A little more on the New ford trickeling out

[wanderingaimles]

Another article on the new Ford Gasser, still no official HP/torque specs though.
article

Ford is being rather miserly with the story on this one.

[shepstone]

These torque numbers look similar to diesel numbers from a decade and a half ago, but with much better HP. Should make for an interesting pull. I can see it being good for medium to long distance and light to medium weight fifth wheels and tt's.

[spud1957]

Nice flat torque curve.

At 1500 RPM it's pushing about as much or more peak torque as the 1st version of the 6.2 (405 @ 4500 RPM).

[Groover]

The specs don't meet the expectations for power and torque that I have seen but 300hp seems to be the norm for a lot of 26,000lb trucks anyway. It sounds like Ford went more after fuel economy and durability. An interesting quote from deeper in the article:

"A dyno-certified version of the 7.3-liter V8 producing 350 horsepower at 3,900 rpm and 468 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,900 rpm will be standard on F-450 chassis cab, F-550, the new F-600, F-650 and F-750 Medium Duty trucks, and F-53 and F-59 stripped chassis models."

[Groover]

I couldn't make the above link work. Let's try this one:

Ford 7.3

[spud1957]

spud1957 wrote:

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
2020 Super Duty 7.3-liter V-8 to produce 430 hp, 475 lb-ft of torque

Do you have the link to this?

Got it.

Ignore this link.


https://media.ford.com/content/fordmLedia/fna/us/en/news/2019/08/01/ford-73-liter-V8-best-in-class-g...

[spud1957]

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
2020 Super Duty 7.3-liter V-8 to produce 430 hp, 475 lb-ft of torque

Do you have the link to this?

[Dadoffourgirls]

2020 Super Duty 7.3-liter V-8 to produce 430 hp, 475 lb-ft of torque

[ExxWhy]

Apparently the numbers are coming out at 6 AM tomorrow on the 7.3 and 6.7.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

parker.rowe wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Direct injection is dirtier than port injection in regards to PM (particulate matter). In some cases, gasoline direct injected engines spew more PM than diesels, but much finer particulates than cannot be seen. This is why gasoline direct injection engines have soot on the pipes like old diesels used to before DPF's.

Benefits of direct injection....

You don't have to wait until the intake port opens to inject fuel into the cylinder. Therefor you can control injection timing and even have multiple injection events per stroke. You can wait until at the end of the compression stroke to inject the fuel so it doesn't pre-detonate. With a port injected engines, you have to inject the fuel into the cylinder on the intake stroke while the intake valve is open and run the risk of that fuel pre-detonating on the compression stroke before the spark plug ignites.

Because of this, direct injected engines can run at higher compression ratios then port injected engines making them more efficient. You can also inject a small amount of fuel on the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder. This all helps reduce the chance of knock and allows you to advance timing for more power.

That's pretty much it.

I've seen lots of info about issues with relatively low mileage carbon buildup on the intake valves with strictly direct injected engines, because the injector is no longer spraying fuel in the port and keeping things clean (they are usually pointed right at the back of the intake valve).

I believe some manufactures are using, or adding port injectors back to direct injection engines as well.

Carbon build is mainly an issue with DI engines with external cylinder EGR's that inject exhaust gas back into the intake. While DI engines with in-cylinder EGR, like Ford's truck Ecoboost engines and GM's Ecotec truck engines, still have some carbon build up on the valves, it is is not enough to cause in major concern or significantly effect performance and efficiency.

Ford's current EcoBoost truck engines starting in '17 2nd Gen 3.5EB and '18 2nd Gen 2.7EB and 5.0 V8 include port injection which essentially eliminates carbon build up on the valves.

[ShinerBock]

parker.rowe wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Direct injection is dirtier than port injection in regards to PM (particulate matter). In some cases, gasoline direct injected engines spew more PM than diesels, but much finer particulates than cannot be seen. This is why gasoline direct injection engines have soot on the pipes like old diesels used to before DPF's.

Benefits of direct injection....

