any mention of provisions on the heads for adding DI in the future, similar to the Coyote? That would allow for higher efficiencies from increased compression ratio while still running on 87 octane, again, similar to the gen 3 Coyote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 36 minutes ago, blksn8k2 said: Has there been any mention of provisions on the heads for adding DI in the future, similar to the Coyote? That would allow for higher efficiencies from increased compression ratio while still running on 87 octane, again, similar to the gen 3 Coyote. Given the design parameters they are working with, there was no use for DI in an engine that will only rev up to 5000 or so RPMs If they need a lighter duty engine-wouldn't the 5/5.2 or 6.2L fit the bill better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Direct injection does allow more timing advance and higher compression ratios in any engine. I am a little disappointed the 7.3L does not have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 DI allows for more compression and power. But it is not as efficient as port injection. That's why on the F150, the 2.7, 3.5 and 5.0 all now have dual port and direct injection. Get power when needed but efficient most the other times. If you listen to the TFL video, Ford engineer Joel stated right from the beginning, the 7.3 size was chosen to get a certain efficiency at a specific RPM range needed for specific power. So DI added complexity, but didn't add efficiency. Hence port was better FOR THIS application. It wasn't mentioned in the video, but the higher compression, the higher the NOX. I'm sure Ford wanted to keep the NOX levels down compared to DI turbo and diesel applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, 92merc said: DI allows for more compression and power. But it is not as efficient as port injection. That's why on the F150, the 2.7, 3.5 and 5.0 all now have dual port and direct injection. Get power when needed but efficient most the other times. If you listen to the TFL video, Ford engineer Joel stated right from the beginning, the 7.3 size was chosen to get a certain efficiency at a specific RPM range needed for specific power. So DI added complexity, but didn't add efficiency. Hence port was better FOR THIS application. It wasn't mentioned in the video, but the higher compression, the higher the NOX. I'm sure Ford wanted to keep the NOX levels down compared to DI turbo and diesel applications. 7m3- I was just about to ask the question..WHY? You I'm sure are correct as to DI benefits but 92 makes the point here that everything I have read/listened to about this 7.3 is clear in that this IS a truck engine. Ford does not need it for other applications so it makes sense to me that they have optimized it to cover all the bases as a truck engine that is good for 37,000 lbs GVW and hopefully something better than the 50,000 lb GCW rating that the current 750 carries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Yes, this is a TRUCK engine...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. When they are making over 700 HP with a super charged 5.2L, there is no need for something of this size (and weight) in a Mustang or F150. It's big, it's heavy, and it makes it's power and torque at low RPMs. It belongs in a truck. Period. Just like the V10 it's replacing. It's not fancy, it just goes about its business without making a fuss, and lets everyone forget it's even around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) I don't deny that DI, and 4-Valve head and I-VCT could add even more efficiency but looks like Ford felt those measures weren't needed. I think they've gone in another direction with this, the priority was to provide efficiency under constant load with Stoic fuel mixture and less emphasis on max HP. It ;ools ;ike Ford listened to truck buyers and gave them what most had been asking for, simple dependable power and reliability that comes from less complex engine. .It's going to be interesting seeing some reviews of this engine as I think its main purpose is to add sales in truck segments where the 6.2 is just too small (runs too rich when hauling / towing) Edited February 7, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.