Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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 by jpd80
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...