Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Fatguy]

That's not how vetting works. Especially if it's a "wild theory".

You would thoroughly vet your facts before posting them.

It's seems more like you're hoping to pass on to somebody, with means, an idea that you think is good.

The theory is as follows.


Most people spend the life of their driving at low rpms - let’s say between 1200 and 2000 rpm. That is the reality. Just check it out yourself on your daily commute.


Truck motors put out most of their power at low rpms so you would probably enjoy the power of a truck motor more in typical day/to-day driving. You’re paying for it so you may as well enjoy it.



Simple as that. Plus they sound fabulous even at low rpms. Just saying...



I’m not Proctor and Gamble so I can’t fully vet this idea. I just spent 5 hours in a truck at like 1500 rpm max / and I lived to tell the tale. At no time did it ever occur to me that I needed more rpm - know why - because I never lacked for power! And there you have it!



This type of driving in a performance car may seem odd at first. Then the merits shine through, the cool people embrace it - then it’s considered genius!

Sponsored

 

[engineermike]

Omg you’ve posted the same false and positively refuted info 3 or 4 times now. At least keep it interesting by posting something new that’s ridiculous.

 

[EcoVert]

Omg you’ve posted the same false and positively refuted info 3 or 4 times now. At least keep it interesting by posting something new that’s ridiculous.

No imagination

 

[Fatguy]

Omg you’ve posted the same false and positively refuted info 3 or 4 times now. At least keep it interesting by posting something new that’s ridiculous.

Ford took the novel idea of engineering a modern engine to best fit their requirements - without preconceptions, and came up with a 2 valve pushrod engine with roller rockers many here said would never ever again see the light of day.


I guess that’s ridiculous.

 

[engineermike]

You know why they chose to build a big dumb simple pushrod v8? It’s cheap. Same reason Briggs and Stratton uses pushrods still. Cheap.

Almost everything about that motor screams cheap.

 

[CrashOverride]

For the person who wondered if it was a 4 bolt:

“It all starts with a cast iron block, which is then stuffed with a forged steel crankshaft and new cylinder heads. As for the main bearing caps, there are four bolts mounted vertically, plus two cross bolts, making for six bolts per main cap.”


Source:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.top...f-old-school-and-new-school-ar184542.amp.html

I stand corrected - the SVT Performance page shows the 2-bolt main, short skirt design I complained about. The 6-bolt mid to deep skirt is now the norm (For good reason) which is why I was so disheartened when I saw what I thought was the 7.3L. That still doesn't change my views on it being a truck engine though. But, as I have maintained throughout this thread, it would be a cool swap. Would Ford do it in a production car? Highly unlikely, that engine probably weighs 50% more than the coyote.

 

[Fatguy]

I stand corrected - the SVT Performance page shows the 2-bolt main, short skirt design I complained about. The 6-bolt mid to deep skirt is now the norm (For good reason) which is why I was so disheartened when I saw what I thought was the 7.3L. That still doesn't change my views on it being a truck engine though. But, as I have maintained throughout this thread, it would be a cool swap. Would Ford do it in a production car? Highly unlikely, that engine probably weighs 50% more than the coyote.

Nah, maybe 70 pounds more. The 5.0 has larger heads with more metal bits. It adds up. Move the battery to the back and it’s not so bad...

 

[Fatguy]

You know why they chose to build a big dumb simple pushrod v8? It’s cheap. Same reason Briggs and Stratton uses pushrods still. Cheap.

Almost everything about that motor screams cheap.

Along with up to 482 horsepower and 557 torque. Bring on the cheap!

 

[martinjlm]

Ford took the novel idea of engineering a modern engine to best fit their requirements - without preconceptions, and came up with a 2 valve pushrod engine with roller rockers many here said would never ever again see the light of day.


I guess that’s ridiculous.

Yes, Ford did wind up using an old recipe to best fit there requirements. But the requirements were to develop an engine that developed most of its torque and hp at low rpm and to have the engine operate most efficiently in a fairly narrow band. It's designed to allow Super Duty trucks to tow and haul while achieving decent (for HD pickups) fuel economy. This is not the optimal operating range for sports car engines. They didn't put stop start, cylinder deactivation, or direct injected turbos on it because those technologies save fuel in parts of the operating range where this engine is not expected to spend a lot of time. You don't want cylinders deactivating when you're towing or hauling. They increased the displacement from 6.8L (V10) to 7.3L to improve the low end power and torque and allow the engine to operate more effortlessly at low rpm, thus saving fuel. Other than the gobs of torque, the key design elements of the engine are decidedly NON-sports car-ish. Can somebody tweak and tune it to operate well in a muscle car? Probably. Time would probably be better spent teaching cats to bark.

