coupe3w Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 1 hour ago, theoldwizard said: My "gut" still says, the reason for pushrods was to keep the block narrow enough and the "dressed" engine height low enough to fit in the E-series. Well what ever the reason I'm glad they did it. Now put it in the Mustang. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) On 2/11/2020 at 12:30 AM, theoldwizard said: My "gut" still says, the reason for pushrods was to keep the block narrow enough and the "dressed" engine height low enough to fit in the E-series. It was one of the stated objectives, a simple, compact engine that would fit where the old engines did without major changes. Ford has come full circle with pushrod engines, pity they didn’t just keep updating the 385 Limas Edited February 12, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 The old wizard, you are probably right but there are usually many reasons for major design decisions when related to engines and transmissions. pushrod engines provide better low rpm torque than ohc engines. The parasitic losses are lower. If ford ever does an aluminum block version, Cylinder deactivation is easier and cheaper to do on an ohv design. The other thing is Long range plans always get revised. I would not be surprised if E series was all going away at one time and someone figured out that a transit cut van would not cover everything they had with E ! edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 On 2/13/2020 at 12:12 AM, edselford said: The old wizard, you are probably right but there are usually many reasons for major design decisions when related to engines and transmissions. pushrod engines provide better low rpm torque than ohc engines. The parasitic losses are lower. If ford ever does an aluminum block version, Cylinder deactivation is easier and cheaper to do on an ohv design. The other thing is Long range plans always get revised. I would not be surprised if E series was all going away at one time and someone figured out that a transit cut van would not cover everything they had with E ! edselford Ford knew that the Transit on integral ladder frame could only cover so much of the E Series range the heavier E Series versions were never going to be replaced, all they needed was upgraded Engines, transmissions for now and ongoing improvemens to other systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GottaCleveland Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) On 2/12/2020 at 8:12 AM, edselford said: The old wizard, you are probably right but there are usually many reasons for major design decisions when related to engines and transmissions. pushrod engines provide better low rpm torque than ohc engines. First, nothing personal Edsel, I'm using your quote as an example. I see this statement frequently, and I don't understand. Why do folks assume OHV design makes more torque than OHC (for a given displacement)? Or are they assuming OHV implies larger displacement and OHC is smaller displacement and higher rpm? OHC can be designed for as good or better breathing (torque) at any rpm range vs OHV, it's just more flexible. I've purposely left out MDS and VVT, those are mostly separate issues. Edited March 22, 2020 by GottaCleveland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 3 hours ago, GottaCleveland said: First, nothing personal Edsel, I'm using your quote as an example. I see this statement frequently, and I don't understand. Why do folks assume OHV design makes more torque than OHC (for a given displacement)? Or are they assuming OHV implies larger displacement and OHC is smaller displacement and higher rpm? OHC can be designed for as good or better breathing (torque) at any rpm range vs OHV, it's just more flexible. I've purposely left out MDS and VVT, those are mostly separate issues. Short answer is they don’t but I suspect the real point is that OHC is not required in a truck engine that doesn’t exceed 6,000 rpm. just looking at the 6.2 Boss, it tries hard but just didn’t have enough capacity. I suspect that if Boss had been a pushrod engine, we would have seen a 5.8 and a 7.0 double act way back when, ford just couldn’t get cylinder deactivation to work reliably and that’s what killed large capacity V8 in F150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 No doubt the 7.3 makes all kind of sense as a truck engine-push rods and all. But as for OHC, what makes the Ecoboost concept so valid? IMO all kinds of torque at low RPM. My SHO (3.5) could hold a higher gear and drop down to 1200 RPM as long as you had a light foot. Now my 3.0T doesn't seem to drop as low but it still works at lower RPMs. To those who say Ecoboosts suck as far as fuel economy I say, it should be called.."Eco or boost". Drive with a light foot and you get good MPG's . Want to feel that power? Pay the price. