7.3L V8 Godzilla now available as crate engine.

[Stray Kat]

The Super Duty engine line we’re not MEL engines per se. They were scaled up MEL technology though. 
 

The Y-block configuration. The “plank” heads with the 10 degree wedge formed by the engine deck. The shaft mounted rocker system. The distributor and oil pump location. Everything very similar just a lot larger. 
 

The most unique part of the SD engine line in the beginning besides it’s size was the way the intake ports on each head all shared a common flanged opening. The carb was bolted to a log manifold that connected the two heads at the center. 
 

Later engines began to use a more common dual plane intake manifold which I think gave the engines a broader power band. 
 

I’ve heard an old gravel trucker say his old GM 427 could run away from a 534 but the Fords outlasted the GM’s two to one. 

[30 OTT 6]

Does anybody know if canted valve heads cost more to produce than inline valve heads? I ask because I always thought it was very cheap, and pointless, for Ford to produce the 2 valve SOHC Modular V8s with inline valves. At the very least they should have taken advantage of the SOHC layout and design a canted valve head like the Trick Flow 2 valve heads, or even like the old Dodge 4.7L SOHC V8.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well one of  my antique truck pals -"antique " pertains to "truck"-er sort of-sent me pix of  his latest White- a '51 W22.  White Mustang power-396 Cube flathead, 145 HP, 5spd/2spd rear.  This  was a very popular freight hauler  in its day.  And today we  have guys saying the 7.3 doesn't have enough for 750.  As I've posted before, I think the 7.3 has better numbers than the 401 and the 477!

You have to admit though, the expectations today are much higher.

[Bob Rosadini]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

You have to admit though, the expectations today are much higher.

Hah-for sure-we are well conditioned to demand "more"!?  Thank God for computers that actually prevent a lot of that power from getting to the road!...much to Good Year's,  Bridgestone's etc dismay.

[Stray Kat]

19 hours ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

Does anybody know if canted valve heads cost more to produce than inline valve heads? I ask because I always thought it was very cheap, and pointless, for Ford to produce the 2 valve SOHC Modular V8s with inline valves. At the very least they should have taken advantage of the SOHC layout and design a canted valve head like the Trick Flow 2 valve heads, or even like the old Dodge 4.7L SOHC V8.

Great point ^^^!!! Had Ford done the 2 valve modular heads like the 6.2 Boss or the Trick Flow heads they would have been far more competitive with the much larger engines offered by their competitors. 

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

Great point ^^^!!! Had Ford done the 2 valve modular heads like the 6.2 Boss or the Trick Flow heads they would have been far more competitive with the much larger engines offered by their competitors. 

Ford already had the four valve heads planned but I suspect the two valve head was to keep down engine width,

a two valve Hemi head would allow bigger inlet and exhaust valves. Ultimately, the three valve head was a good compromise.

[Stray Kat]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Ford already had the four valve heads planned but I suspect the two valve head was to keep down engine width,

a two valve Hemi head would allow bigger inlet and exhaust valves. Ultimately, the three valve head was a good compromise.

There is a completely different flow and mixing philosophy in a Poly angle two valve head compared to a pent-roof 3 or 4 valve head. 
 

Ford could’ve made a lot more hay if they would’ve done a 6.2 or Trick Flow style head on the millions of 2 valve Modulars they produced. 
 

 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

There is a completely different flow and mixing philosophy in a Poly angle two valve head compared to a pent-roof 3 or 4 valve head. 
 

Ford could’ve made a lot more hay if they would’ve done a 6.2 or Trick Flow style head on the millions of 2 valve Modulars they produced. 
 

 

As it turned out, Ford's vision of the future in the 90s and 2000s was  often flawed and prone to boxing them in  later.

The need for such a compact engine never materialised and Ford could have simply evolved the Windsor's and 385s

with VCT and better alloy heads as you described.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by jpd80

[edselford]

When I worked at Ford as a summer intern, they were still making the FE series V8 engines in a dedicated building in the ford Rouge manufacturing complex. From what I remember, they built the FE for cars and light trucks and the FT for the mid range trucks. The FT were the same design but had heavy duty components like a forged crankshaft, special Holley carburetors, beefier accessory drive systems and limited rpm operating range. The engines were durable but didn’t produce as much power as the Chevy offerings.

Basically, the new 7.3 V8 happened 50 years later for the same type of commercial trucks. It’s interesting that Ford went from the 360/391 FT V8 to the Lima 370/429 V8 to the modular OHC 5.4/6.8 V10 and now to the 7.3 For gas power! We have come almost full circle, deep 

skirt, non deep skirt, deep skirt and deep skirt again!

except for adding new technology like fuel injection, variable cam timing, Aluminum cylinder heads and electronic engine controls the design philosophy for the FT and the 7.3 are very similar.

edselford

 

[snake35]

Boss Mustang next maybe?

