ESP08
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by ESP08
-
-
On 5/18/2023 at 11:59 PM, tbone said:
I personally would wait, so you get a truck that has the latest exterior updates so your new truck looks new and not like a three year old truck (not that they look bad). Im sure there will be a few nice interior updates, and maybe some power upgrades as well.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.
-
1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
Another evolutionary failure... Almost no improvements and further loss of cargo capacity. Ford, thanks for giving me motivation to fix my '98 Ranger with it's 7 foot long bed!
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
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, .I. said:
Off road vehicles are the niche with more future and profits. See the succes of the Bronco sub-brand. See the future Scout Brand, from VW and the Audi version (luxury off road). I think Ford need a Lincoln version of the Bronco. Some new body panels , some sweet changes to the platform, add all luxury items and you have a winner. Ok, ok, Lincoln’s “Quiet luxury” mantra is not for this kind of vehicle. But what about “quiet off road luxury”? Is a very profitable niche….
and about that off road Mustang, is true. Ford needs to fight the Porsche 911 off road…
I'd love to see Lincoln go after the Land Cruiser & G-wagen US market.
-
3
-
-
GDI Twin Turbo 5.0/5.2 with an optional 10R100
-
On 2/10/2023 at 9:36 PM, Chrisgb said:
But probably not off the road.
The Rubicon 392 is wildly over-priced.
A 392 Wrangler should not cost nearly as much as a TRX or Raptor R.
-
16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
"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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Ford hasn’t published new Super Duty engine ratings yet, so it is reasonable that if different than 2022, they will likely be to the up side. I think 500 lb-ft would be a great target if they can achieve it.
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
-
2
-
-
On 12/12/2022 at 11:05 PM, Rick73 said:
I’m impressed they gain 35% greater peak torque and at lower RPM. Power gain speaks for itself, especially with same CR so it can run on pump gas, but the 640 lb-ft at 3,800 RPM is what I like best. Perhaps some of that improvement will make it to Super Duty 7.3 and 6.8L V8s. A bump from 475 to 500 lb-ft or greater sounds more likely to me now. Lower profile intake should make dropping into classic cars that much easier.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:
Don’t get me wrong, the 6.8 V10 could make bags of torque at 3,000 but collapses rapidly beyond 4,750 (400 lb ft) and 5,200 (<350 lb ft. While the 6.8 V8 won’t match that peak torque at 3,000, it’s definitely better by 40-50 lb ft in the 4,750 to 5,200 range.
All of these engine design are a compromise, the V10 was tuned for more torque lower in the range when horsepower wasn’t developed to the extent it is today, the 6.8 V8 certainly has a much broader torque curve and that’s better in every respect when towing and moving up gears.
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.
-
11 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Certain versions of the 3V 6.8 had up to 460 lb ft without VCT, which makes me think that the 6.8 V8 probably has more to give at a later update….
Just noticed the high output 6.7 powerstroke has 500 hp and 1,200 lb ft, that’s brutal
I personally don't think 6.8 Babyzilla will match the 3V V10's torque output (in Super Duty-friendly configuration) without DI.
-
1 hour ago, Flying68 said:
I would have been curious to see if the 10 speed would have improved things vs the 6 that it had.
...by a lot.
-
10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Well as for the pushrods from Ram and GM-keep in mind GM does sell more full size pick ups than Ford and OHC is over twenty years old, and the competitors have stuck with non OHC
Over the last decade or so F-Series has outsold Silverado/Sierra more often than not.
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, jpd80 said:
For years, I’ve watched with frustration Ford fail to deliver a simple pushrod 7.0 V8 in the 2000s because engineers knew better, sticking Ford with a 6.2 OHC that failed to replace the 6.8 V10 and subsequently banished form F150 due to CAFE and the popularity of the 3.5 EB.
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.
-
On 10/28/2022 at 11:44 PM, jpd80 said:
On reflection, I get the distinct impression that Ford deliberately went low tech with the 7.3 exactly because the chiefs didn’t get what they wanted back in the 2000s, they wanted a 7. Liter V8 pushrod engine to replace the 6.8 V10, the 6.2 V8 promised much but just couldn’t replace the 6.8 V10.
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.
-
4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
The H.O. diesel's numbers are impressive.
