edselford
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by edselford
-
-
You might be right Mary. If GM is going to have an 8.0 V8 gas?? Then the 115 mm of the 7.3 is too small and I can see something new at ford with a wider bore center!
cant find much out there though on 6.X
edselford
-
Does anyone know what a 6.X liter or a 6.8 liter new engine at the ford Windsor engine plant is?
I assume it would be a derivative of the 7.3 V8 ? I could see this for an F250?
edselford
-
I would like to know if we have another misprint?
Should it of said 4.8 not 6.8?????
This would make sense for f150. & Mustang?
Or is this a smaller version of the 7.3 V8 and the text should of said f250?
looking at the investment for Windsor/Essex engine plant, we are looking at either a smaller bore for the current 5.0 or a 95 mm stroke and 107 mm bore for the current 7.3!
I welcome any information.
edselford
-
Just now, edselford said:
I stand corrected on the ecoboost Taurus limited. It must of been a 2.0 not a 3.5!
I enjoyed the explanation given by bbf2530!
yes years ago you could get a Galaxie with either a 240 I 6, 289 V8, 352, 390, 427 and 428.
Probably corporate average fuel economy requirements are also forcing companies like ford to limit the options given the difference in fuel economy between the 3.0 ecoboost and the 2.3 ecoboost engines.
edselford
-
I stand corrected on the ecoboost Taurus limited. It must of been a 2.0 not a 3.5!
I enjoyed the explanation given by bbf2530!
yes years ago you could get a Galaxie with either a 240 I 6, 289 V8, 352, 390, 427 and 428.
Probably corporate average fuel economy requirements are also forcing companies like ford to limit the options given the difference in fuel economy between the 3.0 ecoboost and the 2.3 ecoboost engines.
edsrlfird
-
It’s called target marketing with parts that are already there.
Obviously ford would rather sell Explorer ST and Platnium versions. They could price for it!
the real question is would the incremental profit due to higher Explorer volumes be greater than the incremental loss of profit if the people that would now not order the ST and Platnium?
MPs I have actually seen a Taurus ecoboost in a limited in the flesh.edselford
-
I think the 3.5 ecoboost in the Taurus was a stand alone option for a number of years!
The key is to price it right. Not everyone wants the Platnium Explorer, just too pricey.
The old guys like me are more interested in smooth ride and power, not the ST!
Going around the corner at .86 G’s is not a priority for me now that I am 72!
edselford
-
For the 2022 Ford Explorer, why doesn’t ford offer the 385 hp 3.0 ecoboost engine as a stand alone option?
Could you imagine Explorer XLT’s with the sports appearance package and 3.0 flying off the dealer lots faster than ford could make them?
It would be nice to have an XLT with more go power!
edselford
-
1
-
-
Looking at the new Bronco Sport reminds me of my wife’s 2012 Ford Escape. The dimensions are very close and the look is very similar except for the grille!
obviously the 2012 Escape had a 2.5 NA I4 and a 4 speed automatic. The new Bronco Sport has the 8 speed and ecoboost I3 or I4
what do you guys think?
edselford
-
1
-
-
Well,
I understand why the 2019 Taurus had to go. The 2020 Explorer architecture changed to CD 6 rear wheel drive based!
Like someone has already said if there is the demand, Taurus with CD 6 platform is easily doable. It’s all economics ROI, IROR, payback etc.
I also don’t need two SUV’s and would prefer. Driving a sedan!
Somewhere, I saw a Taurus rendering made from CD 6 Explorer. It looked pretty good!
ford could make a Taurus and a modern Lincoln Town Car out of the CD6 when enough people get tired of SUV/CUV products.
edselford
-
Ford never offered aluminum cylinder heads on a production FE V8. I think it was because of the cooling problem Mary mentioned. I had a 1966 galaxies with a 390 V8 four barrel auto lite 4100 carburetor, C6 auto, 3.0 axle. Very good dependable car but when I turned it off after running it hard the water temp would actually go up for about ten to 15 minutes. I don’t know if the coolant was boiling and later condensing?....
edselford
-
I should of said rod to stroke ratio of 1.6 for the 7.3 and around 1.83 for a smaller displacement version that maintains the 245.11 mm deck height.
sorry
edselford
-
Thank you Mary for info.
Your idea of staying with current deck height makes allot of sense given the 7.3 bore to stroke ratio of around 1.6. A smaller bore and stroke to get to say 6.2/6.3 liters would put the bore to stroke ratio around 1.83.
The 390 FE V8 had an unusual design cylinder head and intake where the intake seemed to become part of the cylinder head with the valve covers going over both and the push rods going through openings in the intake. I never saw this before but Chevy used this same design concept years later On the original 2.8 liter 60 degree pushrod V6.
Thanks Againedselford
-
Does anyone know the “exact” key dimensions of the new 7.3V8?
Specifically
1. Piston Compression height
2. Connecting Rod length
3. Deck Height
4. Bore Centers, 115mm or 4.53”????
Edselford
-
When I worked at Ford as a summer intern, they were still making the FE series V8 engines in a dedicated building in the ford Rouge manufacturing complex. From what I remember, they built the FE for cars and light trucks and the FT for the mid range trucks. The FT were the same design but had heavy duty components like a forged crankshaft, special Holley carburetors, beefier accessory drive systems and limited rpm operating range. The engines were durable but didn’t produce as much power as the Chevy offerings.
