4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Anyone mention these being available for the return of the Crown Vic … ?
Fords new 7.3 liter engine is a pushrod engine?
- Thread starter double vanos
- Start date
- Status
You are not going to match fuel economy, longevity, torque management, and emissions to name a few. This engine is far from a dud.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Yep … The rumors out there on a car version look pretty wicked … this is just first roll out …
More fun coming with this engine platform …
More fun coming with this engine platform …
Originally Posted by 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.
Port fuel injected engines can get great BSFC if they are designed and tuned correctly.
For an engine that is running loaded, DoD is of limited value for saving fuel.
Don't know what the CR is, but I did briefly get a glimpse of the piston crown on Mr. Truck's YouTube video, and it was an inverted dome, so probably is significantly less than 11:1. That will hurt fuel economy.
When Ford first announced the engine months ago, their engineer said the 7.3 is tuned stoichiometric everywhere on the map, and that will help fuel economy. I don't know what kind of tricks they are pulling to save the catalytic converters at exhaust temperatures that must be topping 1700F, but I hope they have a solution. I got to be familiar with the tuning of GM's L83 and L86 engines a few years ago, and they are tuned to run rich at WOT, but the point of enrichment varies according to engine speed. At 1500 rpm, throttle setting has to be above 90% to get full power enrichment. At 3600 rpm, 75%. At 5000 rpm, 50%. (Approximate numbers quoted from memory.) Peak thermal efficiency of the L83 was 37% at 2500 rpm, 160 hp. But thermal efficiencies of 33% persist up to 3600 rpm. But by the time the engine got to peak torque WOT at 4100 rpm, thermal efficiency was below 30%.
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
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.
Port fuel injected engines can get great BSFC if they are designed and tuned correctly.
For an engine that is running loaded, DoD is of limited value for saving fuel.
Don't know what the CR is, but I did briefly get a glimpse of the piston crown on Mr. Truck's YouTube video, and it was an inverted dome, so probably is significantly less than 11:1. That will hurt fuel economy.
When Ford first announced the engine months ago, their engineer said the 7.3 is tuned stoichiometric everywhere on the map, and that will help fuel economy. I don't know what kind of tricks they are pulling to save the catalytic converters at exhaust temperatures that must be topping 1700F, but I hope they have a solution. I got to be familiar with the tuning of GM's L83 and L86 engines a few years ago, and they are tuned to run rich at WOT, but the point of enrichment varies according to engine speed. At 1500 rpm, throttle setting has to be above 90% to get full power enrichment. At 3600 rpm, 75%. At 5000 rpm, 50%. (Approximate numbers quoted from memory.) Peak thermal efficiency of the L83 was 37% at 2500 rpm, 160 hp. But thermal efficiencies of 33% persist up to 3600 rpm. But by the time the engine got to peak torque WOT at 4100 rpm, thermal efficiency was below 30%.
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
I totally agree with ya !ðŸ‘
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
I totally agree with ya !ðŸ‘
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by 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.
Port fuel injected engines can get great BSFC if they are designed and tuned correctly.
For an engine that is running loaded, DoD is of limited value for saving fuel.
Don't know what the CR is, but I did briefly get a glimpse of the piston crown on Mr. Truck's YouTube video, and it was an inverted dome, so probably is significantly less than 11:1. That will hurt fuel economy.
When Ford first announced the engine months ago, their engineer said the 7.3 is tuned stoichiometric everywhere on the map, and that will help fuel economy. I don't know what kind of tricks they are pulling to save the catalytic converters at exhaust temperatures that must be topping 1700F, but I hope they have a solution. I got to be familiar with the tuning of GM's L83 and L86 engines a few years ago, and they are tuned to run rich at WOT, but the point of enrichment varies according to engine speed. At 1500 rpm, throttle setting has to be above 90% to get full power enrichment. At 3600 rpm, 75%. At 5000 rpm, 50%. (Approximate numbers quoted from memory.) Peak thermal efficiency of the L83 was 37% at 2500 rpm, 160 hp. But thermal efficiencies of 33% persist up to 3600 rpm. But by the time the engine got to peak torque WOT at 4100 rpm, thermal efficiency was below 30%.
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
The 7.3 makes 400 ft lbs at 1500 rpm. It will have plenty of torque down low.
Originally Posted by 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.
Port fuel injected engines can get great BSFC if they are designed and tuned correctly.
For an engine that is running loaded, DoD is of limited value for saving fuel.
Don't know what the CR is, but I did briefly get a glimpse of the piston crown on Mr. Truck's YouTube video, and it was an inverted dome, so probably is significantly less than 11:1. That will hurt fuel economy.