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Now that the 7.3 gas is in production, why doesn’t someone ask Mr. Wolfe the reason the engine is a pushrod engine and not OHC? It is ok to disagree with me on low end torque but for a given piece price level on the engine components, it going to be very difficult to get an OHC engine to the same low rpm torque levels when compared to a pushrod, two valve per cylinder design! Also does any one remember the experimental 777 engine in Hot Rod magazine? I think the bore was 4.22” . I would like to know if this engine was an OHC or a pushrod? Thanks edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said: No doubt the 7.3 makes all kind of sense as a truck engine-push rods and all. But as for OHC, what makes the Ecoboost concept so valid? IMO all kinds of torque at low RPM. My SHO (3.5) could hold a higher gear and drop down to 1200 RPM as long as you had a light foot. Now my 3.0T doesn't seem to drop as low but it still works at lower RPMs. To those who say Ecoboosts suck as far as fuel economy I say, it should be called.."Eco or boost". Drive with a light foot and you get good MPG's . Want to feel that power? Pay the price. Thats what I love about my F150 3.5Leb. It just loafs along at 1200 rpm in 10th gear even going uphill and I can easily get 24-28 mpg depending on speed. They also made a lot of improvements with the 2nd gen ecoboosts that fixed early problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Mr. Wolfe was very clear in the 7.3L teardown videos that the reason the 7.3L is pushfor is for packaging (smaller exterior size) and because an OHC design does not offer any meaningful advantage at the r.p.m. range the 7.3L works at. I suspect Ford also sees a cost advantage with OHV as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 hours ago, edselford said: . . . . Also does any one remember the experimental 777 engine in Hot Rod magazine? I think the bore was 4.22” . I would like to know if this engine was an OHC or a pushrod? Thanks edselford OHC. It was based on the 6.2L V8 in the F Series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Bob I think the final drive axle ratio on the Explorer is around 3.67, probably to improve acceleration on the 3.0 ecoboost. On an f150, I suspect the final drive is more like 3.31. So assuming that the tire rolling radius is not too different between the two, the f150 would be at a lower rpm than the Explorer at the same road speed. With the great torque from the 3.5 ecoboost, at road load, the 3.5 ecoboost throttle opening is probably opened more then the 3.0. Greater throttle opening. At 1200rpm this would significantly reduce engine pumping losses, helping get 23 to 28 mpg on a pickup truck! edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said: Mr. Wolfe was very clear in the 7.3L teardown videos that the reason the 7.3L is pushfor is for packaging (smaller exterior size) and because an OHC design does not offer any meaningful advantage at the r.p.m. range the 7.3L works at. That's also what the chief engineer said at the unveiling of the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 5 hours ago, edselford said: Bob I think the final drive axle ratio on the Explorer is around 3.67, probably to improve acceleration on the 3.0 ecoboost. On an f150, I suspect the final drive is more like 3.31. So assuming that the tire rolling radius is not too different between the two, the f150 would be at a lower rpm than the Explorer at the same road speed. With the great torque from the 3.5 ecoboost, at road load, the 3.5 ecoboost throttle opening is probably opened more then the 3.0. Greater throttle opening. At 1200rpm this would significantly reduce engine pumping losses, helping get 23 to 28 mpg on a pickup truck! edselford EF-I'm comparing 3.5 in my Taurus SHO vs MKZ with 3.0T. Not sure what axle ratios are in each but the 3.5 really had low end grunt. Even using the paddle shifters in the MKZ try to grab a higher gear, Flashing light and it holds the lower gear until RPMs are up. P255/45 -19 on SHO and 245/40-19 on MKZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 Uncle Tony's Garage gave his opinion on this engine and I agree with him that if Ford were smart they would be cranking them out as fast as they can, crating up the ones they don't put in Super Duty, and selling them for engine swaps. Id love to put one of these in my International truck project but I have a feeling they are going to be a pain to find. Does anybody know if Ford has any intentions for a crate engine version of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 11 hours ago, packardbob said: Uncle Tony's Garage gave his opinion on this engine and I agree with him that if Ford were smart they would be cranking them out as fast as they can, crating up the ones they don't put in Super Duty, and selling them for engine swaps. Id love to put one of these in my International truck project but I have a feeling they are going to be a pain to find. Does anybody know if Ford has any intentions for a crate engine version of this? P-Bob- What model IH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 7 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: P-Bob- What model IH? 1952 L-160. I would feel bad about removing the stock SD-240 engine but it was replaced in the late 1960's by a BD-264. I think the 7.3 would