Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Joe771476

New light & medium duty news

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

Exactly what I was thinking...

So rather than designing a new E-series, Ford decided to design a new engine to fit in the existing E-series. I guess this will put to rest any speculation that Ford will replace the E-series anytime soon.

 

36 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 Woudn't bet on that either-maybe the Work Truck Show in March will have other news.  Again-Ford is building trucks on 3 cab structures at OAP- Steel SD on 650/750, aluminum SD on 450-550, and the E series.  No doubt one of the sales points Beltramo mentions is the new 7.3 is much narrower allowing for better underhood airflow  providing better cooling. but that doesn't say they still won't do something cab wise.

I find it hard to believe they'll continue with E-series as-is indefinitely.  They have to change it eventually.  And at some point, I think they'd have to either go to combined cabs or more specialized ones (a more medium duty appropriate one for the 650-750).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way I can see a Mustang with the 7.3L is as a one off concept car from Ford Performance or something. I doubt they ever sell one in a showroom. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Mike Levine himself said its only for Super Duty so you can forget about that dream for now

Because there are different emission levels for SuperDuty and above certifying it for F150 MIGHT require some changes to the combustion chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

The only way I can see a Mustang with the 7.3L is as a one off concept car from Ford Performance or something. I doubt they ever sell one in a showroom. 

 

 

They had the opportunity for a 6.2 based 7.0 and never did it, so I'm with you on this not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, theoldwizard said:

Because there are different emission levels for SuperDuty and above certifying it for F150 MIGHT require some changes to the combustion chamber.

One option I could see is a limited run (4000 units) of a 7.3 Lightning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J-150 said:

One option I could see is a limited run (4000 units) of a 7.3 Lightning. 

The Raptor 3.5EB already has 450/510.  I'm not sure the 7.3L would outperform it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the 7.3L as a 'performance' engine.  With that large bore and simple port fuel injection, I don't see Ford getting a real high compression ratio out of it, and not a lot of timing either.  From a performance standpoint, all you have is cubic inches.  The 7.3L will be good for what it was designed for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't see the 7.3L as a 'performance' engine.  With that large bore and simple port fuel injection, I don't see Ford getting a real high compression ratio out of it, and not a lot of timing either.  From a performance standpoint, all you have is cubic inches.  The 7.3L will be good for what it was designed for. 

10.5:1 on this variant. I wouldn't consider this to be low given the F-650/750 duty cycle and PFI only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't see the 7.3L as a 'performance' engine.  With that large bore and simple port fuel injection, I don't see Ford getting a real high compression ratio out of it, and not a lot of timing either.  From a performance standpoint, all you have is cubic inches.  The 7.3L will be good for what it was designed for. 

Right. Leave the stuffing a bigger engine into everything to GM. I like Ford's purpose built approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't see the 7.3L as a 'performance' engine.  With that large bore and simple port fuel injection, I don't see Ford getting a real high compression ratio out of it, and not a lot of timing either.  From a performance standpoint, all you have is cubic inches.  The 7.3L will be good for what it was designed for. 

Everything the engineer said in the TFLTrucks video indicates that this is a purpose-built engine for the bigger trucks, built specifically around their duty cycle. That just doesn't sound like it would lend itself to performance vehicles...but I would be less shocked by it happening than I was by it being a pushrod engine. (FWIW, I thought it would be OHC, but I wasn't entirely shocked at the pushrods, given the harping on the complexity of OHC engines in this thread.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, akirby said:

The Raptor 3.5EB already has 450/510.  I'm not sure the 7.3L would outperform it.

Not in superduty form it wouldn't. But it's not hard to imagine how few tweaks it would take to turn it into a 600/600 engine.  Look at it this way - the 5.0 makes 92 hp/litre. Apply that to 7.3L and the number is eye-opening. Add boost and it gets dizzying. That's the benefit of displacement.

Now before someone points out that the 5.0 has the benefit of a sweet 4v dohc valvetrain, remember it's primarily a crutch to get around the tiny bore. With 4.22" bores and an oversquare design, 2 valves will flow more than enough. And the pushrod valvetrain could be easily modified to handle 7000 RPM using basic, established methods proven over decades of racing development of pushrod engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to a performance version of the 7.3 gas - ever heard of performance versions of the old 401/477/534? There is a reason some engines are designed for certain duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, lfeg said:

In regards to a performance version of the 7.3 gas - ever heard of performance versions of the old 401/477/534? There is a reason some engines are designed for certain duties.

