The new 7.3 V8 fits in the Mustang......

[Vegas5OH]

Why would you want to stick a heavy iron block 7.3 that makes less horsepower than a stock coyote in there.

Sponsored

 

[88lx50]

Why would you want to stick a heavy iron block 7.3 that makes less horsepower than a stock coyote in there.

It weighs around 50 lbs. more and supposedly makes 450 horsepower and 500lbs. ft as it is, tuned for truck use. It could make weigh more horsepower if tuned for the Mustang.

 

[Hack]

I don't want a truck motor in my Mustang, but I wouldn't object to a larger displacement DOHC V8. 5.0 and 5.2 are fairly small displacement engines and I'd like to see Ford go to a 5.7 or slightly larger displacement in order to increase the naturally aspirated power available.

 

[Genxer]

And there aren't enough of you that would actually buy one to justify the price it would need to command to get enough margin to pay for CAFE fines and the investment to make it work as a car engine.

The Coyote is a fantastic engine and outclasses pretty much anything made from the time you're referring to. You want to peel out with no revs? Get a GT and put 4.09 gears in it.

Even with 3.73 gears I can't get proper traction down low.
No way Ford would go back to an iron block for a production Mustang. With the ounces mfrs are trying to shave these days, it ain't happening.

 

[nastang87xx]

It could make weigh more horsepower if tuned for the Mustang.

way*


Anyweigh...


I'm going to go with the "just because they can doesn't mean they will" position. I'm sure this would be a great option for restomod guys though if I had to say something about it. BacIL is right though, simply flopping over to aluminum vs this cast iron construction is not simply just pouring aluminum into the castings. I think I remember one of the engineers saying that the Godzilla is comparable in size to the Coyote. The other thing is that this engine is clearly has a focus on a HIGH HIGH volume application as compared to maybe what, 80,000 Mustangs sold a year? And how many of those are V8 cars?

This engine was designed specifically to fill in the gap where the old 6.2L is very much long in the tooth. Fleets and private owners don't want to be paying for and maintaining diesel engines. According to FORD'S data (don't shoot me/the messenger), consumers want a big torquey motor that will be good on fuel economy, big on torque, and do medium duty work very well such as towing 3 - 4 tons throughout its life or hauling about 2000lbs or so of payload day in and day out. These new big diesels are astonishing but MOST consumers don't need 35,000lbs of towing capacity but that rotting 6.2L just isn't doing the trick anymore. I think 3/4 ton gas trucks are very cool because it's all about finding the balance of capability with not too much but not too little. There's a reason why these trucks "only" have 385 or 410 horsepower as opposed to the 420 horsepower of the half tons. Work horses work. 1500's? Sorry guys...but they're kind of divas. I also have a half ton truck and have been in and out of one for a while so it's not like I don't speak from experience.

 

[zackmd1]

It weighs around 50 lbs. more and supposedly makes 450 horsepower and 500lbs. ft as it is, tuned for truck use. It could make weigh more horsepower if tuned for the Mustang.

Yea that would be the thing to keep in mind here.... While it does have an iron block, it is a far more simplistic engine meaning less parts = less weight. I am interested into Ford's reasoning for going back to a OHV architecture but the result is a much more compact and simplistic design.

 

[Erik427]

9.6 inches for the deck height
4.53 - 4.6 inches for the bore spacing.
500+lbs for overall weight.

 

[nastang87xx]

I am interested into Ford's reasoning for going back to a OHV architecture but the result is a much more compact and simplistic design.

From the interview I watched it sounds like that as displacement went up, the relative volumetric efficiency of the valvetrain started to go down. With that came issues with the size of the engine and yes, reliability concerns. Because the DOHC setups had such big valves and components, it was actually causing issues with cylinder filling and mixing. A single valve architecture was elected. This really will not negatively affect the motor due to engine speed. I can't imagine the redline being much higher than 5500 RPM, if that. Perfect for a big meaty single valvetrain. And you all think that OHV engines are dookie...lol.

 

[zackmd1]

From the interview I watched it sounds like that as displacement went up, the relative volumetric efficiency of the valvetrain started to go down. With that came issues with the size of the engine and yes, reliability concerns. Because the DOHC setups had such big valves and components, it was actually causing issues with cylinder filling and mixing. A single valve architecture was elected. This really will not negatively affect the motor due to engine speed. I can't imagine the redline being much higher than 5500 RPM, if that. Perfect for a big meaty single valvetrain. And you all think that OHV engines are dookie...lol.

