Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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??

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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... 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
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

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

×