7Mary3

Don't think the slots are for stress relief, they are for coolant flow. Scary Ford incorporated this novel 'feature' in the new 7.3L gas block's design, though being iron I suspect there will not be any issues.

I really like what I see so far. Hope it's eventually available with a no-brainer non-turbo'ed 3.3L V-6.

Yes. In addition, a lot of our purchases these days are CNG powered and I suspect there will be gaseous fuel conversions of the 7.3L available soon.

In a perfect world, but..... Case in point we have a 2011 F-550 with the 6.7L. Looks like the turbo seals or bearings (or both) went out, and it pumped a bunch of oil into the cat and DPF. Out of warranty on time, but less than 60,000 miles. A little over $6000 to repair. So, whatever we saved in fuel economy went right out the window. The power is nice, but the loads we carry with it are nothing the V-10 couldn't have done. I suspect overall cost-of-ownership is now more than it would have been if we bought the V-10, so in this case the Powerstroke was a mistake. This is not to say the 6.7L Powerstroke is any worse than similar diesels, because we have seen similar expensive problems with those as well.

Wow, nice piece of hardware! I don't see any truck/commercial application for it (still too small, 4 valve DOHC useless, probably too expensive), but this will make a lot of Mustang owners very happy. Would be nice in a reborn Lightning or maybe that 5.0L Ranger Raptor.

Medium duty as others know it: https://www.ford.co.uk/vans-and-pickups/new-transit-chassis-cab?vehicleNavCategory=vans & pick-ups

Thanks for posting that! I thought I saw a picture of an F53 chassis somewhere that was NOT finished in the standard black E-coat, and there it is again. Heard a story about that. Some years ago, a big package delivery outfit with brown trucks got tired of having to replace their 'package cars' because of chassis corrosion, and told their suppliers they wanted the whole chassis galvanized or they wouldn't buy them. 2 chassis manufacturers figured out how to get it done (wasn't cheap or easy), one said forget it. So, for the next several years guess who didn't sell 'Brown' any chassis? Looks like someone in Dearborn done seen the light! Also, I wonder about the mention of the CNG/LNG prep package. If I am reading that right, it indicates that the 7.3L can be configured for gaseous fuels. First time I have seen that mentioned, and on the Super Duty trucks CNG/LNG prep is only offered on the 6.2L.

Freightliner (FCCC) offers a gas engine stripped chassis, but I don't think it's offered for motorhome use. It uses the GM 6.0L coupled to an Allison 2000 series transmission, and seems to be the current favorite of UPS. I seem to remember rumors of a gas engine Spartan motorhome chassis, possibly using the PSI 8.8L, but at least for now Ford is the only player. Again, I think the 7.3L will be a big improvement over the 6.8L in motorhomes as well.

I see it, but you are talking about a truck that Isuzu, Chevy, and Fuso already offer.

Good point, because the F-600 covers a lot of the F-650's territory. The F-650 offers a little higher GVW, longer wheelbase options, dock height body (22.5" wheels), and air brakes. If you don't need any of that, an F-600 will do just fine.

Cargo cabovers are a possibility, but consider cabovers are still a small percentage of the medium duty market and here in the U.S. and there are very strong competitors. My guess is a platform consolidation. The 450 and 550 as basically part of the regular F series Super Duty product line, while the much lower volume 650 and 750 are unique. Maybe Ford is thinking along the lines of one medium duty platform from 450 up, borrowing components from the Super Duty platform as much as possible. "Med Duty as you know it has a short life" could mean a lot of things........

I try to be well informed on GM, Ford, FCA, Navistar, Isuzu, and DTNA as a part of my profession. I post here because there are some very knowledgeable contributors on these forums.