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.
6 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:Well this has been an impressive thread in terms of the knowledge shown by so many.
So as always appreciate the education. How about an education on these numbers.
Assuming these are dyno numbers let's say we are talking about an F-350-one with a 6.8 and one with a 6.7. My first thought is the PS version has all sorts of engine controls so those torque numbers do not get to the rear wheels on start up.
If they do, that means everything in the 6.7 drive line is TWICE the rating of the 6.8's components.? I don't think they are...so what is the point-other than bragging rights of 1000 lb ft of torque in a 13,000 GCW "one ton"?
It looks like the 6.8 will get the 10R100 while the Powerstrokes get the 10R140.
-
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
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:
We need to be careful not to over complicate the reasons why one engine will produce more low rpm torque than another of similar displacement. Again, go back to the old 427 and 428 FE big blocks. They were essentially the same displacement yet the 428 produced more torque at lower rpms than the 427. If you compare the street version of the 427, which was the medium riser, to a 428 CJ you will see that they essentially used the same cylinder heads, intake manifold and carb. Other than the camshaft profiles the biggest differences between the two were bore diameter and crankshaft stroke. I know that might be an oversimplification because the racing versions of the 427 did have a bunch of other parts that allowed them to achieve and survive much higher rpms. But back to the basics: The 427 used a 4.23" bore and a 3.78" stroke. The 428 used a 4.13" bore and a 3.98" stroke. The biggest reason why the 428 could produce more low rpm torque was because it had the mechanical advantage of the longer crankshaft stroke. It's like comparing a 3" long screwdriver to a 30" long crow bar. You can move a lot more mass with the longer lever arm of the crow bar with a lot less effort. It's the same thing with a 4-stroke engine. When the piston is on it's downward power stroke the longer the "arm" of the crankshaft the easier it is to turn the crankshaft so it takes less effort to create more twisting force, or torque, at slower speeds. The 427, on the other hand, could achieve the same rpm at a much quicker rate and could take better advantage of more air and fuel to achieve higher rpms because the shorter lever arm (stroke) of it's crankshaft could make the crankshaft turn at a faster rate in less time. It just took more effort at slower engine speeds which meant that it couldn't produce as much torque at those slower speeds. Now, you can certainly do a lot of things with induction systems, camshaft designs, ignition and valve timing, exhaust systems, etc. but you still need that basic mechanical advantage of the longer lever arm.
How does all that apply to the 6.8? I'm betting it will be a little snappier than the 7.3 and be damned impressive with a set of 3.73 or 4.10 gears. Just don't expect it to pull as heavy loads without a little more effort, or in this case, a little more rpms.
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.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:
And the larger bore of the gen 3/4 was made possible by the switch to PTWA cylinder coating in lieu of steel liners.
I believe I read in some of the coverage of the 2024 Mustang that the Mustang's version of the Coyote was adopting the "bottom end" of the truck version meaning the crankcase design. They were touting the switch to a steel oil pan. I assume that also includes the belt driven oil pump but they didn't actually say that. The old crank driven oil pump design was the weak link, especially when adding forced induction. The "fix" was to replace the cast factory pump gears and housing with aftermarket billet parts. When the 2021 F-150's 5.0L was introduced the Ford engineers made a point of the fact that the new belt driven pump had been tested to withstand up to 1000 hp output.
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
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, akirby said:
Thats on purpose…..The old “5.0” was really a 4.9…..
Gen 1 and 2 Coyotes actually were 302ci.
Gen 3 and 4 are 307
-
12 hours ago, SoonerLS said:
I was responding to your question about the Coyote. It looks like the Coyote does now have a belt-driven oil pump.
ETA: I don't know if the Coyote uses a belt or a chain, but the part is called a timing belt in the online parts catalog.
Gen 4 Coyotes have belt driven oil pumps
-
1
-
-
The Allison 10L1000 absolutely, unequivocally used the 10R80 as its architectural starting point.
It was not a clean sheet design
-
1
-
-
Is the 7.3 actually getting a power bump?
2024 F-150
in Production and Sales
Posted
https://www.thedrive.com/news/next-ford-f-150-will-get-rid-of-2400-parts-to-cut-costs-improve-quality