Ford 7.3L GASSER rumor confirmed

Well it makes sense since so many people are jumping the diesel ship and going wit ha gasser! the diesels have just become to unreliable and to complex, which is what made them so valuable before.

dodge guy wrote:
Well it makes sense since so many people are jumping the diesel ship and going wit ha gasser! the diesels have just become to unreliable and to complex, which is what made them so valuable before.

I see you are still munching on those sour grapes. I would have to wager that people on both sides are jumping ship from what I have seen here and on the Ram forums.

Also you say complex as if today's chain driven, variable valve timing, cam phaser, variable displacement, variable ignition, direct injected, adjustable intake runner gas engines are elementary and can be worked on by anyone with a basic tool set. I think it is safe to say that all engines today have some components that require more knowledge and special tools than what you would not find in a typical vehicle owners garage. However, I bet you that more Cummins diesel owners are willing and able to work on their engine than most modern gasser owners.

The diesel engines themselves are fine. It is the emission systems and mostly the particulate filters that I am hearing about. The story I hear from the truckers that I know is that the new engines burn burn a third more fuel that the old ones. I have heard more complaints about the off road diesels, including my own Kubota tractor. Keeping them hot enough to keep carbon from building up in the exhaust system is a challenge. I have already had one $1500 repair because a chunk of carbon jammed the EGR valve. One Deere's own site a customer complains that he had $5,000 repair at 50 hours from not keeping his exhaust hot enough. Kubota covered my repair under warrentee at 700 hours, Deere stuck him for the bill. A friend had a $17,000 repair on his Cat skid steer due to emissions controls and his business was down for three weeks. The farmers I know would rather have good used equipment than new. And there is no escaping the high carbon content of diesel which is blamed for global warming. I think that we can expect a carbon tax on diesel as soon as Trump is out of the White House. Even with the current price of diesel vs gasoline I go gasoline when I have the choice. Nobody builds gasoline tractors right now but I liked the old Ford 3000 gas burner that I had and would gladly buy another gas engine if I could. The cost of diesel is part of why I don't own a diesel truck. So far no issues with the two Ecoboost engines that I have or the gas engines that proceeded them.
I think that the 7.3 is going to be very popular with people who
1) Don't drive a lot miles
2) Idle a lot. This includes most emergency vehicles and bucket trucks
3) Don't want to spend $8,000 more for a diesel
4) Want to burn CNG (heavy city use)

I expect the 7.3 to go a long ways toward closing the performance gap between the 6.2 gas engine and the current diesels. Time will tell. What is going to be more interesting is seeing how long before both are replaced by electric.

I feel like the the HD gas trucks/suv's are in that constricting era that muscle cars went through in the 80's. You had all the big power cars before the 80's and then nothing but turds for a while. 90's rolled around and it has been improving performance ever since.

The HD gassers seem kind of stuck. I would love to see a ford 7.3 gas. Maybe GM and Ram would have to step it up a bit to compete. Bring back the 8.1 GM and I'm sure Ram would come up with something too.

Wow, I wonder how thirsty that moose will be? My Ford 6.2 can do over 7 gallons per hour if it grunting.

Groover wrote:
The diesel engines themselves are fine. It is the emission systems and mostly the particulate filters that I am hearing about. The story I hear from the truckers that I know is that the new engines burn burn a third more fuel that the old ones.

Stories from truckers are just that, stories. Almost all of them don't even pay for their own fuel and certainly don't know how much fuel their truck is burning in comparison to older trucks. Truckers are like many people here, they make their decisions based on emotions and how the feel about something rather then actual data.

Groover wrote:
And there is no escaping the high carbon content of diesel which is blamed for global warming. I think that we can expect a carbon tax on diesel as soon as Trump is out of the White House. Even with the current price of diesel vs gasoline I go gasoline when I have the choice.

While diesel fuel has more carbon, gas engines actually emit higher CO2 emissions than diesel engines. That is a fact. And I can Guarantee you that your Ecoboost engines emit more particulate matter than current diesels too. Heck, they probably even emit more PM than my deleted diesel. NOx on the other hand....

"Truckers are like many people here, they make their decisions based on emotions and how the feel about something rather then actual data. "

I will give you that one. I am old enough to remember when most trucks had crossbar treads on the drive tires and the drivers were convinced that they would get stuck without them. That tread increased fuel consumption about 10% and you could hear them pounding on the asphalt a mile or two away but it took years to wean the truckers away from it.

If people go purely on facts and Tesla delivers what they are promising I think that they are going to make huge inroads into the diesel market as fast as they can build the trucks. Plus, they have a lot of competition with big names trying to beat them to the market. Tesla is probably going to be running over 1,000hp at any speed so it will be rare for them to slow down due to hills plus they will regenerate going down hill to control their speed so the wild speed variations may go away. Hilly and crowded interstates will be much more pleasant and safe for all of us if that happens.

As for the fuel economy, I am actually amazed with the economy I get from my diesel pusher with a Cummins engine. But, very few people I talk with get the mpg's from their diesel motorhomes that I do. I wish that I understood why mine does so much better than most. I get nearly 12 with just the motorhome and got just under 11 on 4,200 mile trip across the rockies towing a Ford Taurus on a dolly while averaging just over 70mph. It is hard to give exact numbers because the generator pulls from the same tank and it is hard to tell how much the genny burns. I would love to know how the same rig would do with a gas engine, as much out of curiosity as anything else.

Always turns into a diesel vs. gas discussion. We have a thread on that already.

Going to be interesting to see the power numbers. 400+ HP and 500+ torque? Sign me up.

At best it would have half the torque of a modern diesel so no, not many would jump ship for one.

Dave H M wrote:
Wow, I wonder how thirsty that moose will be? My Ford 6.2 can do over 7 gallons per hour if it grunting.

Rumor is the new engine will include a contract with Exxon to refuel via tanker while in motion. Problem$ $olved, gulp gulp gulp.