Basically, the new 7.3 V8 happened 50 years later for the same type of commercial trucks. It’s interesting that Ford went from the 360/391 FT V8 to the Lima 370/429 V8 to the modular OHC 5.4/6.8 V10 and now to the 7.3 For gas power! We have come almost full circle, deep
skirt, non deep skirt, deep skirt and deep skirt again!
except for adding new technology like fuel injection, variable cam timing, Aluminum cylinder heads and electronic engine controls the design philosophy for the FT and the 7.3 are very similar.
edselford
-
1
-
-
The 401, 477 and 534 were mid range truck gas engines/ class 5, 6, 7. I can’t remember if they stretched into class 8. (Tandem drive axle)
They have nothing in common with any other Automotive ford/Lincoln engine family except the combustion chamber in the cylinder block like the Lincoln MEL and the Chevy 348/409/427.
(flat cylinder heads like the MEL)
I would guess the bore centers on these giant gas engines is around 5.25”
They were also used in large lake boats!
They came out about the same time as the Lincoln MEL series 4.90” bore centers replaced the Lincoln Y block, 4.63” bore center - same as the FE series bore centers! (352/390/406/410/427/428/332/360)
When I worked for the city of dearborn a teenager, most of our large trucks were 477’s.Edselford
-
1
-
-
You are very perceptive about what happened at ford! Sometimes it seemed like a new engine program was needed to justify the budget and engineering staff. The norm was always ten hours per day and only 5 hours on Saturday!
The money and benefits were great but 55 hours per week got old fast!
It seemed that the potential of the Lincoln Y block design was never realized and replaced by the MEL.too early,
The FE V8 were durable but except for the 427 and 428 cobra jet engines, were slow and used allot of gas. 390 always slower than the Chevy 327.
Two 351V8 engines (really 352) totally different except distributors and CID.
The 429 CJ was actually slower than the 428CJ but came too late to achieve its potential.
I think you know the story of the 4.6 family. I give the ford engineers allot of credit with the recent 5.0 V8!
The 6.2 Boss is another false start. When it first came out about ten years ago, about two years later I was trying to see if it could be punched out to 7.0 liters? I contacted someone from Rousch Engineering and was told not to spend too much time on it because it was probably going away!
People do the best they can given the parameters they have to work with. Like you said, sometimes the assumptions are wrong
edselford
-
1
-
-
CThank You, Very good discussion on the subject. Like anything in the powertrain business, many factors affect the design of engines and transmissions!
When the 4.6 first came out on the Lincoln Town Car, it was pretty weak compared to the 302 V8 it replaced. It took many years to make it better from a performance perspective. I think ford actually worried about Toyota entering the full size truck business with a higher level tec engine. Also, people thought we would need front wheel drive cars with V8 engines. I’m sure this compromised bore center and that’s how we got 100 mm on the 4.6/5.4. Well we learned that high power and fwd don’t go together, but that was later on!
edselford
-
When the 6.2 SOC was designed, it was an off again and on again project to counter the GM 6.2 V8 and the Chrysler 5.7/6.1 V8 Hemi.
The plan included a 5.8 liter version for theMustsng that never made it!
At about the same time Ford was coming out with the ecoboost, first on the four cylinders and later on the 3.5 gen 1.
It is possible that Mustsng drove the overhead cam design because it would be inconsistent to have a high tech 4.6/5.0 DOC V8 and then offer. A higher hp pushrod engine!
I am sure there was great debate about SOC for the 6.2 and less debate for the 7.3.
You might be right that the parasitic losses between the two designs were insignificant in fords decision making! It may have been purely marketing!
when you are limited to 100 mm bore centers, you need 4 valve and overhead cams and higher rpm to make competitive power to a larger pushrod V8.
edsel ford
-
If you don’t believe me, find a ford or GM engine engineer and ask them the question.
I think you will find the engine spin torque from 650 to 6000 rpm is lower on the gm 6.2 versus the ford 6.2 SOC V8.
the area under the spin torque graph is basically the energy needed to overcome all friction and approximates the energy used up by the engine just to spin !
edselford -
Well maybe this discussion includes what each of us would like to see, not what will actually happen.
A 6.2 or 6.3 version of the 7.3 would only be built with an aluminum block for F150/Mustang if at all! There is no need for a smaller displacement 7.3 where the 7.3 is currently offered.
For a gas V8 that runs between 650 rpm to 6000rpm, a pushrod design is hard to beat from a cost, efficiency basis.
edselford
-
Well, the 6.2 SOC V8 is expensive to build and the parasitic losses are significantly greater than the 7.3 V8. So if there is a need for a 6.2 or 6.3 liter, it would most likely be based upon the 7.3 design . Say 107.2 mm bore and 87 mm stroke, sort of like a Chevy 327 pumped up to a 383 V8. That would be an interesting high rpm high output V8!
We all could dream about this but the turbo solution has taken hold of the industry at least in SUV, car and light truck.
edselford
-
Yes
i think it was build date specific!
My wife drives very easily, no wot’s not too much boost on acceleration, easy on the vehicle. It probably never fail with her driving! Me, well that’s another story!
edselford
-
1
-
-
Maybe the way ford did the slot, one side open and the other end closed, makes the design more robust and avoids the mess they have with the 2.0 ecoboost.
The recent reprogramming of my wife’s 2017 escape, I assume either reduces boost or reduces boost after a short period of time, ie cant really fix the problematic design. I think that 2 liter comes from fords England engine plant.
There is a slot machined into the Chrysler/FCA 3.6 V6 all the way across but this engine has not been turbocharged!
edselford
Ford Windsor 6.8 liter for 2022
in F-Series SuperDuty Forum
Posted
Where will the 2022 recently announced 6.8 liter from the ford Windsor engine plant be used?
F 150 or F250, F350?????
I assume it’s a smaller version of the 7.3V8?
edselford