Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
31 minutes ago, theoldwizard said:

Big horsepower de-rating on Medium Duty !

Tried to compare it to the new GM 6.6 gas in the Chev 4500/5500. Since there is no gas version in those trucks there is no comparison. 

 

Ram 5500 6.4 has 370hp and tq stays at 429.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The derating in 450 and up makes sense to me.   Reasonable expectations for a truck application where durability will be key.   I  think those numbers exceed the old 401 and 477 Super Duty V-8s in terms of HP and torque and exceed the 534  on torque.  And those engines were used on a regular basis in tandem chassis that had rears that were as big as 65,000lbs!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s  obvious that many don’t understand the difference between a power rating given to a Super Duty is about 30 hp / 30 left less than the same  engine would get in F150 with no difference to the actual tune. It is a rating achieved at sustained heavy load where F150 rating is short term peak power. 

The MD engine is basically the same  tune again but rated even lower because of the even heavier sustained load, it normally gets more hot side stainless steel bits to combat increased heat load. 

Keep in in mind the 7,3 is achieving all of this without being given ideal 12-7 to 1 full power air fuel ratio, pretty sure Ford has kept it near Stoic or 14.7 to 1 for max fuel efficiency under full load. It’s a great effort and will be well received by people looking for reliable sustained fuel efficient power.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been answered but do we know what this monster weigh? @jpd80 any idea or hint that Ford may be at least considering a higher performance variant of this engine, alum block maybe, something to give us hope to us high performance junkies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, loubif said:

Not sure if this has been answered but do we know what this monster weigh? @jpd80 any idea or hint that Ford may be at least considering a higher performance variant of this engine, alum block maybe, something to give us hope to us high performance junkies?

Watch the TFL video above, they said it's lighter than the 6.2.

No actual weight is given.

Edited by MY93SHO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the torque and power ratings on the one link, the derating for the mediums is due to the lower speed (3900 rpm for both torque and power). This is what I have seen in the past for MD and HD engines to ensure longevity in severe service applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

It has less HP and TQ then the 3.5 V6 EcoBoost. It's pointless. They should just put the 3.5 in the SuperDuty.

The 3.5 would melt if you put it in a SD and asked it to do what a 6.2 or 7.3 can do at maximum capacity. Never mind the long term reliability or the fact that the MPG would be worse than the V8’s.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectable numbers, about what I would expect.  The engine does look remarkably compact.  Something I Noticed in the video, around 3:54.  The F stripped chassis appeared to have a galvanized frame.  That is something UPS has had in their spec for package car chassis, and a reason Ford for some time was not providing chassis to UPS.  Ford didn't want to offer a galvanized chassis, so a lot of UPS's business was going to Freightliner.  Looks like Ford may be trying to get some UPS business, a galvanized chassis and a gasoline engine is just what they want these days.

BTW- since the F series has an aluminum cab, if Ford would offer a galvanized chassis on the Super Duty I bet a lot of customers in the northeast would pay a lot of money for that option. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve557 said:

The 3.5 would melt if you put it in a SD and asked it to do what a 6.2 or 7.3 can do at maximum capacity. Never mind the long term reliability or the fact that the MPG would be worse than the V8’s.

I think he was being sarcastic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

Respectable numbers, about what I would expect.  The engine does look remarkably compact.  Something I Noticed in the video, around 3:54.  The F stripped chassis appeared to have a galvanized frame.  That is something UPS has had in their spec for package car chassis, and a reason Ford for some time was not providing chassis to UPS.  Ford didn't want to offer a galvanized chassis, so a lot of UPS's business was going to Freightliner.  Looks like Ford may be trying to get some UPS business, a galvanized chassis and a gasoline engine is just what they want these days.

BTW- since the F series has an aluminum cab, if Ford would offer a galvanized chassis on the Super Duty I bet a lot of customers in the northeast would pay a lot of money for that option. 

I've seen several UPS F-650 box trucks (sorry, I don't know the proper terminology) running around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I've seen several UPS F-650 box trucks (sorry, I don't know the proper terminology) running around.

For sure- I think they use them when the normal package car route would lose to much cube with a couple of big commercial stops.  So they use trucks like  the 650-and 4400 Internationals to group a bunch of these big volume stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...