New Ford 7.3 V8

dodge guy wrote:
Ok everyone, the big block vs small block debate is ridiculous. Obviously most of you don't know much about engines. The term came from the physical size of the engine, not the displacement!

And if we want we can give the triton motors 3 designations, the 4.6 is a small block, the 5.4 is a big block, and the 6.8 is a bigger block. The physical size of each engine is larger than the next!

This! The big difference between the 4.6 and 5.4 is the 5.4 block is an inch taller tan the 4.6 but it is still a SBF.

In regards to t he LS series of engines.
A 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 etc is the same size block with a different stroke and sometimes bore.

6.0 has a 4.0 inch bore while the 4.8 and 5.3 have a 3.78 inch bore.

The original aluminum LS1 was the same size block with a 3.9 inch bore.

LS7 had what I believe to be the largest production bore at 4.25 inches and that is a 427 small block.

There are largest displacement aftermarket LS small blocks. Same size block.

Same physical size, that is why LS swaps are so popular.

BenK wrote:
GM 6.6L is based on the small block. Ref link below

https://www.google.com/amp/gmauthority.com/blog/2019/02/gm-planning-new-engine-larger-than-new-6-6l-v8-l8t/amp/

A small block will most likely never have the duty cycle of a big block...maybe if they spend tons and tons of $$$

Direct injection doesn’t have gasoline washing the intake port and EGR deposits won’t be washed away

Oil sprayed at the piston bottoms a nifty thermal metric

Still love my L29...but if GM comes out with a similar big block...WOW...just might get one

You really need to see the longevity and mileagae a 6.0 gets vs a 7.4. You would be suprised. Tons of guys are doing it now with no 7.4 or 8.1 to offer. I went from a 1989 7.4 to 2002 6.0 to a 2017 6.0. You couldn't give me a 7.4 for free at this point.

Grit dog wrote:
^Yeah GM is still sucking wind in the gas HD truck engines, even with the new 6.6. Maybe they'll be under rated, hopefully.

Except the 6.4 with outgoing 6 speed never out pulled the 6.0 with the 6 speed. It wasn't geared properly and didn't put as much HP to wheels as you thought it should based off of the advertised power the engine made.
It is more about power to wheels and gearing. You can advertise any horse power you want. I want to see real world towing numbers.

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.

For GM that was sort of prior to the last 8.1
You can now get a 527 C.I. LSx based engine which is still a small block.

It sounds like the hemi is history. New I6 turbo with 500hp capability is now in the news for FCA. No serpentine belt. All electric motors for accessories.

Me Again wrote:

noteven wrote:
A Hall-Scott in-line six, overhead cam, 1000 cubic inches is a big block.

Our Sea Scout ship, an ex USCG 38' picket boat originally had a 225 HP Hall-Scout I-6 Defender. It was replaced with a Chrysler Royal I-8, and while I was a member we installed a surplus 6-71 Graymarine(Detroit).

I know from being around some Kenworth history that Hall-Scott 4 sumpin and “590” engines were available in trucks.

ib516 wrote:

colliehauler wrote:
I think Ford picked the 7.3 liter displacement to capitalize on the reputation of the old 7.3 Diesel. It sounds like it's built very stout and should preform well. Will be interesting to see what it does in the real world for mpg and performance. My 19 year old V-10 manual transmission is still going strong after 200k miles. I just took it on a 800 mile trip last weekend (solo) and averaged 13.75 mpg.

Same as the rumored "426 Hemi" that Ram will introduce in the 2500/3500/4500/5500 trucks in the next year or two. IMO this engine is the reason the 5.7L Hemi is no longer available in the 2500+ trucks.
The 6.4L will be the base engine and the 426 Hemi will be the optional gas power plant. Much like Ford and the 6.2L/7.3L gas engines. They will market the heck out of that "426". I believe 426 cu. in. works out to 7.0L. So they should be able to get better hp/tq numbers than the GM 6.6L gasser and similar to the 7.3L Ford has put out.

The current 392 Hemi was also the size of the early Hemi engine.

colliehauler wrote:
I think Ford picked the 7.3 liter displacement to capitalize on the reputation of the old 7.3 Diesel. It sounds like it's built very stout and should preform well. Will be interesting to see what it does in the real world for mpg and performance. My 19 year old V-10 manual transmission is still going strong after 200k miles. I just took it on a 800 mile trip last weekend (solo) and averaged 13.75 mpg.

Same as the rumored "426 Hemi" that Ram will introduce in the 2500/3500/4500/5500 trucks in the next year or two. IMO this engine is the reason the 5.7L Hemi is no longer available in the 2500+ trucks.
The 6.4L will be the base engine and the 426 Hemi will be the optional gas power plant. Much like Ford and the 6.2L/7.3L gas engines. They will market the heck out of that "426". I believe 426 cu. in. works out to 7.0L. So they should be able to get better hp/tq numbers than the GM 6.6L gasser and similar to the 7.3L Ford has put out.

noteven wrote:
A Hall-Scott in-line six, overhead cam, 1000 cubic inches is a big block.

Our Sea Scout ship, an ex USCG 38' picket boat originally had a 225 HP Hall-Scout I-6 Defender. It was replaced with a Chrysler Royal I-8, and while I was a member we installed a surplus 6-71 Graymarine(Detroit).

Huntindog wrote:

As usual, some respond without reading,/comprehending my entire post.

HINT: I said MOST!!
I stand by that statement.
If it doesn't apply to you..... Don't get your panties in a bunch.

BTW..... 797 HP is available stock. No need to even tune it.

I know what you meant, and most people I know who have tuned their own diesel truck also installed hard parts or configured hard parts on their truck in one fashion or another or have a garage do it. In many cases they tune the truck to take advantage of these hard parts. Very few people that I know only tune and that is it. Although, the tuners themselves have to get their hands dirty in the tuning process as well. There is a lot more involved than just hooking up a laptop and doing a remap. Lots of dyno and driving time especially for street driven tunes and even more so for tow tunes.

Tuning a fuel map on an ECM is no different than configuring a carburetor, adjusting timing on a distributor, or replacing a cam. The difference is that these parts were fixed back in the day and could not be adjusted as you are driving. With today's engines, they are not fixed and can be adjusted via the ECM. One of the main reasons why they are adjustable is due to emissions requirements (both gas and diesel) and in many cases power can be added(up too a point) by removing this emissions tuning.

However, you still need to add hard parts to increase power past this point. For N/A engines, you can't get that much added power and will have to start adding hard parts if you want to get any real increase in power over 30hp. For forced induction engines, a lot more power can be had out of the box especially diesels due to how the restrictive the factory tuning is to keep the engine within emission standards. Well over 50hp can be had with FI engines with just tunning.