 

[BmacIL]

You know why they chose to build a big dumb simple pushrod v8? It’s cheap. Same reason Briggs and Stratton uses pushrods still. Cheap.

Almost everything about that motor screams cheap.

Cheap and good torque for towing and hauling, yep. Trucks like the Super duty have GVWRs that are not part of CAFE requirements.

 

[Fatguy]

Yes, Ford did wind up using an old recipe to best fit there requirements. But the requirements were to develop an engine that developed most of its torque and hp at low rpm and to have the engine operate most efficiently in a fairly narrow band. It's designed to allow Super Duty trucks to tow and haul while achieving decent (for HD pickups) fuel economy. This is not the optimal operating range for sports car engines. They didn't put stop start, cylinder deactivation, or direct injected turbos on it because those technologies save fuel in parts of the operating range where this engine is not expected to spend a lot of time. You don't want cylinders deactivating when you're towing or hauling. They increased the displacement from 6.8L (V10) to 7.3L to improve the low end power and torque and allow the engine to operate more effortlessly at low rpm, thus saving fuel. Other than the gobs of torque, the key design elements of the engine are decidedly NON-sports car-ish. Can somebody tweak and tune it to operate well in a muscle car? Probably. Time would probably be better spent teaching cats to bark.

Nobody really wants cylinder deactivation in performance cars. Direct injection was added to reduce particate emissions. It’s an engine and one of the few V8s we have left.


I’m really interested in the arguments as to why we should not gear an engine to the vast majority of driving which is low rpm. For regular consumers it’s efficency. But the performance enthusiasts of pony cars, it’s burnouts and gobs of torque. The track stars have the GT350.


With this engine you have the same horsepower as the 5.0 and way more torque without making the engine scream to high hell to get it. This engine is similar to the engines I cut my teeth on in back in the day and I never found myself wanting. This engine will find it’s niche and I’m sure they will love them!


In the end the market will decide but in the aftermarket as government regulations prevent it from going in the Mustang. That is the real reason...

 

[engineermike]

.... Direct injection was added to reduce particate emissions....

This is just as false as, well, most everything else you’ve posted.

 

[Fatguy]

This is just as false as, well, most everything else you’ve posted.

Wrong - it is true.


Does the 7.3 have direct injection? No. Know why? That engine does not have to bow to the EPA and like entities. If car makers did not have to clean up their motors they would still have port injection...

 

[engineermike]

Along with up to 482 horsepower and 557 torque...

See if you can follow the bouncing ball....the current 6.2 in the 3/4 ton makes 1 hp/cid. If we maintain that ratio (both are 2 valve, pfi truck motors), the 7.3 would have 450-455 hp. Could it be 482? Maybe. The problem with single cam 2-valve engines like the 6.2, 7.3, sbc, bbc, bbf, etc...is that they inherently have narrow rpm ranges. Dohc with tivct has a huge advantage when it comes to breadth of rpm range, but I digress. Anyway, you can’t add top end power without sacrificing bottom end. Now, take a look at the 6.2 truck motor power curves. They, due to the inherent narrow rpm range, are surprisingly weak below 3500 rpm. In fact, the 1.2 liter smaller “screaming” 5.0 makes more torque at 2000 rpm. So you’re saying the 7.3 will make even more power/cid than the current 6.2. Possibly, but that will give it an even more exaggerated lack of performance below 3500. Sadly, if your star engine makes the same or more power than the 5.0, it will be a terd until about 3500 rpm.

 

[engineermike]

Wrong - it is true.


Does the 7.3 have direct injection? No. Know why? That engine does not have to bow to the EPA and like entities. If car makers did not have to clean up their motors they would still have port injection...

Dude, you seriously haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Gas direct injection has higher particulate emissions than port injection. The epa is currently moving to require particulate filters on gdi cars as we speak due to the high particulates. Port injection did not have this problem. Gdi was added to enable higher cylinder pressures, which allows engine downsizing and higher compression for better fuel efficiency, NOT to reduce particulates.

Sponsored