Fords new 7.3 liter engine is a pushrod engine?

Messages
4,621
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted by kstanf150
Any idea if spring failure is more on the intake side or exhaust ? Or just a combination of both
I've seen both.....The good news is, It doesn't normally drop a valve or otherwise damage the engine.
 
Messages
2,072
Location
GoVols
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by kstanf150
Any idea if spring failure is more on the intake side or exhaust ? Or just a combination of both
I've seen both.....The good news is, It doesn't normally drop a valve or otherwise damage the engine.
Thanks good news since I own a 6.2 Ford But again why do you think the springs are failing ??
 
Messages
4,621
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
The extra mass of the Hydraulic Lifter being placed right over the valve like I & A_Harman already stated. I'm not aware of any other engine using this design . Ford could have ran mechanical lash adjusters like Honda does. The 3.5L Ecoboost & 3.7L V6's use solid lash buckets.....It's not like they're married to hydraulic lash adjusters. Though Lash Buckets are more of a Mazda design. Using a similar to Honda design would allow quick valve lash adjustment every 100,000 miles.....Where adjusting the lash on a Ecoboost/Duratech V6 is roughly a 15 hour operation if adjustments need to be made.
 
Messages
2,072
Location
GoVols
Originally Posted by clinebarger
The extra mass of the Hydraulic Lifter being placed right over the valve like I & A_Harman already stated. I'm not aware of any other engine using this design . Ford could have ran mechanical lash adjusters like Honda does. The 3.5L Ecoboost & 3.7L V6's use solid lash buckets.....It's not like they're married to hydraulic lash adjusters. Though Lash Buckets are more of a Mazda design. Using a similar to Honda design would allow quick valve lash adjustment every 100,000 miles.....Where adjusting the lash on a Ecoboost/Duratech V6 is roughly a 15 hour operation if adjustments need to be made.
How much difference is there between the old 427 SOHC arrangement and the 6.2L as far as cam and rocker arm design ???
 
Messages
4,621
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Pretty similar.....Though the 427 Cammer used Mechanical Lash Adjusters! Here's a 2015 6.2L valvetrian pic......Motor is toast, Didn't feel like lifting a pic off the web..... [Linked Image]
 

Ws6

Messages
2,908
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I think the 6.2 suffers from excessive mass at the valve. Ford designed it with the hydraulic lash adjuster at the valve end of the rocker arm. This means that whatever accelerations it feels from the cam are multiplied by the rocker ratio. It probably has about as much mass at the valve as a pushrod engine.
I like how Mazda did it. They seem to have figured out turbo/DI, "fill for life" transmission fluid, etc. as well. [Linked Image] [Linked Image] On their Skyactive engines, Mazda uses a class 3 lever (similar to BMW's 14,000rpm S1000RR design), and a low-friction roller cam follower. But the pièce de résistance is the hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) at the fulcrum.
 
Messages
42,599
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I think the 6.2 suffers from excessive mass at the valve. Ford designed it with the hydraulic lash adjuster at the valve end of the rocker arm. This means that whatever accelerations it feels from the cam are multiplied by the rocker ratio. It probably has about as much mass at the valve as a pushrod engine.
I like how Mazda did it. They seem to have figured out turbo/DI, "fill for life" transmission fluid, etc. as well. [Linked Image] [Linked Image] On their Skyactive engines, Mazda uses a class 3 lever (similar to BMW's 14,000rpm S1000RR design), and a low-friction roller cam follower. But the pièce de résistance is the hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) at the fulcrum.
FYI, that's the exact same way Ford did it on the Modular.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,286
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by JHZR2
It seems like a stoichiometrically tuned DI would be a good case study for economics and power. The effect on cooling/combustion temperatures, etc would seem to have a benefit, especially under high duty cycles. Honestly I'm surprised they didn't push the hybrid DI/port to ensure cleanliness with the benefits of DI. Interesting to read all the comments on timing chains. Wonder how many folks have actually lined up marks and measured wear in the chain and sprocket.
The wear I've seen from experience is nearly the same on non DI and DI engines further demonstration maintenance practices are key. Still it does not justify over maintenance which most members do.
Point was that chains do wear, and the chain and/or other elements are replacement items. DI is a different part of my discussion, in that chains aside, the thermal benefits of DI would notionally line up well with efficient tuning.
 
