New Ford 7.0 L....?

[7Mary3]

Unless you're prepared to tolerate the compromise of siamesed cylinder bores, a tall deck LS is doubtful in HD applications.

I think that's why GM resisted growing the iron 6.0 LS block.....would a gasoline version of the 6.6 Duramax seem more likely?

 

I would be interested in specific fuel consumption under load, I understand that this is where the Ford 6.8 excelled,

so much that the GM 8.1 could not compete. I ofen wondered about the dramatic pull out until simeone pointed to

a rather large drop in fleet purchases driven by fuel costs....I understand that this also coincided with the 2008/09

restructuring of GM and that other factors may hav played a part...like offering Duramax (improved efficiency / profit)

 

On the 7.0 liter truck engine, it's telling that Ford chose a new engine line for the project instead of combining

with the exsting 6.2 line - that suggests significant differences in machining and assembly processes.

 

I envision a tall deck (and correspondingly longer stroke undersquare) LS, not one that achieves 7.0L displacement through a bore increase over 4" (6.0L bore).

 

I wouldn't say that the 8.1L couldn't compete with the 6.8L. Not sure the 2008 drop in commercial truck sales had anything to do with the 8.1's fuel consumption, the downturn was experienced by all truck manufacturers as it was caused by tight credit. Remember it outright killed what was left of Ford Heavy Truck (Sterling).

 

I could see where a 3 valve head may have an advantage for low r.p.m. torque.

[Sevensecondsuv]

There's also no reason you couldn't do a 3 valve head with pushrods. Either put more lobes on the cam or use a y-shaped rocker arm. Just because they're not common doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

*I'm not advocating for this, just saying it's possible.

[RichardJensen]

 

I envision a tall deck (and correspondingly longer stroke undersquare) LS, not one that achieves 7.0L displacement through a bore increase over 4" (6.0L bore).

 

I wouldn't say that the 8.1L couldn't compete with the 6.8L. Not sure the 2008 drop in commercial truck sales had anything to do with the 8.1's fuel consumption, the downturn was experienced by all truck manufacturers as it was caused by tight credit. Remember it outright killed what was left of Ford Heavy Truck (Sterling).

 

I could see where a 3 valve head may have an advantage for low r.p.m. torque.

 

Is there only one LS block from 5.3-6.2?

 

Also, I think Sterling was going to get cut at Daimler's first opportunity, no matter what. I think it was a drag on their bottom line and didn't really make sense. I mean, maybe in a better financial climate they keep the brand name and just slap it on F-Liners, but I don't think they were ever planning to keep that range unique once they earned back what they paid for it.

[RichardJensen]

There's also no reason you couldn't do a 3 valve head with pushrods. Either put more lobes on the cam or use a y-shaped rocker arm. Just because they're not common doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

*I'm not advocating for this, just saying it's possible.

 

FYI: The 6.0 & 6.4L International PowerStrokes used valve bridges that operated two valves from a single rocker arm/pushrod/cam lobe.

 

 

The advantage of SOHC engines, BTW, is that--all other things being equal--they perform more consistently across engine RPMs; when engineering the timing/lift/etc. for a cam-in-block engine, you have to account for a longer and more complicated valve train.

 

To be fair, GM has done some pretty amazing things with their LS motors, and I suspect that they draw a fair bit from their Nascar program (they certainly invest more in it than Ford) in terms of improving their pushrod valvetrains.

 

But, basically, I expect it's gotten to a point where the cost difference both in terms of engineering & overall materials between SOHC & OHV is negligible to non-existent.

Edited April 14, 2017 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

The 6.7L PowerStroke, by comparison, uses 32 pushrods and 16 cam lobes, with a special lifter that operates two pushrods.

 

I expect that Ford opted for OHV on the Powerstroke for these reasons:

 

1) Space - That block is gigantic. Those heads are enormous. Now imagine even having DAMBs & cams!

 

2) The RPM range is narrow enough that you don't issues with valvetrain lag/inertia/flex to the same extent that you have with gas engines making their peak power at like 2-2.5x the typical operating RPM range

 

http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/an-inside-look-at-the-6-7-power-stroke-including-2015-updates/

Edited April 14, 2017 by RichardJensen

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Is there only one LS block from 5.3-6.2?