First off, about these new 10 speed automatics: According to what I have been told, the light duty 10 speed RWD automatic was a JV between Ford and GM, with Ford taking the lead in development. The JV resulted in the Ford 10R80 and GM 10L80 and they are each manufactured by their respective users. Ford based their new 10 speed Torq-Shift 10R140 on the basic 10R80 design, but it is 'scaled up' and has significantly higher capacity. Many of the components are identical in design and function, and only differ in size and strength. The new 'Allison' 10L1000 is GM designed and manufactured, and not a version of the Torq-Shift 10R140. However, it is very similar in many respects to the other 10 speed automatics particularly in power flow and holding devices. Best way to describe the similarities is to think of the old Ford C4, Turbo-Hydramatic 350, and Chrysler TorqFlite: All three were 2 clutch/2 band Simpson geartrain 3 speed automatics. The older Allison 1000 series is a 6 speed and not related to the 'Allison' 10L1000.

Keep in mind that GM bought Allison way back in the 30's when it was only manufacturing aircraft engines. Allison developed the first automatic transmissions for tanks, and in the late 50's introduced heavy duty automatic transmissions for trucks and buses. Hydra-Matic division had begun developing heavy duty highway transmission previously. Through the years, Allison and Hydra-Matic worked closely, and many Allison transmissions were actually manufactured by Hydra-Matic. GM sold Allison off in 2005, but the cooperation continues. As for the new 'Allison' 10L1000 in the GM HD pickups, I am told it was primarily developed by Hydra-Matic with input from Allison and the design has been fully validated by Allison. I don't think Allison would have agreed to put their name on it if they were not sure it was a sound design. The GM 6.6L gas V-8 seems to be near it's displacement limit given it inherits standard production LS bore spacing and deck height. Nonetheless I think 6.6L will be plenty big and powerful enough for trucks up to the lower end of class 6. GM is reported to be working on a much larger V-8 for larger commercial trucks.

If I were a GM engineer or executive, developing the new 6.6L gas engine from the existing LS family is exactly what I would have done. Judging by the success of their 6.0L in commercial applications a 'new and improved' version with increased H.P. and torque is a logical move. One thing I might have done would be to offer their Allison 10 speed with the 6.6L gas as an option though.

This. The 6.2L is an orphan, a one engine family. Even though I expect the 6.2L is fully amortized, it would probably make sense to replace it with a smaller displacement version of the 7.3L. Something around 5.8L perhaps..... As for the GM 6.6L gas engine, it is a heavy duty large version of the existing Gen. V family, developed at minimal cost. Direct injection was likely chosen as future emissions/efficiency/GHG regulations will eventually mandate it. Kind of a mystery to me why Ford didn't have DI on the 7.3L at introduction, but it's clear the engine has DI capability engineered into it.

The 7.3L will be fine, and I doubt we will see much hesitation in it's acceptance. I think it will be hands down better than the 6.8L in all aspects, including durability. The 6.8L really didn't set the bar too high in heavier medium trucks and school buses......

I am still a little perplexed by the F-600. It's so close to the F-550, and obviously a reaction to the new GM/Navistar mediums. I think if I were Ford I would have offered a higher GVW package on the F-550 as an option and pushed it as a direct competitor to the GM/Navistar 6500 series. The F-600 kind of splits a hair between the 550 and 650. I wonder if Ford will consolidate the F-450 through 650 into one platform with the next generation. Doing that and eliminating the 750 may facilitate the changes coming to the Avon Lake plant if they are planning on keeping commercial truck production there.

Where did you find this information? I initially heard bore spacing was 117mm, but more reliable information says it is actually 115mm. Also, I have not seen any information on deck height. I have seen a cut-away 7.3L in person, but unfortunately didn't have anything to measure it with at the time. I will say a casual observation seems to indicate there is not much room for growth in the 7.3L (the crank throws and counterweights come close to crankcase sides, cylinder bores are close) but at 7.3L, there isn't much need to go larger. Smaller is another story altogether!

I heard that the 7.3L shares bore centers with the 6.2L. If that is true, shared tooling between the 2 engine families might be the explanation why. I agree that a smaller version of the 7.3L would make a good 6.2L replacement.

Yes they did, but I think only 2019 and 2020. They must be using the same supplier.

Heard same. Why?

Good idea. Likely can be built on same line as ICE F-150's.

Those thing have enough trouble with their U-joints!

Even better! LeTourneau was a genius, BTW.