Fords new 7.3 liter engine is a pushrod engine?

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by kstanf150
I was hoping for more but the flat tq curve looks really good for N/A engine

This is a stock LS3 dyno...

That Ford has another 1.1L on it. Keep in mind the dyno shows WHP numbers and not the flywheel Ford is showing. Add 20% for drivetrain loss and the LS3 put out 457hp/450tq.


Ford needs to do more development.


Your comparing engine dyno numbers to a chassis dyno. A Dyno Dynamics will read significantly different than a DynoJet which will read significantly different than a Mustang dyno. And then you're comparing an LS3 to a truck engine... would you like some apples to compare to your oranges?



Whatever. Ford can go back to their drawing board. An extra 1.1L sure didn't do much for 'em.

That is an L86 engine. A 6.2L that GM stuffed in trucks ever since 2014.
http://www.duramaxhub.com/gas/gm-6.2-ecotec3-l86.html

That is Fords answer. 1.1L more and over half a decade later. Weak AF.

Enjoy them oranges.

 

[supton]

You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by supton
You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.


Yes, but when you start thinking about it, gearing can make up for that, and the 1.1L displacement isn't going to be "free" at the gas pump. It isn't a game of "lets just make it huger!" because mpg actually matters, too. I'd rather the GM engine with some deeper gearing in 1st in the transmission to solve that issue, as ultimately torque multiplication can fix a 50# discrepancy at 1500rpm just as well as 50# more torque can, it's not like it's "soft" down low.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.


Yes, but when you start thinking about it, gearing can make up for that, and the 1.1L displacement isn't going to be "free" at the gas pump. It isn't a game of "lets just make it huger!" because mpg actually matters, too. I'd rather the GM engine with some deeper gearing in 1st in the transmission to solve that issue, as ultimately torque multiplication can fix a 50# discrepancy at 1500rpm just as well as 50# more torque can, it's not like it's "soft" down low.

I'm not sure I buy that. At idle, and low loads, sure it will be more thirsty. But under load each horsepower is around the same consumption--without BSFC (?) curves I'm taking guesses, but it seems most motors are around the same conversion of gasoline to horsepower efficiency. And these would be going in big trucks that weigh a lot and push a lot of air. I'm not sure that mpg will be different--just a guess on my part--but another guess says that bump in low end torque will leave many feeling like it's more powerful because it does the same work but at a lower rpm.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.


Yes, but when you start thinking about it, gearing can make up for that, and the 1.1L displacement isn't going to be "free" at the gas pump. It isn't a game of "lets just make it huger!" because mpg actually matters, too. I'd rather the GM engine with some deeper gearing in 1st in the transmission to solve that issue, as ultimately torque multiplication can fix a 50# discrepancy at 1500rpm just as well as 50# more torque can, it's not like it's "soft" down low.

I'm not sure I buy that. At idle, and low loads, sure it will be more thirsty. But under load each horsepower is around the same consumption--without BSFC (?) curves I'm taking guesses, but it seems most motors are around the same conversion of gasoline to horsepower efficiency. And these would be going in big trucks that weigh a lot and push a lot of air. I'm not sure that mpg will be different--just a guess on my part--but another guess says that bump in low end torque will leave many feeling like it's more powerful because it does the same work but at a lower rpm.


Is this why the 370Z makes 332hp and gets 26mpg highway and the LS7 Z06 made 505hp and got 24mpg highway?
(I owned both cars. The 370Z actually managed 26.5 and the Z06 managed 26, both driven at 75mph).
Man, that theory is all wet.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The 2020 mid-engine Corvette is a push rod design. Maybe chains belong on bicycles.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Is this why the 370Z makes 332hp and gets 26mpg highway and the LS7 Z06 made 505hp and got 24mpg highway?
(I owned both cars. The 370Z actually managed 26.5 and the Z06 managed 26, both driven at 75mph).
Man, that theory is all wet.

I'd say that's a poor comparison to something that will be humping hills with the aerodynamics of a barn door with the weight of a barn all day long.

Not only that but you invalidated your point. Both cars get... the same mpg... doing the same work (traveling unloaded at 75mph). Neither is requiring anything close to their max power to cruise. Is one heavier and/or boxier than the other?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Geez, always the GM versus Ford thing. The reason Ford's new 7.3 is tuned conservatively is it is designed for a HEAVY DUTY workload.

