Ford 7.3 engine users?

[spoon059]

Looking to start a discussion with Ford 7.3 gas owners and how they like the truck. My next truck will be pulling a 14-15K 5th wheel and will be a long bed crew cab. The 7.3 looks to be a really cool engine.

I'm interested in real world experience from owners who have towed with this engine. Is there a benefit with the 4.30 rear end and the 10 speed? Do I LOSE anything with the 4.30?

How does the engine braking do going downhill? I currently have a 6.7 CTD with the exhaust brake and I can descend long grades and lose speed without hitting my brakes. That gives me great comfort for the times I'll be in the mountains. I know that engine braking won't be nearly as strong, but Fast Lane Truck says it's decent.

Long bed CC comes with a 48 gallon tank in the diesel, does it come with a 48 gallon in the gas as well?

Anyone have the built in 2K generator feature yet? I'm hoping that Ford puts the 7K generator option in the near future... that would be really good for boondocking situations.

Is there a chance that Ford offers cylinder displacement for better economy unloaded? I'm not sure if Ford does that or not.

Anything else related to the 7.3 as a tow vehicle and a regular driver...

[blt2ski]

JRscooby wrote:

blt2ski wrote:

I still believe for most interstate driving, a gas rig appropriately loaded, with current technology, will be fine into the low 20k realm.
The only thing a diesel will have generally speaking, is power at 10k feet vs the gas bring 30% down to to elevation. As I don't know if any diesels with out a turbo. With the advent of the eco boost style engines, elevation power loss will not be an issue.

Marty

Marty

I'm not sure if anymore I would declare "above X lbs, you need diesel"
but instead the decision would be based on miles per year. In the past, my thought was how much value is in a engine that will last 2-3 times the useful life of truck? but if drove enough miles/year the fuel savings would pay. But we have got to the point gas engines are lasting long enough that the rest of truck is likely to be reason to get rid of it. Meeting emissions standards with gas has improved efficiency and the parts needed to do it have proven pretty trouble free. The same can't be said about diesel, and cost to repair can exceed value of pickup.

Scooby

Being as Ive seen a number of F750 rigs run by Wa ST mostly DOT rigs. I do believe that gas vs diesel should come down to the how many miles you drive etc. Iis gone from 15-20k miles a year, 80-100k miles to pay for the increased cost of a diesel, to 150-200+k miles, and 30k+ miles a year. This is assuming a 3-5 year ROI on the diesel.
These bigger gas motors have a place in the under 30k gvwr/gcw rigs running down the road.
I pointed out the exhaust brakes in the Isuzu's I've driven since early 80's, as something that's been around awhile too. With some jurisdictions outlawing "Jake brakes", IE the use of velves to get compression braking, exhaust valves do a similar effect. With out the noise issue.
I've have heard about them on gas rigs, I'm going to assume one can still get use out of it. Whether it's as good as used on a diesel. That I don't know.

Marty

[JRscooby]

Grit dog wrote:


Scooby, I know you’re a lifelong truck driver so I try to keep that in mind, but what on earth does a story about a 67 Pete and a bunch of cab lizard lingo have to do with the OPs topic? Besides hearing yourself reminiscing about the past?

I'll start by saying not sure what "cab lizard lingo" you are offended by. (or even what a cab lizard is) Would most readers know any more if I called it 12V71 Detroit Diesel? I think I used a description of a 12 cylinder 2 stroke engine. But the reason I mentioned it was to point out how long the technology for exhaust brake was around, but not commonly used. Somebody else pointed out the early pickup sized diesels did not come equipped.
While the exhaust brake idea was available for larger heavier duty engines long before pickups got diesels, most buyers that wanted to use engine braking (very small percentage) would spec the more expensive, and more effective, system that changed valve action to use compression in the cyl, but let exhaust flow once past the valves.

[FishOnOne]

Me Again wrote:

spoon059 wrote:

Me Again wrote:
Why get rid of a 2015 RAM? I loved my Laramie and would have kept it if I had know how quickly my wife of 40 years was going to step off the planet. ALS is a terrible disease.

My Ram is an 8 year old Tradesman, with awful stock seats that are murder on my back and butt for longer drives. I'm thinking my next truck might need to be a dually (but not sure yet). I currently have a company vehicle that I can drive for work and around town, but I retire from my current job in less than 3 years. I've got my next job lined up, which is fully remote but will require me driving my truck more.

