Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[jake_zx2]

Almost every ls running in drifting competition/drag racing or any street rod swap came from a truck.
Look what this has done for Chevrolet.
Very few Coyote swap.
These are also the same engineers that said piston slap is normal in a Coyote.

So, what you're saying is that Ford never ACTUALLY said anything about this being a performance-minded engine and you're just talking out of your ass

Not surprising considering you're one of the people who thinks they know more than Ford's engineers and calls a characteristic of an engine "piston slap" with no evidence whatsoever

Sponsored

 

[martinjlm]

Doesn't answer as to why continue with the more costly 6.2

It exactly answers it. Because the 6.2L tooling and investment is already paid for the "cost" to Ford is only the material cost and the cost to assemble it. Cost of tooling, R&D, and investment for the 6.2L was probably paid off years ago. Because the 6.2L is more complex than the 7.3L, it probably has higher variable cost (parts + labor to assemble) but much less tooling and investment cost, to the point where the TOTAL cost of 6.2L is lower than TOTAL cost of 7.3L

So it probably costs Ford less to produce the 6.2L than the 7.3L. By making the 6.2L the base engine, buyers have to pay an option price to get the 7.3L and help pay off some of the investment and tooling involved.

 

[jake_zx2]

It exactly answers it. Because the 6.2L tooling and investment is already paid for the "cost" to Ford is only the material cost and the cost to assemble it. Cost of tooling, R&D, and investment for the 6.2L was probably paid off years ago. Because the 6.2L is more complex than the 7.3L, it probably has higher variable cost (parts + labor to assemble) but much less tooling and investment cost, to the point where the TOTAL cost of 6.2L is lower than TOTAL cost of 7.3L

So it probably costs Ford less to produce the 6.2L than the 7.3L. By making the 6.2L the base engine, buyers have to pay an option price to get the 7.3L and help pay off some of the investment and tooling involved.

Exactly, and once the investment is paid off, production of the 6.2 will likely stop and the 7.3 will become the standard engine because it's cheaper to produce

 

[BmacIL]

Exactly, and once the investment is paid off, production of the 6.2 will likely stop and the 7.3 will become the standard engine because it's cheaper to produce

Guys, guys, guys. Stop with all them facts and logic. The feels, fantasies and false inferences are the important things.

 

[Fatguy]

Guys, guys, guys. Stop with all them facts and logic. The feels, fantasies and false inferences are the important things.

Exactly...


As I said before when you turn the discussion solely into a physics lesson or an engineering construct - you start to miss the point! Cars mean freedom and performance cars amp that idea up to the max.

Guys love their cars. They are not mearly data on a spec sheet or performance figures in some car magazine. They are an extension of their identities and individuality. They make us feel good. How do you quantify that on a spec sheet.

We don’t have the “specs” yet but we “speculate.” Nothing wrong there. I wasn’t kidding when I stated that I picked this engine partly because it was born GODZILLA. I don’t even know if the GTR engine started out that way.

I am cool with a truck engine - truck characteristics and all - as I have been a trucker for over 32 years. I still drive trucks of all kinds even though I already reached full retirement years ago. I just love to drive!


I will speculate that this motor can be a fab base engine for a drag car and other applications of the like - knowing what I know now. The knee jerk reaction to an engine we still know nothing about points to insecurity more than anything else. If the 7.3 conversions topple the Coyote by desirability then so be it. If a blown 7.3 topples a GT500, well then that’s the business. If it turns out to be a dog through and through it will just stay in the trucks.

But we can still have some fun talking about it...

 

[Erik427]

Meanwhile, The Aftermarket is ready to pounce on this engine.

Far more interest in this "Truck" motor than the GT500.
Doesn't matter what media outlet you use.

 

[Erik427]

Meanwhile, The Aftermarket is ready to pounce on this engine.

Far more interest in this "Truck" motor than the GT500.
Doesn't matter what media outlet you use.

 

[Fatguy]

And for what it’s worth:

“The automaker's North American product communications lead Mike Levine confirmed the 7.3's compatibility with both the Mustang and the F-150 to Motor Authority, whom he also told in no uncertain terms that the engine would not be suitable for the Mustang. Despite its high displacement and suitable dimensions, Levine reportedly pointed to the 7.3's cast-iron block as too heavy for use in the relatively light pony car, be it due to front suspension constraints or weight distribution issues.

Levine reportedly expressed certainty that the 7.3 will eventually find its way into a Mustang, though only as an aftermarket project, and not a Ford product.“


It was only Joel Beltramo who said you may need to cut into the fire wall but didn’t state it as fact so maybe they never tried it. Some other quotes from more technical sources:

“Even though this 21st century big block smacks of older blue-oval powerplants, it’s a clean-sheet, from-scratch design. Still, they did keep an eye on the past during development. “We had some old-timers still around that remembered some of those [pushrod] engines and we actually made a point to seek them out and talk to them about what their experiences were,” Beltramo recounted. “Many things we were counseled to avoid,” he added, laughing out loud. They tried to draw on what he called “the human experience” to improve real-world usability of this engine and not just rely on computer modeling and simulation. An example of this is the oil passages for the camshaft bearings. He said they’ve been engineered in such a way that dirt and debris does not get trapped in them, something that improves serviceability years and years down the road.”

