Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Fatguy]

I think we're looking at different things here. When you limit boost in order to eliminate detonation (this being at low rpm) you're right back to having a small-displacement NA motor, if maybe a little bigger-feeling due to a psi or two of boost. It's going to have to get above the rpm where significant boost is allowed to develop, and I don't think that's going to be down at 1000 rpm (my guess would be closer to 2000).

Limiting the engine to protect the transmission is something else, but has been in the background to my suggestion of a beefed AOD (or a comparable transmission) that can handle a NA 7.3L. That much engine needs a transmission with brute strength and fewer ratios rather than deep gearing in 1st and lots of closely spaced ratios. For Fatguy's proposed application anyway.


Norm

Norm, engineermike is from another era or mindset. There is no nostalgia or romance toward the old fashioned motors of the past. Today I had my 86 year old dad practice the simple dementia test to renew his license one last time later on this month. The people who seem to want a big block in a Mustang are few and far between and getting old. This is more of an impetus to do the swap. I feel like the last of the Mohicans - like it’s up to me to keep that last modern big block throwback a reality.


All of them don’t get it. Time has moved on. You leave little nuggets that show they are from your era and they don’t pick up on it. While others who even disagree with you still leave reminders that they lived those times. They can’t help it but let that stuff come out innocently and you know they know the score. All those comparisons with horsepower what were mostly made up bogus numbers to begin with. Do they even know that some old cars had their horsepower numbers based on the weight of the car?


They don’t get it. I’d be surprised if Mike was in his 60s as I just don’t get that vibe. Only he knows, but I don’t feel it.


Also: Isn’t it sacrilegious to mention the AOD and Mustang in the same sentence?

Sponsored

 

[Fatguy]

And here I’ll give you an actual example


My 1989 Mustang 5.0 LX hatchback didn’t come with 225 horsepower as advertised. It came with 286 horsepower with these cars able to hit high 13s or low 14s in the quarter.


One reason was that Ford held back on the number a bit, but they also put in quite the illegal true dual exhaust that upped performance after the fact. I know this as the courts forced them to replace everyone of those exhausts with a more restrictive one. I even remember getting the recall notice in the mail. I waited until my exhaust was fully rusted out and then got the newer and more restrictive exhaust. That was one reason those cars were so fast back then. You literally had one of the fastest cars on the street! If you were a young man starting out, that was “the” car to get.


You would only know this if you actually lived in those times with those cars. So much for comparing horsepower numbers via the arm chair...

 

[AirBusPilot]

Just do the swap. Contact your local Swap-O-Engine, give them your credit card, and in a week you’ll have your 7.3 whatever block mustang smoking that single track rear end.

 

[engineermike]

And here I’ll give you an actual example


My 1989 Mustang 5.0 LX hatchback didn’t come with 225 horsepower as advertised. It came with 286 horsepower with these cars able to hit high 13s or low 14s in the quarter.


You would only know this if you actually lived in those times with those cars. So much for comparing horsepower numbers via the arm chair...

First of all, I was there...I knew what the 5.0 mustangs ran...I knew they were the car to have...I was at the track every weekend.

However....what a bunch of BALONEY!

The Mustang notch weighed about 3100. Add 200 lb of driver and fuel and you're at 3300. They pulled 96-97 mph stock. Do the math and you get....wait for it....220-230 hp. Don't believe the math? Ok...well a quick google will yield some dyno numbers for the old 5.0. They made about 200 rwhp. Assuming the standard 15% drivetrain loss gives you.....230 hp. So there you have it...they weren't making 286....they were making 225. Not to mention, even the Cobra got it handed to them by the "new" 275 hp 1993 LT1.

Do you seriously sit around all day and try to think up BS to post up here?

 

[engineermike]

....There is no nostalgia or romance toward the old fashioned motors of the past.

