Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Cav427]

The 7.3 liter motor is better, for a truck. How many of you want to swap your Coyote V-8 for a powerstroke diesel? There are some out there that would do it, because they can! The 7.3 swap would be interesting, however I don't think we will see a mass migration to it at the drag strip.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

Maybe he wants to pull stumps with his Mustang

This guy needs the 7.3L transplant if he needs to pull bigger stumps ...

 

[Cobra Jet]

Well hate to bring it back from the dead but the specs are out on the 7.3

430HP @ 5500
475LB/FT @ 4000

Low output version for Chassis cab

350HP
468/LB FT

per autoblog

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/01/ford-super-duty-truck-gas-v8-specs/

Here’s more info for those that want it...
https://www.fordnxt.com/news/the-ford-pushrod-returns-with-the-new-godzilla-7-3l-ohv-big-block/

 

[Norm Peterson]

Given the opportunity, I'm sure they would have readily changed the block to use non-concentric camshafts or a DOHC setup, but were told not to change the block. Sometimes the design constraints don't make sense and you end up with cam lobes pinned to a shaft that lives within a hollow cam shaft.

Exactly.

If the Vari-Cam is what I'm thinking of, I've already addressed it. It simply changes the cam phasing with respect to the crankshaft, but does not alter the intake-exhaust phasing.

My point was that the Vari-Cam could be (and probably was by many) considered a silly complication.

VTEC is a bit weird in that it adds more valves... You can't really call it a VVT solution because the timing is fixed, you change the porting. It's a digital attempt at an analog problem.

VTEC was much more than a few extra valves in the intake tract. It was a stepwise approach to variable cam timing/lift involving cam lobes of different specs and a mechanical means of selecting which lobes were controlling the valves at any given rpm.

TiVCT is exactly what were talking about. The ability to vary timing of the exhaust and intake valves independently... Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing... Vanos is a different version of this. Neither can be done with a single camshaft.

Some would call any of those arrangements "needless complexity".

The only difference I'm seeing between TiVCT and ChryCo's cam-in-cam is that TiVCT keeps the cams completely separate. Perhaps TiVCT permits a greater range of phasing, but that's a detail difference rather than any difference in basic operation.


Norm

 

[TexasRebel]

Exactly.



My point was that the Vari-Cam could be (and probably was by many) considered a silly complication.


VTEC was much more than a few extra valves in the intake tract. It was a stepwise approach to variable cam timing/lift involving cam lobes of different specs and a mechanical means of selecting which lobes were controlling the valves at any given rpm.



Some would call any of those arrangements "needless complexity".

The only difference I'm seeing between TiVCT and ChryCo's cam-in-cam is that TiVCT keeps the cams completely separate. Perhaps TiVCT permits a greater range of phasing, but that's a detail difference rather than any difference in basic operation.


Norm

Well yeah... my point was that cam-in-cam is still dual cam. You cannot vary intake-exhaust phasing with a single cam, which means the cam is designed for a purpose (efficiency, torque, or power) and just kind of works in the other ranges. Dual independently variable cam shafts allow changes in the intake-crank, exhaust-crank, and intake-exhaust phasing so you can get both low torque and efficiency.

 

[Erik427]

And you won't. Cause the 5.0L Coyote is superior & more potent.

You should see the build up using the Coyote.
600hp N/A!
At first glance this seemed fantastic.
Then the educated noticed that everything about the coyote had to be changed.

The 7.3 won't have these cost cutting issues and related band aids.

You judge it by the ultra conservative heavy duty truck tune.
If the coyote had that same tune? Maybe 350hp at best.

Educated people understand this.

7.3 will make a easy 500hp with a tune and dual exhaust.
Do the exact same performance mods as a coyote?
Let's just say I'm not going to bet against 445cid of modern V-8 muscle.

 

[Flat Stanely]

Trucks in general respond poorly to tunes because their cam profiles, exhaust manifolds, intakes, valves and so on are all designed for work down low and not really revving all that quickly. When you start building it into something it was never meant to be then youll have a whole host of other issues, valve float from too many revs, oil starvation under Gs, timing and fuel issues. Either way youre gonna be doing a whole NA build. It definitely has a higher NA ceiling than a Coyote.

It would be an interesting swap but only if you realize people will see it the same as swapping a big block into AMC gremlins or Geo Metros...not ideal or the best but unusual.
Also amazed this thread wont die...i actually hadnt logged in since 2016 or 17 when i sold my Stang. The stupidity in this thread is awesome. Been watching since day one haha

 

[Flat Stanely]

You judge it by the ultra conservative heavy duty truck tune.
If the coyote had that same tune? Maybe 350hp at best.

Educated people understand this.

.

Educated people wouldnt think theres 115 horse power difference in tune. The 5.0 has a truck version of the mustang 5.0. Makes about 45 less but its all about where the power is made and not necessarily peak power. To say the 5.0 would make 350 with a similar tune is UNEDUCATED. At the same time Ford made it a point to have best in class numbers in TQ and HP for gas engines in the truck segment. Im sure theres power to be made but to say its an ultra conservative tune is silly.

 

[WildHorse]

Educated people understand this.

understand the absolute horseshit you're posting doesn't constitute being educated. BTW Mr Chevy, last night
I blew away a 2017 Chevy CAMARO SS 1LE with it's 1.2 liter larger engine. Wasn't even close.

 

[Balr14]

I remember the big blocks from the 70s and 80s that could barely manage 200 hp. It would have cost a fortune to upgrade those boat anchors, too.

 

[WildHorse]

I remember the big blocks from the 70s and 80s that could barely manage 200 hp. It would have cost a fortune to upgrade those boat anchors, too.

The SS 454 was powered by a 454-cubic inch, 7.4-liter engine, which produced 230 horsepower at 3,600 rpm and 385 foot-pounds of torque at 1,600 rpm, whereas the first gen F-150 Lightning 351W V-8 made 240 hp @ 4,200 rpm & 340 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm.

 

[Balr14]

The SS 454 was powered by a 454-cubic inch, 7.4-liter engine, which produced 230 horsepower at 3,600 rpm and 385 foot-pounds of torque at 1,600 rpm, whereas the first gen F-150 Lightning 351W V-8 made 240 hp @ 4,200 rpm & 340 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm.

I was thinking of the 75 455 Pontiac that ran 16 second quarter miles. I think it had 200 hp and 320 fpt. .

 

[WildHorse]

7.9:1 CR will do that.

 

[Erik427]

The bore spacing is 4.53 inches.
This makes it the largest displacement small block Ford has ever offered.
The 7.3 is shorter in length and height.
Also, it's much more narrow than anything mod motor.

Imagine, decent set of shorty headers.
Proper intake......?
445 cid small block.....easy 550 hp without revving it to the moon
Gobs of torque all over the tachometer.

The same man that brought us the CobraJet program spearheaded this engine.

Thank You Brian Wolfe.

 

[CurtisH]

The bore spacing is 4.53 inches.
This makes it the largest displacement small block Ford has ever offered.
The 7.3 is shorter in length and height.
Also, it's much more narrow than anything mod motor.

Imagine, decent set of shorty headers.
Proper intake......?
445 cid small block.....easy 550 hp without revving it to the moon
Gobs of torque all over the tachometer.

The same man that brought us the CobraJet program spearheaded this engine.

Thank You Brian Wolfe.

I’m not sure I’d call this a small block. It’s dimensions are probably closer to the FE engine series than anything else Ford has made. The FE was considered a big block.

Sponsored