“Serving as the foundation of this engine is a rigid cast-iron block. Beltramo said compacted-graphite iron, an ultra-durable material, was not required here as cylinder pressures are relatively low since the engine is naturally aspirated. Within this assembly spins a forged-steel crankshaft supported by four-bolt main-bearing caps further shored up by cross bolts.

Capping the block off is a pair of high-flow cylinder heads made of aluminum to save weight. As for the bore and stroke, Beltramo said they measure 107.2 millimeters (4.22 inches) and 101 millimeters (3.98 inches), respectively.”

“Gasoline is fed to each cylinder by a port-injection system. This is a simpler and more serviceable solution than competing direct-injection technology, which does have its advantages in certain applications. Simplifying maintenance, the spark plugs, fuel injectors, oil filter and water pump are all easily accessible.

And for all you engine geeks out there (like me!), this big block’s firing order is a familiar 1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2, identical to the 5.0-liter Coyote and even Ford’s very first V8 engine, the venerable flathead that was introduced in 1932.“


The heads are high flow as that was the biggest concern. So that should give the green light for the aftermarket. The only concern was not using a stronger material for the block. I’m no engineer so I don’t know how much boost that block could contain, so if someone knows then tell us.

 

[Fetlock]

I thought this was a pretty interesting overview of the engine. It's pretty clearly designed for the F250 up. According to Ford it was designed to be the most fuel efficient, while also meeting the power demands of a heavy vehicle in lower rpms. Lots of design decisions center around the durability and delivering the torque heavier loads require. They want it to be the mid-tier engine between the 6.2 and the turbo diesel. It can handle a larger vehicles needs, needs the current 6.2 can't handle, so some fleet managers won't need to support both gas and diesel engines.

One place it gets interesting for folks that want to tune it for performance is where he speaks to the stock internal components quality. From the sound of it, they all would stand up to a supercharger. I agree that the coyote is a much better fit for the Mustang today and don't see this engine as being practical in the current Mustang. That said, the next iteration of the GT500 with an aluminum destroked supercharged version of the 7.3 would be an interesting evolution. It doesn't fit the current Mustang, but I will be curious to see if it does fit in the next generation.

 

[Fatguy]

From hotrod.com;

“The new 7.3L V8 has pushrods, sizeable cubic inch, a robust block and rotating assembly, high-flowing heads, and variable camshaft timing. In other words, along with being a truck engine, it has the DNA of a really great street or race engine. It was also rumored that this was the brainchild of former director of Ford Performance, Brian Wolfe. (Note: Wolfe is now retired from Ford, but continues to drag race his Ford Mustang).”

“When the project kicked off, [Brian Wolfe] was the director of global engine engineering. We decided to go with a brand new design; one that made the most sense,” said Ramey. “We essentially had a clean sheet of paper, and this design offered the customer what we’re looking for in that segment. Basically, it fits the heavy-duty market for trucks and we wanted to have a common engine that would go across the board. This will be in dump trucks, motor homes, and pick-up trucks. We needed a relatively compact package with low cost and high reliability. It made sense to do a pushrod V8 for cost to the customer and maintenance.”


“We wanted to have a relatively good performance potential for the engine, so it has large bores. This is good for cylinder head flow and creates slower piston speed during cruise modes for better efficiency,” said Ramey. “We also designed the engine to be serviced and rebuilt in the future. So, for these reasons the iron block made the most sense. Another benefit is improved thermal efficiency.” Ramey stated the engine was designed with longevity in mind. The block can be bored and honed at least 0.010-inch according to Ramey, but we suspect there’s plenty of meat to go 0.030-inch over (or larger), which would give you 457 cubes. Some insiders say a bore and stroke upgrade could net over 500 cubic inches! The bottom end also uses an integrated oil pump, and there are options for Super Duty and Medium duty oil cooler attached on the side of the block.”


“Up top, Ford designed a composite intake that mounts flat at the heads. This helps with sealing and assembly. It also has a dry valley, so there’s less chance of an oil leak. And there’s a flow advantage, too. The 7.3L does not currently utilize direct injection, but Ramey says it can be adopted later if necessary.

The heads are aluminum with tall ports that were developed for good flow and charge motion. “We have a wedge-shaped combustion chamber and the spark plug location is optimized at the center of the dish for the ability to have higher compression ratio. That equals better efficiency and performance. We also use piston-cooling jets that flow oil to the backside of the piston. This cools the pistons under high load to prevent detonation. And we control oil pressure with the variable-displacement oil pump. “We can control the oil pressure in the engine to give a target pressure. It’s a variable-displacement oil pump, so basically we can control the pressure depending on driver demand. At idle we don’t need much pressure, at higher speed or load we can increase pressure to protect the engine.” This is yet another feature that should equate to extra performance and high-mileage durability.