When I retire from this job, we are hoping to do longer trips and staying at destinations longer. I'll have the time to go slower up the big mountains, and I'll be spending more time at the beach or lake and driving the truck to the supermarket, etc.

At this point I'm just doing my due diligence. I got fussed at in another thread for planning ahead, but I'm a planner. I might determine that a gas engine just won't work for my towing needs, but until I do the research, I just don't know... you know?

Yeah, I drove a couple tradesman's before buying the Laramie. And the seats were like setting on an apple crate! Short term go get seats out of a higher trim level. Our Laramie had bucket seats with the full center console and we loved it for traveling back and forth between Wa and Az. 2015 to 2021.

Now a tidbit #1 rule from "me Again", go into retirement with paid off newer vehicles, RVs and other toys.

Not sure how a Tradesman compares to a Bighorn, but our '23 Bighorn 2500 Hemi seats are pretty soft, but could be a bit wider as your legs rest on the side bolsters and this is an issue for me with all Ram HD trucks. I'm 6'3" 240lbs so seat size is a bit important for me. What I don't like about the Ram HD trucks is the lack of telescoping steering wheel. I will say the '23 Super Duty seats are a better fit for me.

[Grit_dog]

blt2ski wrote:
Isuzu LCF models has exhaust brakes std in early 80's. Those rigs needed them for steeper than 10% grades. Less than 6% freeway grades were not a big deal. Granted most of those driven were at gvwr, not gcw. As they went the most powerful creatures.
My 05 dmax, the grade braking of the Allison worked fine when I was in the greater than 15-20k gvwr realm. Freeway weren't a big deal. Greater than local 10% grades, needed the trans grade braking plus an occasional use of truck and trailer brakes.
I will say, exhaust brakes are good to have on diesels. The rigs I have driven with exhaust brakes, behaved as they should. As the engines as designed do not have the best potential compression braking vs gas rig. I believe Scooby pointed out the why.
I still believe for most interstate driving, a gas rig appropriately loaded, with current technology, will be fine into the low 20k realm.
The only thing a diesel will have generally speaking, is power at 10k feet vs the gas bring 30% down to to elevation. As I don't know if any diesels with out a turbo. With the advent of the eco boost style engines, elevation power loss will not be an issue.

Marty

Marty

Same response as Scooby….

[Grit_dog]

JRscooby wrote:

there is ZERO chance that ANY gasser pickup has anywhere near the holding power of a comparable diesel with a good exhaust brake.

Pretending a gaz engine descends the mountain as well as a diesel is
misleading.

So the gods have spoken! No need to run any side by each comparison, because it is true.
I'm not prepared to say it is not true, but I question that it is*

It's always the same issue on a clear sunny day in light traffic everything is always fine.
But on a rainy, windy, day in heavy traffic or whenever conditions are not ideal having the optimum equipment makes a difference.

The 2005 Duramax did not have a factory exhaust brake.
Compare that 05 Duramax or that 8.1 to a a modern diesel with a OEM exhaust brake and you will find there is a significant difference in slowing power going down the grade.

These 2 ideas kinda show 1 comparison nobody makes. If the parts that give a gas engine it's ability to slow the vehicle fail, it likely will not start. If it did start, be near impossible to drive with constant WFO.
OTOH, what happens when you are dropping down a grade, discover the control circuit to exhaust brake died?
My buzzin dozen sold in a '67 Pete had exhaust brake on each bank, from factory. But they did not become common until they started selling diesel powered pickups. Was that because a gas engine was better at whoaing the load than diesel that did not have one? I know that as soon as they installed them they started to advertise how great they are.
*Now as to why I question there would be a great difference when compared like sized engine/gears/loads. There is no doubt at all adding exhaust brake makes a huge difference on the diesel. And I have retrofitted EB in a gravel parking lot, so factory engineers could do it in their sleep. The fact that manufactures are not installing, and advertising "We have exhaust brake" implies there would be no gain to installing one on gas engine. The only reason I can see for EB not to increase the whoa, would be stopping air from going in works nearly as well as stopping it from coming out.

