Ford's 2019 7.3L pushrod V8

[Sprintey]

This was mentioned in another thread, so I had a dig. Apologies if there was already a thread on it.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...details-specs/

First response, was "the madmen, don't they know we live in a time of coming electric cars and how dare they?!"

But it was explained as such:

"In vehicles with 14,000-plus-pound GVWRs—like the Ford Super Duty—Beltramo told us its critical for an engine to operate at peak power with an optimal air-fuel ratio (stoichiometric combustion). From there, Ford worked backwards.

"We built a map of where an engine, can run stoichiometric air-fuel without a bunch of spark retard," Beltramo said. "That led us to a torque-per-liter value and a power-per-liter value, [which] knowing that, boxed us to 7.3 liters."

For fuel efficiency's sake, Ford engineers determined they wanted the engine to generate peak power at what Beltramo considers "relatively low" RPM. "That's what led us to a pushrod two-valve. It really is the optimum solution for the over 14,000-pound [segment]." "



Nice - creating the engine using deductive logic for who requires it, how they use it, and how to optimise it. Nicer still they ended up with a massive petrol V8!

[Brazen]

I know motorhome enthusiasts are excited about the new F59 chassis that this engine is being used in. The current 6.8 V10 petrol is one of the most popular engines in motorbikes in the US. This should be faster, more efficient and quieter

[BENT_8]

Bigger is better when pulling weight...who'd have thunk.

[Sprintey]

I've since learned that it is a smaller size than what it's replacing, is built for durability and inexpensive maintenance; is made to be able to be rebuilt; and is built in Windsor, Ontario. That's some really happy news! Sounds very old school and utilitarian, with modern improvements built in.

Here's an in-depth view of it done by hotrod.com:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/insi...3l-pushrod-v8/

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

I've since learned that it is a smaller size than what it's replacing, is built for durability and inexpensive maintenance; is made to be able to be rebuilt; and is built in Windsor, Ontario. That's some really happy news! Sounds very old school and utilitarian, with modern improvements built in.

Here's an in-depth view of it done by hotrod.com:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/insi...3l-pushrod-v8/

Originally Posted by jpd80

I've learned that the bore spacing is 117mm (4.63") which is 2mm wider than the 6.2 Boss
Deck height is said to be 9.77" which is also higher than the 6.2 Boss (9.4")

ive learnt ill have to rethink my project and how to fit one of these 7.3's in to the engine bay

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by wodahs

ive learnt ill have to rethink my project and how to fit one of these 7.3's in to the engine bay

If it fits in a foxbody, it will fit a falcon. It’s much narrower than a modular/coyote.

The front mounted tb is kinda high looking and would most likely need a reverse cowl bonnet though. Or a hole cut in it for clearance.

[Citroënbender]

I think you suffered autocorrect:

Originally Posted by Brazen

...The current 6.8 V10 petrol is one of the most popular engines in motorbikes in the US.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I know motorhome enthusiasts are excited about the new F59 chassis that this engine is being used in. The current 6.8 V10 petrol is one of the most popular engines in motorbikes in the US. This should be faster, more efficient and quieter

F53 is the motorhome chassis, F59 is for commercial like bread vans and such. I just picked up a 1996 Fleetwood Bounder that sits on a F53 with the a 240hp/410lb-ft (179kw/555Nm) 460 V8 hooked to the E40D (for only $9000 mins you). So a lot less power back then, yet it can still do 80mph on the freeway. Even the steep incline between Salt Lake City and Park City on the I-80, the slowest it drops down to is about 50mph. I know its biggest let down is the gearing in the 4 speed. So just putting a 6 or 10 speed behind that, it would be a massive improvement.

These big blocks have so much power and torque down low to move big loads with authority, but we are used to comparing engines in terms of peak horsepower, we often think they are underpowered. I rented a UHaul F650 with the V10 to move last year, and I had no issues maintaining 75mph (its governed limit), even though it was fully loaded with all our crap, while pulling our Sonata behind it. I have fallen in love with big blocks so much, I picked up a 2001 GMC Sierra with the 8.1 Vortec V8 with the 5 speed Allison. They seem to make for a better daily driver than the big diesels.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I know motorhome enthusiasts are excited about the new F59 chassis that this engine is being used in. The current 6.8 V10 petrol is one of the most popular engines in motorbikes in the US. This should be faster, more efficient and quieter

I know yanks like their bikes to handle like boats but a 6.8 v10 would be ludicrous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jpd80]

As Ramey stated, the 7.3L utilizes an iron block featuring four-bolt main caps with cross bolts in each main, and the block is fully skirted, which adds rigidity. Bore and stroke comes in at 4.22-inches x 3.976-inches, respectively, to produce 445 cubic inches of displacement.

I've learned that the bore spacing is 117mm (4.63") which is 2mm wider than the 6.2 Boss
Deck height is said to be 9.77" which is also higher than the 6.2 Boss (9.4")

[jpd80]

It's kinda like a modern take on the FE engine but with a lower deck height
and I can imagine that the 7.3 will fit into most Mustangs and Falcons if it
has a low profile manifold.

This engine has so much potential in terms of re-powering older vehicles,
who would have thought that Ford would produce a 21st century big block.

[Sprintey]

Every now and then they come out and surprise you with just how great a motor company they are. 445 Windsor... haha!

All we need now is for the head of Ferrari to insult the head of Ford and these babys will take out Lemans...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Every now and then they come out and surprise you with just how great a motor company they are. 445 Windsor... haha!

