Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Erik427]

What other stock factory 5.0L V8s with a power train warranty are designed to rev to 8,000 RPM.

Clarify your question.......
The Coyote tends to struggle with parts failure while doing this.

But to answer your question as I understand it.
There is a certain South Korean 5.0 that does much better.

The problem is that there are only a few that make a 5.0 or close to it and use it for performance.
Everybody else is either smaller or larger......

The Coyote has it's problems......it's time for something else to be offered.

A 7 Liter Mustang would be awesome.
A throw back to the days when Ford beat Ferrari with a 427 FE.

Sponsored

 

[engineermike]

Putting 4 valve heads on a SBF or LS chevy is quite easy......

Hahahahahahahaha! Good one!

And this whole time I actually thought you were serious!

 

[BmacIL]

I need to pull that Billy Madison judge quote out...

 

[engineermike]

But to answer your question as I understand it.
There is a certain South Korean 5.0 that does much better...

So you’re saying that Kia or Hyundai make a pushrod 5.0 that revs to 8000 rpm? Source needed.

 

[BmacIL]

Look at me guys, I like to make shit up to try to support my whacky and unfounded opinion. Oh and I'll never provide any data or anything remotely close to a source for my made up information because people wouldn't want to see where I pulled it out of.

 

[engineermike]

The rod to stroke ratio is very poor due to the very low deck height.

A whopping 3% difference from your beloved ls1. I suppose the ls1 must be poor is the coyote is very poor.

 

[Fatguy]

You once again waded into a technical discussion you are clearly not equipped to have...then when you realize you’re on the losing side you then switch back to “I want visceral....logic doesn’t matter” mode. This appears to be your modus operandi....when losing, switch to feelings because people can’t use math, logic or engineering to prove you do or don’t feel a certain way.

For the 10th time, if your justification is purely emotional, then stop trying to make the technical case because you are clearly not well-suited for that discussion.

Ok, I would like to posit that the whole reply you just gave me contained no argument, no information, it is just bashing another individual and not addressing anything at all. Basically you just said I don’t know what I’m talking about while not showing why in any way at all.


I would suggest you change the method of your presentation and perhaps you would have the outcome you want. If you were correct all along, how come 90 pages in you can’t seem to have convinced people on the other side of your “self-evident” truth about engine design.


Think about that my friend...


I’m not crazy or insane, yet you have not convinced me in anyway to change my opinions. Clearly your skills of persuasion, rational argument or other discourse, don’t match your self-image of abilities in these matters. The fact that I am holding back and treating you with “kid gloves” (so as not to hurt your ego) as I tell you this is more telling than you know.


I’m not angry at you, or hurt or anything. I won’t say you bore me because that isn’t true. But that other guy from GM who drives a Camaro - Martin or whatever his handle is - is clearly more effective in presenting his side of an argument than you are.


I am not as versed in all things technical in the automotive world. But being arrogant to people and telling them they are wrong does not work as well as discussing things with them in their comfort zone, finding what is important to them, and (here is that word) persuading them that what they truly desire can be achieved in another way. This is where you failed. Your frustration is there because your strategy and delivery has not worked. Have you ever worked in sales?


When you get an engineer that also knows what people want and how to deliver that to them - well then you have a great CEO like Lee Iacocca. Oh yes, he also gave us the Mustang. You may know you are right but how do you tell that to other people. We had this discussion much earlier but you didn’t get it at all. “You” have to see things from another person’s perspective. If you can’t do that then stay in your cubicle designing a spring like Iacocca did when he started working for Ford.


It’s a big world out there and unlike a dictator, you don’t have an army to force your views on anyone, if you want to change minds you are going to have to emote with them and see what they want. You may also find that what they want cannot be delivered with what is available today.


That means you could be wrong? Have you ever considered that?


You alway seem to be especially perturbed by Erick427 who replies to you in much the same way you do to others and you get upset with him without seeing that you do the same thing. In essence you both think you are right - end of discussion - and then wonder why nothing gets resolved.


This is all about mostly theory and not specifically the 7.3 because that is presently in a black box for now. You should realize that we are in a world with people that have different languages, different cultures, different priorities, different perspectives - and if you want to be effective you have to be able to see the other person’s viewpoint. Only then will you see the best way to present your argument to persuade them that your way is correct. Of course it could also be true that your way is wrong - but seeing your argument through a different perspective, you would also see this reality.


Why not try to argue both sides. Just for fun, put that intellect of yours to the test and cut yourself off from your cronies and ague my side to the best of your ability - against them - and try to win and see what happens. Maybe they were wrong and you are right. You were right even when you were wrong. Now you can persuade people!


Forget about me - what does Lee Iacocca say:


“You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can't get them across, your ideas won't get you anywhere.“


Source: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/lee_iacocca

 

[Fatguy]

I’ll make things even simpler and plain.



If you guys want a person to come around to your side of an argument easily, try to open a discussion at their level of understanding and be civil and start listening to them so they know you know their position on the matter - and then show them why your position is the correct one. Civil and respectful to each other in a genuine way and nothing coy or any form of hidden subterfuge. Just be nice, respectful of their position and if you truly know more, they will take your side because you truly know more.



Making an argument or a position that one must humiliate or self-deprecate oneself to embrace - especially in front of a large group of people - is not going to happen for obvious reasons. But if you use some measure of, dare I say “diplomacy”, the people on the other side would have come over to your side of the argument a long, long, time ago without “losing face” as the Japanese say.