You don't have to wait until the intake port opens to inject fuel into the cylinder. Therefor you can control injection timing and even have multiple injection events per stroke. You can wait until at the end of the compression stroke to inject the fuel so it doesn't pre-detonate. With a port injected engines, you have to inject the fuel into the cylinder on the intake stroke while the intake valve is open and run the risk of that fuel pre-detonating on the compression stroke before the spark plug ignites.

Because of this, direct injected engines can run at higher compression ratios then port injected engines making them more efficient. You can also inject a small amount of fuel on the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder. This all helps reduce the chance of knock and allows you to advance timing for more power.

That's pretty much it.

I've seen lots of info about issues with relatively low mileage carbon buildup on the intake valves with strictly direct injected engines, because the injector is no longer spraying fuel in the port and keeping things clean (they are usually pointed right at the back of the intake valve).

I believe some manufactures are using, or adding port injectors back to direct injection engines as well.

Carbon build is mainly an issue with DI engines with external cylinder EGR's that inject exhaust gas back into the intake. While DI engines with in-cylinder EGR, like Ford's truck Ecoboost engines and GM's Ecotec truck engines, still have some carbon build up on the valves, it is is not enough to cause in major concern or significantly effect performance and efficiency.

[theoldwizard1]

parker.rowe wrote:

I believe some manufactures are using, or adding port injectors back to direct injection engines as well.

The Ford 5.0L Coyote uses dual injectors. IIRC, most of the fuel goes through the port injectors. For sure, part of the reason for dual injectors is to reduce particulate emissions (see previous post).

[theoldwizard1]

I still find it hard to believe that they are going DI. DIs big advantage is the capability to run lean (better fuel economy), which increases the NOx. I am not certain what the difference in NOx levels are for different vehicle weight classes.

The other issue with DI is "particulate emissions". EPA/CARB have been wanting to clamp down on these for awhile. No one wants a particulate trap on a gas engine !

The one picture claimed to show a "pocket" for the DI, but I also did not notice the either of the 2 spark plug holes.

[parker_rowe]

ShinerBock wrote:
Direct injection is dirtier than port injection in regards to PM (particulate matter). In some cases, gasoline direct injected engines spew more PM than diesels, but much finer particulates than cannot be seen. This is why gasoline direct injection engines have soot on the pipes like old diesels used to before DPF's.

Benefits of direct injection....

You don't have to wait until the intake port opens to inject fuel into the cylinder. Therefor you can control injection timing and even have multiple injection events per stroke. You can wait until at the end of the compression stroke to inject the fuel so it doesn't pre-detonate. With a port injected engines, you have to inject the fuel into the cylinder on the intake stroke while the intake valve is open and run the risk of that fuel pre-detonating on the compression stroke before the spark plug ignites.

Because of this, direct injected engines can run at higher compression ratios then port injected engines making them more efficient. You can also inject a small amount of fuel on the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder. This all helps reduce the chance of knock and allows you to advance timing for more power.

That's pretty much it.

I've seen lots of info about issues with relatively low mileage carbon buildup on the intake valves with strictly direct injected engines, because the injector is no longer spraying fuel in the port and keeping things clean (they are usually pointed right at the back of the intake valve).

I believe some manufactures are using, or adding port injectors back to direct injection engines as well.

[ShinerBock]

Direct injection is dirtier than port injection in regards to PM (particulate matter). In some cases, gasoline direct injected engines spew more PM than diesels, but much finer particulates than cannot be seen. This is why gasoline direct injection engines have soot on the pipes like old diesels used to before DPF's.

Benefits of direct injection....

You don't have to wait until the intake port opens to inject fuel into the cylinder. Therefor you can control injection timing and even have multiple injection events per stroke. You can wait until at the end of the compression stroke to inject the fuel so it doesn't pre-detonate. With a port injected engines, you have to inject the fuel into the cylinder on the intake stroke while the intake valve is open and run the risk of that fuel pre-detonating on the compression stroke before the spark plug ignites.

Because of this, direct injected engines can run at higher compression ratios then port injected engines making them more efficient. You can also inject a small amount of fuel on the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder. This all helps reduce the chance of knock and allows you to advance timing for more power.