The New 6.8L V8 Thread

[GearheadGrrrl]

How come you guys are only comparing Ford to GM? 

 

There are a whole bunch of other automakers out there like Toyota/Mazda/Suburu, VW Group, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan/Renault, Stelantis, Honda, etc.. that have full vehicle lineups and compete worldwide. Meanwhile, Ford and GM are slowly retreating to their home markets and shrinking product ranges leaning toward sectors they can dominate like pickups. That strategy will work for awhile, probably long enough for Ford to be rescued by VW and GM by Honda? 

[jpd80]

35 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

How come you guys are only comparing Ford to GM? 

 

There are a whole bunch of other automakers out there like Toyota/Mazda/Suburu, VW Group, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan/Renault, Stelantis, Honda, etc.. that have full vehicle lineups and compete worldwide. Meanwhile, Ford and GM are slowly retreating to their home markets and shrinking product ranges leaning toward sectors they can dominate like pickups. That strategy will work for awhile, probably long enough for Ford to be rescued by VW and GM by Honda? 

Even with that so called reduced product line up, Ford is on track to make more than $10 billion in income for 2021. The three main profit earners for Ford are F Series, Ranger and Transit, any regions that don’t have any of those three underpinning sales is going backwards financially. So yeah, none of the other vehicles add significantly beyond covering development and build costs……the new entrants, Bronco, Bronco Sport, Maverick, Mach E and Lightning are a way for Ford to break out of the decades long cycle of just building trucks, cars and as few SUVs for those who want them and dumping the rest into daily rental sales just to keep up the illusion that strong sales equals profit……

Edited December 28, 2021 by jpd80

[akirby]

36 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

How come you guys are only comparing Ford to GM? 

 

There are a whole bunch of other automakers out there like Toyota/Mazda/Suburu, VW Group, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan/Renault, Stelantis, Honda, etc.. that have full vehicle lineups and compete worldwide. Meanwhile, Ford and GM are slowly retreating to their home markets and shrinking product ranges leaning toward sectors they can dominate like pickups. That strategy will work for awhile, probably long enough for Ford to be rescued by VW and GM by Honda? 

Because the statement was GM thinks outside the box and Ford doesn’t.

 

This entire conversation is off topic.  Back to the 6.8l engine please.

[Bob Rosadini]

34 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

How come you guys are only comparing Ford to GM? 

 

There are a whole bunch of other automakers out there like Toyota/Mazda/Suburu, VW Group, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan/Renault, Stelantis, Honda, etc.. that have full vehicle lineups and compete worldwide. Meanwhile, Ford and GM are slowly retreating to their home markets and shrinking product ranges leaning toward sectors they can dominate like pickups. That strategy will work for awhile, probably long enough for Ford to be rescued by VW and GM by Honda? 

Yes but I guess you haven't heard-they are losing their asses building cars

[akirby]

How about that new 6.8L engine?

[Bob Rosadini]

11 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Yes but I guess you haven't heard-they are losing their asses building cars

oops-15 yds  sorry.?

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Just on that “unremarkable” 7.3, the guys at Harrop Racing have added a supercharger and are get  800 hp on pump gas and close to 1,000 hp on E85…. at 20 psi boost with  E85 and a 102 throttle, it made an astounding 1015hp @ 6200 an 988 lb ft @ 4100……..that’s on an unopened, stock engine.

What was shocking to me was how low that power and torque was being made, all with stock cam and heads

 

Restart the conversation, 7.3 is not that disappointing….

[GearheadGrrrl]

What's the world market in units for a turbo 4? Probably better than half of all vehicles built. What's the total world market for a big block NA pushrod V8? Couple million a year, not even 10% of world market= The 7.3 was probably a massive waste of capital.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

What's the world market in units for a turbo 4? Probably better than half of all vehicles built. What's the total world market for a big block NA pushrod V8? Couple million a year, not even 10% of world market= The 7.3 was probably a massive waste of capital.