Oh do not get me wrong, I am not knocking OHV designs at all! I would actually prefer Ford to take a more simplistic approach with their engine desings as I think the gen 3 coyotes are starting to show what over - engineering can lead to.

 

[nastang87xx]

Oh do not get me wrong, I am not knocking OHV designs at all!

Lol, that wasn't to you directly, just the xOHC community in general. Personally I believe OHV designs will always have a place in the heart of a true badass grunt.

 

[Spart]

I really think the people naysaying just assume the engine exists in a vacuum.

"Too heavy because it has an iron block" - apparently unaware that the same engine can be made with both iron and aluminum blocks, like, I dunno, the LS? And that an aluminum block OHV engine is going to be lighter than an aluminum block DOHC engine?

"Meh, won't make any more power than the 5.0" - apparently unaware that the same engine can be tuned for either low end torque or HP at higher RPM, like, I dunno, THE COYOTE. Ever look at the 5.0 numbers in the F150? You can do a lot with cam and intake to change the character of the engine.

I'm not saying it will happen, especially with Jim Hackett at the helm. But I wouldn't rule it out at all.

 

[nastang87xx]

I really think the people naysaying just assume the engine exists in a vacuum.

"Too heavy because it has an iron block" - apparently unaware that the same engine can be made with both iron and aluminum blocks, like, I dunno, the LS? And that an aluminum block OHV engine is going to be lighter than an aluminum block DOHC engine?

This is a little too oversimplified. The LS engine was also engineered with aluminum and iron in mind. Now does that mean Ford doesn't have an aluminum variant hidden away in the corner of a closet some where? Well...no. But let's go off of what we have here rather than over speculating. What defines an LS engine an LS engine is the main cap design, Y cross section design, the single main seal, and the cam core size. The castings block to block and iron to aluminum are actually different even with the same displacements. The Vortec 6000 for instance is NOT an LS2 casting.

Considering Ford, I doubt they're investing money into making an aluminum derivative.

Also, if we HAVE to make a comparison, albeit a very wonky one, regarding the weight, an LS7 is something like 460lbs dressed.

 

[Spart]

This is a little too oversimplified. The LS engine was also engineered with aluminum and iron in mind. Now does that mean Ford doesn't have an aluminum variant hidden away in the corner of a closet some where? Well...no. But let's go off of what we have here rather than over speculating. What defines an LS engine an LS engine is the main cap design, Y cross section design, the single main seal, and the cam core size. The castings block to block and iron to aluminum are actually different even with the same displacements. The Vortec 6000 for instance is NOT an LS2 casting.

Considering Ford, I doubt they're investing money into making an aluminum derivative.

Also, if we HAVE to make a comparison, albeit a very wonky one, regarding the weight, an LS7 is something like 460lbs dressed.

Perhaps an even better example is 2010 GT500 vs 2011 GT500.

Dropped 102 pounds going to the aluminum block in 2011.

I would bet any amount of money that when Ford developed the 5.4L for the 97 F150, they weren't thinking "hey, should we plan on an aluminum block version down the road?"

The performance car use case has always been a bit of a skunkworks figuring out how to turn a truck engine into a screamer.

 

[Freedom]

I doubt ford has any interest is putting a more fuel sipping engine inside a normal mustang. If it’s more of a halo car they already have the supercharged 5.2 making way more power than this and high revving . CAFE wouldn’t be happy either. It really only makes sense for the f250 since it needs haul.

Do the Powerstroke have cylinder deactivation? I’m not really sure of this but wouldn’t Ford need new valves/rockers/cams/crank or whatever since the Powerstroke is a DIESEL motor? Like someone else said the block needs to be remade in aluminum for a halo mustang and at this point cost savings should lead them to the already in production 5.2 block.
Nvm it’s a gasoline engine

 

[nastang87xx]

The performance car use case has always been a bit of a skunkworks figuring out how to turn a truck engine into a screamer.

Using that argument, you kinda shot yourself in the foot. The performance car use case for Ford Motor Company is hybrid and alternative powertrain, not displacement. Gen 2 EcoBoost in the GT, EcoBoost base Mustang, 2021 Mustang hybrid, Gen 2 EcoBoost Raptor, and every ST vehicle features EcoBoost. Doesn't mean that they may not necessarily throw a curve ball but look at the real data too. I honestly don't think anyone is doubting the engine's potential. But the future of Mustang is not displacement based on Ford's behavior and dropped hints as of the last several years.

Sponsored