Ford goes pushrod?

[Newold1]

MY head scratching goes beyond the copying thoughts. My criticism is really based on the real need of a higher technology big torque V-8 gasoline power plant for a heavy duty pick up and cab and chassis 3/4-1 ton truck family for could and should have done better than to supposedly take a clean of paper and designing something like this 7.3L offering.

GM got this done over 15 years ago with a 6.0L that produced 405HP and 465lb/ft. of torque in the LS truck engine and it did not need 7.3L to get there! There are aluminum and iron LSX block 7.4L GM LS engines by the basket load out their making 550+HP and 550lb/ft. of torque N/A on pump gas with mild hydraulic roller cams and about 10.0-11.0 compression that can be tuned with V VT and cats to meet current emission standards.

To my thought if mid duty truck diesels are in trouble -particulate and NOX emissions wise, AND I THINK THEY ARE!

This new Ford gas offering should and could be a lot more. Ford worked so hard to get V-6 Eco-Boost to such great results in trucks would it not have been better to use a 6.0L turbo charged V-8 Eco-Boost design. It would have had better torque and power by a long shot and as Eco-Boost Ford technology proved, emissions was doable! I think Ford went LOW in its design and offering here. I am not a GM only lover but I think this was a "missed the mark" Ford moment. JMHO

[tchapps88]

reading and watching videos on this engine it looks very neat and gm guys can cry ls copy all they want but gm could of built a vehicle production 7.4 ls, but they didnt, although is see they replaced the 6.0 with a direct injected 6.6 gas. ford engineer in one video kept saying 7.3 liters is what they came up with to get the stoichiometric efficiency they were after and vid did show a quick glance of the chamber and the exhaust port, which the chamber had a nice shape with a high angle for the plug and the exhaust port had a high raise on it. Nice that they kept with a traditional injector instead of d.i. Got a feeling these engines may not be meeting emissions but could be using credits from the ecoboost engines to keep epa happy for now. Could be wrong but have a feeling this engine may have the powerband of a 500 cadillac but time will tell, i cant see 400-425hp and 480-500 ft lbs out of the realm of what the specs will be when released

[Steve.k]

By the limited press we getting It sounds like mid 400 and 500+ ftlbs. So thats a good start. I know my 5.0 litre f150 impressed the hell out of me in terms of hp and fuel economy. Id say it put the hurt on the ol 460 era 150 easily out of box. We have no idea what hp will be as is the new gt500. Im thinking we all maybe in for surprise.

[Newold1]

Most of these newer emission engines, which is what I tend to think of them as are staying down under that 6.0 liter size for one major reason. It's to get fuel milage results that meet the new federal and CAFE requirements. When an engine gets up in that 7.0L plus range especially in a heavy duty truck and weights it becomes extremely difficult if not almost impossible to get economy results that meet the new regulations and deliver those good gas mileage results and emissions compliance.

As for stoichiometric talk bantered as the the solution in this new For 7.3L I would say these are NOT lean burn vehicles or engines. This is a heavy duty truck engine, this is not an application like those semi-successes that Honda, Toyota and others had with small car imports!

Trucks dont' coast very well can you spell frontal area, driveline losses and weight!

I have done enough work and testing on bigger inch high torque loaded engines both racing and towing situations over the years to know that if you take those big boys and put them under a high torque load and then put them in lean burn lets say higher than 13.5 - 14.0 to 1 AFR's you will burn them down in no time. In a heavy duty Ford truck, hauling, towing and loaded applications and you take the AFR's under load up to let's say 16.0 to 1 or so you won't have that engine under the hood long and the warranty claims would go off the chart.

Where is your claimed mileage improvement going to come from?

This is why I think they should have stayed with a 6.0L with Eco-Boost technology where torque when needed is provided by mild boost and the smaller 6.0L size can ease the the fuel usage and emissions component. This is why I think GM has not tried that big inch formula since the 8.1L vortec which used its inches to make good torque and mild power but it drank fuel like drunken sailor and could not meet the new emissions (cold start) and CAFE standards.

I think if GREAT power and torque was going to be delivered by this engine Ford would have already released those numbers to the trucking public. I think they are staging releases of info to soften the disappointments when they finally are released.

