Jump to content
  • Custom Search


SteelyD

7.3 Hurricane/Boss Crate Engine under development.

Recommended Posts

So far with just a  shorter intake manifold and ECU retune it makes 550 HP.  Over 600 Hp is thought possible with a cam change. Same engineer designed the Hurricane/Boss and the Coyote. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is a derivative of the OHC 6.2L?  Not related to the 7.3L Super Duty engine?

 

Links and specifics please! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

So this is a derivative of the OHC 6.2L?  Not related to the 7.3L Super Duty engine?

 

Links and specifics please! 

 

This is the 7.3 Super Duty engine. Direct source. There are no links. Oh my goodness what's going to happen now. No Internet Link.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

So this is a derivative of the OHC 6.2L?  Not related to the 7.3L Super Duty engine?

 

Links and specifics please! 

 

Some more SPECIFICS! This is the PUSH ROD engine. Some standard specs too. 60 MM cam. 9 cam bearings. What are the Blue Oval Speculators going to do now.? Keep an eye out for the internet links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7.3 was designed as a medium duty truck engine.  And with the numbers it puts out, would work in a class 8 too if  someone wanted gas.  

Does  this make sense??? I know we have plowed this ground before.

 

If you listened to the chief engineer on the 7.3,  the message I got was..."OHC works in PV applications, OHV pushrods work in big trucks"-or words to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

If you listened to the chief engineer on the 7.3,  the message I got was..."OHC works in PV applications, OHV pushrods work in big trucks"-or words to that effect.

 

He said the 7.3 was designed around the medium duty work cycle, and that's why they went with the pushrods instead of OHCs. 
 

That doesn't mean that Ford isn't interested in taking money from folks who want to put it into something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SteelyD said:

 

Some more SPECIFICS! This is the PUSH ROD engine. Some standard specs too. 60 MM cam. 9 cam bearings. What are the Blue Oval Speculators going to do now.? Keep an eye out for the internet links.

 

You don't have to be condescending 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the thread title say “Hurricane/Boss”?  That was the internal name for the 6.2.  The 7.3 was called Godzilla. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 'Hurricane/Boss' refers to the 6.2L, the 7.3L is a completely different engine platform.  That tends to call this claim into question.  That having been said, I think the 6.2L actually has a greater performance potential that the 7.3L does.  Pretty clear the 7.3L design is optimized for commercial truck, and it appears the 7.3L's valvetrain may behave poorly over 5000 r.p.m.'s.  Nonetheless, there certainly is potential for increased performance and I am sure there will be a market for a 7.3L 'crate' engine.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what’s the follow up? Is this just clickbait? 
 

Where did this rumor or information come from?

 

i have some information regarding the “sporting” side of the 445 Thunderjet but I’m sitting tight until I’m 100% sure. 
 

If what I heard is true though there’s gonna be some jaws dropping in the enthusiast community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 5:50 PM, 7Mary3 said:

Yes, 'Hurricane/Boss' refers to the 6.2L, the 7.3L is a completely different engine platform.  That tends to call this claim into question.  That having been said, I think the 6.2L actually has a greater performance potential that the 7.3L does.  Pretty clear the 7.3L design is optimized for commercial truck, and it appears the 7.3L's valvetrain may behave poorly over 5000 r.p.m.'s.  Nonetheless, there certainly is potential for increased performance and I am sure there will be a market for a 7.3L 'crate' engine.  
 

 

Yes theoretically the 6.2 has more upside potential but in American big cubic inch racing there just isn’t much love for OHC engines. 
 

Sure there are some big OHC boat engines now but hot rodders just don’t seem to dig the non push rod V8’s. 
 

This all coming from a country where the DOHC Offy was the preeminent oval track engine for decades. 
 

Seems two banks of cylinders with 4 cams is too much. 
 

The aftermarket will build blowers and headers for the “Cammers” but they ain’t building many heads blocks or intake manifolds for them, much less camshaft science. 
 

No in the USA a pushrod V8 has more potential (especially with greater bore spacing) in direct relation to the aftermarket support they are willing to invest is. 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

A bit more bore, a bit more stroke and that thing will be 500 cid !

 

I don't think there is much room for more bore!  More stroke looks 'doable'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I don't think there is much room for more bore!  More stroke looks 'doable'.

Detail on deck height would help, isn’t the bore span something like the FE’s 4.63”?

 

So good to see Ford put out a compact big engine, if Ford did this  engine in two deck heights, it could supplant the old  Windsor design

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bore spacing is 117.60 mm (anyone know for sure?) and the bore is 107.2 mm, that gives you 10.4 mm between cylinder bores.  Plenty for a rebuild, but not a real big displacement increase.  I assume the block is a siamese cylinder bore casting because they cut a cooling passage slot in the deck.  That slot looks a little scary, might compromise head gasket sealing if you did something crazy performance-wise to the 7.3L.  You can see the slots in this video around 1:19:

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the block was cast with water between the bores  for better cooling

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jpd80 said:

I thought that the block was cast with water between the bores  for better cooling

 

Judging by those slots, I don't think it is cast with water passages between the cylinders.  I could be wrong, but why else would Ford have cut slots between the cylinders?  The slots clearly go into the water jackets.

