Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by akirby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 2005Explorer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by SoonerLS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...