All we need now is for the head of Ferrari to insult the head of Ford and these babys will take out Lemans...

Just tell Bill Ford he's not Henry Ford, he's not even Henry Ford the second.

[Sprintey]

Ouch! Them's fighting words!

I was always a big Henry fan, really liked how Henry Ford II was played in the movie as well.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

It's kinda like a modern take on the FE engine but with a lower deck height
and I can imagine that the 7.3 will fit into most Mustangs and Falcons if it
has a low profile manifold.

This engine has so much potential in terms of re-powering older vehicles,
who would have thought that Ford would produce a 21st century big block.

I’m sure i heard somewhere that ford performance were working on a street performance version crate motor.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I’m sure i heard somewhere that ford performance were working on a street performance version crate motor.

They are, with just a tune and the long ram intake they got close to 500 hp. The with cam change low profile intake manifold projection is close to 600 hp.

For a lot of people that will make more sense to just get a 7.3 and skip the Mods and Coyotes.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

They are, with just a tune and the long ram intake they got close to 500 hp. The with cam change low profile intake manifold projection is close to 600 hp.

For a lot of people that will make more sense to just get a 7.3 and skip the Mods and Coyotes.

Sounds like it's a great time to have an oldskool Ford project on the go.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Sounds like it's a great time to have an oldskool Ford project on the go.

But its a low revving truck engine.
Sounds like putting a 466 Louisville gasser in your car.

[DMXR6T]

My understanding that this motor has been designed for heavy duty, low rpm work - trucks, etc., and therefore will probably have large diameter bearings to handle the load. Large diameter bearings are not good for high revs due to the higher surface speed. Probably many other design features that will make this engine unsuitable for performance applications.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DMXR6T

My understanding that this motor has been designed for heavy duty, low rpm work - trucks, etc., and therefore will probably have large diameter bearings to handle the load. Large diameter bearings are not good for high revs due to the higher surface speed. Probably many other design features that will make this engine unsuitable for performance applications.

Sounds like a good candidate for a Borg Warner EFR 9180 hanging off the side of it - 20 PSI at 2500 RPM

[XR Martin]

How heavy is the engine?

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Nice - creating the engine using deductive logic for who requires it, how they use it, and how to optimise it.

Originally Posted by Sprintey

But it was explained as such:
"In vehicles with 14,000-plus-pound GVWRs—like the Ford Super Duty—Beltramo told us its critical for an engine to operate at peak power with an optimal air-fuel ratio (stoichiometric combustion). From there, Ford worked backwards.
"We built a map of where an engine, can run stoichiometric air-fuel without a bunch of spark retard," Beltramo said. "That led us to a torque-per-liter value and a power-per-liter value, [which] knowing that, boxed us to 7.3 liters."
For fuel efficiency's sake, Ford engineers determined they wanted the engine to generate peak power at what Beltramo considers "relatively low" RPM. "That's what led us to a pushrod two-valve. It really is the optimum solution for the over 14,000-pound [segment]."

Translation = "CAFE laws don't apply so suck on this Hippies"

[XR Martin]

I think I found the weight, apparently it's not much heavier than the 6.2. If so it's around 265kg, or a little heavier than the old 5.4 we had in the Falcon.

[chevypower]

Very flat torque curve

https://images.app.goo.gl/kSrHA1akhZ7w9Gt46

[Sprintey]

that's pretty crazy Franco, for eg the Sprint Windsor motor from the same era as your 304 has peak torque at 4000 and peak power at 5000 with a 5500 redline. Doesn't sound like much, but compared to driving any of the low-down torque 165kw Windsors fitted to the Fairmont, S-XR8 of that era, even through to AU1 XR8s - the Sprint motor feels like a completely different animal. Total beast over 3000 revs when it wakes up through to redline. All from the same block and cylinder dimensions. People will get outrageous with this one, give it time.

(Actually I'd like to see an EB with the 7.3 and some performance mods...)

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Very flat torque curve

https://images.app.goo.gl/kSrHA1akhZ7w9Gt46

Looks like that graph goes to 6000 rpm. It’s definately not an low rpm slugger. Holds that torque well across the rev range.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Looks like that graph goes to 6000 rpm. It’s definately not an low rpm slugger. Holds that torque well across the rev range.

A lot of that is being achieved with 14.7: mixture strength to keep the engine efficient,
that and the derating ~30 HP/30 lb ft that applies to Super Duty ratings.

The same engine in F150 with no tune change suddenly becomes 460 HP /505 lb ft.

Those big 4.22" bores and the guy who did the Coyote heads also did these wedge heads.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A lot of that is being achieved with 14.7: mixture strength to keep the engine efficient,
that and the derating ~30 HP/30 lb ft that applies to Super Duty ratings.

The same engine in F150 with no tune change suddenly becomes 460 HP /505 lb ft.

Those big 4.22" bores and the guy who did the Coyote heads also did these wedge heads.

That's the key, the engine is almost making peak torque while operating in stoich AFR. Most other engines would drop into open loop mode and AFR's drop into low 12's to high 11's (or richer depending on TPS) in order to develop peak torque, and have the fuel consumption penalty.

[ozrunner]

Being mated to a 10 speed will also be a huge benefit.

But its sump depth will need a rethink to suit transplants.

https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...y-pickup.html#

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Looks like that graph goes to 6000 rpm. It’s definately not an low rpm slugger. Holds that torque well across the rev range.

Yeah it looks like it will have the benefit of both low and high rpm. I haven’t seen the graph for the commercial application, which will peak at 350hp / 468 lb-ft.