No because you’re dismissing the small but important  percentage of sales the 7.3 represents. Roughly 70% of all Super Duty and Medium Duty  sales each month are 7.3s, that alone is a massive profit generator for Ford. In contrast, most of Ford’s I-4 EBs barely cover development and manufacturing costs, let alone add anything significantly to the bottom line (also why Ford is moving away from cars).

Edited December 28, 2021 by jpd80

[GearheadGrrrl]

The spark ignition inline 4s are mostly derived from Mazda designs and the tooling was paid for long ago. The volumes for these engines are huge- They go into Focus, Mondeo, Edge/Kuga, Escape, Edge, Explorer, vans, and Rangers so I suspect annual volume is over a million units. In comparison the 7.3 is a dinosaur with a disappearing habitant- 3/4 ton and larger trucks until higher gas prices push that market to diesel or electrification. That's barely enough market to keep one engine plant busy, and a questionable sunk investment in the reputed $100,000,000 or more it cost to develop and tool it up. Heck, might have been cheaper just to buy crate engines from GM and slap "Ford" on the valve covers...

[Power Kid]

Someone keeps fishing. Must have limited out by now.

[ESP08]

On 12/27/2021 at 8:26 AM, akirby said:

That’s like saying a crescent wrench is pretty good at loosening nuts and bolts but it sucks at driving nails.

 

It was built specifically as a truck engine, so that should be the measuring stick.  Why should Ford care what people do with it outside of that?

 

Except Stray Kat and myself were debating who was departing the internal combustion engine era on a higher note.    

 

Also that's a terrible analogy... 

[ESP08]

 

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Restart the conversation, 7.3 is not that disappointing….

 

It is when you realize both the 5.2 Predator and 5.8 Trinity have made a lot more with the same blower.   

 

1015 crank HP would be about 860 rwhp -- and more like 820-830 with full exhaust and inlet as it sits in the car --  which would barely worth a mention on most of the current GT500 forums.  

 

Continued below 

Edited December 28, 2021 by ESP08

[akirby]

45 minutes ago, ESP08 said:

 

Except Stray Kat and myself were debating who was departing the internal combustion engine era on a higher note.    

 

Also that's a terrible analogy... 

 

Your goals for the engine have nothing whatsoever to do with it’s use in a production truck whereas all that Ford cares about is selling more F series trucks.

[ESP08]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Restart the conversation, 7.3 is not that disappointing….

 

I’ve attached a dyno graph for the last 5.4 4V (GT500) TVS 2650 combo I put together.  

Also on E85.

 

Some points…   
This 5.4 pull was done with an non-ported VMP Gen 2 TVS 2650.  

The VMP Gen 3 and front feed 2650s (as shown in the Godzilla video) have proven to be worth 80-100 rwhp (at peak) more than the VMP Gen 2 on similar combos due to inlet flow limitations of the Gen 2 case. 
This pull was also done on 31” bias ply tires which I’ve seen rob significant power on the dyno -- the tune of ~50 rwhp  
 

I believe on an engine dyno this 1215 rwhp 5.4 combo would have easily made 1450 HP as it sat, and upwards of 1500 crank HP with a front feed TVS 2650. 
 

With a Gen V Whipple 3.0 even more still.  
 

I’ve seen nothing from the 7.3 as of yet that has impressed me for the level of build or accomplished anything that this relatively tame 10.5:1 steel rodded 5.4 4V wouldn’t match and/or exceed.  

I think the 7.3 is an OK performance platform largely thanks to being 445ci.  
It’s not bad by any stretch but looking at it as the basis of a performance build it is only retreading ground already covered.
 

Where I’m coming from it that it disappoints me to think that Ford has had the Boss architecture sitting there since 2011 that offers nearly identical displacement capacity as the 7.3  and only needed a set of DOHC 4-valve cylinder heads (and Siamese-bore AL block) that could have given it power density on par with the old Supercar headed 4Vs and Coyotes.  

I’d like to hope that is what the 6.8 is but with Ford’s shifting focus to EVs (see new CJ drag car) I have my doubt it will come to pass. 

