Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Erik427]

The way I read his quote is exactly that. It wouldn't be a good engine for the Mustang. Like you said, it would add weight, it would throw of the handling and wouldn't drive as good. Now personally I also think it would be slower. I don't expect it to have as much horsepower as you do, so I don't think the extra torque would offset the added weight.

Everything Ford has said about this engine and positioning it to be an alternative to a diesel makes me think its going to be just that. He also mentioned low reving nature. That tells me this engine is going to be set up for massive low end torque and leads me to believe that its going to fall on its face in the upper RPM range.

That just leads me to believe that AS IS the 7.3 will not be a good engine in a performance car. Not that it cant be with a different cam and tune, but as it will be offered from Ford based on what they have said about it and what we know about leads me to believe it will be an awesome heavy duty truck engine and not a good performance engine

Look how little actual bottom end tq the Coyote makes.
Now compare that to GM's new 6.6LT.
The extra tq will offset the extra 100lbs.
The 7.3 is the right engine for the Stang......she ain't no lightweight.

Sponsored

 

[Erik427]

Peak power wins armchair races......
Overall power is what really wins races.

 

[Erik427]

Funny, the FE 427 was used in trucks, buses, boats and was also used for industrial projects.

What fools were they that crammed these into galaxies, mustangs and Shelby Cobras. How on Gods green earth did they not realize that they couldn't have possibly produced any power out of those boat anchors.

......and the GT40......and a bunch of CanAm race cars.....and a bunch of Winston Cup cars.
You can build a modern all alloy FE to weigh about 465lbs.

Now if Pond would drill their blocks so a modern A-10 can be used....

 

[Erik427]

Let's put the 7.3 to the side for a moment.

How does everyone think about a 3.5TT being offered in the Stang?
Personally I think it would be a tremendous improvement.

Would make for a awesome tie in to the Ford GT.

 

[Big Boss]

Look how little actual bottom end tq the Coyote makes.
Now compare that to GM's new 6.6LT.
The extra tq will offset the extra 100lbs.
The 7.3 is the right engine for the Stang......she ain't no lightweight.

What would you rather put in a car the LT1 or the L8T?

 

[Erik427]

What would you rather put in a car the LT1 or the L8T?

Depends......the 6.6 is built with the kind of robustness needed for boost.
N/A......6.2 LT any day of the week.

LT4 is quite a different story.

 

[Big Boss]

Depends......the 6.6 is built with the kind of robustness needed for boost.
N/A......6.2 LT any day of the week.

LT4 is quite a different story.

Just swapping the engine as it is. Nothing else

 

[millhouse]

Wrong. It's about peak horsepower. What's faster 1000 hp and 100 ftlb of torque or 100 hp and 1000ftlb of torque. Drag racing requires gear ratios to keep the rpms as close to peak horsepower as possible.

Man, you really do need to do some research before you keep going down this road. Instantaneous torque is what matters for your 60'. Ever heard of the formula F=ma? Or how about a=F/m? You see, it's instantaneous torque that gets you moving. Once you're in motion, then horsepower can be used to determine how well you're going to accelerate.

How well does the GT350 do on the dragstrip with the first 60'? Ever wonder why it's such a PITA to get a decent launch?

Have you ever seen a Tesla P100D's horsepower and torque curve?

It's not the HP that get's you moving, it's the torque.

Now with all of this said, it's RWTq that matters for the launch, so gearing absolutely can play into the equation. The difficulty with higher rpm cars (GT350) is that as soon as you gear for a better 60', you make the first few gears EXTREMELY short. This is a contributing factor to why the A10 makes such a HUGE difference in the mustang and such a small difference in the camaro.

 

[TexasRebel]

Man, you really do need to do some research before you keep going down this road. Instantaneous torque is what matters for your 60'. Ever heard of the formula F=ma? Or how about a=F/m? You see, it's instantaneous torque that gets you moving. Once you're in motion, then horsepower can be used to determine how well you're going to accelerate.

How well does the GT350 do on the dragstrip with the first 60'? Ever wonder why it's such a PITA to get a decent launch?

Have you ever seen a Tesla P100D's horsepower and torque curve?

It's not the HP that get's you moving, it's the torque.

Now with all of this said, it's RWTq that matters for the launch, so gearing absolutely can play into the equation. The difficulty with higher rpm cars (GT350) is that as soon as you gear for a better 60', you make the first few gears EXTREMELY short. This is a contributing factor to why the A10 makes such a HUGE difference in the mustang and such a small difference in the camaro.

Holy cow. You said something that's correct. You even flipped your stance and said that area under the curve matters.

 

[Big Boss]

Let's put the 7.3 to the side for a moment.

How does everyone think about a 3.5TT being offered in the Stang?
Personally I think it would be a tremendous improvement.

Would make for a awesome tie in to the Ford GT.

I think they should offer it. Ford has shown the 3.5TT can be adapted to be used in many applications.

The 3.5 in the SHO has 350 FT/LBs from 1500-5000 and 350HP, the 3.5 in the F-150 is 470 FTLB @3500 w/ 375HP, the 3.5 in the Explorer Sport is 350 @3500 with 365HP and the HO is 510FT/LB @ 3500 with 450HP and the obviously the one featured in the Ford GT with over 600 HP.

Ford could definitely tweak a version of the 3.5 for the Mustang that would be awesome.

The problem is I am not sure how the market would react to it.

 

[millhouse]

The way I read his quote is exactly that. It wouldn't be a good engine for the Mustang. Like you said, it would add weight, it would throw of the handling and wouldn't drive as good. Now personally I also think it would be slower. I don't expect it to have as much horsepower as you do, so I don't think the extra torque would offset the added weight.

Everything Ford has said about this engine and positioning it to be an alternative to a diesel makes me think its going to be just that. He also mentioned low reving nature. That tells me this engine is going to be set up for massive low end torque and leads me to believe that its going to fall on its face in the upper RPM range.

That just leads me to believe that AS IS the 7.3 will not be a good engine in a performance car. Not that it cant be with a different cam and tune, but as it will be offered from Ford based on what they have said about it and what we know about leads me to believe it will be an awesome heavy duty truck engine and not a good performance engine

Listen, I have no problem with the way you read Joe's quote. It was however ambiguous enough to require more information to determine why you or I support that. Many people in here have not done that.

I fully understand what your saying about this not be a high revving engine. I think however you are underestimating that the huge amount of torque this engine is going to make will dictate it having a respectable horsepower number. Remember, HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252.

You also have to keep in mind that performance is a relative term. Performance on the track? Performance on the drag-strip? How about stoplight to stoplight? 0-60? Hell, what about which car feels faster?

 

[millhouse]

Holy cow. You said something that's correct. You even flipped your stance and said that area under the curve matters.

Huh? Go back and read my posts my friend. I've always said it's area under the curve.

 

[bootlegger]

That's not what I see. What I see are people who belittle others for their ideas. I see people that refuse to believe that an engine designed for a truck could possibly excel in a mustang. This is being done so much now that it's straying from civil debates with actual data and swung more towards personal insults and name calling. Unfortunately, we live in an era where any ideas that don't fall in line with the majority are shit simply because it's not popular.

I didn't write that.

 

[nastang87xx]

Wrong. It's about peak horsepower. What's faster 1000 hp and 100 ftlb of torque or 100 hp and 1000ftlb of torque. Drag racing requires gear ratios to keep the rpms as close to peak horsepower as possible.

Actually you're both "wrong" but I think "over simplified" or "incomplete thoughts" are more appropriate. AVERAGE max power wins assuming all other variables are the same like gear ratios, weight, etc.

 

[WildHorse]

Sponsored