This is all about “human nature 101” and not a course in engineering.




Just saying...

 

[engineermike]

Same strategy....you lost the technical arguement so now you’re lecturing on non-technical stuff. Give the lectures a rest. You aren’t convincing anyone that you are some enlightened savant. You want to embark on a highly technical task that you are clearly not equipped for. You don’t even understand the basic physical relationship between force, speed, and power. I can’t help it that you haven’t reached the second level of competence despite all of the information that has been handed to you.

You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand the technical side of this so you resort to these lengthy distractions. You’re not fooling anyone.

 

[Fatguy]

Same strategy....you lost the technical arguement so now you’re lecturing on non-technical stuff. Give the lectures a rest. You aren’t convincing anyone that you are some enlightened savant. You want to embark on a highly technical task that you are clearly not equipped for. You don’t even understand the basic physical relationship between force, speed, and power. I can’t help it that you haven’t reached the second level of competence despite all of the information that has been handed to you.

You have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t understand the technical side of this so you resort to these lengthy distractions. You’re not fooling anyone.

I’m just some guy who wanted a big block in their Mustang. And why do you think it matters to me that I come across as some big shot when it comes to cars? That is not what I built my reputation on. My identity has no car involved with it.


Anyway you guys have fun mashing this argument into the ground. The really funny thing is that that guy called DrGrabster, isn’t he involved in designing alternative fuel cars?

 

[Fatguy]

A 67 would be a nice thing to own.

Ok my friend I’m all ears.


If you read this tell me how you see all this. If I’m not interested in buying an old car from the 60s what do I do to get that feeling under the pedal. Even if it involves going to alternative fuels; here is your shot!

 

[engineermike]

Yes but torque ultimately defines the limit of a car’s horsepower potential. The 7.3 has more displacement and thus more base torque and horsepower potential than the 5.0. Whatever you do to the Coyote you can do to the 7.3 and the 7.3 will come out ahead every time. The only down side is the extra weight but the extra torque more than makes up for it....

Take the above for instance. This is a technical argument. This is also wrong and I’ve explained why it is wrong before.

1. You once again make the fundamental mistake of thinking that force is somehow more important than speed in the “power (hp) = force (tq) x speed (rpm)” relationship. They are equally important.

2. You think that because an engine has more displacement it has more “base torque”. This is also wrong. Torque is a function of several things and displacement is only one of them. Mean Effective Pressure (MEP) is another. Several factors limit the MEP of the 7.3. The wedge chamber, the large bore, and lack of GDI, and that fact that ford has said they are limiting the cylinder pressure (low compression) all reduce the MEP achievable on pump gas. The 5.0 of course has a smaller bore, pent roof chamber, GDI, and 12/1 compression all leading to high MEP and higher specific torque than the 7.3 can achieve.

3. “Whatever you do to the coyote you can do to the 7.3...”. For this to be true, you would have to reduce the bore size, convert to DOHC with tivct, and add GDI. Possible? Yes, but then you would have converted the 7.3 into a 5.0.

All of the above technical arguments of mine are based on technical papers combined with personal experience. I dare say the above arguments are irrefutable. I’ve also posted all of this information before but you clearly didn’t understand it because you posted the quote above even after reading it.

 

[Fatguy]

Take the above for instance. This is a technical argument. This is also wrong and I’ve explained why it is wrong before.

1. You once again make the fundamental mistake of thinking that force is somehow more important than speed in the “power (hp) = force (tq) x speed (rpm)” relationship. They are equally important.

2. You think that because an engine has more displacement it has more “base torque”. This is also wrong. Torque is a function of several things and displacement is only one of them. Mean Effective Pressure (MEP) is another. Several factors limit the MEP of the 7.3. The wedge chamber, the large bore, and lack of GDI, and that fact that ford has said they are limiting the cylinder pressure (low compression) all reduce the MEP achievable on pump gas. The 5.0 of course has a smaller bore, pent roof chamber, GDI, and 12/1 compression all leading to high MEP and higher specific torque than the 7.3 can achieve.

3. “Whatever you do to the coyote you can do to the 7.3...”. For this to be true, you would have to reduce the bore size, convert to DOHC with tivct, and add GDI. Possible? Yes, but then you would have converted the 7.3 into a 5.0.

All of the above technical arguments of mine are based on technical papers combined with personal experience. I dare say the above arguments are irrefutable. I’ve also posted all of this information before but you clearly didn’t understand it because you posted the quote above even after reading it.

Some interesting notes about this thread so far:


Just for kicks and giggles I scrolled through the past 40 pages looking for links from you as you always want sources. For the last 30 pages you gave up 3 links to sources. For the past 40 pages it climbs to 6 links to sources. For a guy who always wants to back up assertions you don’t seem to follow that policy. To be fair your are not alone. The only person who offers up links to back up his assertions is this poster called Fatguy who has everyone beat by a country mile.


Most compelling arguments to me came from jake_zx2. The best and most persuasive arguments in this thread. He unsubscribed to this thread which is another point in his favour. If you are lurking and reading this Jake, just hold off a bit on the name calling and you will come across as a classy guy believe it or not. Congrats!

 

[BmacIL]

Keep it up with that good stuff you've got.

 

[engineermike]

Fat guy, you will do anything to avoid admitting defeat on a technical issue. Note that you didn’t ask for sources...you just want to talk about when sources are required now, thereby sidetracking the conversation away from your false technical arguments again.

Of course I will supply sources on request. Specifically, which technical issue do you doubt?

Sponsored