 

Also, I think Sterling was going to get cut at Daimler's first opportunity, no matter what. I think it was a drag on their bottom line and didn't really make sense. I mean, maybe in a better financial climate they keep the brand name and just slap it on F-Liners, but I don't think they were ever planning to keep that range unique once they earned back what they paid for it.

For sure! Daimler recognized Ford was a big dog in the vocational market with around 9-10% of class 8 and around 20% of class 7 in a tough market battling GM and International. To put that in perspective, in todays market, Freightliner is a consistent 38-40% of class 8 and 47-48% of class 7. Mack is around 8+% and parent Volvo is around 10% of class 8.

 

Daimler for its 300 million investment bought some pretty significant market share.

[RichardJensen]

Daimler for its 300 million investment bought some pretty significant market share.

 

And, loath as I am to credit anything done by Nasser, Ford did okay as well. KTP has done alright for them as a SD plant. It's probably been their most profitable facility since the sale of their ops to Daimler.

[7Mary3]

 

Is there only one LS block from 5.3-6.2?

 

Also, I think Sterling was going to get cut at Daimler's first opportunity, no matter what. I think it was a drag on their bottom line and didn't really make sense. I mean, maybe in a better financial climate they keep the brand name and just slap it on F-Liners, but I don't think they were ever planning to keep that range unique once they earned back what they paid for it.

 

No, there are a number of different blocks, some iron, some aluminum, but deck height and bore spacing is the same for all production blocks.

 

Daimler put a lot of effort into Sterling for a number of years, but never got a good return on it. Daimler Trucks NA wanted Ford's business in their portfolio because of Ford's strength in vocational markets and their dealer network. I can't say what Daimler's long-term plans for Sterling were, but it is probably safe to say there would have been more commonality with Freightliner as time went on. I think a good example of what Daimer was trying to do would be Volvo and Mack.

Edited April 14, 2017 by 7Mary3

[snooter]

Ford and big blocks...bad oxymoron..they never could build a big block worth a darn...yet they still try

[RichardJensen]

 

No, there are a number of different blocks, some iron, some aluminum, but deck height and bore spacing is the same for all production blocks.

 

D'oh. That's what I meant, but I asked it in a really vague and confusing way.

[twintornados]

Ford and big blocks...bad oxymoron..they never could build a big block worth a darn...yet they still try

.

Snoots....welcome back....ya prick....

[ZanatWork]

Ford and big blocks...bad oxymoron..they never could build a big block worth a darn...yet they still try

Yeah...sorry...as someone who's owned both FE and 385-series motors in my vehicles, I'm afraid you're less than accurate in that assessment.

[7Mary3]

Ford and big blocks...bad oxymoron..they never could build a big block worth a darn...yet they still try

 

Nothing wrong with the Lima/385 far as I could see. The FE (a great engine) wasn't really a 'big block' per se, but the MEL was a boat anchor. Some consider the 400 a big block (it wasn't) and I don't think that was the best engine Ford ever built. No, can't agree with that statement.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I know a lot of people who consider the 385 a better overall platform than the BBC.

[RichardJensen]

I know a lot of people who consider the 385 a better overall platform than the BBC.

 

Funny thing about that engine....

 

http://www.460ford.com/forum/38-chillys-garage/116446-walt-pat-austins-boss-429-newspaper-article.html

[Stray Kat]

The 385 series Fords are better than the BBC's for many reasons. This article speaks to but a few of those.

 

http://www.highflowdynamics.com

 

Go to "advantages of Ford over Chevy"

Edited April 14, 2017 by Stray Kat

[Mad Hatter]

 

Nothing wrong with the Lima/385 far as I could see. The FE (a great engine) wasn't really a 'big block' per se, but the MEL was a boat anchor. Some consider the 400 a big block (it wasn't) and I don't think that was the best engine Ford ever built. No, can't agree with that statement.