There was a time in my life when I thought there was no greater engine than the small block chevy. No one could convince me otherwise. Then one day, after I retrained myself to think more objectively, I opened my eyes. Hmmm, I thought, looks like that deep skirted block with cross-bolted 6-bolt mains would solve my cap-walk problem. Hmmm....looks like that COP gets rid of the spark plug wires that need periodic replacement. Hmmm....looks like this ultra-complicated ECM actually can control things a lot better and run it safely closer to the edge. Maybe my beloved SBC isn't that great.... Holy moly, if only we had the DOHC 4v heads from a sport-bike on a v8, wouldn't that be the cat's meow! If only we have variable valve timing that way you could optimize it for all rpms and loads not just one rpm and load. If only we had wideband O2 sensors that could run closed-loop at WOT so you could optimize A/F ratio at all times. If only we had faster computers that could sense a single engine knock and retard the timing on only that cylinder and have it done by the very next cycle. If only....

... All those comparisons with horsepower what were mostly made up bogus numbers to begin with.

Do tell, which ones were made up? The 286 hp Fox 5.0 sure was...

Do they even know that some old cars had their horsepower numbers based on the weight of the car?

Please list an example.

I know that the old nostalgic motors were way over-rated because they dyno'd them with no accessories, no air cleaner, no exhaust, and headers. That's why a "450 hp" car from 1969 didn't run like a modern 450 hp car that weighs hundreds of lbs more.

 

[JPSTANG]

My 1989 Mustang 5.0 LX hatchback didn’t come with 225 horsepower as advertised. It came with 286 horsepower

I think you got horsepower and torque mixed up...

 

[Fatguy]

First of all, I was there...I knew what the 5.0 mustangs ran...I knew they were the car to have...I was at the track every weekend.

However....what a bunch of BALONEY!

The Mustang notch weighed about 3100. Add 200 lb of driver and fuel and you're at 3300. They pulled 96-97 mph stock. Do the math and you get....wait for it....220-230 hp. Don't believe the math? Ok...well a quick google will yield some dyno numbers for the old 5.0. They made about 200 rwhp. Assuming the standard 15% drivetrain loss gives you.....230 hp. So there you have it...they weren't making 286....they were making 225. Not to mention, even the Cobra got it handed to them by the "new" 275 hp 1993 LT1.

Do you seriously sit around all day and try to think up BS to post up here?

There you go with the insults.


But since you are so sure of yourself I’ll make a bet with you. If I can pull up an old car mag that ran a late 1980s or so Fox body Mustang that did low 14s and was estimated by that performance to have 270-300 horsepower - would you agree to state on this board and this thread that: ”Fatguy is the greatest and most accurate authority of automotive acumen you have ever seen - and - That I engineermike bow to the superiority over me that he has shown to all!”


If you agree to that because you are so sure - then I will go into Fatguy archives and see if it is still there. And hey guys if Indi find the stash tell me your old mag article wishes and I may be able to come up with something...

 

[engineermike]

Um, no, because if the magazine estimated that then the magazine is wrong. The cars ran good at the time because they made 225 hp and were light. They did not make 270-300 hp. They got waxed by the heavier 4th gen f-body with 275 hp. Sorry but that’s what happened.

It doesn’t take 270 hp to run low 14’s in a 3300 lb car.

 

[BmacIL]

Those are the biggest, thickest rose tinted glasses ever, aren't they?

 

[engineermike]

Those are the biggest, thickest rose tinted glasses ever, aren't they?

Yes, consistent with someone who remembers a lot of things being better than they actually were.

 

[Fatguy]

There was a time in my life when I thought there was no greater engine than the small block chevy. No one could convince me otherwise. Then one day, after I retrained myself to think more objectively, I opened my eyes. Hmmm, I thought, looks like that deep skirted block with cross-bolted 6-bolt mains would solve my cap-walk problem. Hmmm....looks like that COP gets rid of the spark plug wires that need periodic replacement. Hmmm....looks like this ultra-complicated ECM actually can control things a lot better and run it safely closer to the edge. Maybe my beloved SBC isn't that great.... Holy moly, if only we had the DOHC 4v heads from a sport-bike on a v8, wouldn't that be the cat's meow! If only we have variable valve timing that way you could optimize it for all rpms and loads not just one rpm and load. If only we had wideband O2 sensors that could run closed-loop at WOT so you could optimize A/F ratio at all times. If only we had faster computers that could sense a single engine knock and retard the timing on only that cylinder and have it done by the very next cycle. If only....



Do tell, which ones were made up? The 286 hp Fox 5.0 sure was...



Please list an example.

