Who will swap for the new 7.3 V8!

[Fatguy]

1. The older-than-me dude in the first video is awesome. Totally the kind of guy that has stories on top of stories and is a tinker-er like me. It would be awesome to sit on the porch while drinking some beer or lemonade and talking shop. He's the grandpa I hope to be.
2. I'm not going to judge anything - I like any time one tries something new. Sometimes they go against conventional thinking, sometimes they fail, and sometimes they are amazing. I'm sure when people suggested going from one cam and 16 valves to four cams and 32 valves, people were probably shocked and thought it wouldn't be worth it because of cost, complexity, and non-linear flow gains. But it worked. Then they tried a 5-valve, and it worked, but not as good. Then they tried a 6 valve, which was basically pointless.
3. I find the 7.3 very interesting. The chevy guys have got to be going nuts over it about how Ford finally "saw the light". It is definitely an about-face for Ford, but in some ways, a good idea. Any time you build an engine with big cylinders and a tall deck, you're making a smart decision (To a degree, of course). Look how Ford screwed themselves with the 100mm bore spacing they imposed on the Mod motor back in the 90's. They have had to stroke the engine considerably, rev the snot out of it, and plasma coat the cylinders to keep up with the new LT1. If, instead of a 100mm bore spacing they went with something larger, then you could build a much varied engine size. Keep the pistons big, but offer different strokes. Trucks get a long stroke for more torque, and 2V/SOHC cheap valvetrain because no need to rev a truck engine over 5-6000. Then, have a smaller stroke engine that you can rev the snot out of, make good low end torque, but killer mid-band torque. The geometry of oversquare engines is superior because of larger valves, reduced side loading, increased dwell, decreased piston acceleration, etc... The other thing that people are forgetting is that variable valve timing is definitely possible on OHV engines. Mechadyne reportedly developed a solution for Dodge with the Viper Gen5 engine, that allowed independant curves on the intake and exhaust. Essentially a cam-in-a-cam. Complex? Yeah, works? Definitely. Works as good as if you went with 4v/4cam? No. Heck no. Can't beat the flow. Maybe....Maybe...Maybe (With a snarky smile) Ford is using this as a beta test. Throw a "dumb" engine in a truck, see how it does, then re-cast in aluminum (With some tweaks) and run different engines from there. The absolute best thing Ford could do to the Coyote would be to increase bore distance and increase the cylinder size. Even if they didn't want to change the deck height - those two things would make them way more competitive and future-proof against power gains from Chevy and Mopar.

* Note, Although I'm sounding like a OHV fanboy on point #3, I'm not. I have a Coyote because I love the Coyote. There are many different ways to measure what engine is "best" (Arguably, I say it should be BSFC, but most people don't know what the heck it is, so I digress). I'm very impressed with Ford has been able to do with the poor decisions made almost 25 years ago.

That guy is the real deal. He makes his money off custom engine fabrications for customers around the world. The kits like the 3.7 V6/GT500 supercharger kit are a side business. People keep carping about why his kits are not out here like Procharger but he is just a family business in a large machine shop. I could get that supercharger kit if I wanted as he has all the parts in stock. But he is not on-line like the others and anyway this is not his bread and butter. But everything fits and is well thought out. His son had the test mule and apparently left. Now he has my phone number...

So maybe my Mustang ends up supercharged instead. Yes I like the guy too! Whatever, at least there was some good laughs here for a Sunday.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

