Fords new 7.3 liter engine is a pushrod engine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
.

eFfmdb3.jpg
 
Originally Posted by ZX11Rebel
The pushrod engine came after OHC engines. So,OHC engines are out of date:)


I was going to state this.
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by JLTD
Yep, yep, and yep. Low end torque, lighter (to increase available payload for one), simple reliability and proven design durability. They'll probably put a 5w40 in it and never look back.

Oil cap in the video I watched showed 5w-30.


Thanks, I missed that detail.
 
Originally Posted by racin4ds
This should be a HORSE of an engine. Fords V10 was only a 6.8L mill if I recall. The Biggest gas truck engine to date was the GM 8.1L I just don't see the need for such a large gas engine that will undoubtedly get horrible economy. Why not just buy a diesel if you require this much towing capability?

My notoriously hated 05 PSD with the 6.0 averaged 15-16-mpg loaded to the gills hauling a 3 horse trailer with living quarters, 3 fat mares, tons of excess junk and other items when we moved from WV to Florida, over 975 miles.


When my dad bought his 2002 Silverado 2500HD, he chose the 8.1L gas engine. I asked him the same question - why not buy the diesel? He said that option was close to $7k at the time. He can buy a LOT of gas for $7k, and not have to deal with DEF fluid and DPFs and all that BS.
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by racin4ds
This should be a HORSE of an engine. Fords V10 was only a 6.8L mill if I recall. The Biggest gas truck engine to date was the GM 8.1L I just don't see the need for such a large gas engine that will undoubtedly get horrible economy. Why not just buy a diesel if you require this much towing capability?

My notoriously hated 05 PSD with the 6.0 averaged 15-16-mpg loaded to the gills hauling a 3 horse trailer with living quarters, 3 fat mares, tons of excess junk and other items when we moved from WV to Florida, over 975 miles.


When my dad bought his 2002 Silverado 2500HD, he chose the 8.1L gas engine. I asked him the same question - why not buy the diesel? He said that option was close to $7k at the time. He can buy a LOT of gas for $7k, and not have to deal with DEF fluid and DPFs and all that BS.

How does he feel now, 16-17 years later? Curious--sometimes our assumptions are right, sometimes not.
 
If mpg beats the 6.2 by just a little this will be in my next truck. Well, providing it has decent torque numbers.

I really want to move back to gasoline but I tow a lot. When I tow it is usually long distance and the 6.2 was oh so close to being my choice but it revved a little to much on grades.

Looks like a winner but time will tell.
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by racin4ds
This should be a HORSE of an engine. Fords V10 was only a 6.8L mill if I recall. The Biggest gas truck engine to date was the GM 8.1L I just don't see the need for such a large gas engine that will undoubtedly get horrible economy. Why not just buy a diesel if you require this much towing capability?

My notoriously hated 05 PSD with the 6.0 averaged 15-16-mpg loaded to the gills hauling a 3 horse trailer with living quarters, 3 fat mares, tons of excess junk and other items when we moved from WV to Florida, over 975 miles.


When my dad bought his 2002 Silverado 2500HD, he chose the 8.1L gas engine. I asked him the same question - why not buy the diesel? He said that option was close to $7k at the time. He can buy a LOT of gas for $7k, and not have to deal with DEF fluid and DPFs and all that BS.


What? I don't recall DPF and DEF being in use for the 2002 model year of Duramax. Could be wrong, but I think I'm not.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by racin4ds
This should be a HORSE of an engine. Fords V10 was only a 6.8L mill if I recall. The Biggest gas truck engine to date was the GM 8.1L I just don't see the need for such a large gas engine that will undoubtedly get horrible economy. Why not just buy a diesel if you require this much towing capability?

My notoriously hated 05 PSD with the 6.0 averaged 15-16-mpg loaded to the gills hauling a 3 horse trailer with living quarters, 3 fat mares, tons of excess junk and other items when we moved from WV to Florida, over 975 miles.


When my dad bought his 2002 Silverado 2500HD, he chose the 8.1L gas engine. I asked him the same question - why not buy the diesel? He said that option was close to $7k at the time. He can buy a LOT of gas for $7k, and not have to deal with DEF fluid and DPFs and all that BS.


What? I don't recall DPF and DEF being in use for the 2002 model year of Duramax. Could be wrong, but I think I'm not.


DEF didn't happen until 2007 on the Duramax.
 
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nothing wrong with pushrod engines.
Nope. I swore off overhead-cam engines way back in the '70s.

My '72 Cortina with Ford's 2,000cc overhead belt-driven engine went through five belts — life-threatening on a multi-lane freeway or at 3 a.m. in January — and was due for a sixth when it bit the dust with 232,000 miles and change on the odometer. I think the Pinto used the same engine.

