Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[bootlegger]

Ugh, why did this thread have to come back to life...

Bronco won't even have a V8, so keep dreaming.

Also, there is no point in a big low HP engine with so-so torque (and more weight) in an F150 chassis. If you want torque, they already have one of the most proven V6 diesels on the market.

Sponsored

 

[BmacIL]

Ugh, why did this thread have to come back to life...


Also, there is no point in a big low HP engine with so-so torque (and more weight) in an F150 chassis. If you want torque, they already have one of the most proven V6 diesels on the market.

Ranger platform, not F150.

 

[bootlegger]

Ranger platform, not F150.

Yeah, I meant to quote Hi-PO Stang.

 

[millhouse]

They already have an aftermarket intake and cam for this engine. With minor port work, it laid down just under 600hp.

Also, here is the size comparison.

Width:
23.5" Windsor
25.5" 7.3L
30" Coyote

Length:
22.5" Windsor
24" 7.3L
21.375" Coyote

 

[millhouse]

Also, stock heads flowed 320 CFM on the intake. They are thinking after a full professional port they would be in the 375 to 400 cfm range.

 

[tokuzumi]

Impressive numbers. Although that intake would cost more than the engine.

 

[millhouse]

Impressive numbers. Although that intake would cost more than the engine.

Yeah, they mentioned that intake was not meant for a vehicle. They also fully expect aftermarket intakes to be popping up....very soon.

 

[shogun32]

and spend money on an aluminum block 7.3 V8 engine that could be used in an Mustang , F-150, Raptor, and the new Bronco

Anything that deviates from the Coyote design isn't likely to succeed from a too expensive to develop perspective. Now destroke a Coyote3 to 4.2l, 9500 rpm and put twin-turbos on it and we'd have a nifty screamer. And maybe this time if flat-plane crank do it UDDU so it stop trying to tear itself apart. Going 5.2 on the Shelby was just dumb.

Something as gigantic as 7+ liters won't fit in most of the lineup except the F250 and such. The only thing Detroit (and legacy American buyers) worship is cubic inches. God knows why. Those days are over IMO for non-truck platforms. The buyers are dying off rapidly and the new kids are not impressed with slow-revving motors.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The length difference basically moves the front of the engine 2.5" further forward, which would likely involve more re-work than the inch-and-change forward movement of the engine's CG.

Height measurements? Crankshaft to top of heads/intake and crankshaft to lowest point on the sump are probably more important than the overall height.

Just for grins and comparison, how do those measurements compare to Chevy's LS/recent LT engines? If they're much bigger than those of the LS7, aftermarket interest might not be as strong as hoped for.


Norm

 

[bootlegger]

Impressive numbers. Although that intake would cost more than the engine.

Pretty sure that was engine hp, not to the wheels. So the numbers are pretty in-line with what you would expect from a FBO 7.3L.

 

[BmacIL]

24" 7.3L
21.375" Coyote

I'm not sure if you understand how big of a deal that is.

 

[millhouse]

Pretty sure that was engine hp, not to the wheels. So the numbers are pretty in-line with what you would expect from a FBO 7.3L.

Except, that's not a FBO 7.3L. Those horsepower numbers are an intake, cam and "minor port work". That's it.

I expect a FBO 7.3L will be closer to 700hp.

 

[millhouse]

I'm not sure if you understand how big of a deal that is.

I do.

 

[millhouse]

The length difference basically moves the front of the engine 2.5" further forward, which would likely involve more re-work than the inch-and-change forward movement of the engine's CG.

Height measurements? Crankshaft to top of heads/intake and crankshaft to lowest point on the sump are probably more important than the overall height.

Just for grins and comparison, how do those measurements compare to Chevy's LS/recent LT engines? If they're much bigger than those of the LS7, aftermarket interest might not be as strong as hoped for.


Norm

The engine seems to fit in a foxbody quite easily. No idea on the comparison to the LS.

 

[millhouse]

Anything that deviates from the Coyote design isn't likely to succeed from a too expensive to develop perspective. Now destroke a Coyote3 to 4.2l, 9500 rpm and put twin-turbos on it and we'd have a nifty screamer. And maybe this time if flat-plane crank do it UDDU so it stop trying to tear itself apart. Going 5.2 on the Shelby was just dumb.

Something as gigantic as 7+ liters won't fit in most of the lineup except the F250 and such. The only thing Detroit (and legacy American buyers) worship is cubic inches. God knows why. Those days are over IMO for non-truck platforms. The buyers are dying off rapidly and the new kids are not impressed with slow-revving motors.

The engine isn't Giagantic externally....and would fit quite easily in an F150. Keep in mind, Ford's straight 6 was longer than the 7.3L. I'm not saying Ford will do this, but it could make sense from a fleet vehicle maintenance perspective.

Sponsored