1. The older-than-me dude in the first video is awesome. Totally the kind of guy that has stories on top of stories and is a tinker-er like me. It would be awesome to sit on the porch while drinking some beer or lemonade and talking shop. He's the grandpa I hope to be.
2. I'm not going to judge anything - I like any time one tries something new. Sometimes they go against conventional thinking, sometimes they fail, and sometimes they are amazing. I'm sure when people suggested going from one cam and 16 valves to four cams and 32 valves, people were probably shocked and thought it wouldn't be worth it because of cost, complexity, and non-linear flow gains. But it worked. Then they tried a 5-valve, and it worked, but not as good. Then they tried a 6 valve, which was basically pointless.
3. I find the 7.3 very interesting. The chevy guys have got to be going nuts over it about how Ford finally "saw the light". It is definitely an about-face for Ford, but in some ways, a good idea. Any time you build an engine with big cylinders and a tall deck, you're making a smart decision (To a degree, of course). Look how Ford screwed themselves with the 100mm bore spacing they imposed on the Mod motor back in the 90's. They have had to stroke the engine considerably, rev the snot out of it, and plasma coat the cylinders to keep up with the new LT1. If, instead of a 100mm bore spacing they went with something larger, then you could build a much varied engine size. Keep the pistons big, but offer different strokes. Trucks get a long stroke for more torque, and 2V/SOHC cheap valvetrain because no need to rev a truck engine over 5-6000. Then, have a smaller stroke engine that you can rev the snot out of, make good low end torque, but killer mid-band torque. The geometry of oversquare engines is superior because of larger valves, reduced side loading, increased dwell, decreased piston acceleration, etc... The other thing that people are forgetting is that variable valve timing is definitely possible on OHV engines. Mechadyne reportedly developed a solution for Dodge with the Viper Gen5 engine, that allowed independant curves on the intake and exhaust. Essentially a cam-in-a-cam. Complex? Yeah, works? Definitely. Works as good as if you went with 4v/4cam? No. Heck no. Can't beat the flow. Maybe....Maybe...Maybe (With a snarky smile) Ford is using this as a beta test. Throw a "dumb" engine in a truck, see how it does, then re-cast in aluminum (With some tweaks) and run different engines from there. The absolute best thing Ford could do to the Coyote would be to increase bore distance and increase the cylinder size. Even if they didn't want to change the deck height - those two things would make them way more competitive and future-proof against power gains from Chevy and Mopar.

* Note, Although I'm sounding like a OHV fanboy on point #3, I'm not. I have a Coyote because I love the Coyote. There are many different ways to measure what engine is "best" (Arguably, I say it should be BSFC, but most people don't know what the heck it is, so I digress). I'm very impressed with Ford has been able to do with the poor decisions made almost 25 years ago.

Great post. I like to see someone trying something different even if others think it's crazy.

I think typically modifying cars and even owning performance cars is a financially losing game, so none of it "makes sense" from that standpoint. I'd love to see a 7.3 in a Mustang. I'd prefer to see a 7.3 TiVCT DOHC engine vs. a pushrod, though. Pushrods are ok, but you can extract a lot more performance from a dual overhead cam engine.

Unlike Fatguy, I realize that engine torque is largely meaningless when it comes to performance. This is my argument against the 7.3 in current form. It's just not built to maximize performance and so I don't really see the point of dropping one into a car. It will be more of a boat anchor than a performance setup. HP is the true measure that tells you how quick a car is going to be. If you disagree - please explain to me why 1/4 mile calculators use HP rather than torque to determine how fast a car will be.

 

[jake_zx2]

I have yet to see this guy say something that ISN'T completely idiotic...

First, he defends getting a V6 because the V8 just isn't good enough, now he says a pushrod engine that makes no power and weighs half a ton is better than a Coyote? Get real, man

 

[engineermike]

So maybe my Mustang ends up supercharged instead.

Probably the smartest and most reasonable thing you’ve posted so far.

 

[Fatguy]

I think most Mustang drivers just want to fry the tires from a stop for their friends. They also want point and shoot traffic performance in gear without drama. A pushrod truck engine does that best.

1200 rpm!

The only guys I ever see with the engine on the boil is Subaru WRX STI guys. Everyone one else spends literally 99% of their time driving around at 1200 rpm or something close to that. Don’t believe me? Just monitor your tach as you drive around and try to “poo-poo” my assertion that the best thing is to optimize for the 99% of the time you drive your car. Low end grunt is the best thing here as you listen to talk radio or warmed over songs by prodigy.


99% percent of the people don’t go drag racing their car or rarly do. 99% of Mustang owners don’t track their cars or rarely do. They would appreciate the most grunt as they hit the throttle off idle and remind themselves they are in a performance car.


