Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

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!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by twintornados

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 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)

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

The aftermarket parts for the 6.2 Boss were impressive so the 7.3 built as a HP street engine will probably be sought after for a lot of resto mods where folks just want a big block 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The aftermarket parts for the 6.2 Boss were impressive so the 7.3 built as a HP street engine will probably be sought after for a lot of resto mods where folks just want a big block 

Hmmm....hopped up, tuned out 7.3L in a mid 60's full size wagon with 10 speed tranny...sounds yummy.

Edited by 351cid
fix spelling error

Share this post


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

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.

In agree.  Because it's not going into any performance vehicles, I don't think there will be much aftermarket support, just as there has not been for the 6.2L.  Looks like it shares a bell housing bolt pattern with the 6.7L Powerstroke, if that's the case what transmission could you use that would fit into a Mustang?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

DI is an enabler.  It allows for more timing advance, higher compression ratios, and better fuel atomization, all of which will increase an engine's BMEP.  It is true that port fuel injection works a little better at idle and certain operating situations (part throttle deceleration?), but one of the major reasons Ford is using both PFI and DI on some engines is to keep the intake valves clean!  One advantage of PFI is the washing effect of the fuel on the intake valves.  You could say something about effective oil control here..........  

NOX is an issue with higher compression ratios, but can be managed with VVT.  In any event gasoline engine NOX emissions are far below a comparable diesel.

I think DI would improve the 7.3L, but maybe not enough to warrant the cost.  I have a feeling that GM went with DI on their new 6.6L because they didn't spend near the money Ford did on their new engine.  The 6.6L is a Gen. V LS, and doesn't have anything in it that has not been in other LS engines.  

   

Share this post


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

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

Closer to the second coming of the FE. Which, by the way, was also a truck engine in FT form.

Bore spacing of the 7.3 is 4.60" and the FE/FT was 4.63".  Possibility that the aftermarket can support this engine without all new tooling!

Huge potential for performance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

In agree.  Because it's not going into any performance vehicles, I don't think there will be much aftermarket support, just as there has not been for the 6.2L.  Looks like it shares a bell housing bolt pattern with the 6.7L Powerstroke, if that's the case what transmission could you use that would fit into a Mustang?  

Anything that will bolt to a mod motor. The 6.7 comes with an adaptor ring to convert the round SAE pattern to standard mod motor pattern. All current transmissions used behind the 5.0, 6.2, 6.8, and 6.7 have the mod motor bell pattern.

I'd probably go with the 10R80 for an auto or the Tremec TR-6060 or TKO-600 for a manual. The 6R80 will hold 1000+ hp with upgraded clutches and a safe tune / shift schedule in mustangs, so it's plenty strong enough. As for a manual, a built 7.3 is going to be so torque-happy that it may be nearing the limits of a streetable clutch that will fit inside a modular bell.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

One advantage of PFI is the washing effect of the fuel on the intake valves.  You could say something about effective oil control here..........  

Don't forget about egr too. That combined with sucking residual oil thru the PCV system will really gunk up the intake valves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Don't forget about egr too. That combined with sucking residual oil thru the PCV system will really gunk up the intake valves.

VVT pretty much made the EGR valve obsolete on gasoline engines.  But, when they were around, they did make a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

DI is an enabler.  It allows for more timing advance, higher compression ratios, and better fuel atomization, all of which will increase an engine's BMEP.  It is true that port fuel injection works a little better at idle and certain operating situations (part throttle deceleration?), but one of the major reasons Ford is using both PFI and DI on some engines is to keep the intake valves clean!  One advantage of PFI is the washing effect of the fuel on the intake valves.  You could say something about effective oil control here.......... 

 There's no issue that I know of with carbon build up in the inlet ports of Ford Ecoboost engines  or any of the late DI engines. The reason they are using PFDI is to avoid issues with particulates caused by using straight DI and also to use it as a detonation suppression by adding a small squirt next to the spark plug (micro stratified charge).
 

Quote

 

NOX is an issue with higher compression ratios, but can be managed with VVT.  In any event gasoline engine NOX emissions are far below a comparable diesel.

I think DI would improve the 7.3L, but maybe not enough to warrant the cost.  I have a feeling that GM went with DI on their new 6.6L because they didn't spend near the money Ford did on their new engine.  The 6.6L is a Gen. V LS, and doesn't have anything in it that has not been in other LS engines. 

 

I think you're right, is the GM 6.6 a high deck LS?

I get the feeling that the 6.6 will be bigger iron block version of the truck 6.2 LS, so maybe 420 HP becomes 460 HP and 460 lb ft of torque becomes 500 lb ft ....figures that will be remarkably similar to the the Ford 7.3 V8, the difference will be felt when you drive them.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think GM even needed to go with a high deck to get 6.6L.  It's basically a bored and stroked iron block Gen. V version of the 6.0L without AFM.  I found out it has a forged crank and piston cooling oil jets similar to the Ford 7.3L..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't think GM even needed to go with a high deck to get 6.6L.  It's basically a bored and stroked iron block Gen. V version of the 6.0L without AFM.  I found out it has a forged crank and piston cooling oil jets similar to the Ford 7.3L..  

But going to say 4.125" bore would require the use of a siamesed block ...would that work OK under sustained loading in HD and MD?

Ford was underscoring the use of a big block with wider bore centers to get adequate cooling water in around the cylinders under sustained load. I wonder if GM is so confident in the LS' reliability  that it's prepared to push the design envelope, they now have years of experience with the design.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a 4” bore and 4” stroke gets you to 402 cid or 6.6 liters.

based on experience with first generation small block in cast iron,  no need for wider bore centers.  Expect higher deck to around 9.8” to have acceptable r/s ratio.

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much room there is the accommodate more stroke in the new 7.3. With a 4.22" bore it's currently oversquare at 445 CI displacement with the 3.96" stroke. The old Windsors and then the modulars were both good for at least another 3/8". Combining a 4.22 bore with a 4.375 stroke gives 489 CI or a full 8.0L.  If the heads flow as much as I expect them too based on recent Ford designs, this new 7.3 is going to have some huge potential with only minor upgrades like intake and cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

I wonder how much room there is the accommodate more stroke in the new 7.3. With a 4.22" bore it's currently oversquare at 445 CI displacement with the 3.96" stroke. The old Windsors and then the modulars were both good for at least another 3/8". Combining a 4.22 bore with a 4.375 stroke gives 489 CI or a full 8.0L.  If the heads flow as much as I expect them too based on recent Ford designs, this new 7.3 is going to have some huge potential with only minor upgrades like intake and cam.

Enough room to address any future competitive threats from Ram or GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, edselford said:

Well, a 4” bore and 4” stroke gets you to 402 cid or 6.6 liters.

based on experience with first generation small block in cast iron,  no need for wider bore centers.  Expect higher deck to around 9.8” to have acceptable r/s ratio.

edselford

 and that's why I asked 7M3 if the 6.6 was a high deck version of the LS instead of just bored and stroked standard deck height LS iron block.

No doubt, we'll learn more about both engines in the coming weeks and it could be that the 6.6 is just as efficient as the 7.3 in truck work.

 

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

×