[ESP08]

35 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Your goals for the engine have nothing whatsoever to do with it’s use in a production truck whereas all that Ford cares about is selling more F series trucks.

 

And yet it is offered as Ford Performance crate engine so in spite of your assertion that Ford "only" cares about selling more F-Series trucks the reality is that Ford would like to make in-roads into the performance aftermarket as a distant secondary objective.  

[LSchicago]

1 hour ago, ESP08 said:

 

 

It is when you realize both the 5.2 Predator and 5.8 Trinity have made a lot more with the same blower.   

 

1015 crank HP would be about 860 rwhp -- and more like 820-830 with full exhaust and inlet as it sits in the car --  which would barely worth a mention on most of the current GT500 forums.  

 

Continued below 

Horsepower yes, torque no. That's the 2V vs. 4V differences.

[ESP08]

11 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Horsepower yes, torque no. That's the 2V vs. 4V differences.

 

Negative, that's the 130 cubic inches difference.  

 

 

 

 

[LSchicago]

14 minutes ago, ESP08 said:

 

Negative, that's the 130 cubic inches difference.  

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's why the 7.3 makes so much torque. It would make a lot of HP if it had 4 valves instead of 2. 

[ESP08]

16 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Yes, that's why the 7.3 makes so much torque. It would make a lot of HP if it had 4 valves instead of 2. 

 

Indeed, but the 7.3 would also make more torque with 4-valve heads.   

 

This little 330ci 5.4 4-valve does well for itself on the torque front with a TVS 2650. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

I’ve attached a dyno graph for the last 5.4 4V (GT500) TVS 2650 combo I put together.  

Also on E85.

 

Some points…   
This 5.4 pull was done with an non-ported VMP Gen 2 TVS 2650.  

The VMP Gen 3 and front feed 2650s (as shown in the Godzilla video) have proven to be worth 80-100 rwhp (at peak) more than the VMP Gen 2 on similar combos due to inlet flow limitations of the Gen 2 case. 
This pull was also done on 31” bias ply tires which I’ve seen rob significant power on the dyno -- the tune of ~50 rwhp  
 

I believe on an engine dyno this 1215 rwhp 5.4 combo would have easily made 1450 HP as it sat, and upwards of 1500 crank HP with a front feed TVS 2650. 
 

With a Gen V Whipple 3.0 even more still.  
 

I’ve seen nothing from the 7.3 as of yet that has impressed me for the level of build or accomplished anything that this relatively tame 10.5:1 steel rodded 5.4 4V wouldn’t match and/or exceed.  

I think the 7.3 is an OK performance platform largely thanks to being 445ci.  
It’s not bad by any stretch but looking at it as the basis of a performance build it is only retreading ground already covered.
 

Where I’m coming from it that it disappoints me to think that Ford has had the Boss architecture sitting there since 2011 that offers nearly identical displacement capacity as the 7.3  and only needed a set of DOHC 4-valve cylinder heads (and Siamese-bore AL block) that could have given it power density on par with the old Supercar headed 4Vs and Coyotes.  

I’d like to hope that is what the 6.8 is but with Ford’s shifting focus to EVs (see new CJ drag car) I have my doubt it will come to pass. 
 

I get what Ford is doing by offering the 7.3 truck engine as a crate engine, it’s an easy “500 hp” engine that fits into a lot of resto mods where the 4V heads make for a tight squeeze, the 7.3 is pretty much the heir apparent for the aftermarket  Siamesed Windsor engine (many people want an engine like that)

 

I’m sure that if Ford had its time over, the Boss 6.2 would have been produces as a 7.0 litre only for Super Duty, Medium Duty and crate engine. Ford was clearly looking to match the GM LS 6.2 in F150 but without cylinder deactivation, it wouldn’t have lasted long in any regard….the 3.5 EB was a god send for Ford right at a time of need, (as was the embrace of Ford buyers)…..So I think that’s why the 6.2 became just another crate engine, it was overshadowed by a better engine choice for the time.

