Fords new 7.3 liter engine is a pushrod engine?

Messages
2,942
Location
Western S.C.
Originally Posted by NDL
... What's really interesting about this new motor, is that it shucks many practices that are now seen as conventional. In this, I reference the thermostat housing, which is metal. I find it interesting that Ford took several steps backwards with this motor.
How 'bout the intake manifold material? Cam drive?
 
Messages
4,547
Location
Lima, Ohio, USA
well, maybe by the time this thing starts showing up in junkyards, remans, etc.. maybe by then my brother will finally be ready to actually start his mustang project he's been "planning on" for well over a decade already. He bought a brand new Mustang GT from Payton-Wright Ford (in Grapevine TX, I think) in '97('98 MY). leather, 5speed, premium audio system, drove it for about 14k mi, then parked it in his garage. and there it sat until he moved back to OH in '16. had it shipped to mom & dads, after getting moved in, drove it the 3 mi from their house to his, parked it in the garage, and hasn't moved since. He has the IRS from a 69k mi '01(?) Cobra, and the front Bilstiens from said Cobra to put in it, several sets of wheels and Tires, a new Ford intake manifold for when this one cracks, Brake kits, exhausts, etc. he has replaced the gas tank and fuel pump b/c varnish... he's pondered different engine swaps before, but not done anything.. sadly there's just no aftermarket love for the 2v Mod...(at least that's one of his excuses...) he's not Frieburger bad with stashes of speed parts and cars all over town, but he's bad enough...
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,514
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by NDL
... What's really interesting about this new motor, is that it shucks many practices that are now seen as conventional. In this, I reference the thermostat housing, which is metal. I find it interesting that Ford took several steps backwards with this motor.
How 'bout the intake manifold material? Cam drive?
Looks like a dry plastic intake, so no water issues there. Also the cut-a-way pictures I have seen looks to be a chain.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,071
Location
GoVols
According to the Ford media release states that the engine will be built in the Windsor plant. Windsor 445 big block sounds pretty sweet to me !!👍
 
Messages
42,547
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by kstanf150
According to the Ford media release states that the engine will be built in the Windsor plant. Windsor 445 big block sounds pretty sweet to me !!👍
Yup, that's awesome thumbsup
 
Messages
2,071
Location
GoVols
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by kstanf150
According to the Ford media release states that the engine will be built in the Windsor plant. Windsor 445 big block sounds pretty sweet to me !!👍
Yup, that's awesome thumbsup
I really don't want to trade But Ford May make me trade for that motor !!...³...³...©ðŸ¤£
 
Messages
8,855
Location
Marshfield , MA
If Ford didn't convert the 4.0 to OHC I'd be driving the newest old Ranger I can afford. Cam drive off the flywheel hub. On a Ford? Nevermind. .The DOHC V6s make me queasy with 6 feet of chain/belt riding on plastic guides. I'm sure Toyota builds a fine V 6 but the timing belt is scary.
 
Messages
4,609
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted by andyd
If Ford didn't convert the 4.0 to OHC I'd be driving the newest old Ranger I can afford. Cam drive off the flywheel hub. On a Ford? Nevermind. .The DOHC V6s make me queasy with 6 feet of chain/belt riding on plastic guides. I'm sure Toyota builds a fine V 6 but the timing belt is scary.
The right chain "Cassette" is in the rear of the engine, The left "Cassette" is in the front, Both are driven off a "Jackshaft" that's driven off the front of the crankshaft buy a Primary timing chain. They basically took a OHV 4.0L block & used the existing Camshaft bore for a Jackshaft. I contend that a Timing Belt is the best way to run overhead camshafts, The reduction in harmonics alone are worth the scheduled replacement interval in most cases. The old Timing Belt Toyota engines are tough as nails & you could generally get 200,000+ before the belt would actually fail.....Usually from dry rot/age. Honda's & Mitsubishi's used a thinner (Width) timing belt that didn't last as long past the recommended change interval, Add in the fact that close to 100% of them are Interference designs left a bad taste in the general public's mouth. Thus just about all engines use Timing Chains now even IF they are less reliable than some Timing Belt equipped engine of the past. Though VVT does have some influence, Sealed Cam Phasers are cost prohibitive.....Though GM/Opel uses them in their small 4 cylinder engines
 
