Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Erik427]

Well since GM is on the verge of making a full debut with their DOHC V-8.
I'd really like to know what Ford has up their sleeve?
All the insiders are saying the new GM design is a full step above the Coyote.
The LT pretty much matches the Coyote.

So it's safe to say that Ford needs to step it up.
Chevy flat out owns grass roots racing and such.
Ford really does need the 7.3 platform.
Even if it's a lower deck smaller displacement all alloy version.

I don't see Ford ever fixing the design flaw of the Coyote.

Sponsored

 

[Erik427]

Ford has been behind in displacement since 1974.
The Mustang had only existed 8 years.
That's less than the lifespan of the S197 model run.

1974!

Think about that.

 

[Erik427]

As a Camaro owner in a Mustang forum, you can’t imagine how many times I stopped myself from asking just that question.

Mopar owns the Drag Racing world when it comes to a OEM offering.
As a Die Hard Ford Guy, I admit that chevy owns everything else.

The GT500 will be awesome......but very few will enjoy it due to cost.
Even fewer will ever take it to a road course.

 

[Fatguy]

Mopar owns the Drag Racing world when it comes to a OEM offering.
As a Die Hard Ford Guy, I admit that chevy owns everything else.

The GT500 will be awesome......but very few will enjoy it due to cost.
Even fewer will ever take it to a road course.

Hey Erik,


If you push too much reality at the fanboys it could be dangerous! To them it’s all rainbows and unicorns when it comes to their cars. I just want my big block before they disappear for good.


Ford is making massive changes in its infrastructure and stuff like what we are arguing about is so trivial to them it’s basically off the radar. Thank Brian Wolfe for starting something we can take advantage of before it disappears. That Tesla Model Y event last week was a big deal. A big deal!

 

[TricarboNate]

Well since GM is on the verge of making a full debut with their DOHC V-8.
I'd really like to know what Ford has up their sleeve?
All the insiders are saying the new GM design is a full step above the Coyote.
The LT pretty much matches the Coyote.

So it's safe to say that Ford needs to step it up.
Chevy flat out owns grass roots racing and such.
Ford really does need the 7.3 platform.
Even if it's a lower deck smaller displacement all alloy version.

I don't see Ford ever fixing the design flaw of the Coyote.

They have nothing up their sleeve. It will either discontinued or electric.

 

[TexasRebel]

I think it's funny that somehow pushrods = torque.

 

[Hi-PO Stang]

I think this is a great thread. It has made some think about a swap of the 7.3 liter V8 engine into a Mustang and the problems that can be encountered.
As far as the 7.3 liter cast iron engine being heavy, it may not be more than 40 pounds heavier than a Coyote V8 since it has aluminum heads and composite intake.
By the time any of us gets their hands on a 7.3 V8 , companies such as Edelbrock will have a shorter water pump to make the swap of the 7.3 V8 into a Mustang easier. Companies like Moroso will most likely have an oil pan and pickup to shorten the depth of the oil pan.

 

[engineermike]

Keep on dreaming, guys....

 

[martinjlm]

Keep on dreaming, guys....

I think this is a great thread. It has made some think about a swap of the 7.3 liter V8 engine into a Mustang and the problems that can be encountered.
As far as the 7.3 liter cast iron engine being heavy, it may not be more than 40 pounds heavier than a Coyote V8 since it has aluminum heads and composite intake.
By the time any of us gets their hands on a 7.3 V8 , companies such as Edelbrock will have a shorter water pump to make the swap of the 7.3 V8 into a Mustang easier. Companies like Moroso will most likely have an oil pan and pickup to shorten the depth of the oil pan.

At some point somebody WILL put the 7.3L in a Mustang. I would be surprised if one doesn’t show up at SEMA. If people can drop an LS into a Miata or RX-7, then someone can drop a 7.3 into an S550. The question is WHY would you do it, especially when there are so many better options already out there. The answer to that question is probably “because we can”, or more probably, “because we were told we couldn’t”.

Will Ford ever offer the 7.3L in a Mustang? Hellz no. Will Ford ever offer a 7.3L crate engine? Probably. Thing is, anyone who installs one of these in an S550 will find that the final product doesn’t equal the sum of the parts. It’s back to my analogy of teaching a cat to bark. First of all, why would you, and if you’re successful, what have you really accomplished?

 

[engineermike]

@martinjlm, I completely agree. Of course it can be done, but at what cost and benefit?....Heck they shoehorned a v10 into an sn95(?). Was it neat? Yes! But how did it perform vs much easier and cheaper options? Not good enough to build a second one....

 

[Fatguy]

At some point somebody WILL put the 7.3L in a Mustang. I would be surprised if one doesn’t show up at SEMA. If people can drop an LS into a Miata or RX-7, then someone can drop a 7.3 into an S550. The question is WHY would you do it, especially when there are so many better options already out there. The answer to that question is probably “because we can”, or more probably, “because we were told we couldn’t”.

Will Ford ever offer the 7.3L in a Mustang? Hellz no. Will Ford ever offer a 7.3L crate engine? Probably. Thing is, anyone who installs one of these in an S550 will find that the final product doesn’t equal the sum of the parts. It’s back to my analogy of teaching a cat to bark. First of all, why would you, and if you’re successful, what have you really accomplished?

