Bob Rosadini Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 11 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: The derating in 450 and up makes sense to me. Reasonable expectations for a truck application where durability will be key. I think those numbers exceed the old 401 and 477 Super Duty V-8s in terms of HP and torque and exceed the 534 on torque. And those engines were used on a regular basis in tandem chassis that had rears that were as big as 65,000lbs! Reread my post-my bad- I meant to say.."exceed the old 401, 477 and 534 in terms of HP. But I know the max torque on the 534 was 481. I have to find some of my old sales literature but iI think the highest 534 HP rating was 270.in its early years and then when they messed around with emissions the HP dropped to 253 in the end- I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 55 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said: Reread my post-my bad- I meant to say.."exceed the old 401, 477 and 534 in terms of HP. But I know the max torque on the 534 was 481. I have to find some of my old sales literature but iI think the highest 534 HP rating was 270.in its early years and then when they messed around with emissions the HP dropped to 253 in the end- I think! Keep in mind that the 60's engines were rated "gross" & modern engines are rated "net". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 I have seen no mention of variable valve timing. Without VVT a separate EGR system is likely to be required. ☹️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarneyFord Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 If I was towing a trailer that engine would be my choice in the F250. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itguy09 Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 18 hours ago, Steve557 said: The 3.5 would melt if you put it in a SD and asked it to do what a 6.2 or 7.3 can do at maximum capacity. Never mind the long term reliability or the fact that the MPG would be worse than the V8’s. I dono. The 3.5 with the exception of the exhaust manifolds is built really stout. If they did integrated manifolds and kept the turbos cool I don't think it could work. Yes MPG would be bad (it is on ours when working it hard) but you can buy a lot of gas over the life of the truck for the premium of Diesel in initial cost, maintenance, and any repairs. Our next truck will be an F350 and while we tow a camper and plan on going big, I'm not looking forward to a Diesel. I'd much rather have a turbo gas engine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 1 hour ago, theoldwizard said: I have seen no mention of variable valve timing. Without VVT a separate EGR system is likely to be required. ☹️ If you mean VCT that was mentioned in February. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSchicago Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 22 minutes ago, itguy09 said: I dono. The 3.5 with the exception of the exhaust manifolds is built really stout. If they did integrated manifolds and kept the turbos cool I don't think it could work. Yes MPG would be bad (it is on ours when working it hard) but you can buy a lot of gas over the life of the truck for the premium of Diesel in initial cost, maintenance, and any repairs. Our next truck will be an F350 and while we tow a camper and plan on going big, I'm not looking forward to a Diesel. I'd much rather have a turbo gas engine. Turbo Coyote maybe. No 3.5 in the big trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSchicago Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 19 hours ago, 2005Explorer said: It has less HP and TQ then the 3.5 V6 EcoBoost. It's pointless. They should just put the 3.5 in the SuperDuty. 430HP/475TQ is more than 375HP/470TQ in the 3.5E. The cab & chassis (14K GVW and up) are rated at a lower RPM. The 3.5EB would be even worse in the HD trucks, not better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 18 hours ago, jpd80 said: I think he was being sarcastic Hey I just figured people might get the sarcasm, but next time I should use an emoji. I have read enough posts on this place over the years calling for Ford to discontinue all gas V8s and make everything V6 and smaller EcoBoost that I had to make the comment. The gas V8 certainly still has a place in the F250+ and I'd argue the 5.0 still has a place in the F150 as well. The 7.3 should be a great addition to the SuperDuty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, 2005Explorer said: I have read enough posts on this place over the years calling for Ford to discontinue all gas V8s and make everything V6 and smaller EcoBoost that I had to make the comment. Nobody here is CALLING for Ford to discontinue gas V8s. No need to exaggerate. Edited August 2, 2019 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, akirby said: Nobody is CALLING for Ford to discontinue gas V8s. No need to exaggerate. I watched 20 people standing at podiums over the past couple of nights - in Detroit of all places, that are absolutely positive that all gas V8's are gone forever - the sooner the better! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 29 minutes ago, Kev-Mo said: I watched 20 people standing at podiums over the past couple of nights - in Detroit of all places, that are absolutely positive that all gas V8's are gone forever - the sooner the better! I should have noted that "the sooner the better" is them and not me! I love that motor! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kev-Mo said: I watched 20 people standing at podiums over the past couple of nights - in Detroit of all places, that are absolutely positive that all gas V8's are gone forever - the sooner the better! With that group shifting so radically left and the few moderate sane ones being ignored I doubt you have to worry about much until at least 2024. Anyhow I think too much political talk will get you in trouble around here so I'll leave it at that. Enjoy your V8s while you can! Edited August 2, 2019 by 2005Explorer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 HP and torque numbers look real good for expected duty cycle! Reliability and fuel economy is most important for these trucks. Greater horsepower and torque requires more fuel any way you want to get it. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 10 hours ago, Kev-Mo said: I watched 20 people standing at podiums over the past couple of nights - in Detroit of all places, that are absolutely positive that all gas V8's are gone forever - the sooner the better! For sure they did- but they weren't just talking about V-8"s!