IIRC in the 90's my 3500 service vans got one 350 rated at 220 hp up to 8600 GVWR and another rated at 180 hp for the 9500 pound chassis. Simple to understand, the higher load means more time wide open...

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ws6
Is this why the 370Z makes 332hp and gets 26mpg highway and the LS7 Z06 made 505hp and got 24mpg highway?
(I owned both cars. The 370Z actually managed 26.5 and the Z06 managed 26, both driven at 75mph).
Man, that theory is all wet.

I'd say that's a poor comparison to something that will be humping hills with the aerodynamics of a barn door with the weight of a barn all day long.

Not only that but you invalidated your point. Both cars get... the same mpg... doing the same work (traveling unloaded at 75mph). Neither is requiring anything close to their max power to cruise. Is one heavier and/or boxier than the other?


You can bet the BSFC for the Ford will be poor.

-Port fuel injection
-No DoD
-Probably
It does look like they did a pretty solid job building what, barring some Murphy intervention, should be "a million mile engine", though. It's hard to argue their choices with durability in mind sacrificing efficiency and performance. I do applaud Ford for seeing the death of Diesel and doing something proactive about it.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.


Yes, but when you start thinking about it, gearing can make up for that, and the 1.1L displacement isn't going to be "free" at the gas pump. It isn't a game of "lets just make it huger!" because mpg actually matters, too. I'd rather the GM engine with some deeper gearing in 1st in the transmission to solve that issue, as ultimately torque multiplication can fix a 50# discrepancy at 1500rpm just as well as 50# more torque can, it's not like it's "soft" down low.

I'm not sure I buy that. At idle, and low loads, sure it will be more thirsty. But under load each horsepower is around the same consumption--without BSFC (?) curves I'm taking guesses, but it seems most motors are around the same conversion of gasoline to horsepower efficiency. And these would be going in big trucks that weigh a lot and push a lot of air. I'm not sure that mpg will be different--just a guess on my part--but another guess says that bump in low end torque will leave many feeling like it's more powerful because it does the same work but at a lower rpm.


Is this why the 370Z makes 332hp and gets 26mpg highway and the LS7 Z06 made 505hp and got 24mpg highway?
(I owned both cars. The 370Z actually managed 26.5 and the Z06 managed 26, both driven at 75mph).
Man, that theory is all wet.

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
You sure? Look at 1500 rpm. 350 vs 400. The 7.3 should be able to hold a taller gear longer. Looked at a different way, GM makes 400 ft-lbs from 2500 to 5500 but the Ford does it from 1500 to 5500. Wider band.


Yes, but when you start thinking about it, gearing can make up for that, and the 1.1L displacement isn't going to be "free" at the gas pump. It isn't a game of "lets just make it huger!" because mpg actually matters, too. I'd rather the GM engine with some deeper gearing in 1st in the transmission to solve that issue, as ultimately torque multiplication can fix a 50# discrepancy at 1500rpm just as well as 50# more torque can, it's not like it's "soft" down low.

I'm not sure I buy that. At idle, and low loads, sure it will be more thirsty. But under load each horsepower is around the same consumption--without BSFC (?) curves I'm taking guesses, but it seems most motors are around the same conversion of gasoline to horsepower efficiency. And these would be going in big trucks that weigh a lot and push a lot of air. I'm not sure that mpg will be different--just a guess on my part--but another guess says that bump in low end torque will leave many feeling like it's more powerful because it does the same work but at a lower rpm.


Is this why the 370Z makes 332hp and gets 26mpg highway and the LS7 Z06 made 505hp and got 24mpg highway?
(I owned both cars. The 370Z actually managed 26.5 and the Z06 managed 26, both driven at 75mph).
Man, that theory is all wet.

So what you're saying is the extra power and cubic inches were actually free at the gas pump when cruising around at 75?

 

[UncleDave]

I think the guys are right to be a bit disappointed by the output.

Heres a 2000-hour 6.7 Litre small block boat engine that runs on pump gas using 1970's tech.
A classic small block chevy.

These work great in trucks.

Boat engine has an even heavier duty cycle than a truck engine and I/Os have a very narrow set of tricks you can play to make power - cant have to big a cam or they will revert water, and they need to idle below 800 RPM or you will crunch the drive gears.

Dyno is at Westech with Steve Brule running the sticks so no cheating. Steve calls this a 500/500 engine.