Messages
6,667
Location
California
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by andyd
If Ford didn't convert the 4.0 to OHC I'd be driving the newest old Ranger I can afford. Cam drive off the flywheel hub. On a Ford? Nevermind. .The DOHC V6s make me queasy with 6 feet of chain/belt riding on plastic guides. I'm sure Toyota builds a fine V 6 but the timing belt is scary.
The right chain "Cassette" is in the rear of the engine, The left "Cassette" is in the front, Both are driven off a "Jackshaft" that's driven off the front of the crankshaft buy a Primary timing chain. They basically took a OHV 4.0L block & used the existing Camshaft bore for a Jackshaft. I contend that a Timing Belt is the best way to run overhead camshafts, The reduction in harmonics alone are worth the scheduled replacement interval in most cases. The old Timing Belt Toyota engines are tough as nails & you could generally get 200,000+ before the belt would actually fail.....Usually from dry rot/age.
Wasn't there an DOHC version of the GM 3400 that used a jackshaft to drive a separate timing belt? A friend has the 4.0L Cologne V6 in his Explorer. 144K on it, no death rattle. He uses SuperTech oil and filters and 3K OCIs, clean oil is vital for those engines. The OEMs pawn timing chains as "maintenance free" but replacing them is a fact of life on most Mercedes, not so much the chain itself but the tension/guide rails breaking and causing total engine damage. I've seen the parts from a 1986 420SEL we had, the chain itself was beefy - it was a double-row IWIS chain but the guide rails aren't. Those older Mercedes V8s were interference engines, and the smaller US-spec 3.8L version from 1980-1985 used a cheaper single-row chain. Toyota hybrids develop timing chain slap. I much prefer a belt. You might lose some skin and blood in the process of changing one out but if a critical system is also a regular maintenance item there's motivation to keep it running. The OEM and dealer belts I pulled off two Toyota engines in the family still looked great.
 

Pew

Messages
950
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted by nthach
The OEMs pawn timing chains as "maintenance free" but replacing them is a fact of life on most Mercedes, not so much the chain itself but the tension/guide rails breaking and causing total engine damage. I've seen the parts from a 1986 420SEL we had, the chain itself was beefy - it was a double-row IWIS chain but the guide rails aren't. Those older Mercedes V8s were interference engines, and the smaller US-spec 3.8L version from 1980-1985 used a cheaper single-row chain.
This was the case in the Mitsu Evo X's chain. The '08s to early '11 had a weak chain that failure was common around 80K miles. Then a much beefier revised chain was released which was great, but then the guide rails and became the weak point. Can never ever win.
 
Messages
2,942
Location
Western S.C.
Originally Posted by nthach
... The OEMs pawn timing chains as "maintenance free" but replacing them is a fact of life on most Mercedes, not so much the chain itself but the tension/guide rails breaking and causing total engine damage. ... Those older Mercedes V8s were interference engines, and the smaller US-spec 3.8L version from 1980-1985 used a cheaper single-row chain. Toyota hybrids develop timing chain slap. I much prefer a belt. ...
The double-row, 10-mm-pitch chain of my Mazda (below) was truly maintenance-free, as were the guide and tensioner. No problems at all over 606k miles. The Prius has a single-row, 8-mm-pitch chain driving twice as many valves, so ... (Which is all a long way from Ford's latest monster OHV V8 ... )
 
Messages
2,071
Location
GoVols
Looks like the train has run off the tracks on this thread Last 5 post have zero to do with the 7.3L Ford Truck Gas Motor Let's get back on point here, please guys
 
Messages
3,036
Location
Alabama, United States
I really hope this engine works out. I'd like to see the industry as a whole revert back to pushrods and port fuel injection. No frills, just simple design and operation. Sometimes advancement actually proves to be retardation. Direct injection, miles of timing chain, cam phasers and turbos are all great ways to increase maintenance cost and reduce reliability.
 
