Jump to content

None






Recommended Posts

Does anyone know why ford uses an aluminum block on the 3.0 V6 ecoboost?

I know that this engine is very similar to the 2.7 V6 ecoboost used in the F150. The 2.7 utilizes a CGI block.

I thought. CGI, done right was lighter than aluminum with liners????

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, edselford said:

Does anyone know why ford uses an aluminum block on the 3.0 V6 ecoboost?

I know that this engine is very similar to the 2.7 V6 ecoboost used in the F150. The 2.7 utilizes a CGI block.

I thought. CGI, done right was lighter than aluminum with liners????

edselford


I believe it’s because the 3.0 was never intended for truck applications.  But I don’t know the technical differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check out the 2.7, it's actually a mix of CGI upper cylinder and aluminium lower,

it's more than just the sump, it's a cradle for the engine. Looks like absolute minimum was CGI.

Share this post


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

Does anyone know why ford uses an aluminum block on the 3.0 V6 ecoboost?

I know that this engine is very similar to the 2.7 V6 ecoboost used in the F150. The 2.7 utilizes a CGI block.

I thought. CGI, done right was lighter than aluminum with liners????

edselford

 

The 3 l is a bored 2.7. Same dimensions.    https://www.sintercast.com/market/sintercast-passenger-vehicles/

 

Ford 2.7 and 3.0 Litre V6 Petrol - Ford and Lincoln

Ford 2.7 and 3.0 Litre V6 Petrol - Ford and Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slemke said:

What would be cool is if the 6.8L is dohc 32 valve.  With a specific output of the voodoo v8, it would be a naturally aspirated hellcat competitor.

 

Make that a DOHC 40 (or even 48) valve !!!

 🤯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the 7.3L, I have heard of a few random failures but no common mechanical issues yet.  However, many that have the 7.3L in commercial trucks operating over 20,000#'s gross are commenting that they need higher octane gas to perform well.  I am not too surprised about this as I remember thinking when I first saw the spec's on the 7.3L that the bore was quite large for a port injection engine with a relatively high compression ratio and single ignition.  That configuration can really limit how much timing advance you can run particularly under sustained load until detonation becomes a factor.  Direct injection and/or dual ignition can help here, and it appears that the 7.3L was designed with DI in mind judging by the head castings.

Share this post


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

 

Obviusly you can´t see that the cylinderwalls are much thicker in the aluminiumblock without using a sliding caliper. That´s not without a reason, CGI can stand the PCP much better than aluminium and therefore the engine can be smaller in size with the same strength. Time will tell. I leave this issue teaching you. Google has the answers 

 

I was referring specifically to the image you posted.  Besides, deck height and bore spacing will largely dictate overall external dimensions of a bare block not the material they are made of.  

Share this post


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

Direct injection and/or dual ignition can help here, and it appears that the 7.3L was designed with DI in mind judging by the head castings.

 

I does have two spark plugs per cylinder.  The wire to the second plug comes from coil-on-plug first plug

M-6007-73.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only see 1 spark plug per cylinder.

Edited by coupe3w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

7.3L gasser has single plug ignition.

No photo description available.

 

And in that picture you can clearly see the bosses in the casting for DI injectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really nice ports there, even if going on a bigger truck.

Brian Wolfe definitely snuck one under the Radar....

Well, they did with the Boss 6.2 as well I guess....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2020 at 7:48 PM, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

Make that a DOHC 40 (or even 48) valve !!!

 🤯

Are you talking v-10 or v12?  If so, I’ll need to raise my hp target.   Cosworth heads?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slemke said:

Are you talking v-10 or v12?  If so, I’ll need to raise my hp target.   Cosworth heads?  

 

Yes, you got my hint.  A 10 or 12 cylinder coyote would be bonkers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any event, I am glad to see that it looks like Ford will be able to leverage a truck engine platform into a high performance engine for the Mustang and F-150.  The 6.8L will likely be 'it' for Ford high performance ICE's.  I am a little sorry they didn't do a pushrod V-8 8 or 10 years ago.  