Scooby, I know you’re a lifelong truck driver so I try to keep that in mind, but what on earth does a story about a 67 Pete and a bunch of cab lizard lingo have to do with the OPs topic? Besides hearing yourself reminiscing about the past?

[JRscooby]

blt2ski wrote:

I still believe for most interstate driving, a gas rig appropriately loaded, with current technology, will be fine into the low 20k realm.
The only thing a diesel will have generally speaking, is power at 10k feet vs the gas bring 30% down to to elevation. As I don't know if any diesels with out a turbo. With the advent of the eco boost style engines, elevation power loss will not be an issue.

Marty

Marty

I'm not sure if anymore I would declare "above X lbs, you need diesel"
but instead the decision would be based on miles per year. In the past, my thought was how much value is in a engine that will last 2-3 times the useful life of truck? but if drove enough miles/year the fuel savings would pay. But we have got to the point gas engines are lasting long enough that the rest of truck is likely to be reason to get rid of it. Meeting emissions standards with gas has improved efficiency and the parts needed to do it have proven pretty trouble free. The same can't be said about diesel, and cost to repair can exceed value of pickup.

[JRscooby]

wnjj wrote:

JRscooby wrote:
The only reason I can see for EB not to increase the whoa, would be stopping air from going in works nearly as well as stopping it from coming out.

It’s not just about stopping air movement. It’s all about PSI exerted on the pistons. The most a throttled engine can do is a perfect vacuum which puts < 15 psi against the back of the pistons. An exhaust brake can compress to more than 4x that psi so much more force on the pistons and more stopping power.

Think of the difference in energy required to run a vacuum cleaner versus an air compressor.

Finally, somebody talking logic/science instead of faith/advertising, but your vacuum cleaner/air compressor breaks down. The cleaner is more similar to a fan based air pump. Move suction hose to outlet to blow does not change power demand. And if you use a piston based pump to pull a vacuum in closed system (Evacuate AC system for example) will need same power as like sized compressor.
Thinking out loud; Now each cylinder with gas engine closed throttle, will resist rotation only on intake stroke, diesel, it will be exhaust stroke. The higher compression ratio of diesel will be of limited increase, because both engines will return most of that energy to crank when cross TDC to what would be power stroke.
Now if added exhaust brake to gas engine, you would in theory have whoa half time on each cylinder.

[wnjj]

JRscooby wrote:
The only reason I can see for EB not to increase the whoa, would be stopping air from going in works nearly as well as stopping it from coming out.

It’s not just about stopping air movement. It’s all about PSI exerted on the pistons. The most a throttled engine can do is a perfect vacuum which puts < 15 psi against the back of the pistons. An exhaust brake can compress to more than 4x that psi so much more force on the pistons and more stopping power.

Think of the difference in energy required to run a vacuum cleaner versus an air compressor.

[manley]

I like mine, but it’s got the 3.55. Shifts a lot more than I like, but the engine loves to rev. It’s thirsty too, I’ve never seen above 9 towing. Runs about 12 mpg as daily driver.

[blt2ski]

Isuzu LCF models has exhaust brakes std in early 80's. Those rigs needed them for steeper than 10% grades. Less than 6% freeway grades were not a big deal. Granted most of those driven were at gvwr, not gcw. As they went the most powerful creatures.
My 05 dmax, the grade braking of the Allison worked fine when I was in the greater than 15-20k gvwr realm. Freeway weren't a big deal. Greater than local 10% grades, needed the trans grade braking plus an occasional use of truck and trailer brakes.
I will say, exhaust brakes are good to have on diesels. The rigs I have driven with exhaust brakes, behaved as they should. As the engines as designed do not have the best potential compression braking vs gas rig. I believe Scooby pointed out the why.
I still believe for most interstate driving, a gas rig appropriately loaded, with current technology, will be fine into the low 20k realm.
The only thing a diesel will have generally speaking, is power at 10k feet vs the gas bring 30% down to to elevation. As I don't know if any diesels with out a turbo. With the advent of the eco boost style engines, elevation power loss will not be an issue.

Marty

Marty

[JRscooby]

there is ZERO chance that ANY gasser pickup has anywhere near the holding power of a comparable diesel with a good exhaust brake.

Pretending a gaz engine descends the mountain as well as a diesel is
misleading.

