The new Ford 7.3 gasser

[ASTMedic]

Originally Posted by CampNow

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).

Agree. They've had good results with the ecoboost line of engines why not just upaize it.

[Atlee]

If I had to guess, simplicity. The new 7.3L in today's world is pretty simple.
Push rods, instead of over head cams. Short timing chains instead of long double timing chains/belts. Also, not having the turbos etc. And supposedly it is built for long service life, with things like wide cylinder spacing.

Those turbos absolutely add to the complexity. While it's proven over a lot of years, those things can be costly should they fail. I have the 3.5L EB in my 2014 F150. Currently, it has 68k + miles on it, with at least 1/2 towing a 6500# GVWR trailer. I have also changed oil every 5k miles since I've had it. I consider my usage as worse than Normal/Light Duty. To date, Ford, on it's nickel, has replaced the throttle body, both timing chains, and both turbos.

I'm guessing fleets are not looking for that type of complexity.

Of course, we'll all know more when those engines are put out on the street.

Originally Posted by ASTMedic

Agree. They've had good results with the ecoboost line of engines why not just upaize it.

[RetiredLEO]

I am timing my purchase of the new 7.3 in either a new Class C or in a F-250 to pull a TT. I am hoping for either a 2nd year or a 3rd year model to get a feeling if they are either great or a flop.

[CampNow]

Originally Posted by Atlee

If I had to guess, simplicity. The new 7.3L in today's world is pretty simple.
Push rods, instead of over head cams. Short timing chains instead of long double timing chains/belts. Also, not having the turbos etc. And supposedly it is built for long service life, with things like wide cylinder spacing.

Those turbos absolutely add to the complexity. While it's proven over a lot of years, those things can be costly should they fail. I have the 3.5L EB in my 2014 F150. Currently, it has 68k + miles on it, with at least 1/2 towing a 6500# GVWR trailer. I have also changed oil every 5k miles since I've had it. I consider my usage as worse than Normal/Light Duty. To date, Ford, on it's nickel, has replaced the throttle body, both timing chains, and both turbos.

I'm guessing fleets are not looking for that type of complexity.

Of course, we'll all know more when those engines are put out on the street.

Sorry to hear about the problems you encountered with your Ecoboost. However, rather doubt these kinds of failures are high proportionate to sales. If they were, seriously doubt the Ecoboost would be the sales success it is today. In the grand scheme of things, it's a time proven engine.

As for fleet sales engine requirements, you make some very valid points. Fleet sale buyers focus more on reliability, and low upfront, long-term operating costs. Refined drive-ability, comfort, and NVH take a back seat.

That's fine for fleet sales. What about the average Joe or Jane who wants to pull their trailer in style on weekends?

I say let the Ford fleet sales department have the 7.3. Ford should consider producing an "RV Special Edition" line of heavy duty trucks for their everyday consumers--and proudly display them in their showrooms--lol! Ideally, there would be two optional mid-size engines. One, a 4.5 litre turbo-charged Ecoboost type engine (with 450 hp/575 lb. ft.), and another 5.0 litre turbo-charged diesel engine (with 350 hp/700 lb. ft.). These engines would focus primarily on fuel efficiency, refined drive-ability, and de-tuned for reliability (especially the diesel version). This would leave the 6.7 Power Stroke with the primary responsibility of taking on competitors in the currently on-going torque war. Both of these mid-size engines would easily outperform the 7.3, both in terms of raw towing performance and refined drive-ability due to the turbo. As for reliability, no worse, maybe even better than the highly successful 3.5 Ecoboost. Since neither engine would be engaged in a power war (that would be left up to the 6.7 PS), it would allow both engines to be detuned, placing a priority on fuel efficiency and reliability---a win-win.

[curver900]

Originally Posted by Rustic Eagle

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

true that!!! they are a snappy truck...
you are correct in that respect... I have the 14 with 100k mile power train warranty so when they first came out they must have thought they hit the ball out of the park.. but in 2015 they changed to 60k warranty... i guess they aren't as industry leading as they thought even the 2019 6.2L AFM's are failing... these clips from the industry make me laugh... the ford 6.0L Diesel was the most tested, pile of crap.. then the 6.4 by 2010 wasn't bad but too many problems.. then the AFM from GM.. ugggggg.. and their diesels had their fair share of problems.. injectors, glow plugs..
I guess they test them all on a flat racetrack in 70 degree weather and go around in circles for days on end... going up to 70mph... or they would have noticed that all the 2014 and on GM 1/2 tons vibrated....
All in all though the 7.3L after it has been out for 2 years will be the gas motor to beat i suspect... maybe they will put a turbo on that bad boy too!!!

