Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

On 8/3/2019 at 1:44 PM, 351cid said:

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.

1972 was when engines also took a big emissions hit.  Compression ratios dropped down to approx 8.5:1,  cam profiles and timing were changed to be more emissions friendly.  It was the final nail in the performance coffin for Detroit, until EFI came along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, loubif said:

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? 

From the '14 F-150 specs comparing the two engines in the same wheelbase and cab configurations, it looks like the 6.2 weighs somewhere around 200-250lbs more than the Coyote. According to Ford Performance, a Coyote crate engine weighs ~430lbs (they also list 445lbs as the weight of a Coyote in the Technical Reference, so I'm guessing 430lbs is dry), which would put the 6.2 between 650 and 700lbs. My guess would be closer to 650lbs, as a 6.2-equipped F-150 would probably weigh more even without the engine, as the 6.2 got a bigger radiator, had a power steering pump (the Coyote had EPAS), and likely had other heavier components.

Edited by SoonerLS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoonerLS said:

From the '14 F-150 specs comparing the two engines in the same wheelbase and cab configurations, it looks like the 6.2 weighs somewhere around 200-250lbs more than the Coyote. According to Ford Performance, a Coyote crate engine weighs ~430lbs (they also list 445lbs as the weight of a Coyote in the Technical Reference, so I'm guessing 430lbs is dry), which would put the 6.2 between 650 and 700lbs. My guess would be closer to 650lbs, as a 6.2-equipped F-150 would probably weigh more even without the engine, as the 6.2 got a bigger radiator, had a power steering pump (the Coyote had EPAS), and likely had other heavier components.

I’ve read (don’t remember where) that the 6.2 weighs a little over 600 pounds.  Don’t know how accurate that is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

I’ve read (don’t remember where) that the 6.2 weighs a little over 600 pounds.  Don’t know how accurate that is. 

That sounds like it's in the ballpark. 150lbs sounds like a more reasonable weight difference between two similarly-sized V8s than does 200-250lbs, even given the Boss's iron block vs the Coyote's 'loomnum block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to figure engine weights, some crate engines are near fully dressed, some are long blocks and that's it.  FWIW, I read somewhere that a 6.2L complete without accessories was around 580 lbs..  That's about the weight of a GM iron block truck 6.0L, and I think those engines would be pretty close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for my question on the weight of the 6.2L is that apparently Fords new 7.3L is (a bit?) lighter than the 6.2L and trying to get an idea of how the Zilla compares weight wise to a Yote  in an apples to apples comparison. If the weight difference isn't super bad there could be an opportunity for Ford to create a 7.3L Mach I, Boss or what I was hoping for, a vin-able version of a 7.3L Mustang Cobra-Jet Drag Pack car...I know, I know, I'm pipe dreaming but as an avid Ford drag racing fan this would be AWESOME!!!

Edited by loubif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, loubif said:

The reason for my question on the weight of the 6.2L is that apparently Fords new 7.3L is (a bit?) lighter than the 6.2L and trying to get an idea of how the Zilla compares weight wise to a Yote  in an apples to apples comparison. If the weight difference isn't super bad there could be an opportunity for Ford to create a 7.3L Mach I, Boss or what I was hoping for, a vin-able version of a 7.3L Mustang Cobra-Jet Drag Pack car...I know, I know, I'm pipe dreaming but as an avid Ford drag racing fan this would be AWESOME!!!

Motor was specifically designed for trucks and would need some serious revamping for car use... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, twintornados said:

Motor was specifically designed for trucks and would need some serious revamping for car use... 

Not necessarily, it's an air pump. Different cam, higher flowing heads, an intake. Things the aftermarket offers, I don't expect Ford to do it.

One guy on YouTube says as soon as he can get his hands on one he's going to try to mod it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't see the point in hot rodding the 7.3 unless you just want something different.

My guess is you will see the usual cold air kits, exhaust and performance tunes for the Super Duty but not much beyond that.

If you want a big-inch push rod Ford you can still buy 385 series blocks that can be bored and stroked to unreal displacements and there are already plenty of aftermarket parts available for them all the way up to Jon Kaase Boss 9 Hemi heads.

A 351W block can also be built to exceed 7.3L and there are plenty of serious hot rod parts for those as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely based on limited information and pictures I have seen so far.......