I can build this in my garage - Id expect the factories latest 7.3 Wunder Weapon to be significantly more powerful than what I can hack on my own.

UD

 

[ls1mike]

Either way I think it should be a good engine that will work well in a HD truck. Low compression, good numbers and if the gearing is done correctly nice easy RPMs.

I will be curious to see real world towing numbers. Same goes for the new GM 6.6. That is 401HP and 464 ft/lbs of torque. That is 41 more HP and 84 more ft/lbs of torque than my current 2017 6.0.

With the Ford making 29 more HP and 21 more ft/lbs of torque then the 6.6 it will come down to weight and gearing. I bet it the will be pretty evenly matched.

My old truck was 300HP and 360/Ft/lbs, the 2017 is 360hp and 380FT/lbs of torque. It tows night and day from the old truck because of the 6 speed and 4.10 gears VS the 4 speed with 4.10 gears.

Time will tell if any of these engines prove to be as reliable as the old GM 6.0. I will let other people find out first.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
I think the guys are right to be a bit disappointed by the output.

Heres a 2000-hour 6.7 Litre small block boat engine that runs on pump gas using 1970's tech.
A classic small block chevy.

These work great in trucks.

Boat engine has an even heavier duty cycle than a truck engine and I/Os have a very narrow set of tricks you can play to make power - cant have to big a cam or they will revert water, and they need to idle below 800 RPM or you will crunch the drive gears.

Dyno is at Westech with Steve Brule running the sticks so no cheating. Steve calls this a 500/500 engine.

I can build this in my garage - Id expect the factories latest 7.3 Wunder Weapon to be significantly more powerful than what I can hack on my own.

UD



You don't have to worry about longevity, warranty or thinking about what goofball is going to be running this mass produced engine.

 

[ls1mike]

Again dyno numbers are just a tool. I want to see where the rubber meets the road...pardon the pun.

 

[UncleDave]

Id hope not with all the electronic nannies and relatively low specific output.


UD

 

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by kstanf150
I was hoping for more but the flat tq curve looks really good for N/A engine

This is a stock LS3 dyno...

That Ford has another 1.1L on it. Keep in mind the dyno shows WHP numbers and not the flywheel Ford is showing. Add 20% for drivetrain loss and the LS3 put out 457hp/450tq.


Ford needs to do more development.


Your comparing engine dyno numbers to a chassis dyno. A Dyno Dynamics will read significantly different than a DynoJet which will read significantly different than a Mustang dyno. And then you're comparing an LS3 to a truck engine... would you like some apples to compare to your oranges?



Whatever. Ford can go back to their drawing board. An extra 1.1L sure didn't do much for 'em.

That is an L86 engine. A 6.2L that GM stuffed in trucks ever since 2014.
http://www.duramaxhub.com/gas/gm-6.2-ecotec3-l86.html

That is Fords answer. 1.1L more and over half a decade later. Weak AF.

Enjoy them oranges.



The GM 6.2 WONT hold up when being used at near Max Duty cycle on a daily basis otherwise they would have used it in their HD trucks instead of sticking with the 6.0 for so long as well as going through the trouble to develop a new 6.6 .......

 

[nthach]

From my understanding, and from the bickering as well is that Ford decided to abandon their OHC engine program for a pushrod design but make it a big block with stout internals and rate it conservatively(but I'm sure the aftermarket will find a way to get 500HP+ at the crank from this new engine) and offer a Economy calibration for stripped chassis and cutaway vans.

Was it because Ford wanted to make the fleet and corporate buyers happy or to try to beat GM at their own game? I would imagine the major buyers of the E-Series cutaways/stripped chassis like U-Haul/Penske, the bus/RV OEMs as well as the ambulance market probably wanted the Economy mode to provide a small but cumlative and hypothetical fleet fuel savings.

It seems like the new V8, for a lack of a better phrase strong like bull even though the old 6.8L Mod motor as odd as it was isn't a bad motor.

 

[kstanf150]

Knowing Ford as I do
They brought this new engine out on the conservative side of the scale
This engine will be rated at 450/500 from the factory in the next 3-5 years ðŸ‘

 

[4WD]

And when you look at how many Ford V10's went in RV's over time …
this big V8 could take on some of that market …

 

[kstanf150]

Originally Posted by 4WD
And when you look at how many Ford V10's went in RV's over time …
this big V8 could take on some of that market …


ðŸ‘ðŸ‘ðŸ‘ðŸ‘