Messages
2,071
Location
GoVols
Originally Posted by Red91
I really hope this engine works out. I'd like to see the industry as a whole revert back to pushrods and port fuel injection. No frills, just simple design and operation. Sometimes advancement actually proves to be retardation. Direct injection, miles of timing chain, cam phasers and turbos are all great ways to increase maintenance cost and reduce reliability.
Well said I totally agree sir !!👍👍
 

Ws6

Messages
2,866
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by Red91
I really hope this engine works out. I'd like to see the industry as a whole revert back to pushrods and port fuel injection. No frills, just simple design and operation. Sometimes advancement actually proves to be retardation. Direct injection, miles of timing chain, cam phasers and turbos are all great ways to increase maintenance cost and reduce reliability.
I disagree. I want to see current tech refined, and it's getting there. My 2015 cx5 had DI, and was fine. Turbos? Those go 3-500k miles in many applications.
 
Messages
13,198
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Red91
I really hope this engine works out. I'd like to see the industry as a whole revert back to pushrods and port fuel injection. No frills, just simple design and operation. Sometimes advancement actually proves to be retardation. Direct injection, miles of timing chain, cam phasers and turbos are all great ways to increase maintenance cost and reduce reliability.
I disagree. I want to see current tech refined, and it's getting there. My 2015 cx5 had DI, and was fine. Turbos? Those go 3-500k miles in many applications.
I agree and we are seeing high mileage turbo DI and DI engines in our fleet. Soon it will be common place I don't believe people who make statements of new fangled Turbo DI engines engines realized it's been a decade and a half since this technology was introduced in mass production and engine failure rates did not dramatically increase.
 
Messages
4,609
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by andyd
If Ford didn't convert the 4.0 to OHC I'd be driving the newest old Ranger I can afford. Cam drive off the flywheel hub. On a Ford? Nevermind. .The DOHC V6s make me queasy with 6 feet of chain/belt riding on plastic guides. I'm sure Toyota builds a fine V 6 but the timing belt is scary.
The right chain "Cassette" is in the rear of the engine, The left "Cassette" is in the front, Both are driven off a "Jackshaft" that's driven off the front of the crankshaft buy a Primary timing chain. They basically took a OHV 4.0L block & used the existing Camshaft bore for a Jackshaft. I contend that a Timing Belt is the best way to run overhead camshafts, The reduction in harmonics alone are worth the scheduled replacement interval in most cases. The old Timing Belt Toyota engines are tough as nails & you could generally get 200,000+ before the belt would actually fail.....Usually from dry rot/age.
Wasn't there an DOHC version of the GM 3400 that used a jackshaft to drive a separate timing belt? A friend has the 4.0L Cologne V6 in his Explorer. 144K on it, no death rattle. He uses SuperTech oil and filters and 3K OCIs, clean oil is vital for those engines. The OEMs pawn timing chains as "maintenance free" but replacing them is a fact of life on most Mercedes, not so much the chain itself but the tension/guide rails breaking and causing total engine damage. I've seen the parts from a 1986 420SEL we had, the chain itself was beefy - it was a double-row IWIS chain but the guide rails aren't. Those older Mercedes V8s were interference engines, and the smaller US-spec 3.8L version from 1980-1985 used a cheaper single-row chain. Toyota hybrids develop timing chain slap. I much prefer a belt. You might lose some skin and blood in the process of changing one out but if a critical system is also a regular maintenance item there's motivation to keep it running. The OEM and dealer belts I pulled off two Toyota engines in the family still looked great.
Yes....The LQ1. It was called a Intermediate Shaft as no timing components ran off the rear of the shaft.....Though it did run the Oil Pump drive at the rear. IWIS makes some of the best timing chains in the world, Have one in my L92! People tend to think that short cam-in-block timing chains don't wear....They most certainly do! And in the case of high RPM with High spring loads & aggressive lobe profiles.....They can break from Harmonics/Chain Whip. That's really the achilles heel of the 2V OHV arrangement.....Valve Control! About the only pattern failure I've seen with the 6.2L Ford is broken valve springs, And it's a 2V OHC arrangement. Ford is having trouble just controlling large/heavy valves & a Rocker Arm.....Now the 7.3L will have even larger valves & much more weight to control (Lifter, Pushrod, & Rocker Arm). Granted the hydraulic lash adjuster is built into the Rocker Arm on the 6.2L unlike other Modular engines that use a Roller Follower with the Lash Adjuster in the cylinder head (No added weight) As much as I really like OHV pushrod engines for their simplicity......Ford abandoned it long ago. They could have easily stuck with the 6.2L architecture that IIRC has pretty large bore centers for the displacement (Room to grow) I don't see where "engine swaps" help the bottom line much? Need to do major surgery on a Ford truck....Pull the cab!
Originally Posted by kstanf150
Looks like the train has run off the tracks on this thread Last 5 post have zero to do with the 7.3L Ford Truck Gas Motor Let's get back on point here, please guys
Zombie thread from 6 months ago......But thanks anyway Mom the Ford thread moderator!
 