I know that the old nostalgic motors were way over-rated because they dyno'd them with no accessories, no air cleaner, no exhaust, and headers. That's why a "450 hp" car from 1969 didn't run like a modern 450 hp car that weighs hundreds of lbs more.

“Sometimes, manufacturers lie not because they want to impress buyers or hide something, but because they need to be able to sell the car. Back in the late 60’s, GM had a rule that forbade the manufacturers to produce cars with more than one horsepower for every 10 pounds of a car’s weight. This rule was aimed at stopping manufacturers from producing insanely overpowered models, and all of GM`s products and brands had to follow this. The only exception was the Corvette.


In 1968, Pontiac introduced the new Firebird with 400 V8 engine, which was rated at 320 hp. Immediately after the introduction, car fans were publicly asking the factory why the new 400 V8 engine in the Firebird rated at 320 hp, while the same 400 V8 engine in the GTO was 366 hp. Pontiac didn’t reply and soon the answer came from the insiders of the factory. The new Firebird 400 weighed 3300 pounds. So, in order to make it eligible under the GM one hp per 10 pound rule, Pontiac had to rate the 400 V8 engine at 320 hp.

Of course, Pontiac knew their fans would see through this stunt and the dealers would explain to the customers that the new Firebird 400 is significantly powerful than stated, but they needed to do it in order to sell the new model to the general public.”



Source: https://motor-junkie.com/14-cars-faked-horsepower-ratings/1414/7/

 

[Erik427]

So here's the thing....ALL modern car and truck engines have torque limits, and the 7.3 will too. I'm looking at a typical list of 30 limits and I don't think this is all of them. Limits are a good thing. Back in the day, you had to limit maximum engine tq and hp for the worst case scenario (lowest common denominator, if you will). In other words, they had to reduce power to a level that the transmission would handle upshifts at, and reduce cylinder pressure (torque potential) to where it wouldn't detonate on a bad tank of gas at low rpm on the hottest day of the year in an Arizona desert. Torque limits are a good thing because now you can run 10/1 compression and the ECU will limit torque in specific scenarios where failure would have occurred, yet give you all of it when conditions are favorable. The A10 transmission would not survive WOT upshifts at 650 hp, so would you rather them reduce max power to 450 or enact a torque limit only during the shift?

In order to do away with the torque-limits at low rpm, you would have to sacrifice peak torque production and you wind up with an 8/1 compression wheezer big engine that won't even make 1 ftlb/cid.

LOL........OMG I don't even know where to start.

A-10 currently found in the Stang has seen better than 1,500hp.
This can be verified through Palm Beach Dyno.

HP/CID is really for ricers.......

Ford needs a new platform......the 7.3 is that platform.

You guys need to get out more often.
Maybe a few Dragstrips........Go have some fun.
Go to the dirt tracks........or anything grass roots racing.

 

[BmacIL]

A-10 currently found in the Stang has seen better than 1,500hp.
This can be verified through Palm Beach Dyno

Once again, you proved you know nothing about vehicle design. There's these things called dynamometers, you may have heard of it, where they can put an engine and transmission, or even just a transmission by itself, through torturous durability cycles designed to replicate the worst case owner for 150k miles. It has to last. A stock 10R80 will absolutely not last for very long at 4 digit power, and yes they absolutely do have torque management in the S550, Raptor and ZL1, in order to make it last. A lot of things will last for a pull or a pass; that doesn't make them durable as a consumer product. Fatigue failures will absolutely happen at significantly higher torque inputs than the components are designed for. Just a matter of time. Got any more dumb shit to say?

Ford needs a new platform......the 7.3 is that platform

And there it is. You always deliver.

 

[GT Pony]

HP/CID is really for ricers....

Most Ricers don't even know what CID is, or how to convert it. "Hey, how many CID is your Civic?" "Huh, what's CID?"

They would have to be given HP/L before the light bulb came on.

 

[engineermike]

...A-10 currently found in the Stang has seen better than 1,500hp.

HP/CID is really for ricers.......

Here I am trying to explain why torque limits are used and useful and you decide to respond with these two tidbits that are not only irrelevant but also mis-represented.

...Ford needs a new platform......the 7.3 is that platform.

Answer: false....no matter how many times you post it.

Sponsored