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

[Schwerin]

You can always put truck cams and intake/tune on your Mustang

Thats kinda what the Mach1 was. 01 cobra short block, 03-04 Avators cams and intake.

Sponsored

 

[Mountain376]

A 7.3L V8 202X Mustang would go the opposite direction of current performance....

1.) It's 7.3L. It's going to eat fuel and produce a lot of particulates.
2.) It's 7.3L. It's going to eat a LOT of fuel as a HP engine.
3.) The 7.3L was designed to the intent of being a truck engine. The size, configuration, and vavletrain geometry was optimized for a truck application - lots of torque, small package, rev-range to around 6k-ish (key is where validation targets were with the engine's design).
4.) Transforming the 7.3L into a HP engine will cost $$$ - completely revised valvetrain, revised cylinder heads, aluminum block, new intake, new pistons/ring package... etc.

As said, the Coyote architecture is just plain and simple all around better for the Mustang.

 

[88lx50]

It has a fairly square bore and stroke and big valves and ports in the heads. Wouldn’t take much work to optimize it for use in a Mustang. Didn’t take much to tune the Coyote for truck use.
As far as gas mileage, chevy got mid 20’s highway in the Corvette 427 a few years ago. Not impossible to get decent mileage from larger cid engines.
This isn’t the 60’s with Holley carbs and 440 six packs.

 

[Vegas5OH]

i agree this isnt the 60s, so we dont need pushrod 7.3s to make horsepower either.

 

[nastang87xx]

i agree this isnt the 60s, so we dont need pushrod 7.3s to make horsepower either.

I think this is more about iron vs aluminum rather than OHV vs OHC.

 

[Mountain376]

It has a fairly square bore and stroke and big valves and ports in the heads. Wouldn’t take much work to optimize it for use in a Mustang. Didn’t take much to tune the Coyote for truck use.
As far as gas mileage, chevy got mid 20’s highway in the Corvette 427 a few years ago. Not impossible to get decent mileage from larger cid engines.
This isn’t the 60’s with Holley carbs and 440 six packs.

How much does a Vette weigh? Whats the cD? Drivetrain losses? The new Camaros get around 20/26 MPG in M6 form and 20/28 automatic (cylinder deactivation, which isn't all peaches). Add another 1.1L...

The 7.3L heads and valvetrain are clearly (and the Ford PT engineer states this) designed for low/mid-RPM. Very large diameter and length valves. Large valve springs.

The entire head and valvetrain would have to be completely redone for Mustang. Can it be done? Sure. But it's $$$ and we're talking Mustang, which is special platform variant.

Reality is economy requirements are going in the upwards direction and particulate requirements are going in the downward direction. Content (weight) in vehicles in going in the upwards direction. For a truck, the case for an engine like this is fine, as it is a very special use and such an engine fits the expectations and requirements for use (torque, size, weight, reliability). The same is not true for Mustang .

This same conversation happend when the "Boss" 6.2L, that is in the current F-series, debuted and the next GT500 (13-14 Trinity) was an unknown.

 

[Erik427]

A 7.3L V8 202X Mustang would go the opposite direction of current performance....

1.) It's 7.3L. It's going to eat fuel and produce a lot of particulates.
2.) It's 7.3L. It's going to eat a LOT of fuel as a HP engine.
3.) The 7.3L was designed to the intent of being a truck engine. The size, configuration, and vavletrain geometry was optimized for a truck application - lots of torque, small package, rev-range to around 6k-ish (key is where validation targets were with the engine's design).
4.) Transforming the 7.3L into a HP engine will cost $$$ - completely revised valvetrain, revised cylinder heads, aluminum block, new intake, new pistons/ring package... etc.

As said, the Coyote architecture is just plain and simple all around better for the Mustang.

I'm betting this thing is just a tune away from making fantastic HP numbers.
As for me, I love bottom end torque!
Everything about this motor screams potential.
As for the anti 1/4 mile crap on this thread. Very few people talk about road course times.
Most people talk/debate/brag about 1/4 mile performance.
Just look what the 1320/Scatpak/Hellcat/Demon/Red Eye has done for the Challenger.

There is no denying this.

The 7.3 should be used in the Cobra Jet and a street version should be based off of it.
Just a honest opinion from someone who is tired of track cars.

I'm betting that after all the newness wears off.
Nobody will be talking about the GT500 unless it's a Rockstar at the strip.
The GT350 is a perfect example of this being true.