be an excellent engine choice to swap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 1 hour ago, packardbob said: 1952 L-160. I would feel bad about removing the stock SD-240 engine but it was replaced in the late 1960's by a BD-264. I think the 7.3 would be an excellent engine choice to swap. Well it would be a hotrod for sure. Now if you wanted to keep it "pure" an International V-345 would be a good choice. Must be a ton of them in the junk yards. Drove the attached B-180 while I was working my way through college in 60's. V-345, 5 and 2 and juice brakes! Truck was registered for 24,000 but I would often CARRY close to 12 ton of asphalt! Drove it and always split it when it had that kind of weight. Motor was a bear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 21 hours ago, packardbob said: Does anybody know if Ford has any intentions for a crate engine version of this? With all the "this mill was built around the duty cycle of mediums," I would've thought no, but with it going into hot rods before it even made it into a production Super Duty, I'm thinking the chances are better than average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 I'd like to read an explanation on how a pushrod makes more low end torque. I need a good laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotRunrGuy Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, 30 OTT 6 said: I'd like to read an explanation on how a pushrod makes more low end torque. I need a good laugh. This is the closest thing to a literate explanation I can find. It's not the method of how the valves are moved, it's the placement of the valves themselves. There must not be an example available of the exact same valve size & placement with both methods of movement. HRG https://axleaddict.com/auto-repair/Overhead-Valve-OHV-vs-Overhead-Cam-OHC-Which-Engine-Design-is-Better Another feature of the OHC design is that the overhead placement of the cams allows for more valves per cylinder. The pushrods and rockers get in the way and make placing more than 2 valves an engineering challenge. With only 2 valves, the valve diameter is limited on how large the cylinder is. Being able to reduce the size of the valves and have more of them actually increases the effective area covered by the valves and this translates to more airflow, which is why OHC engines tend to produce more high-end torque and horsepower. However, it's not a clear win since the extra flow offered by multiple valves comes at the expense of more laminar flow. What I mean by this is, the smaller valves require less severe changes in flow direction around the valve so the air is less turbulent. In an OHV engine, the air has to flow around a very wide diameter valve and recirculate on the other side, making it turbulent. Turbulence encourages air and fuel to mix more completely prior to combustion so the OHV design offers gains in low-end torque naturally while it suffers at the top end, where absolute flow is more important than mixing efficiency. Edited March 27, 2020 by HotRunrGuy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 3 hours ago, 30 OTT 6 said: I'd like to read an explanation on how a pushrod makes more low end torque. I need a good laugh. Yeah, me too! What I think they are getting at is that a wedge combustion chamber with moderately sized in-line valves works very well at lower r.p.m.'s (port velocity for one) for torque. And, with that design there is no reason for an overhead cam. So, it isn't that an OHV design has an advantage over an OHC design for low r.p.m. torque, it's just that there is no disadvantage to an OHV in that application. In addition the OHV design has other advantages over OHC such as cost and external size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 Thanks HotRunrGuy very good article! If ford wanted an OHC design, they could of easily taken the 6.2 V8 and made it bigger edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 On 3/24/2020 at 7:24 PM, SoonerLS said: With all the "this mill was built around the duty cycle of mediums," I would've thought no, but with it going into hot rods before it even made it into a production Super Duty, I'm thinking the chances are better than average. I am not so optimistic. Ford does not understand (or has no interest in) 'crate engines'. Half the time you can't even buy new replacement production engines after the model year is over, you are stuck with Ford's 'Authorized' reman's! Who 'authorizes' those things anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGolden Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 1 minute ago, 7Mary3 said: I am not so optimistic. Ford does not understand (or has no interest in) 'crate engines'. Half the time you can't even buy new replacement production engines after the model year is over, you are stuck with Ford's 'Authorized' reman's! Who 'authorizes' those things anyway? We had a horrible experience with v10 remans from an authorized shop. 3 engines in less than 500 miles. All were under warranty, but a terrible experience. 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.