Jump to content

ESP08

Member
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by ESP08

  1. https://www.thedrive.com/news/next-ford-f-150-will-get-rid-of-2400-parts-to-cut-costs-improve-quality
  2. The 21-23s F150 are the most "handsome" F150s in pretty long time. The new Super Duty doesn't give me much hope that the 24 will be an improvement over the 23 design wise. The interior will probably be mostly carryover.
  3. It appears there were across the board improvements. Upgrades made to frame, suspension, rear seat leg-room, and interior plus an available V6 in a non-Raptor model I'm considering a 2.7 EB Ranger and I never even considered the last gen Ranger. I've always liked the T6 platform but didn't care for the last gen Ranger's tiny back seat and 2.3-only powertrain. A longer bed option should be made available though
  4. I'd love to see Lincoln go after the Land Cruiser & G-wagen US market.
  5. The Rubicon 392 is wildly over-priced. A 392 Wrangler should not cost nearly as much as a TRX or Raptor R.
  6. "All new" in marketing double-speak just often means there are no direct carry-over parts, this doesn't necessarily mean it was a clean-sheet redesign (brand new architecture) -- and I think a clean sheet redesign is what most people think is implied when the term "all new" is used. I would be surprised if the "all new" 2.3 doesn't share architectural hard points with the old 2.3 -- i.e. bore spacing, cylinder head bolt pattern, main journal diameter, etc. If the new 2.3 shares the same basic architecture with the old 2.3 then it isn't all new in my book.
  7. 2023 Super Duty engine ratings: 7.3 - 430 hp / 485 lb-ft 6.8 - 405 hp / 445 lb-ft 6.7 PSD - 475 hp / 1050 lb-ft 6.7 PDS HO - 500 hp / 1200 lb-ft https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/10/27/all-new-ford-f-series-super-duty-pickup-takes-heavy-duty-triple-.html
  8. I seriously doubt anything translates Megazilla comes with CNC ported heads, big cam with no VCT, forged rods/pistons, new intake manifold, etc. Results are pretty typical of modified "heads/cam/intake" and I don't see how any of it will translate to a warrantied production engine with durability, NVH, emissions and cost metrics that need to be met.
  9. For sure I guess the point I was trying to make it that I think bringing Babyzilla's VE (and thermal efficiency) percentages up is a substantially taller goal than extending the 3V V10s working RPM range through a few relatively simple changes would have been - ex: higher CR, slightly longer duration cam profile, VCT, dual runner length intake, etc.
  10. I personally don't think 6.8 Babyzilla will match the 3V V10's torque output (in Super Duty-friendly configuration) without DI.
  11. Over the last decade or so F-Series has outsold Silverado/Sierra more often than not.
  12. I seriously doubt any engineer worth their salt believed a 6.2 V8 would be a viable replacement for a 3-valve/cyl 6.8 V10 in medium duty applications. The low-end torque isn't going to be there regardless of a 6.2 V8's top end setup. If Ford was serious about replacing the V10 then Boss should have been offered in various displacements back in 2011 -- a 6.2 and then a 6.8-7.3 liter dedicated V10 replacement. There was nothing preventing Boss from expanding displacement to fill different roles, the displacement potential was ultimately the same as Godzilla after all. The difference is that Boss could have been FAR more easily adapted into successful high performance engines -- making it ultimately a more versatile architecture for Ford overall than Godzilla could ever hope to be.
  13. Brian Wolfe took full credit for the existence of Godzilla in a live stream. Ford was in the beginning stages of developing a 6.9 Boss but Brian made the case it wouldn't fit in Super Duty; which was a crock, since 6.2 didn't need an increase in deck height to achieve that displacement IF they simply chose to implement siamese bores like they did for Godzilla. Brian also wasn't "a fan" of two spark plugs per cylinder so he admittedly "steered" Ford towards the Godzilla direction. Boss could have easily replaced V10 @ 6.8/6.9 liters and served as an outstanding base for a high-performance iteration in future Ford Performance models -- to end Ford's ICE era on a crescendo.
  14. Indeed. Extremely impressive for a warrantied diesel, IMHO. It's about time Ford finally leveraged that amazing 6.7 Scorpion architecture to really leapfrog its Duramax and Cummins competitors. It looks like the 6.8 will get the 10R100 while the Powerstrokes get the 10R140.
  15. 2023 SD numbers revealed: 6.8 - 405 HP / 445 LB-FT 7.3 - 430 HP / 485 LB-FT 6.7 PSD - 475 / 1050 LB-FT 6.7 PSD HO - 500 / 1200 LB-FT
  16. Did a little fishing here, from what I see the 427 Medium Riser and High Riser heads had 2.19” intake and 1.73” exhaust valves. The 428 heads were apparently "similar" to the medium risers (I'm assuming similar in regards to port volume?) but with smaller 2.09” intake and 1.66” exhaust valves. The 428 apparently also used a shorter duration hydraulic cam borrowed from the 390 GT. It's hard to find much real info about the intake manifolds, from photo it "looks" like the 427 High Riser than larger cross section runners.
  17. The mechanical advantage provided by a longer stroke length is a distant secondary factor determining the RPM an engine combination develops its power/torque. IMO, the mechanical advantage highlighted in the 427/428 comparison will be closer to the statistical noise end of the spectrum than a root variable for any measurable difference in power-band. If the 6.8 retains the 7.3's heads/cam/intake package it will obviously be a higher RPM combination -- not because it's now more over-square or has less mechanical leverage thanks to its 0.296" stroke reduction -- but because the same top end is feeding less total displacement. I've built and dyno'd many engines and played with bore/stroke combinations a lot personally. If anyone doubts me maybe you'll take Richard Holdener's word on the topic -- a guy who has dyno'd (and has data for) hundreds of engine combinations. This isn't "appeal to authority" so don't take it as that, just a very educated opinion: Regarding the 427/428 comparison - having no hands-on experience with the FE - I'd wager their differences extend beyond bore/stroke. Do you have access to cylinder head intake port cross section, intake valve diameter, cylinder head flow, camshaft duration (w/OE intake centerline), and intake manifold runner length/cross section for both engines? I'll bet we find virtually all of the 427's more rev happy nature in those differences.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. Gen 1 and 2 Coyotes actually were 302ci. Gen 3 and 4 are 307
  21. The Allison 10L1000 absolutely, unequivocally used the 10R80 as its architectural starting point. It was not a clean sheet design
×
×
  • Create New...