The new Ford 7.3 gasser

[Crabman]

Originally Posted by Rzrbrn

Partial engine shut down seems strange to me also, but it does seem to help with gas mileage. Are you suggesting it is unreliable? Every once in a while I think I need a diesel, but I just don't want to put up with all the related issues. Gas is best for me, but I would like to get better gas mileage. I don't want a Ford Ecodiesel, but I would not mind a larger Ford engine truck.

Well when GM went to AFM (active fuel management) in 2008 with the new body style 1500 they took a previously bulletproof 5.3 V8 and had all kinds of problems. Engines were burning oil, carboning up the cylinders, and having to be rebuilt or replaced. there were pages and pages of reading on this on the GM forums. I would think they have it sorted out now but I'm still leery of this in an HD truck. Even GM left the venerable 6.0 alone in the HD trucks and did not add AFM, unless they did it recently.

[Crabman]

Originally Posted by RetiredLEO

I read somewhere no cylinder shut down. Those 8 cylinders will be firing all the time.

The way it should be, IMO, which is not worth much lol.

[Rustic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Crabman

snip...... Even GM left the venerable 6.0 alone in the HD trucks and did not add AFM, unless they did it recently.

Not on my 2016 6.0L......, and haven't run across any AFM discussions on the GM HD gassers.

Bob

[Quantum]

Originally Posted by Crabman

The way it should be, IMO, which is not worth much lol.

Just like auto start/stop. I can't figure that one out either. Let's turn off the truck when "ideal" conditions are met (ie. least amount of fuel being burned).

[SkyBound]

I refuse to own an auto start/stop vehicle. It's the stupidest and most annoying feature on a truck.

Any ideas or guesses as to the power output of this new 7.3 gas? I'm thinking it will end up somewhere in the 400hp and 550tq.

[TCNashville]

Originally Posted by SkyBound

I refuse to own an auto start/stop vehicle. It's the stupidest and most annoying feature on a truck.

I couldn't agree more but I believe it can be turned off easily.

[Midnightmoon]

Originally Posted by TCNashville

I couldn't agree more but I believe it can be turned off easily.

Button on the dash directly above the Nav screen on my 2018. Simply push it after you start the truck.

[Rustic Eagle]

Originally Posted by SkyBound

snip...... Any ideas or guesses as to the power output of this new 7.3 gas? I'm thinking it will end up somewhere in the 400hp and 550tq.

There are a number of guess-estimates floating around, nothing official...., Ford stated the 7.3L will be the "most powerful gas V8 in its class".

We all know about the "weights" and "horsepower/torque" game always in play around Detroit

Bob

[CampNow]

IMO, the primary reason folks are attracted to the big-bore turbo diesels is due to the torque curve---maximum torque at 2,000 rpm and below. It's also one of the primary reasons the turbo-charged Ecoboost 3.5 has been such a success--it capable of providing the vast majority of its torque around 2,000 - 2,500 rpm. Having torque down low in the powerband like this is exactly what makes the process of towing/hauling/driving so much more enjoyable---less downshifting and less NVH (noise/vibration/harshness).

Although I believe the 7.3 is going to be a very capable engine, there's still going to be huge void between the 7.3 and the big-bore diesels. The 7.3 is naturally-aspirated. This alone tells you you're gonna have to force a downshift and wring the rpm's out of it to reach the advertised HP and torque numbers---regardless how good the numbers look on paper. Very little wringing necessary on a turbo-equipped big-bore diesel (or Ecoboost).

Why the Big 3 won't get on-board with a mid-size, turbo gas or diesel engine to fill this huge torque void is beyond me.

[Rustic Eagle]

Originally Posted by CampNow

snip......Having torque down low in the powerband like this is what makes towing so much more enjoyable.....snip

I agree.

GM claims they have addressed this low end powerband area with their new 6.6L gas engine design. It won't compete with the diesel, but at least it's closing the gap a "little" between the present GM 6.0L gasser and the present diesel low end torque advantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBiVx8RW1o

Bob

[Midnightmoon]

Originally Posted by CampNow

Why the Big 3 won't get on-board with a mid-sized, turbo gas or diesel engine to fill this huge torque void is beyond me.

I agree with this statement 100%. I may be a minority in my thinking, but I don't need a truck to pull 35K# or race up the Ike Gauntlet at a record pace. A good solid chassis with a capable power plant that pulled well and ran efficiently would be enough for me.

