Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

I worked at the Chatham Navistar plant in the late '90s building Class 8 premium conventional trucks, working in the axle mount and frame lines. I never saw any hydraulic assist front axles. Are they fairly new?

I have never seen one but go to EZ Trac's website- good explanation.  concept makes sense to me.  Don't know if there is a speed restriction on them vs. a conventional-transfer case/front axle differential unit.  My town has a new Rosenbauer pumper that is 4 wd.  Unit sits low to ground, you would never guess it has a driving front axle-my guess is this has a hydraulic unit.  Don't know how long they have been available for on highway large trucks but I would imagine a lot of experience has been gained with off road construction equipment like boom lifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

I worked at the Chatham Navistar plant in the late '90s building Class 8 premium conventional trucks, working in the axle mount and frame lines. I never saw any hydraulic assist front axles. Are they fairly new?

Just had another thought on this-if my memory is correct how about it 7M3-I do believe you had commented a while back about some experience with these hydraulic units-or am I confusing this with something I read elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

I have never seen one but go to EZ Trac's website- good explanation.  concept makes sense to me.  Don't know if there is a speed restriction on them vs. a conventional-transfer case/front axle differential unit.  My town has a new Rosenbauer pumper that is 4 wd.  Unit sits low to ground, you would never guess it has a driving front axle-my guess is this has a hydraulic unit.  Don't know how long they have been available for on highway large trucks but I would imagine a lot of experience has been gained with off road construction equipment like boom lifts.

 

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Just had another thought on this-if my memory is correct how about it 7M3-I do believe you had commented a while back about some experience with these hydraulic units-or am I confusing this with something I read elsewhere?

 

9 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I have heard about hydraulic drive axles, but have not seen any yet.

All good discussion...over on the "light and medium truck" thread..... has anyone heard ANY news on the new 7X motor out of Windsor??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can this thread return to topic "New Ford 7.0 L." ? Or is it lost for other drivelineissues? What about the mill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone still think it's going to be a pushrod motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m so confused I wouldn’t even venture to guess anymore. 

 

Personally I’d prefer just a poked and stroked Raptor 6.2 with port and direct injection like the 3rd Gen Coyote engine. 

 

Why do we need more? There is huge and I mean huge untapped potential in the existing architecture. We don’t need a majic bullet. Ford is already way ahead if they just stay the course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever Ford does, it has to be low cost to develop and produce in relatively low numbers as Ford has shown zero interest in twinning any truck engine with Ford performance products. I think the secret will be in Ford reusing machinery from the 5.4/6.8 line so look for a V8 with similar deck height and crankshaft throw with the bore span altered to suit the new architecture, maybe shared with the Boss 6.2.  So I'm predicting 4.125" bore and 4.16" stroke (444 CID and 7,288 cc) with the MOD's 10.079" deck height.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CGIron said:

Can this thread return to topic "New Ford 7.0 L." ? Or is it lost for other drivelineissues? What about the mill?

Sorry for this deviation-I was just responding to a question raised by a knowledgeable poster on this site.  AND as I understand the intended purpose of this new 7 plus liter gas motor was to serve the medium duty segment, if there has been any hijacking of this thread, its all the discussion about stuffing it in a Mustang.

Assuming the primary application of this new motor IS intended to be in class 6 and 7, -where there is a real need for a cost effective,  more capable gas engine- and given the fact the only transmission choice at this point is the 6 speed Torqueshift, ANY discussion on the total powertrain involved is relevant

Gee- after 19 years on this site I hope I don't get a warning😰.  And by the way ICGAS if anyone wants to talk about stuffing this truck motor in a Mustang!  Fire away!  Although aren't the days of "No replacement for displacement" in passenger vehicles a thing of the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Whatever Ford does, it has to be low cost to develop and produce in relatively low numbers as Ford has shown zero interest in twinning any truck engine with Ford performance products. I think the secret will be in Ford reusing machinery from the 5.4/6.8 line so look for a V8 with similar deck height and crankshaft throw with the bore span altered to suit the new architecture, maybe shared with the Boss 6.2.  So I'm predicting 4.125" bore and 4.16" stroke (444 CID and 7,288 cc) with the MOD's 10.079" deck height.

No clue-but isn't there something to be said about an "over square" design critical for truck engines??  In the old days Ford made a big deal about having over square designs-in trucks that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 liter gonna be sick 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

No clue-but isn't there something to be said about an "over square" design critical for truck engines??  In the old days Ford made a big deal about having over square designs-in trucks that is.

Bob I think the early OHV’s were marketed as being “low friction” designs in stark contrast to the drastically under square designs in most earlier power plants. 

A common Flathead was 3 3/16” bore with a 3 3/4” or 4” stroke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference within a reasonable range. The 302 (4" bore / 3" stroke) was kinda light on torque for truck duty, but the 351 (4"/3.5") was just fine. The tall deck mods were extreme undersquare (3.552"/4.165") and made great low end torque. Though that was probably due to being undercammed and sucking thru heads that were only designed to feed 4.6L.  Once you put more head and cam on a 5.4 they really wake up and extend the powerband out further more like a typical square engine.  Then of course we have the 300 six which was essentially square at 4"/3.98". That motor made great torque at idle - 2000 rpm but then ran out of steam like by 3500. Really a diesel-like powerband. That too was the result of the head, cam, and induction system being grossly undersized for the engine displacement.