Messages
3,036
Location
Alabama, United States
I'm aware of the amount of time/mileage being put on di/turbo engines. Some are making it to high mileage, I'll give you that, but when they give trouble the cost is enough to make the customer jump ship for a new car. Some things get to a certain point of advancement where that's as good as they're going to get. By the beginning of this century we had made it. Port fuel injected engines with natural aspiration and distributorless ignition proved themselves to be long lived, relatively easy to work on, inexpensive to repair, and made more than enough power for the average consumer. Plus, fuel economy was basically the same as it is now. Guys, I'm not hard to please. The Impala in my sig is about as basic of a car as you could get in 2005. By the time it rolled out of the factory, every bit of it's technology had been in use for twenty years in one form of another. It has port fuel injection and pushrods. It might make 170 hp but that's probably being quite liberal an estimate. I haven't driven or worked on anything newer with di/turbo/ohc and thought, "this is better". If anything, the honest truth is my thought was, "this thing shifts like it's retarded, it idles like it has a misfire, the power comes on at the most useless part of the Rev range, and overall they've managed to build a vehicle that does everything my 14 yr old car can do, but somehow worse." I'd love to see gm and Ford dump their ohc/di/turbo v6 engines for pi/na/pushrod engines like they were using 10-15 years ago. Sure, the Vulcan 3.0, 31/34/35/3900 v6s weren't powerhouses, but they worked and we're cheap to maintain. That's really all they average consumer needs. Sorry for the derailment, I'm just stating my opinion. Give me simple, reliable, and easy to work on over "advanced" any day.
 
Messages
13,198
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by Red91
I'm aware of the amount of time/mileage being put on di/turbo engines. Some are making it to high mileage, I'll give you that, but when they give trouble the cost is enough to make the customer jump ship for a new car. Some things get to a certain point of advancement where that's as good as they're going to get. By the beginning of this century we had made it. Port fuel injected engines with natural aspiration and distributorless ignition proved themselves to be long lived, relatively easy to work on, inexpensive to repair, and made more than enough power for the average consumer. Plus, fuel economy was basically the same as it is now. Guys, I'm not hard to please. The Impala in my sig is about as basic of a car as you could get in 2005. By the time it rolled out of the factory, every bit of it's technology had been in use for twenty years in one form of another. It has port fuel injection and pushrods. It might make 170 hp but that's probably being quite liberal an estimate. I haven't driven or worked on anything newer with di/turbo/ohc and thought, "this is better". If anything, the honest truth is my thought was, "this thing shifts like it's retarded, it idles like it has a misfire, the power comes on at the most useless part of the Rev range, and overall they've managed to build a vehicle that does everything my 14 yr old car can do, but somehow worse." I'd love to see gm and Ford dump their ohc/di/turbo v6 engines for pi/na/pushrod engines like they were using 10-15 years ago. Sure, the Vulcan 3.0, 31/34/35/3900 v6s weren't powerhouses, but they worked and we're cheap to maintain. That's really all they average consumer needs. Sorry for the derailment, I'm just stating my opinion. Give me simple, reliable, and easy to work on over "advanced" any day.
I guess 1500RPM is too low for you. I guess you like making peak power at 4000.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,255
Location
New Jersey
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.
 
Top