New Ford 7.3 V8
I see people calling this a “big block” engine. Is it part of a series of engines of different displacements based on a common “big” block?
Forum Discussion
59 Replies
BenK wrote:
Guessing direct injection and direct fire. All great stuff.
Nope! Not out of the box to start with.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/inside-look-fords-new-7-3l-pushrod-v8/Boomerweps wrote:
Jeeze Louise, big block vs. small block V8!
It's not that hard to understand, ladies.
Makers would take existing designs, I.e., the existing engine block, and change its bore or piston stroke length or both to increase displacement and hopefully gain power. So most makers based engine designs on few basic castings, like two sizes, hence big and small block terms. Ford, for example, started with a 260 cu. in. V8 and took that to a 302 small block. 390 and up into the 500s were the big blocks. I THINK the 351 was based on the small block but I'm not sure. In GM's case, small blocks from the factory were 350 cu.in. and below. 396, 427, 502 were based on the same engine block.
Side issue: Where and when do manufacturers change the listed sizes in liters? My 305 cu.in. is a 5.0L. So was the 302 cu.in. a 5.0L. Not big enough a change to use a different logo, like the 5.4 or 3.5 or 2.7L?
Not correct.
Ford had a 351 big block and a 400 small block.
Gm had a 400 small block and a 396 big block.
If you are going to talk smart and act like you know what you're talking about, you best be knowing what you're talking about...- Ford called this new engine internally "Godzilla" for a reason... Big Block. I believe the bore spacing is why this engine is considered a big block.
BenK wrote:
GM has the new 6.6noteven wrote:
So would a turbocharged 7.3 (maybe Eco isn’t quite accurate) be a sweet engine or what?
Say 650 torques at 2500rpm 450hp at 3900rpm about 400 torques at 1600rpm in road gear on the freeway.
Been waiting for this and hoping GM will update their big block offering
Continue to enjoy my 1996 7.4L GM big block. Redline is around 3,800 RPM's and this new Ford 7.3L's redline is around 4,975 RPMs
Guessing direct injection and direct fire. All great stuff
Wishing for GM to match this big block and then might consider a new TV or just build my old 7.4L with whatever new components that comes...Boomerweps wrote:
Jeeze Louise, big block vs. small block V8!
It's not that hard to understand, ladies.
Makers would take existing designs, I.e., the existing engine block, and change its bore or piston stroke length or both to increase displacement and hopefully gain power. So most makers based engine designs on few basic castings, like two sizes, hence big and small block terms. Ford, for example, started with a 260 cu. in. V8 and took that to a 302 small block. 390 and up into the 500s were the big blocks. I THINK the 351 was based on the small block but I'm not sure. In GM's case, small blocks from the factory were 350 cu.in. and below. 396, 427, 502 were based on the same engine block.
Yes Sir. We, or most of us, understand. Of course, some may think your description is somewhat limited in only big/small (For instance, where does Ford Y block fit? And the Super Duty line?) and the size limits you list.
But if a new engine is only available in one displacement why is it a "big block".- Jeeze Louise, big block vs. small block V8!
It's not that hard to understand, ladies.
Makers would take existing designs, I.e., the existing engine block, and change its bore or piston stroke length or both to increase displacement and hopefully gain power. So most makers based engine designs on few basic castings, like two sizes, hence big and small block terms. Ford, for example, started with a 260 cu. in. V8 and took that to a 302 small block. 390 and up into the 500s were the big blocks. I THINK the 351 was based on the small block but I'm not sure. In GM's case, small blocks from the factory were 350 cu.in. and below. 396, 427, 502 were based on the same engine block.
Side issue: Where and when do manufacturers change the listed sizes in liters? My 305 cu.in. is a 5.0L. So was the 302 cu.in. a 5.0L. Not big enough a change to use a different logo, like the 5.4 or 3.5 or 2.7L? noteven wrote:
Dave H M wrote:
I do not get this throw back to the good old days when we had mouse motors and rat motors and little blocks and big blocks. Personally i think that those terms have gone out of style with grannie's high button shoes.
I think modern day motors are what their displacement is. :h
I agree. It’s why I was wondering why it is being called a “big” block...
I read a Ford advertisement. They didn't refer to the new engine as a Big Block.
I'm guessing it's the general public and probably some writers who don't know any better using the term Big Block.
It took me a while to get accustomed to seeing engine size in liters and not cubic inches.
But, Big Block sounds impressive and cool.:C
Maybe the term will be around for a long time.noteven wrote:
So would a turbocharged 7.3 (maybe Eco isn’t quite accurate) be a sweet engine or what?
Say 650 torques at 2500rpm 450hp at 3900rpm about 400 torques at 1600rpm in road gear on the freeway.
Been waiting for this and hoping GM will update their big block offering
Continue to enjoy my 1996 7.4L GM big block. Redline is around 3,800 RPM's and this new Ford 7.3L's redline is around 4,975 RPMs
Guessing direct injection and direct fire. All great stuff
Wishing for GM to match this big block and then might consider a new TV or just build my old 7.4L with whatever new components that comes...rjstractor wrote:
JRscooby wrote:
LanceRKeys wrote:
A turbo big block 7.3 would require a huge fuel tank, a big fuel line, and some big radiators. The owner would need deep pockets.
I fail to understand your logic. Back in the day some trucks where sold with the same displacement diesel with and without turbos. Over time, and really a short time, the non-turbo was pretty much gone because of more power and better fuel mileage.
And doesn't Ford advertise their smaller turbo/gas engines as "Econo"?
Diesel is a bit of a different animal, although it's a misnomer that the turbo engines get better mileage. Some of the early non turbo diesel pickups could get well over 20 mpg on the highway, but they had no power.
Yes, Ford does brand their gas turbo engines as "Eco", but they really don't get significantly better mileage than N/A gas engines of similar power. Towing, they burn just as much fuel. A 7.3 turbo would probably be overkill. I could see an "Eco" engine of maybe 4.5-5 liters, but engineering one that can handle the same towing duty cycle as the new 7.3 gas or other large gas pickup engines hasn't been figured out yet.
Had an
11 5.0 V8 N/A regular driving it got 14mpg towing 8.2 if I was lucky after 6 months of that **** traded it in on a
11 3.5 eco regular driving it gets 16mpg towing it gets 10mpg
18 3.5 eco regular driving 17.6mpg towing it gets 10.7mpg
I would say the 3.5 eco does significantly better than the N/A engine everyday anyday :D
Prior to that had a 08 350 dually that pulled a 14k 5th wheel that got 14mpg regular driving and 8.5mpgs towing the 5th