I just put on my helmet and flak jacket, so I am ready for the beatings that may occur now!

[tchapps88]

...

[tchapps88]

d weight!

I have done enough work and testing on bigger inch high torque loaded engines both racing and towing situations over the years to know that if you take those big boys and put them under a high torque load and then put them in lean burn lets say higher than 13.5 - 14.0 to 1 AFR's you will burn them down in no time. In a heavy duty Ford truck, hauling, towing and loaded applications and you take the AFR's under load up to let's say 16.0 to 1 or so you won't have that engine under the hood long and the warranty claims would go off the chart.

Ford must plan on running them lean if the engine will have piston cooling nozzles

[Newold1]

Piston cooling nozzles won't solve a lean AFR burndown under high torque loads.

[Rowdy Yates]

Engine I think is just the 6.2 raptor that Roush had ford modd just for production trucks. Years later their using what was learned. Wonder what are the specs on the heads.
https://www.fordnxt.com/news/can-a-6-2- ... -boss-429/
https://www.svtperformance.com/threads/ ... e.1162603/

[Newold1]

Not even similar to the 6.2 l Roush Raptor. Look at the Ford engine detail pics on the 7.3.
That Roush Raptor was a pretty nice 850 HP build.

[Rowdy Yates]

I know there not similar but I'm sure a few lessons were learned.

[Rowdy Yates]

^^^^^^^

[Barry_R]

Its a truck engine. Pretty obvious that Ford (finally) realized that the expense and complexity of their existing OHC engines was neither advantageous, nor necessary in a truck application. Heavier Duty trucks pretty much spend their lives at torque peak or below, and airflow needs in that range can be easily handled with the simpler, physically smaller and lower cost cam in block designs.

The math that supports the diesel trucks has gone backwards lately, with gasoline being a far less expensive fuel. This has pushed the payback time for a diesel with its huge initial cost penalty way, way out into the lifespan of the vehicle for a fleet or commercial operator. The existing 6.2 simply does not have the sauce to pull a large trailer, and the highly capable diesel can be pretty difficult to justify. The new engine fills that crater sized hole in the market very well.

The idea of it being simple is a direct benefit for the commercial users, where service is an important consideration. Naturally aspirated, low RPM, configured for continuous use under load, and the appearance of easy repair are all considered good features in that market while not really as important for us as hot rodders. If it looks kind of like an updated heavy duty LS its OK with me - as the LS has been proven as a darn good package.

As somebody who owns a 2017 Ford with the 6.7 diesel, I would have chosen the new 7.3 instantly if it were available at the time. Instead I was effectively forced to choose between "not enough" and "too much" in terms of cost and capability. It would have been a much better fit for my needs.

[Newold1]

"EXPENSE""

Heck how many here have recently priced a well equipped heavy duty crew cab pickup truck!

Expense to a point of fault should never be the basis for developing a great ICE engine for one of todays most popular vehicles!

Instead you should use your best efforts to develop and make an engine that might put your competitors back on their heels!

This new Ford 7.3L does not do that!

In my tiny mind and knowledge that will be a mistake.

The new automotive and light truck market is expanding and evolving to fast and someone like Ford who has struggled as a company in recent years needs to do a better job on projects like this . C- at best.

[Bazman]

The new Dodge Ram top spec Cummins makes 1000ft/lb

I imagine an eco-boost style turbo gas powered 7.3 could easily match that, albeit at higher rpms and worse mileage and emissions... I doubt they will offer turbos though - to make 1000ft/lb in gas would likely mean 1000hp in a decent gas motor... and nobody will warranty that

[oscaracme]

"EXPENSE""

Heck how many here have recently priced a well equipped heavy duty crew cab pickup truck!

Expense to a point of fault should never be the basis for developing a great ICE engine for one of todays most popular vehicles!

Instead you should use your best efforts to develop and make an engine that might put your competitors back on their heels!

This new Ford 7.3L does not do that!

In my tiny mind and knowledge that will be a mistake.

The new automotive and light truck market is expanding and evolving to fast and someone like Ford who has struggled as a company in recent years needs to do a better job on projects like this . C- at best.

"Struggled" huh?......when competing against govt' protected welfare recipients, of course it's a struggle.