coupe3w Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 The 7.X is not going to be a pushrod engine. Why the hell would it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) The 7.X is not going to be a pushrod engine. Why the hell would it be? Possibly lower cost and simplicity of build for Medium Duty applications, I remember theoldwizzard saying that there was a lot of pressure from the brass to make Hurricane/boss 6.2 a pushrod engine as the brass could not see why OHC was an advantage in a HD truck engine. The reason they chose OHC was because of failures with getting cylinder deactivation (GM AFM) to work reliably. My hope is that Ford's engineers will maximize efficiency and combustion control by using many of the smaller Coyote's features in the 7.3, DOHC, Motion control valves managing port flow, Dual VCT and PFDI ....all doable. Edited September 14, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) Possibly lower cost and simplicity of build for Medium Duty applications, I remember theoldwizzard saying that there was a lot of pressure from the brass to make Hurricane/boss 6.2 a pushrod engine as the brass could not see why OHC was an advantage in a HD truck engine. The reason they chose OHC was because of failures with getting cylinder deactivation (GM AFM) to work reliably. My hope is that Ford's engineers will maximize efficiency and combustion control by using many of the smaller Coyote's features in the 7.3, DOHC, Motion control valves managing port flow, Dual VCT and PFDI ....all doable. I hear you. I thought they went with the Mod motor to meet the stricter emissions that they said they couldn't meet at the time. Which I didn't understand. GM didn't have a problem with it. And I don't know who convinced the top brass at the time that this was the way to go. It has to be way more expensive to produce then a pushrod engine and the packaging at least width wise is not all that good. I hope I'm wrong, I'm all for a pushrod engine. Would love it to be. Edited September 14, 2018 by coupe3w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 Possibly lower cost and simplicity of build for Medium Duty applications, I remember theoldwizzard saying that there was a lot of pressure from the brass to make Hurricane/boss 6.2 a pushrod engine as the brass could not see why OHC was an advantage in a HD truck engine. The reason they chose OHC was because of failures with getting cylinder deactivation (GM AFM) to work reliably. My hope is that Ford's engineers will maximize efficiency and combustion control by using many of the smaller Coyote's features in the 7.3, DOHC, Motion control valves managing port flow, Dual VCT and PFDI ....all doable. Actually, it's supposed to be easier to design cylinder deactivation for a pushrod engine than it is for an OHC engine. There's a lot more space for the componentry. Throw direct injection on the engine and it leaves even less room for the feature on an OHC engine. The issues GM had with cylinder deactivation early on were for the most part caused by lifter failures (vendor supplied, I was told). In contrast, Ford had considerable trouble with VVT cam phasing on 3 valve Mod/Triton engines. VVT is more complicated with OHC engines compared to pushrod designs. The Mods were OHC from the beginning because the design was 'more modern', and was considered to be more appropriate for passenger cars (Lincoln Continental). Little thought was given to cylinder head size because engine width was less of an issue than length in a front wheel drive car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 In previous posts, theoldwizzard spoke about his time at Ford and how there were some spectacular failures with Ford's cylinder deactivation units, so much that it was abandoned - I think he was referring to the 6.2 development Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 In contrast, Ford had considerable trouble with VVT cam phasing on 3 valve Mod/Triton engines. VVT is more complicated with OHC engines compared to pushrod designs. From what I've seen and read, the cam phasing is only a problem in higher-mileage SOHC Tritons/Mods, and there are revised parts to deal with them. It doesn't appear to be much of a problem at all in the DOHC engines, and is rock solid in the Coyotes, at least in the trucks (I don't keep up with the Mustangs as much). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 From what I've seen and read, the cam phasing is only a problem in higher-mileage SOHC Tritons/Mods, and there are revised parts to deal with them. It doesn't appear to be much of a problem at all in the DOHC engines, and is rock solid in the Coyotes, at least in the trucks (I don't keep up with the Mustangs as much). Whatever changes Ford made to their cam phaser designs on the 5.0L and 6.2L they worked well. Had nothing but trouble with phasers on 5.4L's, even at relatively low miles. It was funny, when you bought a reman 5.4L (and I bought a lot of those over the years) they usually came with new phasers and position sensors. The V-10's saving grace was that they didn't have VVT, the balance shaft in the right head made it impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 I got stung by one of those 3v 5.4's myself. Replaced the phasers only to have it drop a valve 8k miles later. The issue was the phasers would get loose and then starve the upper end of lubrication with the inevitable conclusion being valve train failure. It was quite a stroke of luck that the V10s couldn't use the blasted system. I see there's now "phaser delete kits" that include lockouts, oil galley plugs, and a canned tune to get rid of the vvt adjustments in the ECU. Supposedly the tune makes up for whatever hp/torque loss results from deleting vvt. Makes you wonder why Ford bothered in the first place.