Then of course you have the consideration that big bores (about anything over 95mm these days) are frowned on because getting a complete burn for emissions purposes is tough without resorting to multiple spark plugs or other novelties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

No clue-but isn't there something to be said about an "over square" design critical for truck engines??  In the old days Ford made a big deal about having over square designs-in trucks that is.

I think you mean under square where stroke is longer than bore.

these day it’s all about fuel efficiency and meeting both emissions and fuel usage targets, the days of just developing heavy truck engines with no other considerations are long behind us. 

I think Ford will go the low cost route iof enlarging boss 6.2 and reusing the 6.8 machining tools to do that as cheaply as possible but, I’d also glad to be proven completely wrong on this.........

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I think you mean under square where stroke is longer than bore.

these day it’s all about fuel efficiency and meeting both emissions and fuel usage targets, the days of just developing heavy truck engines with no other considerations are long behind us. 

I think Ford will go the low cost route iof enlarging boss 6.2 and reusing the 6.8 machining tools to do that as cheaply as possible but, I’d also glad to be proven completely wrong on this.........

JP-No I mean over square as in the old Super duty family.  The biggest-the 534, was I believe a 4.5 x 4.-"oversquare". You nailed the cubes at 7.3 in your post but the motor is "undersquare"-and I'm just making the point that the ultimate low cost-other than mpg- gas motors of the 60's were oversquare.  I'm not saying oversquare is better-just saying the old Super Duty line was in fact oversquare-and Ford hyped that as a positive feature.

Now if you look at "7 "Seconds suv's post he says anything over 95 mm bore (my math puts that at 3.74") creates a complete burn issue .  So perhaps that is a consideration if "oversquare means 16 plugs instead of 8???  Obviously in 1958 when the SD engines were introduced, "emission" issues were confined to horse drawn wagons😎

And as for enlarging the 6.2, I thought we had some opinions here that bore spacing of that block precluded its use in medium duty over 7L?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Oh-oh- just did the math on that 4.5 x 4 and came out to 508 cubes-sooo  did a search  The 534 was 4.5 x 4.2!

Yeah, I get the feeling that bigger engines built near square, either slightly over or under are gonna be best balance for capacity /weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 2:54 PM, jpd80 said:

Whatever Ford does, it has to be low cost to develop and produce in relatively low numbers as Ford has shown zero interest in twinning any truck engine with Ford performance products. I think the secret will be in Ford reusing machinery from the 5.4/6.8 line so look for a V8 with similar deck height and crankshaft throw with the bore span altered to suit the new architecture, maybe shared with the Boss 6.2.  So I'm predicting 4.125" bore and 4.16" stroke (444 CID and 7,288 cc) with the MOD's 10.079" deck height.

I think when it comes to reusing existing engine line tooling the bore centres are key. They have to be the same.

Edited by 30 OTT 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 9:43 PM, packardbob said:

Sorry to hijack the thread...Ive considered many different options from sticking with whats in there to the 7.8 Brazil Ford diesels just for the Ford emblem on the valve covers, a DTA360, a VT275, 391, and of course the 300 inline 6. V8 fit is an issue as the truck is definitely designed for an inline 6.   I prefer a manual and was leaning towards an Eaton 7 speed if I go diesel so I don't need to worry about destroying a transmission when I start adding power in the future.  Thanks for the input.

Short of availability, what about an Aussie Ford Barra inline six, just a suggestion, that would definitely be different!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, loubif said:

Short of availability, what about an Aussie Ford Barra inline six, just a suggestion, that would definitely be different!!!

And that is another version of the old 300 six????  -and there is no doubt that was a great motor in its time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. Barra is descended from the "small six" 144/170/200/250 engines with the 4.080" bore spacing and original used in falcons, mustangs, and other less than fullsize models. The 300 belongs to the "big six" family which consisted of the 240 and 300 and had 4.480" bore spacing and were only ever used in trucks and the Galaxie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Not quite. Barra is descended from the "small six" 144/170/200/250 engines with the 4.080" bore spacing and original used in falcons, mustangs, and other less than fullsize models. The 300 belongs to the "big six" family which consisted of the 240 and 300 and had 4.480" bore spacing and were only ever used in trucks and the Galaxie.

Thx- I knew the 300 was an extension of the 240-never heard of a Barra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Thx- I knew the 300 was an extension of the 240-never heard of a Barra.

Those crazy Aussies and their wonderful stuff....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aussies took the "small six" and then developed a cross flow pushrod head and separate intake manifold about the same time Ford US quit using the engines. Further development eventually resulted in an aluminum OHC head. Then in the final decade or so they had turbocharged versions.  At some point these engines became known as the "Barra" engines. The final version had nothing more than the bore spacing and main bearing arrangement in common with the original US small six engines.  Some of the turbo versions were quite potent and would run with the supercharged V8s we were putting in the fastest factory mustangs and cameros here in the states.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a local NASCAR open wheel modified racer back in the 70's ran a 250ci 6 in his rig and would routinely beat the pants off the other locals. Car passed several NASCAR tech inspections until it dawned on an inspector that Ford straight 6 motors did not have crossflow heads...he had gotten one from a buddy "down under"

Edited by twintornados
forgot to include the decade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×