In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
What I type may matter, but I'm not the Fed Chairman, where each word can be dissected to mean something... 
In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
What I type may matter, but I'm not the Fed Chairman, where each word can be dissected to mean something...
STM317 said:NordicSaab said:Strage. That seems like old technology with new polish. I wonder if this is a re-engineer of their 7.3 Diesel?
all I know is my Powerstroke 6.7L delivers 21MPG and 800ft lbs of torque. I doubt this comes anywhere close to those figures.
Do you see 21mpg with emissions equipment intact? That would be pretty much unheard of. Most people/reviewers typically see fuel economy in the mid-teens with the HD diesels.
Diesel is getting expensive enough (and gas engines are getting good enough) that some fleets are skipping the diesel. With gas engines, you have far less maintenance, no costly aftertreatment systems, and a much lower initial buy in. This is especially true if the truck sees frequent short distance trips, lots of stop/go driving, or lots of time idling which can cause expensive maintenance issues and downtime for modern diesels.
I just drove the truck and the fuel mileage gauge is at 20.4MPG average over the last tank (I reset when I fill up). The last couple of tanks have been similar. The truck is a 2012 KR 2WD(this might make a difference, -1000 lbs, less rolling resistance, and lower ride height). It retains all stock emission equipment. The only modification is a "Street" tune from a SCT X4 tuner. I also live in FL, so there are no real hills to speak of. IDK, I have been very happy with the fuel economy.
Several fleets are passing on the diesels due to the cost of operation and repairs. I know UPS is using Chevy V8s in most of their trucks locally. If Ford wants their piece of that pie they need a truck engine to compete with.
Toyman01 said:Several fleets are passing on the diesels due to the cost of operation and repairs. I know UPS is using Chevy V8s in most of their trucks locally. If Ford wants their piece of that pie they need a truck engine to compete with.
Bingo! I know the Ram 6.4 was heavily influenced by fleet requests.
I would still personally need a diesel, but this is pretty awesome that Ford for once kind of went back to a old school truck motor for their trucks.
450 hp 600 torque. That’s my guess.
If the 10 speed can stand up to it, it will run with the diesels. More gears will make up for the lack of torque. Hideous MPG but I’ll bet total cost involved will make a strong argument for gas.
edit: advertised hp will be 428
alfadriver said:spacecadet said:Large motor that takes what will probably be a marginal hit in fuel economy to avoid maintenance issues and costs related to Diesels and GDI.
I bet this will be very popular with fleet customers, where downtime is more expensive than any efficiency loss vs a diesel.
For most DI engines, what maintenance issues are there? Some have intake deposit problems, sure, but most don't. So other than giving it fuel, and changing the oil- there's nothing to do.
even if they don't have large deposits, auxiliary fueling is the only way to clean the backsides of the valves. and to avoid the large deposits without aux fueling requires more costly PCV systems.
more, more, more.. all of them require more components than just standard port injection.
In reply to stuart in mn :
Ha, same here. I also agreed with that math. 512 IS better than 427.
spacecadet said:I bet this will be very popular with fleet customers, where downtime is more expensive than any efficiency loss vs a diesel.
This 100%.
Fleets can lose tens of thousands of dollars if a truck is down for a few days.
Edit : My figures - 430 HP 590 TQ
This is cool but I'll be much more excited about it in 10-15 years when these start hitting junk yards and getting cheap.
450/600
GM just announced that the 2020 Silverado/Sierra HDs will offer a 6.6L gasoline engine with 401 HP and 464 lb-ft of torque. I'm curious if this is LS or LT-based. Or a whole 'nother beastie.
spacecadet said:alfadriver said:spacecadet said:Large motor that takes what will probably be a marginal hit in fuel economy to avoid maintenance issues and costs related to Diesels and GDI.
I bet this will be very popular with fleet customers, where downtime is more expensive than any efficiency loss vs a diesel.
For most DI engines, what maintenance issues are there? Some have intake deposit problems, sure, but most don't. So other than giving it fuel, and changing the oil- there's nothing to do.
even if they don't have large deposits, auxiliary fueling is the only way to clean the backsides of the valves. and to avoid the large deposits without aux fueling requires more costly PCV systems.
more, more, more.. all of them require more components than just standard port injection.
People keep posting that, but there's no real solid data, other than a handful of cars, that suggest it's a real problem. Especially since it also suggests that PFI engines don't have the same problem, and they do- when heavy HC evaporate on the back of the valve, the build up in either case.
Yes, there are more parts to DI. But is it turning out to be a reliability problem?? I'm not aware of any significant high pressure pump failures. And DI injectors probably fail at the same rate as PFI injectors do.
If you don't want a DI engine, that's fine, but the "fear" isn't justified via actual data. If it were, there would be emissions recalls all over the place.
TLDR
TFL 2020 Ford Super Duty 7.3L V8: Here's What You Need to Know!
alfadriver said:In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
What I type may matter, but I'm not the Fed Chairman, where each word can be dissected to mean something...