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT90SC Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 Cam timing is varied for emission purposes. Note no EGR systems on 3 valve v8s. Little is lost in power with lockouts, the "tune" is to keep the check engine lamp off. Its really just a temporary fix, because an engine that is that far gone usually needs longblocked. 3 valve phasers are oil hungry, yes, but had to maintain 20 psi HOT IDLE engine oil pressure with the early solenoids and 15 with the late. Usually the pump would get tired, coupled with tensioner gasket blowout and, 95% of the time, too long oil change intervals. Also have seen an assload of thrust bearing failures. Either way, when the oil pressure drops, the phaser can't control timing, the tensioner can't properly tension the chains (because the 3 valve style tensioner doesn't have a ratcheting backup). When that happens, the chain slaps around and breaks guides, which compound both issues because there is less control of the chain, and the bits starve the pump further. The newer DOHC phasers are far less oil hungry, the engines are also overall better designed. There have been some issues with the new 'midlock' phasers, and 18 5.0's cant seem to keep valves in the left bank, but all in all a better design. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 The newer DOHC phasers are far less oil hungry, the engines are also overall better designed. There have been some issues with the new 'midlock' phasers, and 18 5.0's cant seem to keep valves in the left bank, but all in all a better design. That doesn't sound good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 16, 2018 Share Posted September 16, 2018 3 valve phasers are oil hungry, yes, but had to maintain 20 psi HOT IDLE engine oil pressure with the early solenoids and 15 with the late. Usually the pump would get tired, coupled with tensioner gasket blowout and, 95% of the time, too long oil change intervals. Also have seen an assload of thrust bearing failures. Either way, when the oil pressure drops, the phaser can't control timing, the tensioner can't properly tension the chains (because the 3 valve style tensioner doesn't have a ratcheting backup). When that happens, the chain slaps around and breaks guides, which compound both issues because there is less control of the chain, and the bits starve the pump further. That is exactly what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted September 16, 2018 Share Posted September 16, 2018 I have bitched about International building an engine with cascading problems for Ford. It seems that Ford can bungle up something just as well themselves. Sheesh! Between spark plugs and non ratcheting tensioners and stuff like that its a wonder that Ford can sell any trucks nowadays. As a Ford aficionado, owner and former longtime Ford dealership employee I demand that they stop cutting corners, stop being so fancy and just get the damn basics right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 16, 2018 Share Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) Between spark plugs and non ratcheting tensioners and stuff like that its a wonder that Ford can sell any trucks nowadays. You mean you expect a problem that was solved ten years ago on an engine that hasn't been sold in the trucks in eight years should be affecting the sales of current trucks? Edited September 16, 2018 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted September 16, 2018 Share Posted September 16, 2018 You mean you expect a problem that was solved ten years ago on an engine that hasn't been sold in the trucks in eight years should be affecting the sales of current trucks? There are people that legitimately think that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Yeah, Im saying that massive problems with engines like the 6.0 Powerstroke and the 5.4 3 valver are causing their owners who may be ready for a new truck to really think twice about buying a Ford. Seems like Dodge has positioned themselves to catch the disillusioned Ford owners. Im sorry you pinch pennies on critical things you pay the price. I mean really two consecutive but different spark plug issues in the 4.6 and 5.4 engines? That is unforgivable! Then the cascading problem with the synchronizers? The Japanese and South Koreans dont seem to screw this kind of thing up. Sorry 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Yeah, Im saying that massive problems with engines like the 6.0 Powerstroke and the 5.4 3 valver are causing their owners who may be ready for a new truck to really think twice about buying a Ford. Seems like Dodge has positioned themselves to catch the disillusioned Ford owners.Except that the sales numbers don't seem to bear that out. If the 6.OhNo, 5.4, or 4.6 were going to affect F-Series sales, I'm pretty sure we'd already have seen those effects. The newest Mod/Triton F-Series is now nine model years old, and the newest with the spark plug issues are twelve model years old. From what I'm seeing on the truck forums, even the guys who feel like they got burned by the EB35 aren't switching brands, they're just switching to Coyotes. Also, Dodge, err, Ram is too busy picking up disillusioned Chebbie boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Maybe