[curver900]

Originally Posted by Rustic Eagle

I agree.

GM claims they have addressed this low end powerband area with their new 6.6L gas engine design. It won't compete with the diesel, but at least it's closing the gap a "little" between the present GM 6.0L gasser and the present diesel low end torque advantage.



Bob

The circle of life.. this motor was the "motor" to have back in the mid to late 70's in your Trans-Am.. I know it was in mine.. fun times!

What is the advantage of this motor over the 6.2L in the 1/2 tons now.. I am not sure I see it... little bigger the torque has a bit flatter... but not sure I see gen 1 of this motor being much of a "industry leader" maybe in 3 years and against the new Ford motor it will be worth while...
after reading up on the ford 7.3L GM has not a chance... the 7.3 numbers are going to put the 6.6L to bed... to bad for GM...

[Rustic Eagle]

Originally Posted by curver900

snip...... What is the advantage of this motor over the 6.2L in the 1/2 tons now.. I am not sure I see it....snip

There are a number of design differences between the present GM 6.2L gas 1/2 tons and the GM "HD" 6.6L gasser.

The 6.2L is an aluminums block, the 6.6L is cast iron (6.0L cast as well), and other component material specifications & sizing differ as well. The 6.2L has a higher compression ratio than the 6.6L and 6.0L.

The HD gas engines are designed for continuous heavy work function, the 1/2 ton gassers don't share some of these inherent design features. Same goes for the transmission mated to the HD gas engines.

The 1/2 ton 6.2L is a go-fast gasser

Bob

[Atlee]

If the Ford engineer is to be believed, the new 7.3L gasser is designed to provide more HP and more Torque at a lower RPM without a huge penalty in gas mileage, than is possible with current gassers. Is he blowing smoke? Don't know, and will not know until 1) the actual numbers are provided, and 2) especially until the real motors are released into the wild.

We'll know pretty soon if the 7.3L is what the Ford engineer is promising of if they have missed the mark. If the new gasser actually delivers what the engineer is promising or at least hinting at, it'll be quite a step up from the 6.2L and close enough to the 6.7 PS, assuming it doesn't carry a huge price premium, that some folks who need more than the 6.2L provides but really do not like going whole hog on a diesel due to the price premium and the current complexity of those engines.

Originally Posted by CampNow

IMO, the primary reason folks are attracted to the big-bore turbo diesels is due to the torque curve---maximum torque at 2,000 rpm and below. It's also one of the primary reasons the turbo-charged Ecoboost 3.5 has been such a success--it capable of providing the vast majority of its torque around 2,000 - 2,500 rpm. Having torque down low in the powerband like this is exactly what makes the process of towing/hauling/driving so much more enjoyable---less downshifting and less NVH (noise/vibration/harshness).

Although I believe the 7.3 is going to be a very capable engine, there's still going to be huge void between the 7.3 and the big-bore diesels. The 7.3 is naturally-aspirated. This alone tells you you're gonna have to force a downshift and wring the rpm's out of it to reach the advertised HP and torque numbers---regardless how good the numbers look on paper. Very little wringing necessary on a turbo-equipped big-bore diesel (or Ecoboost).

Why the Big 3 won't get on-board with a mid-size, turbo gas or diesel engine to fill this huge torque void is beyond me.

[RetiredLEO]

I've read that it will be about a 3K option.

[CampNow]

Originally Posted by Atlee

If the Ford engineer is to be believed, the new 7.3L gasser is designed to provide more HP and more Torque at a lower RPM without a huge penalty in gas mileage, than is possible with current gassers. Is he blowing smoke? Don't know, and will not know until 1) the actual numbers are provided, and 2) especially until the real motors are released into the wild.

We'll know pretty soon if the 7.3L is what the Ford engineer is promising of if they have missed the mark. If the new gasser actually delivers what the engineer is promising or at least hinting at, it'll be quite a step up from the 6.2L and close enough to the 6.7 PS, assuming it doesn't carry a huge price premium, that some folks who need more than the 6.2L provides but really do not like going whole hog on a diesel due to the price premium and the current complexity of those engines.

Agree, the new 7.3, by all accounts, is going to be a nice engine with impressive specs.

However, let's say for the sake of argument the 7.3 had the same amount of HP and the same amount of torque as a big-bore turbo diesel. Obviously we know that won't be true, but bear with me for a second.

Important to know: The 7.3 is naturally aspirated. Again, the 7.3 is naturally aspirated.