At that point in time, the was no need for "performance" versions of those engines as the racing houses of the same era had plenty of other choices to go with....prediction that within a year, you will see a hopped up version of this motor.  

But, with that said, I have been wrong before, as recently as Feb. 4th 2019 which was the day prior to the release of the information about this motor and I was convinced that it would be OHC....

Edited by twintornados

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lfeg said:

In regards to a performance version of the 7.3 gas - ever heard of performance versions of the old 401/477/534? There is a reason some engines are designed for certain duties.

.....and yet there was to a certain extent. They were used as big inboard gas marine engines and by all accounts really worked well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

.....and yet there was to a certain extent. They were used as big inboard gas marine engines and by all accounts really worked well. 

If I remember right that was done by Seamaster, not by Ford.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 9:58 PM, lfeg said:

In regards to a performance version of the 7.3 gas - ever heard of performance versions of the old 401/477/534? There is a reason some engines are designed for certain duties.

A closer approximation would be the 427 and 428 FE engines, the Bore is close to the 427 and the stroke close to the 428...

But I agree, it's probably not going to happen in a regular production F150 or Mustang..I wouldn't hold my breath

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing what GM has achieved with the 6.6 V8 LS, with its slightly larger bore and stroke,  (4.06" x 3.85") I started wondering why Ford didn't do a similar increase on the 6.2 Boss to get an easy 6.6 V8  or 6.8 V8 without needing a whole new engine...

and then I thought, perhaps doing all those changes that seem  simple to us  was more trouble than it was worth compared to a clean sheet 7.3 V8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

A closer approximation would be the 427 and 428 FE engines, the Bore is close to the 427 and the stroke close to the 428...

 

 

There never were FT versions of the 427/428, closest was the FT 391. 427 was an all out performance engine, 428 was originally meant to power large cars and later performance versions evolved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lfeg said:

There never were FT versions of the 427/428, closest was the FT 391. 427 was an all out performance engine, 428 was originally meant to power large cars and later performance versions evolved.

I'm talking about the bore and stroke of the new 7.3 being so very close to the 427 and 428 respectively. 4.22" x 3.96"

and if I said that  "all out performance" 427 FE had a bore and stroke of 4.23" x 3,78", well, we'd be in the ball park, yes?

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chevy truck is on a print media blitz.  A Silverado appears on about 6 magazine COVERS this month including 3 sports mags. And if it's not on the cover, it's on the inside flap!  Also, what happened to the Lego/Ford connection?  I just saw a trailer for the movie sponsored by Chevy truck!  When I was at Legoland in Florida they had an Explorer made of red Lego bricks and Ford had a driving school for kids.  What happened?  Everybody wants a piece of Ford's truck biz, including VW, as in that alliance that is going to do nothing but screw Ford!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

Chevy truck is on a print media blitz.  A Silverado appears on about 6 magazine COVERS this month including 3 sports mags. And if it's not on the cover, it's on the inside flap!  Also, what happened to the Lego/Ford connection?  I just saw a trailer for the movie sponsored by Chevy truck!  When I was at Legoland in Florida they had an Explorer made of red Lego bricks and Ford had a driving school for kids.  What happened?  Everybody wants a piece of Ford's truck biz, including VW, as in that alliance that is going to do nothing but screw Ford!

I saw that one too.  My guess is Chevy paid off Warner Bros. (producer of the movie) for the product placement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 6:01 AM, jpd80 said:

After seeing what GM has achieved with the 6.6 V8 LS, with its slightly larger bore and stroke,  (4.06" x 3.85") I started wondering why Ford didn't do a similar increase on the 6.2 Boss to get an easy 6.6 V8  or 6.8 V8 without needing a whole new engine...

and then I thought, perhaps doing all those changes that seem  simple to us  was more trouble than it was worth compared to a clean sheet 7.3 V8.

That was the original plan, but there were durability issues with the large version of the 6.2L (7.0L?) in medium duty trucks.  That's not to say the 6.2L has any issues in it's applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

That was the original plan, but there were durability issues with the large version of the 6.2L (7.0L?) in medium duty trucks.  That's not to say the 6.2L has any issues in it's applications.

