Jump to content





silvrsvt

7.3L V8 Godzilla now available as crate engine.

Recommended Posts

Well, there's step 1. Now we'll see what the aftermarket does with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a non-Super Duty application the power rating without change becomes 460 Up and 500 lb ft.

Just as it is, the 7.3 would make a great replacement for the 5.4  and 6.2 in older F150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally Ford has a good new crate engine, and not a bad price considering it's fully dressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's heavy but might make sense for a drag car. Somebody also mention a 5.4/6.2 swap in trucks. My first thought, a resto mod first gen Lightning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah- I remember when the 4.6 mod came out.  I  thought of a decal  for my 289 Bronco...."Pushrods Forever".   Looking at the 7.3 and the 6.2, I think its safe to say Ford now can hit  from both sides  of the plate😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The canted valve heads are a nice tip of the hat to the Cleveland heads. I'm surprised the el cheapo Ford accountants let that one slide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wonder if the cheapo Ford accountants forced the 4.53" bore spacing.  Did they use some of the 6.2 Boss tooling over again?  

Edited by 7Mary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6.2 tooling and equipment was not that old so I would think ford refurbished it and I would guess that the bore center Mary referred to of 4.65” is the max they could stretch to without throwing away allot of equipment that was probably not fully depreciated. Their elimination of the 6.2 V8 would also support Mary’s statement.

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a wild guess on my part because I don't see a 115mm (actually 4.53", I corrected my original post) bore spacing as optimum for an engine with a 107mm bore.  Can't figure why Ford did that unless some 6.2L tooling was repurposed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 7.3 was being developed, I figured that ford would bite the bullet and make a true midrange truck V8 with cylinders surrounded by coolant. I guessed at bore centers about 118 mm.

I was surprised To learn the 7.3 is a siemezed block where the duty cycle is so much more severe than light truck.

For sure, all designs have some compromises but I did not expect this.

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the siamesed bore block isn't too much of a concern by itself.  It has the added effect of making the block casting stronger.  However, what I find concerning is the very small distance between the cylinders, which leaves little area for the head gasket to seal.  Further compromising this is the cooling slot cut between the cylinders.  Slots like that have caused problems in some Ecoboost 4 cylinder engines, though those engines feature an aluminum block, not iron like the 7.3's.  I have not heard of any head gasket issues with the 7.3L so far, but it will be interesting to see how they do in larger trucks when they get some miles on them.  From a 'crate' performance standpoint the 7.3L does not look like it will tolerate a lot of boost, but once again we will see.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, edselford said:

The 6.2 tooling and equipment was not that old so I would think ford refurbished it and I would guess that the bore center Mary referred to of 4.65” is the max they could stretch to without throwing away allot of equipment that was probably not fully depreciated. Their elimination of the 6.2 V8 would also support Mary’s statement.

edselford

6.2 is not gone-or I missed that somewhere along the line.  I do believe it is available in 250, and 350-both SRW and DWR

But educate me guys -many of you speak of the "tooling" from the 6.2 being used in the 7.3.  I don't get that-two completely different  blocks. I always thought everything was integrated into a respective production line??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My understanding is the 6.2 is going, but not yet gone.  Even though the 6.2 and 7.3 are completely different engines it is conceivable that some tooling could be shared between the engines.  In this case possibly the cylinder boring equipment.  Another possibility is that the 'Godzilla' was originally conceived as a smaller displacement engine and had to be enlarged late in the program to meet a performance target.  May have been easy and cost effective to increase bore.   

Edited by 7Mary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, edselford said:

When the 7.3 was being developed, I figured that ford would bite the bullet and make a true midrange truck V8 with cylinders surrounded by coolant. I guessed at bore centers about 118 mm.

I was surprised To learn the 7.3 is a siemezed block where the duty cycle is so much more severe than light truck.

For sure, all designs have some compromises but I did not expect this.

edselford

Bore spacing is actually 4.53", same as 6.2.  deck height is 9.67" where 6.2 is 9.4"

So I wonder if they used Boss as starting point to save development and casting 

costs and worked from there.

 

There was a suggestion that a smaller capacity Godzilla might replace the 6.2 

after it ends, I don't know how essential that engine would be now that Ford

has 7.3 in three power settings, 310, 350 and 430 Hp.