The 7.3L is not exactly what I would consider to be a 'Big Block', as it's bore spacing is only slightly more than a GM LS/LT.  From what I gather it's 4.595, same as the Ford 6.2L.  Judging by the cylinder bore, bore spacing, and machined cooling passage between the bores (don't know how deep that is), I don't think you would be able to bore it much past .060, but that's just a rough guess on my part at this point.  It does look like there is enough room in the crankcase to swing a bigger stroke crank, and that will probably be the best way to get substantially larger displacement out of it.  Cylinder heads look O.K., but the very tall valve springs might be an issue at high r.p.m.'s.  External size and weight are great, again roughly the size of a GM LS/LT.  However, there is something funny about the oil pump configuration, it's at the front of the engine, chain driven, and below the crank.  Oil pan is a funny dip in the front that I assume is for the pump.  Might make some swaps a little harder.  In any event, because the 7.3L is not going into any high performance vehicles there probably will not be much aftermarket for it.  Still, I think the engine will be great for it's intended applications (commercial trucks).

I think the 6.2L probably has more high performance potential than the 7.3L does.  Great cylinder heads, block capable of more than 7L displacement.  Too bad it hasn't been given  much attention since it's not in Raptor anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be some similarities with the old FE, the bore spacing is close as is the bore and stroke of the 7.3 which looks to be approximating what hot rodders did with big bore 427 FE and long stroke crank from 428 FE. It’s a rough thumbnail but maybe it’s a bore stroke combination that really works well 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wanted to take the basic architecture of the 7.3 and build an aluminum block version at 7.0 liters, the bore could stay at 107.2mm and a stroke of 97mm would get you there!

However, if your going to do an aluminum block say for Mustang or F150, the next question would be do you adjust the deck height down to say about 237mm from 256mm?  Probably!

When your done, it would be pretty low volume say 20,000 per year. Very difficult to justify unless someone other than Windsor does it!

cylinder head design looks good even for a 605 hp naturally aspirated 7.0 liter version of the 7.3.

edselford

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief guys!  This thing is a low-revving, slow-running truck engine.  Anything beyond that is pushing it beyond it's design objective and it's likely going to be a shitty outcome unless you spend tons of money reworking a lot of things.

It's a TRUCK ENGINE! Geez!

How many 460 engines did you see in cars?  Or the F150 for that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

Good grief guys!  This thing is a low-revving, slow-running truck engine.  Anything beyond that is pushing it beyond it's design objective and it's likely going to be a shitty outcome unless you spend tons of money reworking a lot of things.

It's a TRUCK ENGINE! Geez!

How many 460 engines did you see in cars?  Or the F150 for that matter?

But but but but...... cubic inches! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

Good grief guys!  This thing is a low-revving, slow-running truck engine.  Anything beyond that is pushing it beyond it's design objective and it's likely going to be a shitty outcome unless you spend tons of money reworking a lot of things.

It's a TRUCK ENGINE! Geez!

How many 460 engines did you see in cars?  Or the F150 for that matter?

Well, the 454 I had in a Corvette was kinda fun,,,,,,

HRG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

Good grief guys!  This thing is a low-revving, slow-running truck engine.  Anything beyond that is pushing it beyond it's design objective and it's likely going to be a shitty outcome unless you spend tons of money reworking a lot of things.

It's a TRUCK ENGINE! Geez!

How many 460 engines did you see in cars?  Or the F150 for that matter?

My parents had 2 Lincolns with 460s and I had a Galaxie Sport Roof with a 429.  GM put 454's in half tons, our neighbor had one.

Briggs and Strattons mow lawns AND power go-carts on race tracks.

It'a low revving truck engine because that's what Ford TUNED it for not because all 7.3's are low revving.

People take 6.0 LS's out of trucks and throw cams, heads, intakes, etc at them every day. Why do you think SEMA exists?

If people want to hot rod the 7.3 they'll do whether you like it or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MY93SHO said:

It'a low revving truck engine because that's what Ford TUNED it for not because all 7.3's are low revving.

It's a low-revving truck engine because that's what it was designed to be. Listen to the engineers who designed it--they intentionally traded off high revving because it wasn't useful for the targeted usage. They needed an engine that would run under a near-constant load in a relatively constrained RPM range, so that's what they designed the engine to do

IMHO, trying to make it a hot rod engine for a Mustang is like trying to make a half-ton truck engine out of the old Ford 3-cylinder tractor diesel. Yeah, you might be able to do it, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense; as was pointed out above, there are much better starting points if you want Ford big block performance.