You will have accomplished getting the motor you wanted in the car you wanted it in. Some of us want a pushrod motor like we always drove. Some of us never rev the motor high or even moderately high and so get none of the benefits a high rev motor offers but would benefit more from the old fashioned motors that offer the grunt down low. Some of us like the look of the smaller simpler pushrod design. The sound is heavier and better in my opinion. And yes bigger is better and driving around with 7.3 badging on a car that has a 7.3 and sounds like it has a 7.3 motor is f**king retro cool.


When I mused about bringing back big block motors with a carb attached, some were not interested because of the carborators and the problems with them, but they said they would be interested in the motor but with modern fuel management and a month or so later this motor makes the news. What more do you want? Now you can have both engine designs in V8 form!


And you can forget about a brand new V8 motor going forward. What you have before you is all you will ever have.


The funny part is all the pushback on an old traditional motor that really goes hand and hand with the Mustang’s history. Want a modern motor with a maximum flat torque curve at almost all rpms- well it will be electric and I trust you will be as objective then (and yes I know it dips at the end but it’s no hump like ICE)!

 

[ctandc72]

I showed that the current 5.0 makes more low-end torque than the old school big blocks (post 22) then I showed that the current 5.0 makes more low-end torque than a modern 2-valve large-displacement truck engine (post 162), but now people stick their heads in the sand. If the 5.0 feels weak to you down low, then it’s because the massive top end rush is fooling your brain into thinking it doesn’t have low end.

I don't have a horse in this race, pun intended, but the dyno you linked to isn't really a good comparison shot of older big block torque numbers. The LS6 Chevelle was a solid cammed big block, with deep gearing, designed to make more mid range / top end HP than typical big block engines of the time period. While many consider it the "king" of the Muscle cars - it isn't really representative of the low end grunt of "old school" big blocks.

Also I think much of memory of the old school big blocks and how they pulled down low was the difference in how they felt when driven - not the actual numbers on the dyno. A few years ago I was racing a guy's modified LS1 / T56 F-Body. Tires, gears, cam, headers, exhaust, tune - it ran pretty good. I remember taking a pass in his Dad's big block, 4 speed Mopar the same track session. That car FELT faster. Even though my brain KNEW it was slower - it was hard to deny the difference in how it FELT. In fact it was a good 2 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile....but I guarantee you if you put the same driver in those two cars back to back and they didn't know the performance numbers, they'd SWEAR that old Mopar was faster.

Look at the Cadillac 500 engine. I've personally wrenched on a couple of these and the off idle speed torque on these engines was simply ridiculous - but makes sense - when you figure it was designed to pull around a 4,000lb + boat of a car. I've personally seen a MILDLY modified (by that I mean replacement valve springs that don't float at 3000 RPM, a dual plane aluminum intake - the weight reduction was ridiculous versus the OEM cast iron monster of an intake, and a tuned Q-jet and headers) 500 make over 550 ft/lbs of torque on a flywheel dyno and that's with pump gas friendly compression ratio. That same engine made over 450 ft/lbs of torque at 2500 RPM.

Another difference in comparing a dyno run of an original muscle car from the 60's or 70's to say a modern 5.0 GT Mustang is the light years advancement in getting the power to the ground. You have to admit that drive train efficiency 49 years ago was a much different animal. And if we're being honest - and trying to make a fair comparison - it would be hard pressed to not address the elephant in the room - electronic fuel injection, electronic ignition, computer controls versus points and a Holley carb on the LS6 - not to mention the advancement in technology on pretty much every other front - roller drivetrains with less power loss through friction for example.

I wrenched and owned more than my share of 'old school' muscle starting in my teens (when my '67 Chevelle was just another 20 year old car) and while I do miss some of the styling of the older cars, there are MANY more things I do not miss.

I don't miss adjusting points, God forbid it was an aftermarket dual-point with springs so stiff they'd shoot across the shop. Cork gaskets. Solid lift cams that produced good power up top - but sounded like a sewing machine - not to mention having to constantly pull the valve covers and adjust the valves (did I mention cork gaskets?). Carburetors that required hours of tweaking and tuning to get them to run just right, at least at the strip, and many times sacrificing low speed drive-ability for that time slip at the track. Let's not even talk about tires. Or supposed "unbreakable" transmission such as the Muncie 4 speeds - Rockcrusher my ass - I pulled that thing so many times I ended up taking apart other transmissions and keeping extra synchros, shift forks and other parts in a tool box in the trunk.

We're spoiled right now. Spoiled by cars that anyone with the financial means can walk onto a dealer's lot and buy with zero hassle. Cars that run 12, 11 or even 10 second 1/4 mile times with no or minimal modifications all while having AC, power windows, cruise control, stereos, navigation, power steering, ABS - and the same cars actually drive nice and handle well. And personally I'm okay with being spoiled like that and I'll continue to enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[TexasRebel]

Is anyone going to tell him that NASCAR has pushrod engines that redline past 10,000 RPM and generally live around 8,000?

 

[Laststandard]

Good comparison. Seems the blue line is the mustang, and if that's the case, it actually has MORE low end than the pushrod V8, which is interesting to me

Sorry, both the same 6.2l. Red line is stock, blue line is intake manifold / 95mm TB / stock tune.

 

[Chameleon]

Keep on dreaming, guys....

We will

Sponsored