Share this post


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

My understanding is the 6.2 is going, but not yet gone.  Even though the 6.2 and 7.3 are completely different engines it is conceivable that some tooling could be shared between the engines.  In this case possibly the cylinder boring equipment.  Another possibility is that the 'Godzilla' was originally conceived as a smaller displacement engine and had to be enlarged late in the program to meet a performance target.  May have been easy and cost effective to increase bore.   

It's an interesting one for sure, they could have chosen any of the wider bore spacings like FE (4.63") or Lima (4.9')

but no, Brian Wolfe chose 4.53" which is same as 6.2 so maybe minimal changes to what had already been learned.

If the cylinder head gasket was ever going to fail, it would have happened during the Medium Duty sustained load test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t got an answer yet but my hypothesis on that slot between cylinders is that we’re probably looking at new gasket technology. 
 

I think the slot is there to engage the cylinder head gasket. To sort of key it in place. 
 

I don’t think Ford compromised anything on this engine. As a matter of fact I think they built in headroom for up to 470-480 cubes. 
 

Ford ain’t playing second fiddle to GM or FCA no more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

if they were to make a smaller "Godzilla" motor, adjust the stroke and the bore to come out to 5.8L...make it a range topper in F150 and base motor in Super Duty.

 

7.3L Godzilla bore 4.22 X stroke 3.98

5.8L Windsor bore 4.00 X stroke 3.50

 

5.8L Godzilla suggested bore 3.75 X stroke 3.75

Edited by twintornados

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Bore spacing is actually 4.53", same as 6.2.  deck height is 9.67" where 6.2 is 9.4"

So I wonder if they used Boss as starting point to save development and casting 

costs and worked from there.

 

There was a suggestion that a smaller capacity Godzilla might replace the 6.2 

after it ends, I don't know how essential that engine would be now that Ford

has 7.3 in three power settings, 310, 350 and 430 Hp.

I would imagine only reason for spending on a smaller Godzilla would  be "Packaging"??  That is big advantage of 7.3 is its width right?  So what vehicle would benefit from a much narrower motor?  Then you are up against the 2.3 which seems to  do quite well in ranger as well as the 2.7 and 3.0 EB's???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure 6.2 capital equipment will be utilized as the volumes of the 7.3 increase.

think of how we got the current 5.0 DOC V8?

they maintained the 4.6/5.4 bore centers so that the new 5.0 block could be machined on the existing investment!  The same is probably the case with the 7.3V8

If totally new equipment was used at a new center distance, the 7.3 never would of made it past the cost/investment committee!

it will be interesting to see how the 2021 5.0 V8 does in fuel economy with the new ford designed cylinder deactivation system. All f150 engines may be pretty close on fuel economy!

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

I haven’t got an answer yet but my hypothesis on that slot between cylinders is that we’re probably looking at new gasket technology. 
 

I think the slot is there to engage the cylinder head gasket. To sort of key it in place. 
 

I don’t think Ford compromised anything on this engine. As a matter of fact I think they built in headroom for up to 470-480 cubes. 
 

Ford ain’t playing second fiddle to GM or FCA no more. 

 

Brian Wolfe said the slot was necessary for cooling, and when he showed the head gasket it looked like any other modern conventional laminated head gasket.  I don't think there is any room to increase bore but a stroked crank ought to get it to 470 or so.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

I would imagine only reason for spending on a smaller Godzilla would  be "Packaging"??  That is big advantage of 7.3 is its width right?  So what vehicle would benefit from a much narrower motor?  Then you are up against the 2.3 which seems to  do quite well in ranger as well as the 2.7 and 3.0 EB's???

When I said smaller, I meant a smaller capacity Godzilla to replace the 6.2 Boss, not a reduction in external size.

Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

Share this post


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

 

Brian Wolfe said the slot was necessary for cooling, and when he showed the head gasket it looked like any other modern conventional laminated head gasket.  I don't think there is any room to increase bore but a stroked crank ought to get it to 470 or so.   


Fair enough but an open slot won’t be filled by a crushed head gasket? There’s more to the story. Gotta be. 

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

×