So the gods have spoken! No need to run any side by each comparison, because it is true.
I'm not prepared to say it is not true, but I question that it is*

It's always the same issue on a clear sunny day in light traffic everything is always fine.
But on a rainy, windy, day in heavy traffic or whenever conditions are not ideal having the optimum equipment makes a difference.

The 2005 Duramax did not have a factory exhaust brake.
Compare that 05 Duramax or that 8.1 to a a modern diesel with a OEM exhaust brake and you will find there is a significant difference in slowing power going down the grade.

These 2 ideas kinda show 1 comparison nobody makes. If the parts that give a gas engine it's ability to slow the vehicle fail, it likely will not start. If it did start, be near impossible to drive with constant WFO.
OTOH, what happens when you are dropping down a grade, discover the control circuit to exhaust brake died?
My buzzin dozen sold in a '67 Pete had exhaust brake on each bank, from factory. But they did not become common until they started selling diesel powered pickups. Was that because a gas engine was better at whoaing the load than diesel that did not have one? I know that as soon as they installed them they started to advertise how great they are.
*Now as to why I question there would be a great difference when compared like sized engine/gears/loads. There is no doubt at all adding exhaust brake makes a huge difference on the diesel. And I have retrofitted EB in a gravel parking lot, so factory engineers could do it in their sleep. The fact that manufactures are not installing, and advertising "We have exhaust brake" implies there would be no gain to installing one on gas engine. The only reason I can see for EB not to increase the whoa, would be stopping air from going in works nearly as well as stopping it from coming out.

[Me_Again]

Lantley wrote:

Pretending a gaz engine descends the mountain as well as a diesel is
misleading.

NO it is a dangerous statement, as some novice might think I am good to go.

I wonder Blt2ski has even owned a diesel with an exhaust brake. I know he has towed around the NW with older equipment.

[Lantley]

larry barnhart wrote:
the Allison on our 2001 3500dually with the 8.1 liter did a great job of holding speed towing down mountains with our 35 ft alpenlite that was a combined weight of 22900 lbs. but engines and trailers need to be matched for best results. The 05 Duramax and the 2001 8.1 worked the same going down the cabbage patch on 84. retired rv'r chevman

The 2005 Duramax did not have a factory exhaust brake.
Compare that 05 Duramax or that 8.1 to a a modern diesel with a OEM exhaust brake and you will find there is a significant difference in slowing power going down the grade.

[Lantley]

blt2ski wrote:
Who's worried about a typical steepest it can be 6% interstate grade?!?!? Not me. Be it a gaz or deezal!
There are some 15% grades in the NE corner of Yellowstone....that can be interesting.
Otherwise, I haven't had but one rig that would not hold me on a downhill. That was my 88 SW K3500 where the POS th400 lost the ability to shift to 2nd gear. So you went 60-70 mph down typical 4-6% interstate grades, or 25-30 no brakes in 1st. It would hold 15k lbs in 2nd before loosing that gear. My 89 R3500 did that too.

For what it's worth, my 14 4.3 V6 is every bit as good or better pulling my equipment trailer at 6500 as those to supposed mountain climbing 454's were.

As Grit points out, as long as your on a typical freeway grade, the new rigs be them gaz or deezal, will be fine.

Marty

It's always the same issue on a clear sunny day in light traffic everything is always fine.
But on a rainy, windy, day in heavy traffic or whenever conditions are not ideal having the optimum equipment makes a difference.
Pretending a gaz engine descends the mountain as well as a diesel is
misleading.

[blt2ski]

Who's worried about a typical steepest it can be 6% interstate grade?!?!? Not me. Be it a gaz or deezal!
There are some 15% grades in the NE corner of Yellowstone....that can be interesting.
Otherwise, I haven't had but one rig that would not hold me on a downhill. That was my 88 SW K3500 where the POS th400 lost the ability to shift to 2nd gear. So you went 60-70 mph down typical 4-6% interstate grades, or 25-30 no brakes in 1st. It would hold 15k lbs in 2nd before loosing that gear. My 89 R3500 did that too.

For what it's worth, my 14 4.3 V6 is every bit as good or better pulling my equipment trailer at 6500 as those to supposed mountain climbing 454's were.

As Grit points out, as long as your on a typical freeway grade, the new rigs be them gaz or deezal, will be fine.

Marty