Jump to content





silvrsvt

7.3L V8 Godzilla now available as crate engine.

Recommended Posts

If Ford built a smaller version of the 7.3 like the one I described it would fill a huge void left by the discontinuation of the LS GM engine. Yes that’s right the LS is gone. Replaced by the DI LT. Much more expensive and complicated. 
 

If Ford built say an iconic 351 they could really push connection to the 351C of old just like Chrysler does with their hemi. 
 

The 7.3 is not an inline wedge engine. It has shallow canted valves much like the old Cleveland/Boss heads. 
 

If Ford kept such an engine basic and inexpensive to produce and sell it sure could help the bottom line on cars and trucks like the Mach 1, the Raptor and even a future option in the Bronco. 
 

If they could keep it EPA friendly enough without resorting to DI it could be a huge “end around” their direct competitors. 

Share this post


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

 

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.   

 

I imagine a high mileage block could be salvaged using the PTWA process.

 

Old article but still valid: https://newatlas.com/ford-plasma-engine/40728/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LS is only gone from GM production vehicles, GM plans to keep many versions in production as crate and high performance engines (and it's not like GM doesn't have a history of doing this).  The L96 6.0L LS remains in production for other OEM's such as Isuzu and Freightliner.

 

I expect the 7.3L will go to direct injection within a couple of years.  It appears that the head castings were made to accommodate DI and there is plenty of room under the intake manifold for the DI hardware.  It would be a good thing if Ford keeps a port injection 'crate' version of the 7.3L around for the aftermarket, I don't expect these engines to be readily available in the wrecking yards for several years.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, blksn8k2 said:

 

I imagine a high mileage block could be salvaged using the PTWA process.

 

Old article but still valid: https://newatlas.com/ford-plasma-engine/40728/

 

 

 

Might indeed be possible.  Sleeves are another possibility.  These modern low-tension piston rings do not cause a lot of wear anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the 9.67” deck height, I think she’s already a striker compared to the original Windsor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the “exact” key dimensions of the new 7.3V8?

Specifically

1. Piston Compression height

2.  Connecting Rod length

3.  Deck Height

4. Bore Centers, 115mm or 4.53”????

 

Edselford

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deck height is 245.11mm, bore centers 115mm.  Sorry, don't know the other measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mary for info.

Your idea of staying with current deck height makes allot of sense given the 7.3 bore to stroke ratio of around 1.6.    A smaller bore and stroke to get to say 6.2/6.3 liters would put the bore to stroke ratio around 1.83.

 

The 390 FE V8 had an unusual design cylinder head and intake where the intake seemed to become part of the cylinder head with the valve covers going over both and the push rods going through openings in the intake.  I never saw this before but Chevy used this same design concept years later On the original 2.8 liter 60 degree pushrod V6.
Thanks Again

edselford

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should of said rod to stroke ratio of 1.6 for the 7.3 and around 1.83 for a smaller displacement version that maintains the 245.11 mm deck height.

sorry

edselford

Share this post


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

Thank you Mary for info.

Your idea of staying with current deck height makes allot of sense given the 7.3 bore to stroke ratio of around 1.6.    A smaller bore and stroke to get to say 6.2/6.3 liters would put the bore to stroke ratio around 1.83.

 

The 390 FE V8 had an unusual design cylinder head and intake where the intake seemed to become part of the cylinder head with the valve covers going over both and the push rods going through openings in the intake.  I never saw this before but Chevy used this same design concept years later On the original 2.8 liter 60 degree pushrod V6.
Thanks Again

edselford

 

 

Yes, Chevy did use that design on their 60 degree V-6's, I was told to facilitate better intake port routing as the space between the heads was very narrow.  Not sure why Ford did it on the FE/FT, but I think the resulting small cylinder heads held the FT back a bit in larger trucks because they didn't have a lot of water in them.  My employer ran a few 361XD's and they always ran hot when worked hard. 

Share this post


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

 

Yes, Chevy did use that design on their 60 degree V-6's, I was told to facilitate better intake port routing as the space between the heads was very narrow.  Not sure why Ford did it on the FE/FT, but I think the resulting small cylinder heads held the FT back a bit in larger trucks because they didn't have a lot of water in them.  My employer ran a few 361XD's and they always ran hot when worked hard. 

That’s interesting, I would have thought just the opposite since most of the exhaust port is outside the engine and therefore not thermally loading the cooling system. 
 

I don’t know for sure why Ford went with the intake design they did on the FE but I’ll tell you what they could sure shed a bunch of weight over the nose just by switching to an aluminum manifold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the external exhaust ports helped, but that was the story I was told.  And looking at the heads, I believed it!  I don't miss tearing those things down, that intake was heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOL, I can imagine the joy of fitting alloy heads and intake to an FE, the front springs would come up an inch or so....

 

Straycat,

what you suggested earlier with a low deck alloy block Godzilla would approximate the FR9 racing engine but at a lot less coin for street engines.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FE heads were lighter than regular Chevy Small Block heads!

Share this post


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

I think FE heads were lighter than regular Chevy Small Block heads!

 

Well sure, since a portion of "the head" was taken over by the intake manifold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FE is the chemical symbol for iron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 6:52 PM, Stray Kat said:

 

I don’t know for sure why Ford went with the intake design they did on the FE but I’ll tell you what they could sure shed a bunch of weight over the nose just by switching to an aluminum manifold. 

That's why switching to the 'loomnum Police Interceptor intake was a sought-after mod--it shed quite a bit of weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford never offered aluminum cylinder heads on a production FE V8. I think it was because of the cooling problem Mary mentioned. I had a 1966 galaxies with a 390 V8 four barrel auto lite 4100 carburetor, C6 auto, 3.0 axle. Very good dependable car but when I turned it off after running it hard the water temp would actually go up for about ten to 15 minutes. I don’t know if the coolant was boiling and later condensing?....

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, edselford said:

Ford never offered aluminum cylinder heads on a production FE V8. I think it was because of the cooling problem Mary mentioned. I had a 1966 galaxies with a 390 V8 four barrel auto lite 4100 carburetor, C6 auto, 3.0 axle. Very good dependable car but when I turned it off after running it hard the water temp would actually go up for about ten to 15 minutes. I don’t know if the coolant was boiling and later condensing?....

edselford

Aluminium heads were the realm of the 427 Cammer in 1965 and later the 429 Boss

so I don't think it was anything particularly against the FE. You could be right about

something with the FE's cooling system, that heat build up happens when the cooling

system fails to auto-syphon  through the radiator after the engine switches off.

Edited by jpd80

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

×