 

Ford got a large displacement out of this engine, which is only slightly larger than a Chevy LS.  I believe what the engineer that was in charge of the project said, they came up with an optimum displacement based on output and maximum efficiency, and sized the 7.3L accordingly.  Maybe there isn't much growth potential (don't know at this point), but it is plenty large as it is.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK worst possible case, bore spacing of 4.53” minus 4.23” bore is 3/10” which is two walls of 1/10” and a water gap of 1/10”, 2.5mm metric which is a little on the skinny side. Which is why I suspect it’s 4.63” for the regular small block space of 4/10” between bores.

 

i like that critical nature of yours, it’s always good to check facts or what seems logical 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard 4.63" bore spacing mentioned, but not officially.  Incidentally, the bore spacing of the 6.2L is 4.63".

 

I think the 7.3L will be outstanding in it's intended applications, no question.  Beyond that who knows at this point.

 

You know, I wonder what a 5.8L V-8 based on the 7.3L would do as a replacement for the 6.2L...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

I have heard 4.63" bore spacing mentioned, but not officially.  Incidentally, the bore spacing of the 6.2L is 4.63".

 

I think the 7.3L will be outstanding in it's intended applications, no question.  Beyond that who knows at this point.

 

You know, I wonder what a 5.8L V-8 based on the 7.3L would do as a replacement for the 6.2L...........

Your lips to god’s ears..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to speak in murky terms but I’m getting reports of phenomenal horsepower out of a race built 445. 
 

Like jaw dropping power. For now leave it as a rumor. We’ll let this play out. 
 

My second point is this isn’t just a little bigger than an LS this is almost 100 cubic inches bigger than the vast majority of LS/LT engines out there. 
 

The biggest mass produced LT will be the new 401” HD version GM just introduced. 
 

Most LS are in the 330” range while the Hi- Perf ones are around 360”. 
 

Only the limited edition 427” ZO6 motor comes close. 
 

Ford owns the upper cubic inch segment already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the deck height of the 7.3L, and we are guessing at the bore centers.  But, it terms of block dimensions, it appears the 7.3L is not much larger than an LS.  Keep in mind that the standard deck iron LSX block can go to 482 cubic inches and the tall deck version can go to 500.  These are certainly not 'production' (at least not yet), but show that the LS has the potential to go bigger than 6.6L.  But, no matter how you look at it the 7.3L block appears to be larger than the standard deck LS so it should make for a potentially larger engine.  How much larger we don't know at this point.

 

This article came out a few months ago:

 

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/inside-look-fords-new-7-3l-pushrod-v8/

 

The statement that the 7.3L block can be bored and honed "at least .010-inch" is a little distressing, that's not much!  Hopefully Hot Rod is right about .030-inch being possible.  One thing we don't know about at this point is what stroke the 7.3L is capable of.  The crankcase looks very generous in size, so a longer stroke crank might be possible.  I wonder about clearance around that chain-drive oil pump in the oil pan though. 

 

One interesting rumor I have heard is that the 7.3L will go to direct fuel injection within a few years.  Backing this up is what appears to be bosses cast into the combustion chambers for fuel injectors and the large gap between the bottom of the intake manifold and the block valley cover (where the injectors, lines, and high pressure pump would likely be located).  

 

 

 

Edited by 7Mary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we focus on what’s possible with 445 CID the  engine has before getting hung up about how much bigger it can be made.

 

To GM’s credit, it designed the LS with 4.4” bore spacing and a deck height of 9.24”, just a smidge more than a Cleveland. So as a result, GM’s new truck engine has a bore of 4.06” and a stroke of 3.85”.... today, they use lower pin heights to get enough stroke and rod length. 
 

Looking at that, it wouldn’t take much difference in deck height to get the 7.3’s slightly longer crank and rod to work but probably a bit more than the 6.2’s 9.41 deck height 


its Like they looked at the 6.2 and worked out where they needed to go from there which is kinda backed up by their engineering rep.

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

If the bore spacing is 117.60 mm (anyone know for sure?) and the bore is 107.2 mm, that gives you 10.4 mm between cylinder bores.  Plenty for a rebuild, but not a real big displacement increase.  I assume the block is a siamese cylinder bore casting because they cut a cooling passage slot in the deck.  That slot looks a little scary, might compromise head gasket sealing if you did something crazy performance-wise to the 7.3L.  You can see the slots in this video around 1:19:

 

  

 

You are correct. Those saw cuts are bad news and Ford knows it. Hopefully they revised it to a drilled bore instead of the saw cut like the 1.5 update. Lots of 1.5 short blocks are being installed because of their sawcut leading to coolant ingestion. 

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

×