[7Mary3]

I remember the strange intake manifolds on the Super Duty V-8's before 1975 or so.  Basically a log manifold for each head with a bridge between the two with the carburetor on top.  Really kind of a mess with several 90 degree turns, but given the r.p.m. range of the Super Duty not much of a problem.  In the mid-70's a more conventional dual plane intake was introduced, which supposedly improved performance and economy.  Not sure but I think the heads were redesigned at that time to take the new manifold.  One of the reasons the Super Duty V-8's were around until 1980 was because the FT's were not competitive with some of the other V-8's like the Chevy 427 power-wise.  The solution was the Lima based truck 370 and 429.      

[Stray Kat]

12 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I remember the strange intake manifolds on the Super Duty V-8's before 1975 or so.  Basically a log manifold for each head with a bridge between the two with the carburetor on top.  Really kind of a mess with several 90 degree turns, but given the r.p.m. range of the Super Duty not much of a problem.  In the mid-70's a more conventional dual plane intake was introduced, which supposedly improved performance and economy.  Not sure but I think the heads were redesigned at that time to take the new manifold.  One of the reasons the Super Duty V-8's were around until 1980 was because the FT's were not competitive with some of the other V-8's like the Chevy 427 power-wise.  The solution was the Lima based truck 370 and 429.      

Yes well the SD engines were proper truck engines. As I stated they were very durable for a big gas engine. The 366 and 427 Chevs were obviously like the FE/FT engines in that they were originally car engines pressed into heavy truck use. 
 

I think that intake manifold and cylinder head change made a lot of difference in waking the sleeping giants up. 
 

Had the 401-534’s had the benefit of multi port fuel injection they probably would have rivaled diesels for longevity and power. 

[Bob Rosadini]

6 minutes ago, Stray Kat said:

Yes well the SD engines were proper truck engines. As I stated they were very durable for a big gas engine. The 366 and 427 Chevs were obviously like the FE/FT engines in that they were originally car engines pressed into heavy truck use. 
 

I think that intake manifold and cylinder head change made a lot of difference in waking the sleeping giants up. 
 

Had the 401-534’s had the benefit of multi port fuel injection they probably would have rivaled diesels for longevity and power. 

 I've always had that same thought.  Between fuel delivery systems and ignition, what could a lot of old engines evolved into?  I would imagine a 7.3 is a lot lighter than an old SD block but  then again if we are talking about "architecture" I guess you could add "casting technology" to fuel and ignition systems.  Not a gear head like some of you guys-just seems logical. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 I've always had that same thought.  Between fuel delivery systems and ignition, what could a lot of old engines evolved into?  I would imagine a 7.3 is a lot lighter than an old SD block but  then again if we are talking about "architecture" I guess you could add "casting technology" to fuel and ignition systems.  Not a gear head like some of you guys-just seems logical. 

Apparently, Godzilla was weighed before a dyno run earlier this year, it weighed just 538 lbs.

That's a magnificent job but what you said about older engines having access to modern 

manufacturing is true ......I wonder if Godzilla would lose another 100 lbs with an alloy block...

[SoonerLS]

6 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Apparently, Godzilla was weighed before a dyno run earlier this year, it weighed just 538 lbs.

That's a magnificent job but what you said about older engines having access to modern 

manufacturing is true ......I wonder if Godzilla would lose another 100 lbs with an alloy block...

538lbs is already pretty light. Knock 100lbs off that and it's on par with the Coyote, which weighs ~430lbs without accessories, per the Ford Performance Technical Reference for the 2011-2019 Coyote.

 

A loomnum block may not be what you want in a Super Duty/medium, but that would be a corker in an F-150 or Expedition/Navigator. Maybe even a special-edition Mustang...

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Apparently, Godzilla was weighed before a dyno run earlier this year, it weighed just 538 lbs.

That's a magnificent job but what you said about older engines having access to modern 

manufacturing is true ......I wonder if Godzilla would lose another 100 lbs with an alloy block...

 

For comparison, an old, Ford 221 cubic inch flathead V8 weighs about 525 pounds.

[SoonerLS]

41 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

For comparison, an old, Ford 221 cubic inch flathead V8 weighs about 525 pounds.

And the old iron-everything FEs tipped the scales at well over 700lbs.

 

IIRC, the FE intake manifolds were over 70lbs. I can tell you I wouldn't have wanted to drop my 390's intake on my toes. 

Edited July 25, 2020 by SoonerLS

[mackinaw]

50 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

And the old iron-everything FEs tipped the scales at well over 700lbs.

 

IIRC, the FE intake manifolds were over 70lbs. I can tell you I wouldn't have wanted to drop my 390's intake on my toes. 

 

Back about 60 years ago, I narrowly missed dropping a cylinder head from a Chrysler hemi on my foot.  All cast iron.  Luckily, no damage to my foot or the cylinder head.

[blksn8k2]

4 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

And the old iron-everything FEs tipped the scales at well over 700lbs.

 

IIRC, the FE intake manifolds were over 70lbs. I can tell you I wouldn't have wanted to drop my 390's intake on my toes. 

 

I replaced the iron intake on the 428 CJ for my 70 Mach 1 with an Edelbrock dual plane aluminum intake and the iron water pump with an aluminum one also from Edelbrock. I am still on the fence about swapping the heads for aluminum Edelbrocks.