the 6.7 Powerstroke has salvaged Fords reputation a bit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Except that the sales numbers don't seem to bear that out. If the 6.OhNo, 5.4, or 4.6 were going to affect F-Series sales, I'm pretty sure we'd already have seen those effects. The newest Mod/Triton F-Series is now nine model years old, and the newest with the spark plug issues are twelve model years old. From what I'm seeing on the truck forums, even the guys who feel like they got burned by the EB35 aren't switching brands, they're just switching to Coyotes. Also, Dodge, err, Ram is too busy picking up disillusioned Chebbie boys. I don’t read many truck forums. Are you saying that the 3.5EB is making people feel like they got burned too? I’ve heard nothing but glowing reports from the few guys I know with 3.5’s and 2.7’s. Also what’s this business with the 2018 Coyote having valve train problems? The whole idea of DOHC’s is to spread the loads out and effectively “relax” the valve train. If this is a problem why did we even bother. Gm did a pretty good job remaking the 351 Windsor into a modern truck engine with the LS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Any new information on the new 7.3 V8 gasolineengine? The video of the Prime Minister of Canada at the plant seems to show new 7.3 V8 engine blocks that are longer than the current 6.2 V8. This would indicate an increase in bore centers from 115mm to something around 117mm. If it is a push rod design, expect two cams in block! One cam for intake and the other for exhaust. I could easily see. 7.3, a 7.0 and possibly a 6.277 versions over time. Appreciate any inputs Edselford Those look like blocks for the 5.0L Coyote, which is what they currently assemble at Essex Engine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Those look like blocks for the 5.0L Coyote, which is what they currently assemble at Essex Engine. That's because that is what it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 I don’t read many truck forums. Are you saying that the 3.5EB is making people feel like they got burned too? I’ve heard nothing but glowing reports from the few guys I know with 3.5’s and 2.7’s. Also what’s this business with the 2018 Coyote having valve train problems? The whole idea of DOHC’s is to spread the loads out and effectively “relax” the valve train. If this is a problem why did we even bother. Gm did a pretty good job remaking the 351 Windsor into a modern truck engine with the LS. The only issue I have ever heard, may be a non-issue ! People complained about "gunk" on the back of the intake valves. I don't know if this actually affect performance or not. This is no longer a problem as the 3.5L EcoBoost now has both PFI and DI. The point of 4 valves and DOHC is to improve air flow and allow dual independent variable cam timing, which also improves air flow. Nothing to do "relaxing" the valve train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Thanks T O W I understand the airflow and valve timing thing but 4 valve engines can run milder cams with more forgiving cam profiles precisely because of the inherent airflow advantage. The problem is Ford gives away that advantage to competitors with engines with usually a liter or more displacement. Then they simply deactivate in cruise mode. No Im fully behind the Ford as the best engine of the bunch save for the silly restriction theyve placed on themselves that should have died when they switched from Mod to Coyote. Now I know you said the 6.2 was supposed to replace all this but it hasnt and furthermore has an Internet reputation of not being able to cut it in heavier trucks. Despite this...... https://youtu.be/yJU06czQ-fU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 I don’t read many truck forums. Are you saying that the 3.5EB is making people feel like they got burned too? I’ve heard nothing but glowing reports from the few guys I know with 3.5’s and 2.7’s. Also what’s this business with the 2018 Coyote having valve train problems? These are imperfect machines built by imperfect people, so some of them are going to have problems or even fail, and the EB35 is no exception. Some people take that way too personally. There aren't many of them, but they make up for it in volume. As for the Coyote having problems, I've not heard that, but I don't spend as much time in the 13th Gen areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 Now I know you said the 6.2 was supposed to replace all this but it hasnt and furthermore has an Internet reputation of not being able to cut it in heavier trucks. Despite this...... The 12th Gen F-150 guys with the 6.2 absolutely love that mill. I don't recall the numbers exactly, but it's significantly detuned in the SuperDuties, presumably for the different duty cycles, so it wouldn't be entirely surprising if it didn't have as good of a reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 These are imperfect machines built by imperfect people, so some of them are going to have problems or even fail, and the EB35 is no exception. Some people take that way too personally. There aren't many of them, but they make up for it in volume. As for the Coyote having problems, I've not heard that, but I don't spend as much time in the 13th Gen areas. I think it's only Mustangs that have had issues with dropping valves, I haven't heard of any F-150 owners saying they had the issue. Ford is aware of it and trying to come up with a cause and solution AFAIK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.