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 So, I could save $8k on my next Super Duty by buying something with "only" 430HP/475 ft-lbs. And my 6.7L isn't really all that fuel efficient towing my fifth wheel. Hmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, edselford said: HP and torque numbers look real good for expected duty cycle! Reliability and fuel economy is most important for these trucks. Greater horsepower and torque requires more fuel any way you want to get it. edselford Best part is being done on near stoic (14.7:1) air fuel ratio for max fuel efficiency and lower NOX to clean up. An EB 3.5 trying to make same continuous power/ torque would be at 11:1 air fuel mix or worse so yeah, count on 40% more fuel with an EcoBoost forced to give full time torque delivery at that expected loading EB in Super Duty pure madness to even consider Edited August 3, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 On 8/1/2019 at 10:01 PM, 351cid said: Keep in mind that the 60's engines were rated "gross" & modern engines are rated "net". definition please. Isn't "net" after all accessory loses? So if anything today's ratings would be even higher at gross?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 10 hours ago, jpd80 said: Best part is being done on near stoic (14.7:1) air fuel ratio for max fuel efficiency and lower NOX to clean up. An EB 3.5 trying to make same continuous power/ torque would be at 11:1 air fuel mix or worse so yeah, count on 40% more fuel with an EcoBoost forced to give full time torque delivery at that expected loading EB in Super Duty pure madness to even consider JP- agree for sure. The 7.3 was built as a truck engine. Guys keep insisting though that they want it to be something it was not designed to be. I get great mileage with my SHO but I drive with a light foot. I read somewhere -might have been here-that someone suggested the EcoBoost was misnamed-should be called.." Eco OR Boost.. Friend of mine has a 150 crew, doesn't tow, it is truly a personal vehicle. Always seems to be in the 15 mpg range. I've driven it on fairly long interstate runs and even with my driving style, doesn't get close to 16. I was talking to a guy the other day who had a new crew cab GMC. Bragging about his MPG at over 20 vs what he used to get with his 150 crew cab 3.5. Bottom line it seems to me if you truly want to get good mileage with an Ecoboost, drive with a light foot as it has enough torque to hold decent speed in whatever gear it is in at the lower end of the RPM band. If you want to feel the "Boost" you are going to pay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said: definition please. Isn't "net" after all accessory loses? So if anything today's ratings would be even higher at gross?? Yes, basically. He's talking about the advertised ratings. An engine advertised at 300hp in 1968 would really be closer to 200hp today. I'm just making those numbers up, but there was a huge drop in HP ratings when they switched from SAE Gross to SAE Net. I used to have a chart that showed the engine HP ratings for F-Series trucks, and it looked like they fell off a cliff around 1970, but it was entirely attributable to the change in rating methods. Edited August 3, 2019 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said: JP- agree for sure. The 7.3 was built as a truck engine. Guys keep insisting though that they want it to be something it was not designed to be. I get great mileage with my SHO but I drive with a light foot. I read somewhere -might have been here-that someone suggested the EcoBoost was misnamed-should be called.." Eco OR Boost.. Friend of mine has a 150 crew, doesn't tow, it is truly a personal vehicle. Always seems to be in the 15 mpg range. I've driven it on fairly long interstate runs and even with my driving style, doesn't get close to 16. I was talking to a guy the other day who had a new crew cab GMC. Bragging about his MPG at over 20 vs what he used to get with his 150 crew cab 3.5. Bottom line it seems to me if you truly want to get good mileage with an Ecoboost, drive with a light foot as it has enough torque to hold decent speed in whatever gear it is in at the lower end of the RPM band. If you want to feel the "Boost" you are going to pay. Friends wife has a 2018 F150 crewcab , 4x4, 3.5EB. He says he's gotten 25.5 mpg more than one, but you have to drive it for that mpg. I got 24.2 with my 2.7 yesterday in rainy, windy weather. Take mpg brags with a grain of salt. I took a new 2017 GMC/ 5.3 to get a transfer case from another dealer and got 14 mpg. Had a 2018 Chev/ 5.3 loaner when the body shop replaced the front bumper on my 2015 F150. That got 11 mpg in January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: definition please. Isn't "net" after all accessory loses? So if anything today's ratings would be even higher at gross?? Correct. Example. 1970 302 was rated @ 210 hp. With minimal changes, 1972 was rated at 140 hp. Pretty much the same engine I'd say to compare the old SD V8 to the new 7.3, you'd have to guess the 7.3 @ about 525 lb ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 Early power ratings were also minus exhaust SD/HD truck ratings are done with higher engine loads so no directly comparable to F150 /1500 light duty truck. The Ratings are what can be guaranteed under continuous load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 My 2018 F-150 5.0L 4x4 S-crew with 3.73 axle ratios seems to average 17-18 mpg no matter where I drive and I live in the rollings hills of west central PA with very little freeway access. Even I-80, which I travel on maybe once a month, is nowhere near flat. With just under 7k miles on the odometer the instrument panel readout has been stuck on 18.0 ave mpg for several days. I consider that excellent compared to my previous '07 Sport Trac V8 4x4. I also easily get over 600 miles per 36 gal fuel tank in everyday driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loubif Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I've been searching all over the net but can't seem to find the weight of the Ford 6.2L engine as I heard that the 7.3L will possibly come in at lower weight, just trying to get an idea of where (weight wise) this new power plant will be compared to SBF, 385 series BBF, DOHC 4.6L, 5.0L Coyote etc...Is anyone aware of the current 6.2L weight? 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.