ESP08

I always suspected Ford used a belt to drive the oil pump on Gen 4s to help reduce harmonics of the chain drive. Harmonics are what tended to shatter oil pump gears and crack timing crank sprockets on high power Coyotes. The billet parts never addressed the root cause, only used a softer material that is less prone to cracking.

Splitting hairs but technically both of the Coyotes round to 5.0 liters 302W (4.000 bore x 3.000 stroke): 301.6 ci - 4942cc Gen 1/2 5.0 Coyote (3.6299 bore x 3.6496 stroke): 302.2 ci - 4951cc Gen 3/4 5.0 Coyote (3.6614 bore x 3.6496 stroke): 307.4 ci - 5038cc

Gen 1 and 2 Coyotes actually were 302ci. Gen 3 and 4 are 307

Gen 4 Coyotes have belt driven oil pumps

The Allison 10L1000 absolutely, unequivocally used the 10R80 as its architectural starting point. It was not a clean sheet design

Is the 7.3 actually getting a power bump?

So mundane it’s shocking. So the mysterious 6.8 is just a shorter stroke 7.3 with port injection, cast crank, “bowl shaped pistons” (for port injection?) and no apparent cylinder deactivation…and they’re keeping the 7.3 as optional? Seems like a lot of overlap between the two.

I would bet a lot of money that Ford won't deviate from Godzilla's 4.53 inch bore spacing. Though if fuel economy and emissions are the driving force for the 6.8 I could see the reduced displacement coming from bore diameter. That will generally improve BSFC figures -- and combined with cylinder deactivation may offer some tangible fuel economy benefits.

Perhaps 6.8 is smaller bore with cylinder deactivation

Yes, but: 2023 F-650/750 SD Gas Pro Loader - $65,520 2023 F-650/750 SD Diesel Pro Loader - $75,005 Diesel will also have higher maintenance costs and diesel typically runs $1 or more per gallon than 87.

650/750 need all the low-end torque they can get. Sounds like Ford wants to give 250/350 something more fuel efficient than 7.3 to act as their base engine 6.2 replacement.

The reality is that over-square engines tend to make more high rpm power because they also tend to have more intake valve area relative to total displacement than an under-square engine does. This is especially true of in-line valve 2-valve/cylinder engines. The "mechanical advantage" provided by a longer stroke is so minuscule it's essentially irrelevant. Where the power/torque is made is almost entirely found in how well the top end (intake manifold runner length/cross section, intake port cross section/angle, intake valve area/angle/placement in the chamber, cam timing, etc.) can feed the total displacement underneath it. Larger ports and valves inherently tend to shift the power-band north, smaller valves and ports tend to bring on power earlier. Under-square multivalve engines tend to retain high-rpm capability (if desired) because they aren't intake valve area limited (or valve shrouded) relative to their total displacement by a smaller bore.

Agreed, the single biggest difference between the S650 and 6th Gen is that the S650 isn't ugly.

I was assuming they retain the iron block since it’s going into 250/350.