 

My oldest brother was a bit of an FE pioneer. He had a '51 Ford business coupe that he swapped a 332 FE into. It had a 3 2-barrel intake manifold and ran 10's back in the late '50s.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

538lbs is already pretty light. Knock 100lbs off that and it's on par with the Coyote, which weighs ~430lbs without accessories, per the Ford Performance Technical Reference for the 2011-2019 Coyote.

 

A loomnum block may not be what you want in a Super Duty/medium, but that would be a corker in an F-150 or Expedition/Navigator. Maybe even a special-edition Mustang...

Heck, with a CGI block, under 500 lbs might be possible. The old guys doing engine transplants would be going dizzy.

The only thing I see modifiers needing is different inlet flange on the clinder head ports for adding carb and manifold.

Edited July 25, 2020 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Apparently, Godzilla was weighed before a dyno run earlier this year, it weighed just 538 lbs.

That's a magnificent job but what you said about older engines having access to modern 

manufacturing is true ......I wonder if Godzilla would lose another 100 lbs with an alloy block...

 

Now that's impressive.  About 40 lbs. lighter than an iron block LS.

[jpd80]

28 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

Now that's impressive.  About 40 lbs. lighter than an iron block LS.

I guess it's because the holes are bigger in the casting.........

 

It's like Brian Wolfe looked at the small blocks and asked what's needed to get a 7.3.

This is a master class in engine building and one that showed GM a thing or two.

 

 

 

[Stray Kat]

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess it's because the holes are bigger in the casting.........

 

It's like Brian Wolfe looked at the small blocks and asked what's needed to get a 7.3.

This is a master class in engine building and one that showed GM a thing or two.

 

 

 

It looks to me like from the outset that the 7.3 was designed with headroom and possibly some historic smaller variants. 

 

There is probably more safe displacement available and certainly the design is understressed as it stands now. 

Additionally there is the real possibility (at least in terms of potential) for Ford to reintroduce something historically epic such as a new generation 351 Cleveland or 351 Boss engine. 
 

A shorter deck alloy block with the 4.25” bore and 3.1” stroke aaaand bingo! A 351 cubic inch new legend in the making. This would be a perfect Mustang engine and could be perfect for the Mach 1 and other N/A applications. 
 

Here’s the catch. The next 5 - 10 years is the window for such a move. The guys (me included) that were mesmerized by the 351C are getting older. Our generation is probably two car purchases away from fuddy duddy practical sedans. 
 

You want us Ford? We’re here now, come and get us while we’re here. Remember we can’t take our money with us!!   

 

[jpd80]

54 minutes ago, Stray Kat said:

It looks to me like from the outset that the 7.3 was designed with headroom and possibly some historic smaller variants. 

 

There is probably more safe displacement available and certainly the design is understressed as it stands now. 

Additionally there is the real possibility (at least in terms of potential) for Ford to reintroduce something historically epic such as a new generation 351 Cleveland or 351 Boss engine. 
 

A shorter deck alloy block with the 4.25” bore and 3.1” stroke aaaand bingo! A 351 cubic inch new legend in the making. This would be a perfect Mustang engine and could be perfect for the Mach 1 and other N/A applications. 
 

Here’s the catch. The next 5 - 10 years is the window for such a move. The guys (me included) that were mesmerized by the 351C are getting older. Our generation is probably two car purchases away from fuddy duddy practical sedans. 
 

You want us Ford? We’re here now, come and get us while we’re here. Remember we can’t take our money with us!!   

 

Ford is offering the 7.3 as a crate engine but I wonder if it leaves all the heavy lifting to the aftermarket.

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, Stray Kat said:

It looks to me like from the outset that the 7.3 was designed with headroom and possibly some historic smaller variants. 

 

There is probably more safe displacement available and certainly the design is understressed as it stands now. 

Additionally there is the real possibility (at least in terms of potential) for Ford to reintroduce something historically epic such as a new generation 351 Cleveland or 351 Boss engine. 
 

A shorter deck alloy block with the 4.25” bore and 3.1” stroke aaaand bingo! A 351 cubic inch new legend in the making. This would be a perfect Mustang engine and could be perfect for the Mach 1 and other N/A applications. 
 

Here’s the catch. The next 5 - 10 years is the window for such a move. The guys (me included) that were mesmerized by the 351C are getting older. Our generation is probably two car purchases away from fuddy duddy practical sedans. 
 

You want us Ford? We’re here now, come and get us while we’re here. Remember we can’t take our money with us!!   

 

 

I really doubt the 7.3L can be made any larger, a slight stroke increase might be possible but there is no room for a meaningful larger bore.  It might even be a 'throw-away' block, the math gets scary even at 1mm overbore.  However, a small version of the 7.3L certainly does sound interesting.  Even without resorting to a low deck block, using a short stroke crank and longer rods (a la 351M) will accomplish the same thing with a better rod ratio and only a slight weight penalty.  The 7.3L already appears lighter than an iron block LS.