[curver900]

Originally Posted by Atlee

If I had to guess, simplicity. The new 7.3L in today's world is pretty simple.
Push rods, instead of over head cams. Short timing chains instead of long double timing chains/belts. Also, not having the turbos etc. And supposedly it is built for long service life, with things like wide cylinder spacing.

Those turbos absolutely add to the complexity. While it's proven over a lot of years, those things can be costly should they fail. I have the 3.5L EB in my 2014 F150. Currently, it has 68k + miles on it, with at least 1/2 towing a 6500# GVWR trailer. I have also changed oil every 5k miles since I've had it. I consider my usage as worse than Normal/Light Duty. To date, Ford, on it's nickel, has replaced the throttle body, both timing chains, and both turbos.

I'm guessing fleets are not looking for that type of complexity.

Of course, we'll all know more when those engines are put out on the street.

GM's no better.. for me new rearend, dropped valve caused a new top end, and lots and lots of little crud... but I deleted the AFM after the fix was done to mine... that is supposed to take care of the valve issues... most are getting 250k miles out of them without the AFM... with AFM anywhere from 500 miles to 100k valves drop... sometimes twice in that space of time... at least I am covered for another 30k ... then I don't know what I will do... I guess with the price of trucks getting so ridiculous I will just put a new motor if it comes to that.. cheaper than a new truck...

[ASTMedic]

Originally Posted by CampNow

Sorry to hear about the problems you encountered with your Ecoboost. However, rather doubt these kinds of failures are high proportionate to sales. If they were, seriously doubt the Ecoboost would be the sales success it is today. In the grand scheme of things, it's a time proven engine.

As for fleet sales engine requirements, you make some very valid points. Fleet sale buyers focus more on reliability, and low upfront, long-term operating costs. Refined drive-ability, comfort, and NVH take a back seat.

That's fine for fleet sales. What about the average Joe or Jane who wants to pull their trailer in style on weekends?

I say let the Ford fleet sales department have the 7.3. Ford should consider producing an "RV Special Edition" line of heavy duty trucks for their everyday consumers--and proudly display them in their showrooms--lol! Ideally, there would be two optional mid-size engines. One, a 4.5 litre turbo-charged Ecoboost type engine (with 450 hp/575 lb. ft.), and another 5.0 litre turbo-charged diesel engine (with 350 hp/700 lb. ft.). These engines would focus primarily on fuel efficiency, refined drive-ability, and de-tuned for reliability (especially the diesel version). This would leave the 6.7 Power Stroke with the primary responsibility of taking on competitors in the currently on-going torque war. Both of these mid-size engines would easily outperform the 7.3, both in terms of raw towing performance and refined drive-ability due to the turbo. As for reliability, no worse, maybe even better than the highly successful 3.5 Ecoboost. Since neither engine would be engaged in a power war (that would be left up to the 6.7 PS), it would allow both engines to be detuned, placing a priority on fuel efficiency and reliability---a win-win.

I think part of the reason for a larger gas motor is trying to appeal to those who don't want the issues with new diesel emissions but to give them the towing power they want. This is the main reason I'm in an F250 with the 6.2 right now, I don't want the cost that comes with the diesel. I would however like a little more towing power when in the mountains and the 7.3 would give me that. I do agree that durability would make sense when opting to go non turbo for Ford. Less things to go wrong and all around just more simplistic makes for less things to fail.

[33 RLDS]

Love my 8.1 in my Avalanche. Pulls my 10K like a champ. Only negative is she is thirsty as hell !

We are looking to downsize in a few years to a couples camper and I am digging the big 3 all offering small diesels in the 1/2 ton trucks. They are definitely on my radar. But with my 2004 Avalanche only having 38K miles on her, I should be good for a while.

[Wireman]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enth...cid=spartanntp

[ASTMedic]

Originally Posted by Wireman

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enth...cid=spartanntp

It's looking promising. I'm mostly happy with the 6.2 but more power while not having to jump to a diesel would be amazing.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by Atlee

To date, Ford, on it's nickel, has replaced the throttle body, both timing chains, and both turbos.

Yikes; that's not exactly encouraging in my opinion.


D

[RetiredLEO]

When the 2020 7.3 hits the road there's going to be a lot of nice 2-3 year old F-250 gassers hitting the market............. good times ahead for new buyers and us used buyers