When Ford first announced the engine months ago, their engineer said the 7.3 is tuned stoichiometric everywhere on the map, and that will help fuel economy. I don't know what kind of tricks they are pulling to save the catalytic converters at exhaust temperatures that must be topping 1700F, but I hope they have a solution. I got to be familiar with the tuning of GM's L83 and L86 engines a few years ago, and they are tuned to run rich at WOT, but the point of enrichment varies according to engine speed. At 1500 rpm, throttle setting has to be above 90% to get full power enrichment. At 3600 rpm, 75%. At 5000 rpm, 50%. (Approximate numbers quoted from memory.) Peak thermal efficiency of the L83 was 37% at 2500 rpm, 160 hp. But thermal efficiencies of 33% persist up to 3600 rpm. But by the time the engine got to peak torque WOT at 4100 rpm, thermal efficiency was below 30%.
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
The 7.3 makes 400 ft lbs at 1500 rpm. It will have plenty of torque down low.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted by A_Harman
[
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
All that aside the 6.0 would prove you wrong. Screaming and living that high, yeah you might not want to hear it, but 1000's of them out there well over 250,000 miles on them living that life.
It is plenty usable. I did it all the time with my old 4 speed truck. UPS went to the 6.0 in their trucks because the diesel was pricey to run and required more maintenance. The 6.0 gets the job done, even though it might offend your ears.
.
In my new truck, it is really quiet on the inside can't really tell it is up in the RPMs unless you look at the gauge.
[
I've never bought into the concept of having a truck engine with peak torque above about 3000 rpm; in my opinion, the power isn't really usable for the heavy duty customer. I don't want to hear the engine screaming above 4000 rpm when I'm pulling grades during a 10-hour day. And more important than not offending my tender ears is the need for good fuel economy and saving stress cycles on the machinery. For the customer that makes his living with his engine, these are very important considerations.
All that aside the 6.0 would prove you wrong. Screaming and living that high, yeah you might not want to hear it, but 1000's of them out there well over 250,000 miles on them living that life.
It is plenty usable. I did it all the time with my old 4 speed truck. UPS went to the 6.0 in their trucks because the diesel was pricey to run and required more maintenance. The 6.0 gets the job done, even though it might offend your ears.
In my new truck, it is really quiet on the inside can't really tell it is up in the RPMs unless you look at the gauge.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
The more I read about it the more I like it. No DI, a lot of low end power, a good choice for what it is intended to do. I also noticed the oil fill cap said 5W-30.
It is an engine that appears to be built to last a very long time.
I think they have a winner here.
I think they have a winner here.
I am excited to drive one once the get to the dealers just for grins. I also plan to test drive the new 6.6L gasser in the Silverado. I like the simplicity of gas as the modern diesels are getting a little overboard with all the emissions junk.
I also had an 18' F350 with the 6.2L and felt it need a little more for the co mountain towing that I do. I had the 4.30 gears and still was turning 5300 rpms in second gear on some of the big hills.
Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
Now maybe there will be Ford 7.3 swaps into Camaros!
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
Now maybe there will be Ford 7.3 swaps into Camaros!
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
Now maybe there will be Ford 7.3 swaps into Camaros!
I'd pay to see that !!💵💵💵...‚
Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by kstanf150
If the aftermarket supports this engines with hipo goodies
Gona see some stuffed between the fender wells of Mustangs
The 7.3 is a little smaller than the current 5.0
Which is good. I am tired of seeing LS swaps in Mustangs.
Now maybe there will be Ford 7.3 swaps into Camaros!
I'd pay to see that !!💵💵💵...‚
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 …
Transit agencies have been buying the Ford E-Series cutaway chassis for their paratransit vans as well and they are gassers. I see quite a few El Dorado National and Starcraft vans being pushed around by the 5.4/6.8L mod motors.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
Ford would be stupid not to offer the 7.3L as a crate motor. They already do with the 2.3L EB and Coyote AFAIK.
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 …
Transit agencies have been buying the Ford E-Series cutaway chassis for their paratransit vans as well and they are gassers. I see quite a few El Dorado National and Starcraft vans being pushed around by the 5.4/6.8L mod motors.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I can easily imagine that the day after the 7.3 goes up for sale, the aftermarket will pull them out of brand-new trucks and go to work.
Ford would be stupid not to offer the 7.3L as a crate motor. They already do with the 2.3L EB and Coyote AFAIK.
Originally Posted by demarpaint
The more I read about it the more I like it. No DI, a lot of low end power, a good choice for what it is intended to do. I also noticed the oil fill cap said 5W-30.
It is an engine that appears to be built to last a very long time.
I think they have a winner here.
I agree.
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.
The more I read about it the more I like it. No DI, a lot of low end power, a good choice for what it is intended to do. I also noticed the oil fill cap said 5W-30.
I think they have a winner here.
I agree.
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.
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.
I think they are seeing the common failure points over the entire range and trying to eliminate them out of the box. Plus make the engine has reliable but easy to work on as possible knowing their target audience.
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.
I think they are seeing the common failure points over the entire range and trying to eliminate them out of the box. Plus make the engine has reliable but easy to work on as possible knowing their target audience.
- Status
Similar threads