 

The other frustrating part of Ford not making the Boss as a 7.0 litre engine was that the 6.8 V10 was allowed to linger on as no proper replacement existed…….all of these things and the eventual cure are kind of linked in a weird loop of justification….

 

Go back 10 years and imagine the impact of a 7.0 crate engine, the modern equivalent of the 427 Cammer - pure gold.

A low cost way to achieve that could be to change the coring on the 6.2 block to Siamese the bores and use 7.3 pistons.

The alternative to modify the 7.3 to accept the 6.2’s shorter stroke crank and front dress to accept OHC/DOHC set up.

 

I’d just add that Chevrolet has played its final hand with the 640 hp FPC DOHC 5.5 LT6, we Ford fans would love to see Ford

achieve closure with buyers and deliver ‘427’ not only to upstage GM but as a celebration of the past as we face the future.

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by jpd80

[AGR]

While you all are arguing about what V8s Ford should produce, out in the real world...

Hyundai shutters engine development in shift to electric and hydrogen vehicles (autoblog.com)

[Bob Rosadini]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Your goals for the engine have nothing whatsoever to do with it’s use in a production truck whereas all that Ford cares about is selling more F series trucks.

Amen!  The 7.3 was developed as a medium duty truck engine-at least according to the chief engineer Mr Beltramo (sp?).  And as an old truck guy my reaction was .."terrific"- puts out numbers that were equal to the old 477 Super Duty-and there were thosands of those running in trucks over 50,000 gvw over the years.  

It represents (IMO) a  great cost savings  for the operator who  needs GVW and power but doesn't have the annual utilization to justify a diesel's premium.

 

But what very quickly happened?  Bob Wolf and others saw all sorts of potential in the 7.3 for the performance market and we were "off to the races"-pun intended. 

 

And at this point it has no competition in the medium duty market.  And  Teamster Grrl, as for electrification in medium duty, I'm sure that will make sense in many applications.  But in due time-and also not at my expense in terms of subsidies.

[Bob Rosadini]

13 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Amen!  The 7.3 was developed as a medium duty truck engine-at least according to the chief engineer Mr Beltramo (sp?).  And as an old truck guy my reaction was .."terrific"- puts out numbers that were equal to the old 477 Super Duty-and there were thosands of those running in trucks over 50,000 gvw over the years.  

It represents (IMO) a  great cost savings  for the operator who  needs GVW and power but doesn't have the annual utilization to justify a diesel's premium.

 

But what very quickly happened?  Bob Wolf and others saw all sorts of potential in the 7.3 for the performance market and we were "off to the races"-pun intended. 

 

And at this point it has no competition in the medium duty market.  And  Teamster Grrl, as for electrification in medium duty, I'm sure that will make sense in many applications.  But in due time-and also not at my expense in terms of subsidies.

err..sorry Gearhed Grrl-getting my sites mixed  up!

[jpd80]

27 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Amen!  The 7.3 was developed as a medium duty truck engine-at least according to the chief engineer Mr Beltramo (sp?).  And as an old truck guy my reaction was .."terrific"- puts out numbers that were equal to the old 477 Super Duty-and there were thosands of those running in trucks over 50,000 gvw over the years.  

It represents (IMO) a  great cost savings  for the operator who  needs GVW and power but doesn't have the annual utilization to justify a diesel's premium.

 

But what very quickly happened?  Bob Wolf and others saw all sorts of potential in the 7.3 for the performance market and we were "off to the races"-pun intended. 

 

And at this point it has no competition in the medium duty market.  And  Teamster Grrl, as for electrification in medium duty, I'm sure that will make sense in many applications.  But in due time-and also not at my expense in terms of subsidies.

Brian Wolfe was Ford Program director in charge of 7.3’s development, sure he had dual purpose in developing an engine that could be used two ways - a modern take on an enlarged Windsor that had enough capacity to cover Super and Medium Duty as well as E Series and the Stripped Chassis twins.  As a crate engine with compact dimensions afforded by a wedge head means that people who used to buy aftermarket 427 Windsors now have a viable alternative.

Edited December 29, 2021 by jpd80