The 370 was an excellent engine IME. I remember going from Arizona back to Texas in summer pulling a backhoe (Ford 550 Special!) with an F-600/370-4V and a straight four speed. Got a little vapor-lock around Las Cruces, tried the old clothespin trick and hit the road after fuel/food. By then, it was dark (and cooler) and that truck came alive. The altitude of some places (like Sierra Blanca, Texas @~4,500') would've made one think that would've been a miserable trip, but only occasionally was a downshift to second necessary.

[7Mary3]

The 385 series Fords are better than the BBC's for many reasons. This article speaks to but a few of those.

 

http://www.highflowdynamics.com

 

Go to "advantages of Ford over Chevy"

 

He makes a few valid points, but misses a few too. I guess because he selling Limas.......

 

As a rule, the Lima heads flow better than BBC heads and the Lima is capable of larger displacement than the BBC is. Tall deck BBC blocks are by no means 'elusive' (you can buy them brand new, how many you want?), irregular head bolt hole spacing not withstanding, head clamping force on the BBC is a bit better, and the BBC has a superior oiling system. That having been said, the Lima is without a doubt one of the all-time greats. Honestly, I can't think of two more evenly matched engines than the Lima and BBC.

 

Then there is the RB Mopar...........

Edited April 14, 2017 by 7Mary3

[edselford]

interesting discussion on the 385 series versus chevy big block . When the 429 thunderjet came out in the 1968 thunderbird, it was a pretty good package. I recall that the 429 was a result of Ford engineers studying the Chevy 427 Mark II Mystery Engine Gm was forced to sell to Ford so that the GM 427 would be allowed to run in Datona 500, I think that was 1963 February!

 

It was obvious to Ford that the canted valve head design was far superior to the in line FE series V8, ie 427 really 425, 406 and 428 really 427.

 

in that time frame, any production Chevy with a 4 barrel 327 would out drag any ford production 390or 428, I had a 390 and without modifying the production unit, the 390 did not run and it used allot of gasoline doing it!

 

If you look at the evolution of various V8 engine, the FE series looks like a highly modified Lincoln Y block V8, taking weight out, but comprimising cylinder head cooling by having such a small cylinder head on the FE. In some respects, if Ford would of refined the Lincoln Y block instead of going to the FE, they would of had a better engine design!

 

The 429/460 was ford playing catch up to what Chevy already did with the 396/427 V8 engines. It got to the market so late, that it only had a few years of development before the bottom fell out of the high performance market in the early 1970's.

Excluding the 428 cobrajet and the 427 engines, the only fast fords I remember were the 351 C, HO, variations. They did run right out of the show room floor!

edselford

[Stray Kat]

interesting discussion on the 385 series versus chevy big block . When the 429 thunderjet came out in the 1968 thunderbird, it was a pretty good package. I recall that the 429 was a result of Ford engineers studying the Chevy 427 Mark II Mystery Engine Gm was forced to sell to Ford so that the GM 427 would be allowed to run in Datona 500, I think that was 1963 February!

 

It was obvious to Ford that the canted valve head design was far superior to the in line FE series V8, ie 427 really 425, 406 and 428 really 427.

 

in that time frame, any production Chevy with a 4 barrel 327 would out drag any ford production 390or 428, I had a 390 and without modifying the production unit, the 390 did not run and it used allot of gasoline doing it!

 

If you look at the evolution of various V8 engine, the FE series looks like a highly modified Lincoln Y block V8, taking weight out, but comprimising cylinder head cooling by having such a small cylinder head on the FE. In some respects, if Ford would of refined the Lincoln Y block instead of going to the FE, they would of had a better engine design!

 

The 429/460 was ford playing catch up to what Chevy already did with the 396/427 V8 engines. It got to the market so late, that it only had a few years of development before the bottom fell out of the high performance market in the early 1970's.

Excluding the 428 cobrajet and the 427 engines, the only fast fords I remember were the 351 C, HO, variations. They did run right out of the show room floor!

edselford

Respectfully I disagree with almost everything in this post.

 

The 385 series was not a response to the BBC or the "mystery motor". The 385 series were overgrown 351W's with slight valve cant to allow for the passage of their "tunnel port" technology without putting a pushrod tube in the center of the port.