Share this post


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

In any event, I am glad to see that it looks like Ford will be able to leverage a truck engine platform into a high performance engine for the Mustang and F-150.  The 6.8L will likely be 'it' for Ford high performance ICE's.  I am a little sorry they didn't do a pushrod V-8 8 or 10 years ago.  

I bet Ford is too, everything we see in today’s 7.3 was possible fifteen years ago save for a workable cylinder deactivation system which I think was not possible in the OHC Boss 6.2.

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


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

 

Yes, you got my hint.  A 10 or 12 cylinder coyote would be bonkers!

I got $20 that says you will not see an engine with more than 8 cylinders during the remainder of my life !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 2:10 AM, 7Mary3 said:

Regarding the 7.3L, I have heard of a few random failures but no common mechanical issues yet. 

There seems to be an issue with ignition related misfire.  Root cause seems to be spark plug leads.

Share this post


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

I bet Ford is too, everything we see in today’s 7.3 was possible fifteen years ago save for a workable cylinder deactivation system which I think was not possible in the OHC Boss 6.2.

On paper, OHC makes better power, but it is at higher RPM.

 

The big win of OHV is lower cost and better low end torque.

Share this post


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

In any event, I am glad to see that it looks like Ford will be able to leverage a truck engine platform into a high performance engine for the Mustang and F-150.  The 6.8L will likely be 'it' for Ford high performance ICE's.  I am a little sorry they didn't do a pushrod V-8 8 or 10 years ago.  

Very questionable whether this engine will show up in the Mustang.  I think the Coyote will remain the only V8 available in theMustang.

 

Clearly this engine is aimed at F-Series and maybe E-series.  It would be AMAZING in a T-Series, but I doubt the rest of that vehicle could handle the power !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2021 5.0 changes...

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B1bNPLse83WAOTJoSS1FSnpBMk0/1pneIz3kbBPLawlcwqIbzwdS5TB9eDdGl/1LYqRHpINirWPCpCC0-7ciuZWRWq-gtmK?usp=sharing&sort=13&direction=a

 

Belt driven oil pump, serviceable cam bearings, etc.  They put some resources into it, the 5.0 isn’t going anywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 4:52 AM, rajputaman04 said:

I am glad that it’s pushrod though.  I think GM and Chrysler have proven that pushrod V8s are fantastic engines and the packaging advantages are huge.  


They have packaging advantages and perhaps production cost advantages, but no performance or technical advantages at all.  OHC is nothing but beneficial in every way except in production cost and cylinder head height. I hate that the 7.3 is pushrod. 
 

I wonder if the 7.3 is like an LS in that you have to remove the cylinder head when a lifter needs replacement.  Terrible set up, especially for an engine platform that likes to go through lifters (LS that is).  

Edited by White99GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, White99GT said:

I wonder if the 7.3 is like an LS in that you have to remove the cylinder head when a lifter needs replacement.  Terrible set up, especially for an engine platform that likes to go through lifters (LS that is).  

 

It looks like the answer is yes.

 

Ford Performance 7.3L Godzilla V-8 Crate Engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, White99GT said:


They have packaging advantages and perhaps production cost advantages, but no performance or technical advantages at all.  OHC is nothing but beneficial in every way except in production cost and cylinder head height. I hate that the 7.3 is pushrod. 
 

I wonder if the 7.3 is like an LS in that you have to remove the cylinder head when a lifter needs replacement.  Terrible set up, especially for an engine platform that likes to go through lifters (LS that is).  

 

I have fixed a few lifter failures/camshafts in LS engines.  Nowhere near the valvetrain issues that 3 valve Mods had.  Starting to see cam follower and valve retainer failures on older 6.2's now.

 

One of the things I don't like about the 7.3L is that all the cam phaser components are behind the timing cover.  You can get to all the LS cam phaser parts by just removing the water pump. 

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

×