 

[nastang87xx]

Yep, I'm going to be that guy. JUST FOR FUN. I have zero sources and zero educated logic behind this other than what we've been told in interviews. Ford keeps on focusing on stoich and economy with the Godzilla. Running at damn near stoich is pretty peppy granted we don't know the compression ratio either (or rather I don't remember what it is if it was said). 532lb ft @ 4100 RPM and 455 hp @ 5200 RPM. Redline at 5500 RPM.

 

[88lx50]

How much does a Vette weigh? Whats the cD? Drivetrain losses? The new Camaros get around 20/26 MPG in M6 form and 20/28 automatic (cylinder deactivation, which isn't all peaches). Add another 1.1L...

The 7.3L heads and valvetrain are clearly (and the Ford PT engineer states this) designed for low/mid-RPM. Very large diameter and length valves. Large valve springs.

The entire head and valvetrain would have to be completely redone for Mustang. Can it be done? Sure. But it's $$$ and we're talking Mustang, which is special platform variant.

Reality is economy requirements are going in the upwards direction and particulate requirements are going in the downward direction. Content (weight) in vehicles in going in the upwards direction. For a truck, the case for an engine like this is fine, as it is a very special use and such an engine fits the expectations and requirements for use (torque, size, weight, reliability). The same is not true for Mustang .

This same conversation happend when the "Boss" 6.2L, that is in the current F-series, debuted and the next GT500 (13-14 Trinity) was an unknown.

How are large diameter valves and springs relegating an engine to low rpm use lol? The heads look like they can breathe very well. That aids any engine in making horsepower. It also has a deep skirted 4 bolt main crossbolted block that can probably run a higher rpm then for truck use. These conversations are all a moot point. I doubt it will wind up in Mustang. But not because the engine is not capable of making plenty of horsepower. The 6.2 was a boat anchor. It was large because of the OHC design, and it did not offer much gains for a Mustang. The 7.3 architecture is a compact design with many possibilities.

 

[BmacIL]

Very few people talk about road course times

What??? Nurburgring times and VIR times for PCoTY are talked about, debated and argued over at length all over car forums, and FAR more time/print space is devoted by professionals and reviewers of cars to the handling and road course performance than 1/4 mile times for nearly every performance car. The Demon and Hellcat are lone exceptions to this because of their obvious and declared 1/4 mi focus. I personally am not anti 1/4 mile, for the record. Fast cars can be fun in more than one direction, though.

 

[Mountain376]

How are large diameter valves and springs relegating an engine to low rpm use lol? The heads look like they can breathe very well. That aids any engine in making horsepower. It also has a deep skirted 4 bolt main crossbolted block that can probably run a higher rpm then for truck use. These conversations are all a moot point. I doubt it will wind up in Mustang. But not because the engine is not capable of making plenty of horsepower. The 6.2 was a boat anchor. It was large because of the OHC design, and it did not offer much gains for a Mustang. The 7.3 architecture is a compact design with many possibilities.

Yeah...

Also, 106mm stroke. Higher RPM? OK.

 

[88lx50]

Yeah...

Also, 106mm stroke. Higher RPM? OK.

GT500 5.4 liter had a similar stroke and made peak horsepower at 6500 rpm.

 

[BmacIL]

GT500 5.4 liter had a similar stroke and made peak horsepower at 6500 rpm.

DOHC.

 

[88lx50]

DOHC.

A pushrod motor can rev to 6500 rpm. These are not very good points you are making.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

If ford wanted to, they could just destroke the 7.3 a little down to a 7.0 or 427" or 429" and that would give it a little more rpm, and make a new intake manifold and cam more suited for hp and rpm and they could have a 550 hp or so N/A motor for the mustang. And for the iron block, it will not add that much weight, maybe 100 lbs.

Anybody remember the old 460 and 429 big blocks? The 460 came out first and was a strictly lincoln/t-bird engine, then in 69 ford destroked it to make the 429. They both had the same bore size and rod length, but the 429 got new pistons with a different pin height so they would not ride 1/4" down in the bore giving a very low compression.

The old school big blocks were physically huge compared to today's engines, they used huge bores and strokes of less than 4.00" Today's engines use a smaller bore and a huge stroke to get displacement, resulting in a compact block and much less weight. Given that, my best guess is if ford made an aluminum block for the 7.3 it would only save about 85-100 lbs tops.

Sponsored