That was what theoldwizard reported, that the Boss failed (or couldn't be made to pass) the medium duty cycle testing (cooling-related, IIRC), and that's why you don't see it in trucks above the F-350. 

 

ETA: AFAIK, the 6.2 performs admirably in the F-250/-350. Its only problem is that it's limited to those two trucks in the F-Series.

Edited by SoonerLS
Damn you, autoincorrect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

That was what theoldwizard reported, that the Boss failed (or couldn't be made to pass) the medium duty cycle testing (cooling-related, IIRC)

Uggh, not this again. The issue was the need for MD-spec exhaust valves and manifolds (a common issue with all engines Ford used in the MD applications, including the 7.3L, the mod, 385-series and even the "big six"). It had absolutely nothing to do with the cooling system. The chief engineer of that engine program explained the issue exactly over at FTE before TOW reported something to do with temperature here at BOF. What TOW didn't hear/understand was the origin of the issue and it grew a life of it's own over here. The relevant link to the engineer's discussion over at FTE is several dozen pages ahead in this thread.

 

The reasons they went with this new engine were explained in the interview with the Godzilla family engineering manager on TFLTruck. They needed more displacement than was available with the BOSS (7.3L vs 7.0L with room for future expansion). They wanted to operate it at a lower RPM than what the 7.0L would have likely run at to get the desired power. Finally, they decided not to design a new cab structure for the E-Series so a taller deck 7.0L BOSS likely wouldn't have fit (they barely crammed the 6.2L in there). The E-Series application is crying out for more power than could be had, especially with the athematic 2V 6.8L (305hp) given that the Express/Savanna cutaway is likely getting the GM 6.6L with 100HP more power. In designing this narrower OHV engine they enabled the E-Series app (F-Series could swallow almost anything given how massive the PowerStroke is) but likely sacrificed the performance car/truck application (i.e Mustang/Raptor) that the 7.0L BOSS would have been absolutely perfect for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RPF said:

Uggh, not this again. The issue was the need for MD-spec exhaust valves and manifolds (a common issue with all engines Ford used in the MD applications, including the 7.3L, the mod, 385-series and even the "big six"). It had absolutely nothing to do with the cooling system. The chief engineer of that engine program explained the issue exactly over at FTE before TOW reported something to do with temperature here at BOF. What TOW didn't hear/understand was the origin of the issue and it grew a life of it's own over here. The relevant link to the engineer's discussion over at FTE is several dozen pages ahead in this thread.

Thank you for that, it's been my belief that every engine intended for MD has to be suitably upgraded for the expected heavy and sustained load. It wasn't something peculiar to the 6.2 Boss, just something that highlighted the engines lack of capacity and unsuitability in that role....however, a bore and stroke increase like the GM 6.6 V8 received  might have worked...it may have needed more capacity like 7.0 liters

Quote

The reasons they went with this new engine were explained in the interview with the Godzilla family engineering manager on TFLTruck. They needed more displacement than was available with the BOSS (7.3L vs 7.0L with room for future expansion). They wanted to operate it at a lower RPM than what the 7.0L would have likely run at to get the desired power. Finally, they decided not to design a new cab structure for the E-Series so a taller deck 7.0L BOSS likely wouldn't have fit (they barely crammed the 6.2L in there). The E-Series application is crying out for more power than could be had, especially with the athematic 2V 6.8L (305hp) given that the Express/Savanna cutaway is likely getting the GM 6.6L with 100HP more power. In designing this narrower OHV engine they enabled the E-Series app (F-Series could swallow almost anything given how massive the PowerStroke is) but likely sacrificed the performance car/truck application (i.e Mustang/Raptor) that the 7.0L BOSS would have been absolutely perfect for.

I think it both understandable and unfortunate that Ford first developed the 6.2 Boss to work across F150 and SD.  Ford did originally have a plan for two Boss capacities a 5.8 and a 6.2 but if the Boss had been developed just for Super Duty, I'm sure that Ford would have increased capacity and made it a true replacement for the 6.8 V10. Obviously that wasn't the plan and everything worked out OK in the end with the 6.8 V10 3V making a reappearance in MD.

The 7.3 V8 now sits above the 6.2 Boss which is fine by me as plenty of buyers will love both engines, so I'm wondering how or if Ford can build more. Maybe Ford will be forced to make more SD capacity....

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×