FWIW, I'm sure someone will do it as a one-off just because they can (I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like Chip Foose do something like that for a SEMA car just for the hell of it), and that's certainly cool, but Ford won't put it in anything that didn't get the V-10, which means there won't be enough volume to draw aftermarket support, which means it'll be relegated to the land of one-offs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only old fart around here? the 460 was the replacement for the old 462 MEL in the Lincoln in 68. A luxury car engine. The 429 was the Ford version that started out in the TBird in 68. The 429 then spread through the Ford lineup and the 460 spread to Mercury. Sometime around 73 the 460 showed up in Fords ( I drove a 75 Country Squire with a 460). Then in the mid to late 70's the 460 showed up in pickups (a friend had one in a 78 F350). So an engine can be adapted to various uses, hey there was an HD version of the 429 (along with the 370) in medium trucks. Now, do I expect Ford to expand the 7.3 to cars? No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lfeg said:

Am I the only old fart around here? the 460 was the replacement for the old 462 MEL in the Lincoln in 68. A luxury car engine. The 429 was the Ford version that started out in the TBird in 68. The 429 then spread through the Ford lineup and the 460 spread to Mercury. Sometime around 73 the 460 showed up in Fords ( I drove a 75 Country Squire with a 460). Then in the mid to late 70's the 460 showed up in pickups (a friend had one in a 78 F350). So an engine can be adapted to various uses, hey there was an HD version of the 429 (along with the 370) in medium trucks. Now, do I expect Ford to expand the 7.3 to cars? No

My dad had a 1974 LTD Brougham with a 460 in it....that car passed everything on the road except a gas station. But to say a 429, a 460, and a 370 are designed the same would be a misnomer. Yes, all were 385 series engine based, but each were "re-vamped" significantly for their specific "mission". I agree with your assessment that your will likely never see a factory install of a 7.3L in a car (skunk work "one offs" excluded). Personally, a CD6 Lincoln Continental powered by a 7.3L would certainly raise a lot of eyebrows though, but that is just my devious automotive tinged mind working overtime...lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, twintornados said:

My dad had a 1974 LTD Brougham with a 460 in it....that car passed everything on the road except a gas station. But to say a 429, a 460, and a 370 are designed the same would be a misnomer. Yes, all were 385 series engine based, but each were "re-vamped" significantly for their specific "mission". I agree with your assessment that your will likely never see a factory install of a 7.3L in a car (skunk work "one offs" excluded). Personally, a CD6 Lincoln Continental powered by a 7.3L would certainly raise a lot of eyebrows though, but that is just my devious automotive tinged mind working overtime...lol

Right, even the 429 2v in a Galaxie was different from the 429SCJ which was different from the 429HD. Same basic block but different cranks, pistons, manifolds, etc to suit the application. When Ford designed the 385 series engine they covered many bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Ifeg

Your not the only old guy here! I’m 70 years old and worked at Ford Engine division between 1968 and 1975 first as a test car driver and later as a product development engineer in fuel systems.

The discussion is interesting about the new 7.3 V8.

With enough money, you can do almost anything but you must make a profit when your done or you will be done in by the market!

I do remember the 1968 thunderbird 429 as the first application of the 385 series.  It was not any faster than the 428 but used more gas!

The absolute best street engine in that time was the 428 cobra jet. It could burn rubber from 0 all the way up to 113 mph. The 460 never did anything but move very large cars and motor homes. Volume on F250/350 was very low.

From what I remember the Chevy 348 was designed as a truck engine. It became the 409 which always beat our 406 FE V8 on the street.

So a truck engine can become a performance engine with the right cam, cylinder heads and fuel system.

The 6.2 can be bored and stroked to 7.0 liters. putting displacement on demand on it is more costly to do than on a push rod engine like the 7.3.

edselford

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why would Ford bother when the supercharged 5.2 is already developed to cater for high performance applications
I see potential for the 7.3 in stationary equipment like generators and pumps replacing the 6.8 but we could see it as
a Ford Racing engine available for off road sale.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

And why would Ford bother when the supercharged 5.2 is already developed to cater for high performance applications
I see potential for the 7.3 in stationary equipment like generators and pumps replacing the 6.8 but we could see it as
a Ford Racing engine available for off road sale.

Ford Performance doesn't even offer the 6.2, so I wouldn't be holding my breath on the 7.3. 

  • Like 1
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...