So I have a laughable theory and an engine that could probably test that theory and probably some real examples late next fall. I think it’s fun and if I’m right I will probably own one.


Or would you rather go to the threads about my favourite colour, or best dealer package to order. They have their place but try to keep an open mind for alternative ways to drive. Ask people who hop into a GT and take a test drive for the first time and what they expected. They expected massive tire shredding torque at the touch of the throttle! That’s what they expect and we can give it to them but at a cost to the true performance guys - that is all...


I spend a lot of time in many vehicles (sometimes in one day) but I have spent a lot of time in low rpm vehicles so I don’t have the knee-jerk negative reaction to the thought of driving a truck engine in a Mustang.


But keep an eye on that tach as you drive around and ask yourself if a car optimized to that low rpm isn’t an idea worth fleshing out?

 

[engineermike]

I think most Mustang drivers just want to fry the tires from a stop for their friends.

Only the ones that are still in high school.

1200 rpm!

Everyone one else spends literally 99% of their time driving around at 1200 rpm or something close to that. Don’t believe me? Just monitor your tach as you drive around and try to “poo-poo” my assertion that the best thing is to optimize for the 99% of the time you drive your car.

Literally no one is arguing that you don't spend most of your time at low rpm. Your flawed logic is that there's no such thing as an automatic downshift. The 7.3/A10 will downshift as well, as soon as you try to enjoy some of that torque.

They would appreciate the most grunt as they hit the throttle off idle and remind themselves they are in a performance car..

I get the impression from your posts that you have not driven a 2018 GT. The off-idle torque and response is really impressive. You might see 7500 rpm on the tach and assume the motor is all to-end. You would be wrong. Mine would fry the Pilot Sports from a dead stop, right off idle, at will.

Ask people who hop into a GT and take a test drive for the first time and what they expected. They expected massive tire shredding torque at the touch of the throttle! .

....and the stock 5.0 will do exactly that.

I spend a lot of time in many vehicles (sometimes in one day) but I have spent a lot of time in low rpm vehicles so I don’t have the knee-jerk negative reaction to the thought of driving a truck engine in a Mustang.

So explain to me why we never saw an abundance of 6.2 or 6.8 truck motors transplanted into Mustangs in the past.

 

[Hack]

I keep my tach above 2,500 RPM most of the time.

And on the street I do my best to keep hooligan behavior to a minimum. I go to the track to use the car's full power.

 

[jake_zx2]

I will never understand people like this

All his criteria points to the fact that he just wants to buy the truck that these engines will be coming in. It has all the torque he wants, it has the comfort and daily driveability, and it will shred tires with no issue (likely easier than the Mustang, as it has no weight in the rear). Why not just buy that?

It's like the people who bitch that the 2018 mustang doesn't look like a 67, or drive like one, or have the torque, or has too much technology... THEN WHY NOT JUST BUY A DAMN 67?? They're around the same price, anyway

 

[jake_zx2]

People like this just want to feel "special" because they want to buy something different that they think no one can provide

I promise you, there's a car out there that will fit your criteria, and you sure as hell aren't special

 

[Hack]

People like this just want to feel "special" because they want to buy something different that they think no one can provide

I promise you, there's a car out there that will fit your criteria, and you sure as hell aren't special

You didn't build that, Jake? ;-)

 

[TexasRebel]

you know what puts out a whole lot of torque at a very low RPM?

Steam.

 

[engineermike]

you know what puts out a whole lot of torque at a very low RPM?

Steam.

With a 4’ cheater and the right body position, I can do about 1200 ftlb.....at 0 rpm.

 

[jake_zx2]

With a 4’ cheater and the right body position, I can do about 1200 ftlb.....at 0 rpm.

Sounds like a hell of a build...

"Dang man, that thing is fast! What's done to it?"
"Well, the old engine didn't quite make the torque I was looking for, so I threw a Mike in it"

 

[IPOGT]

There is no substitute on the street for cubic inches.

 

[Dusten]

There is no substitute on the street for cubic inches.

Boost...

Sponsored