 

The 385 cylinder is far and away better than the BBC fundamentally because it's not designed to be a "semi-Hemi" but rather a "twisted wedge".

 

If you look at today's current Pro Stock cylinder heads you will see they adhere to Ford principles to a far greater degree than anything Chevy ever put out the end of their assembly line.

 

Small tight chambers for high compression without high dome pistons. Shallow valve cant to ensure that air flows around the entire periphery of the intake valve. Port position, shape and angle all work to induce charge motion "screwing" the mixture down into the cylinder.

 

The 302 Boss, 351 Cleveland, 429- 460 and Boss 429 all uphold the primary tenants for modern 2-valve pushrod cylinder head design.

 

There was no company that spent more on cylinder head research than Ford did during the Total Performance era of the 1960's.

 

The lesser makes were the beneficiaries of those Ford exploits. The stuff that Ford did 50 years ago is current technology for Gm and Chryco. Ford is busy blazing a newer trail with their superb multi valve engines.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Stray Kat

[twintornados]

...Ford is busy blazing a newer trail with their superb multi valve engines.

.

What he said.....!!

[Sevensecondsuv]

So here's a thought. Ford is doing a new 7.0L V8. I see the intended applications for this being a special edition Mustang motor, a means of upping their game to maintain total leadership in class 2-4 trucks, and then whatever improvement in HP/TQ it has over the current 6.8 is just added incremental value for class 5-7 trucks.

 

But class 6-7 could really use something even bigger, to tune of 500+ cubes in some vocations. The medium duty market is dumping diesels right now due to the latest emissions. It's so bad that Cummins is rumored to be attempting modify some of their diesels to run on gas by putting a spark plug in place of the glow plug.

 

What are the chances that a year or two after the 7.0 enters production, we'll see a V10 version of the same motor, which would be 8.8L. This could be available in Class 5-7 as an option over the 7.0. Given that Ford already learned all the design lessons about how to do a HD V10 with the current 6.8, this shouldn't be too hard to design. As for production, well they already have an operational V10 line.

 

Such an engine would be a real boon to class 6, and could provide a reason for buyers to try the new F-750s since it'd be unique and class leading in that market.

 

Thoughts?

Edited April 15, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[7Mary3]

Cummins does sell what are basically re-engineered diesels with spark plugs that run on CNG. Drive them most every day. They run good, but I don't think they are the ideal solution. Too much unnecessary mass for a spark-ignition engine.

Edited April 15, 2017 by 7Mary3

[7Mary3]

If you look at the evolution of various V8 engine, the FE series looks like a highly modified Lincoln Y block V8, taking weight out, but comprimising cylinder head cooling by having such a small cylinder head on the FE. In some respects, if Ford would of refined the Lincoln Y block instead of going to the FE, they would of had a better engine design!

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, I never looked at it that way, but you make an interesting point! Since this thread is supposed to be about truck engines, let's consider the 'FT' series for a minute. Though reliable, the 361XD and 391XD were always at a power disadvantage to the Chevy 'truck' 366 and 427. I have been told this is why the Super Duty V-8's stayed around so long, and were finally replaced when the Lima 370 and 429 truck engines were introduced. Maybe those small heads had something to do with it.

 

All this talk about high performance head design is all well and good but not really applicable to low r.p.m. heavy truck use where you are probably better off with a wedge head anyway. Neither the Big Block Chevy or Lima Ford had anything on the Dodge truck 413 or the GMC V-6's (arguably the best heavy duty truck gasoline engine). Both of those were simple wedge head designs.

[Stray Kat]

Yes, but remember the 385 series really is a modified wedge head.

 

Ford redesigned the 385 series head when they went to fuel injection.

 

Some changes were made to the combustion chambers, the intake ports were slightly smaller. (I assume for low rpm velocity)

 

The exhaust ports were raised a lot. Looking at the exhaust side you could easily see NASCAR 351SVO influence.

 

Its too bad that engine went away. It was excellent and made plenty of quality pulling power.