At least it wasn't a suicide engine — an interference engine. But it was a gigantic pain in the butt, especially since my job required a car.

From then on I swore I'd never get another car with an overhead-cam engine. That decision was reinforced with concrete and steel rods when belt-driven suicide engines were all the rage. I felt for sure the mob had taken over all the carmakers on Earth. Then I discovered that chain-driven overhead-cam engines could be just as bad.

Suicide-engine designers should be first against the wall. Overhead-cam engines themselves, suicide or not, should be second. I'll sell the peanuts and popcorn.

Pushrodz rool! and the bigger the better; there ain't no substitute for cubes.*

Now get off my lawn!

*Unless it's a battery good for 700 miles that takes five minutes to a full charge from dead and comes in a blister pack hanging on a hook next to the till in a dollar store.
 
Originally Posted by Uphill_Both_Ways
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nothing wrong with pushrod engines.
Nope. I swore off overhead-cam engines way back in the '70s.

My '72 Cortina with Ford's 2,000cc overhead belt-driven engine went through five belts — life-threatening on a multi-lane freeway or at 3 a.m. in January — and was due for a sixth when it bit the dust with 232,000 miles and change on the odometer. I think the Pinto used the same engine.

At least it wasn't a suicide engine — an interference engine. But it was a gigantic pain in the butt, especially since my job required a car.

From then on I swore I'd never get another car with an overhead-cam engine. That decision was reinforced with concrete and steel rods when belt-driven suicide engines were all the rage. I felt for sure the mob had taken over all the carmakers on Earth. Then I discovered that chain-driven overhead-cam engines could be just as bad.

Suicide-engine designers should be first against the wall. Overhead-cam engines themselves, suicide or not, should be second. I'll sell the peanuts and popcorn.

Pushrodz rool! and the bigger the better; there ain't no substitute for cubes.*

Now get off my lawn!

*Unless it's a battery good for 700 miles that takes five minutes to a full charge from dead and comes in a blister pack hanging on a hook next to the till in a dollar store.

Dude...decaf.

And maybe Thorazine.
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by racin4ds
This should be a HORSE of an engine. Fords V10 was only a 6.8L mill if I recall. The Biggest gas truck engine to date was the GM 8.1L I just don't see the need for such a large gas engine that will undoubtedly get horrible economy. Why not just buy a diesel if you require this much towing capability?

My notoriously hated 05 PSD with the 6.0 averaged 15-16-mpg loaded to the gills hauling a 3 horse trailer with living quarters, 3 fat mares, tons of excess junk and other items when we moved from WV to Florida, over 975 miles.


When my dad bought his 2002 Silverado 2500HD, he chose the 8.1L gas engine. I asked him the same question - why not buy the diesel? He said that option was close to $7k at the time. He can buy a LOT of gas for $7k, and not have to deal with DEF fluid and DPFs and all that BS.


What? I don't recall DPF and DEF being in use for the 2002 model year of Duramax. Could be wrong, but I think I'm not.


DEF didn't happen until 2007 on the Duramax.


2011 for Def. Particulate filter happend in 2007.
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
Yep, yep, and yep. Low end torque, lighter (to increase available payload for one), simple reliability and proven design durability. They'll probably put a 5w40 in it and never look back.


GM is calling for 0-20 in their big block engines.
 
Originally Posted by WyrTwister
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nothing wrong with pushrod engines. Like any engineering solutions, they have their advantages and disadvantages. OHC engines, although seen as modern, have a lot of disadvantages that keeps the pushrod engines employed to this day.


There's something to be said for the simplicity and reliability of pushrod mills. GM's success with the LSx family, and its compact nature, as well as Mopar's HEMI have proven it isn't obsolete yet. I couldn't imagine trying to turn a wrench on a comparable displacement OHC mill in my Jeep
crazy2.gif



My understanding is OHC is more advantageous in high revving engines . Typically , diesel engines are lower revving , where push rod system is fine .


Both my diesels are OHC, one of them, and the one that I bought in 2003 were DOHC
 
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Dude...decaf.

And maybe Thorazine.


Had to look up Thorazine because I didn't know what it is.

And neither did I.
 
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by JLTD
Yep, yep, and yep. Low end torque, lighter (to increase available payload for one), simple reliability and proven design durability. They'll probably put a 5w40 in it and never look back.


GM is calling for 0-20 in their big block engines.


GM doesn't make any big block engines anymore.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by JLTD
Yep, yep, and yep. Low end torque, lighter (to increase available payload for one), simple reliability and proven design durability. They'll probably put a 5w40 in it and never look back.


GM is calling for 0-20 in their big block engines.


GM doesn't make any big block engines anymore.

And their work truck 6.0 calls for 5w-30 as of 2018.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top