Even if the 7.3 did have the same HP and torque numbers as a big-bore turbo-charged diesel, it will NOT be able to access that torque below 2,000 rpm like a big-bore turbo diesel. Being naturally aspirated, the 7.3 will be forced to rev up to 3,000 - 3,500 rpms to access that torque peak--especially on hills and climbs. The big-bore turbo diesels, during normal operation, operate at or near their torque peak (at a leisurely 1,800-2,000 rpm) a large part of the time--compliments of that very effective turbo-charger (and diesel engine). This simple difference makes for a HUGE difference in realworld driveability. This is a difference even your Grandma would notice while she knits in the back seat.

Again, the new 7.3, by all accounts, is going to be a nice engine with impressive specs, but . . .

[Florida Ranger]

I am on my 3rd V-10 class C motorhome, regular maintenance it will not let you down. My company only uses F 450 4x4 automatics for heavy equipment service trucks. Last count I think we have approx 105 trucks, less down time than any brand diesel on the market. I will be watching the 7.3 engine very closely.

[Jopopsy]

Originally Posted by Florida Ranger

I am on my 3rd V-10 class C motorhome, regular maintenance it will not let you down. My company only uses F 450 4x4 automatics for heavy equipment service trucks. Last count I think we have approx 105 trucks, less down time than any brand diesel on the market. I will be watching the 7.3 engine very closely.

The 6.8 v10 is a true workhorse engine. Not elegant, but just keeps going. I too am interested in how the new motor compares to the 6.8, either 2v or 3v.

It may not be the sexiest thing on my coach, but it’s the one item I don’t worry about working.

[Atlee]

Understand what you are saying about the turbo charged 6.7 PS and the other large diesel engines. And for anyone who lives between Colorado and California and has to drive in either the Sierra Nevada's or the Rockies or other high ranges, would be foolish to be using much else.

However that big block 7.3L should do fine for 1) fleet users especially in the eastern 2/3's of the US, and 2) for most of the population that lives in the Midwest and East. That 7.3L may be all the big pulling power they will ever need.

Originally Posted by CampNow

Agree, the new 7.3, by all accounts, is going to be a nice engine with impressive specs.

However, let's say for the sake of argument the 7.3 had the same amount of HP and the same amount of torque as a big-bore turbo diesel. Obviously we know that won't be true, but bear with me for a second.

Important to know: The 7.3 is naturally aspirated. Again, the 7.3 is naturally aspirated.

Even if the 7.3 did have the same HP and torque numbers as a big-bore turbo-charged diesel, it will NOT be able to access that torque below 2,000 rpm like a big-bore turbo diesel. Being naturally aspirated, the 7.3 will be forced to rev up to 3,000 - 3,500 rpms to access that torque peak--especially on hills and climbs. The big-bore turbo diesels, during normal operation, operate at or near their torque peak (at a leisurely 1,800-2,000 rpm) a large part of the time--compliments of that very effective turbo-charger (and diesel engine). This simple difference makes for a HUGE difference in realworld driveability. This is a difference even your Grandma would notice while she knits in the back seat.

Again, the new 7.3, by all accounts, is going to be a nice engine with impressive specs, but . . .

[CampNow]

Originally Posted by Atlee

Understand what you are saying about the turbo charged 6.7 PS and the other large diesel engines. And for anyone who lives between Colorado and California and has to drive in either the Sierra Nevada's or the Rockies or other high ranges, would be foolish to be using much else.

However that big block 7.3L should do fine for 1) fleet users especially in the eastern 2/3's of the US, and 2) for most of the population that lives in the Midwest and East. That 7.3L may be all the big pulling power they will ever need.

Thank you for emphasizing the importance of application. I agree it's important to understand what kind of performance can be expected from any given engine based on how it's used.

IMO, the ideal engine (vs. the 7.3) would have been a larger displacement version of the proven 3.5 turbo-charged Ecoboost. I have a difficult time understanding why Ford didn't make, say, a 4.5 litre version for their HD trucks. They could have easily detuned it a bit to ensure maximum reliability under commercial conditions. I'm guess-estimating even in a detuned state (in conjunction with the additional litre of displacement) it could have easily produced 450+ HP and 575+ lb. ft of torque at 2,000 to 2,250 rpm's--basically a torque monster. This would have meant less downshifts, lower engine rpm, basically lower NVH while towing/hauling larger loads (vs. the 7.3).