When you say dissected you're implying that this new motor will be easy to take apart/work on, aren't you? I knew it!
fasted58 said:TLDR
TFL 2020 Ford Super Duty 7.3L V8: Here's What You Need to Know!
My first reaction, OMG, Joel! I've known him for 20 years- he was part of the V12 program that went into the DB7.
edit- yes, watch that- Joel is explaining pretty much every thing I know "why" this engine exists. Interesting that he's so open with it.
barefootskater said:This is cool but I'll be much more excited about it in 10-15 years when these start hitting junk yards and getting cheap.
450/600
And do focus on these early year ones- if one pays attention, other than the electronic throttle, MS can run that engine. PFI v8 with simple single cam VCT. Easy,
In reply to NordicSaab :
I’ve seen 21.5 mpg on a 900 mile trip through the mountains in 20-35 degree temps with an empty open car trailer with my cummins 4x4. I believe it. However, hook up a 28’ enclosed trailer and stuff 2 cars and another couple thousand pounds of parts (around 11500 of trailer and bed cargo) in it and it drops to 11.5.
alfadriver said:ShawnG said:The Triton engines are the reason I bought an older F-series with the 460.
That final generation 460 was one of the best truck motors I've ever had. Glad to see Ford getting back to doing what they seem to know best.
I really don't care that much about fuel economy in a tow rig. It's going to take fuel to do a job and you're never going to get around that fact.
Interesting that you say that, but I bet if you could get 20% better FE, you would really like having it. One person I've talked with tells me that customers really love the RV engine that gets them 12mpg vs. 8.
(and this powertrain does include RVs)
8 mpg to 12 mpg is like a 50% increase. Hell yeah I'd love that in an RV. So instead of a 280 mile range you have a 420 mile range with a 35 gallon tank.
I can imagine this engine being "low-tech" for many of the same reasons we love the LS: A lot of those attributes make for a more compact engine. Less tech should mean less development and production costs which should mean lower costs on the retail side.
While I'm still somewhat stuck with a diesel in my van for other reasons (I what diesel for an aux heater as I don't want to carry propane), I'm still intrigued what this engine will be in crate form.
NickD said:This seems more like a Ram move.
Ram would just bring back the v10(I wish) or throw an srt engine in the truck without calling it an srt engine.
That said I wonder what Dodge could do with a v10 truck engine again.
That, as a crate engine with the 10 speed, would make SanFord very happy.
I do like a a gas engine with grunt.
Watched the video. I think I want that motor/transmission for Ferdinand.
NickD said:Today Ford announced that the new 3/4-ton and 1-ton trucks will have an optional new 7.3L gas V8. What's odd is that this engine kind of bucks every trend that ford has been championing. It's an iron-block, pushrod-equipped, port-injected V8 with 7.3L of displacement. Kind of flies in the face of their aluminum everything, smaller displacement with forced induction, and overhead camshafts and direct injection.
No word on power or torque (Ford seems to have rushed their truck announcement just to try and steal GM's HD release's thunder). No clue how thirsty this thing is going to be either, but I'm guessing "Very". The 6.2L F-350 I drove had an average of 8-9mpg.
There has been a lot of scuttlebutt about this engine based on rumors and a few spy photos. Some people thought that it might have some sort of camless valve actuation and that is why there was no apparent overhead cams.
Instead it looks like a mirror image Chevy 8100 with a different front dress. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.
alfadriver said:The real answer is that the vehicles that this goes in uses a MUCH broader amount of their power output than most light duty vehicles (which accounts for 90% of the pick ups out there).
And higher end efficiency and emissions now really matters a lot as opposed to some. That alters the compromise equation quite a lot.
I've always figured that the F350 and to a lesser extent F250 (work trucks) were meant to be run near WOT basically forever. For that you need displacement and cooling. I wouldn't want to sit an Ecoboost at a high percentage of its rated power for huge amounts of time and expect it to last 200k.
I'm assuming that this 7.3 is also going to be in the F450 and up, as well.
We have a V10 F650 box truck at work and it is perfect. All local trips, never heavy loaded, and a lot of different drivers. The lease on a brand new one was cheaper than the payments on a ratty 10 year old diesel, and when the lease is up we will throw it in the gutter and go get another.
stuart in mn said:alfadriver said:Interesting that you say that, but I bet if you could get 20% better FE, you would really like having it.
Since this is a Ford discussion, the first thing that popped in my head when I read that was the old FE series of Ford engines.
By that reasoning a 20% better 427 would be a 512.
How about a 534?
Maybe more like an MEL than an FE, what with those angled decks.
I like Ford, but it seems like every time Chevy did something, they'd do it too. I mean, yeah, there may have been solid manufacturing (cheapness) reasons why to go with an angled deck, but not very good engine performance ones. The 534 was mainly known for being thirsty, and not much power for the trouble.
You'll need to log in to post.