Messages
2,072
Location
GoVols
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Pretty similar.....Though the 427 Cammer used Mechanical Lash Adjusters! Here's a 2015 6.2L valvetrian pic......Motor is toast, Didn't feel like lifting a pic off the web..... [Linked Image]
Looks like A lot of neglect on the owners part played into the demise of that motor. Probably never had an oil change in its life ...³ðŸ¤”🤔🤨🤨
 
Messages
2,681
Location
Chicagoland
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I think the 6.2 suffers from excessive mass at the valve. Ford designed it with the hydraulic lash adjuster at the valve end of the rocker arm. This means that whatever accelerations it feels from the cam are multiplied by the rocker ratio. It probably has about as much mass at the valve as a pushrod engine.
I like how Mazda did it. They seem to have figured out turbo/DI, "fill for life" transmission fluid, etc. as well. [Linked Image] [Linked Image] On their Skyactive engines, Mazda uses a class 3 lever (similar to BMW's 14,000rpm S1000RR design), and a low-friction roller cam follower. But the pièce de résistance is the hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) at the fulcrum.
FYI, that's the exact same way Ford did it on the Modular.
Same as the Pentastar v6 as well. It's a great system imo.
 

wtd

Messages
2,457
Location
southwest Mo.
I'm very interested in this new Ford engine even though I'm not that much of a Ford fan. I guess I like more simplicity in engine design and is probably why I still drive two older Chevy trucks. While they may not make the most power, they get the job done.
 
Messages
7,878
Location
Michigan
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I think the 6.2 suffers from excessive mass at the valve. Ford designed it with the hydraulic lash adjuster at the valve end of the rocker arm. This means that whatever accelerations it feels from the cam are multiplied by the rocker ratio. It probably has about as much mass at the valve as a pushrod engine.
I like how Mazda did it. They seem to have figured out turbo/DI, "fill for life" transmission fluid, etc. as well. [Linked Image from i43.tinypic.com] [Linked Image from i43.tinypic.com] On their Skyactive engines, Mazda uses a class 3 lever (similar to BMW's 14,000rpm S1000RR design), and a low-friction roller cam follower. But the pièce de résistance is the hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) at the fulcrum.
FYI, that's the exact same way Ford did it on the Modular.
Same as the Pentastar v6 as well. It's a great system imo.
The end-pivot valvetrain with stationary lash adjuster at the fulcrum is the most popular type in the world. It has pretty much taken over from the direct-acting bucket lifter style. It has advantages of being able to package a roller cam follower for low friction, lower engine height because the cam follower is next to the valve stem instead of on top of it, and ability to achieve higher valve velocity than the direct-acting slider follower style.
 
Messages
1,130
Location
California
Originally Posted by wtd
I'm very interested in this new Ford engine even though I'm not that much of a Ford fan. I guess I like more simplicity in engine design and is probably why I still drive two older Chevy trucks. While they may not make the most power, they get the job done.
cheap - fast - reliable pick any two smile Truck engines are not designed for maximum power... may be an obvious statement but needed to be said. They are designed to balance durability, fuel efficiency, torque (useful output for the application), and ease of ownership... all while being fairly cheap to manufacture. I also prefer the older SBC engines over Ford's offerings, but they all have certain strengths.
 
Messages
6,399
Location
In the Garage...
Originally Posted by jakewells
i prefer my my 4.3 vortec over any sbc but i would take a inline 6.
Except your 4.3 is technically a SBC 350 with the first two cylinders cut away. I mean that is literally what the 4.3 was designed from. I have had traditional SBCs and 4.3. I will take the an LS based engine everyday. Cheap to maintain, better power, better MPG with less problems.
 
Messages
42,599
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by jakewells
i prefer my my 4.3 vortec over any sbc but i would take a inline 6.
Except your 4.3 is technically a SBC 350 with the first two cylinders cut away. I mean that is literally what the 4.3 was designed from. I have had traditional SBCs and 4.3. I will take the an LS based engine everyday. Cheap to maintain, better power, better MPG with less problems.
Yep, the LSx engines are a much better engine than anything based on the old SBC.
 
Top