You’ll also note the Beehive valve springs are very tall. This was done to accommodate the high valve lift with low spring stress. “With a tall spring you’re not deflecting the coils as much,” said Ramey. “Pretty much all our engine have evolved to that design with lightweight retainers.” Ramey wouldn’t comment about valve sizes at this time.”


“The 7.3L also features forged aluminum rockers with a roller fulcrum, and we can see the valve angle is very shallow, which keeps the valves away from the cylinder wall as they open. This allows for maximum flow. “From a performance aspect, you’re getting a lot there,” he added.

It also uses hydraulic roller lifters with variable valve timing with a single phaser. “It has fixed overlap, but you can advance and retard the cam [on the fly]. This gives us the ability to reduce pumping loss at low engine speed and throttle position, but at higher speeds we can change the phasing for better air flow. The cam features 60mm bearing journals, and speaking of journals, there are 9 of them to reduce or eliminate deflection.”


“Unlike the 4.6L Two-, Three- and Four-Valve modular and DOHC 5.0 Coyote engines, this is a big incher in a relatively small package. We don’t have specs yet, but it appears to be no larger than a typical small-block Ford. And with engine swaps being all the rage, it will only be a matter of time before we see one in a classic Ford, late-model Mustang, a street rod or dare we say, in a GM product.

Of course, there will be obstacles, and one we see is the extra-deep oil pan. Normally, this wouldn’t present an issue, but the integrated oil pump and pick-up may present a challenge if you plan to set the engine in a low car. The off-road market would simply eat this thing up, especially the classic truck crowd.

Ultimately, time will tell if this engine will be a hit with the performance-minded set. We envision many aftermarket parts, but the real hope is that Ford Performance Parts recognizes our desire for horsepower and offers the 7.3L in a drop-in crate engine package. With a performance intake, cam and FPPS popular Control Pack this would make a wicked-good option for any racer or street enthusiast.“



————————-


Well if anything this does confirm the involvement of Brian Wolfe (who probably named it).

 

[Fatguy]

I tried my best and this is the comparison between the engines and the problems fitting it in the Mustang. I don’t see a problem in length but agree with hotrod.com that it is the oil pan. The location and depth. That is the problem and not length.

 

[CurtisH]

Um, the single cam pushrod engine will be cheaper to build than the sohc 6.2.

2 camshafts, more complex timing chain - that’s pretty much it, right? The camshafts individually should be cheaper (slightly more expensive for 2) and you don’t have pushrods. I’m not sure there is much difference in the cost to build. Now figure how much R&D went into the new engine. Seems like it would have been cheaper to update the 6.3. The 6.3 is supposed to be able to go to least 7.0.

Looks like the compact design of the 7.3 pushrod design was the biggest factor. Should fit in the E Series and F53 motor homes more easily.

 

[Erik427]

2 camshafts, more complex timing chain - that’s pretty much it, right? The camshafts individually should be cheaper (slightly more expensive for 2) and you don’t have pushrods. I’m not sure there is much difference in the cost to build. Now figure how much R&D went into the new engine. Seems like it would have been cheaper to update the 6.3. The 6.3 is supposed to be able to go to least 7.0.

Looks like the compact design of the 7.3 pushrod design was the biggest factor. Should fit in the E Series and F53 motor homes more easily.

Just not buying into the idea that Ford plunked down all that money to power motor homes.
The van is already designed for the 6.2 so being compact is pointless.

 

[Erik427]

I tried my best and this is the comparison between the engines and the problems fitting it in the Mustang. I don’t see a problem in length but agree with hotrod.com that it is the oil pan. The location and depth. That is the problem and not length.

Need a bottom view of the S550 to tell what will be the problem.......
Oh hell, just get me a 7.3 and I'll post the results.

 

[BmacIL]

2 camshafts, more complex timing chain - that’s pretty much it, right? The camshafts individually should be cheaper (slightly more expensive for 2) and you don’t have pushrods. I’m not sure there is much difference in the cost to build. Now figure how much R&D went into the new engine. Seems like it would have been cheaper to update the 6.3. The 6.3 is supposed to be able to go to least 7.0.

Looks like the compact design of the 7.3 pushrod design was the biggest factor. Should fit in the E Series and F53 motor homes more easily.

Another cam, timing chains, more expensive heads for said cams. More expensive valve covers. The individual cam cost would be minimal difference as it's a bit more machining time for the 7.3 cam, but the billet blank would be the same. It definitely is nowhere near as much of a difference as having two cams. Pushrods aren't expensive. It all adds up quite a bit. The 7.3 is definitely a cheaper engine by a good amount. It hits a performance, cost and fuel economy point for a Class 2-3 truck quite nicely, and is much cheaper and easier to certify than a diesel that would ideally slot between the 6.2 and 6.7 Powerstroke.

Sponsored