Ford 7.3L gas power numbers

[ib516]

430hp/475tq
Looks like it's designed to be a winner.
Video

[dodge_guy]

FishOnOne wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Sounds like it’s ready for DI and forced induction.

However I’ll wait to see how it does before I say it’s the better than the V-10. The 7.3 has big shoes to fill!

I would say the V10 was a good engine but not a great engine. I don't see any reason why the 7.3 won't exceed the V10's performance and durability.

Well it remains to be seen. I hope it is better. however the V-10 is the best gas motor offered right now for HD applications. Cant wait to see the drive reports both non towing and towing.

[FishOnOne]

dodge guy wrote:
Sounds like it’s ready for DI and forced induction.

However I’ll wait to see how it does before I say it’s the better than the V-10. The 7.3 has big shoes to fill!

I would say the V10 was a good engine but not a great engine. I don't see any reason why the 7.3 won't exceed the V10's performance and durability.

[Bionic_Man]

danrclem wrote:
I've been thinking that there may be a turbo in the future for this engine. If a 3.5 can make the power that it does I have to wonder where a turbo would take this engine. Are there any reasons why a turbo wouldn't work with this engine?

The 7.3 as is would have more than enough power to do anything I'd want it to do so fuel mileage would be my only concern. I do expect it to have better mileage than my 6.2 but only time will tell.

Forced induction on this engine would lead to absolutely TERRIBLE MPG.

[ShinerBock]

danrclem wrote:
Are there any reasons why a turbo wouldn't work with this engine?

This is a copy and paste of what I stated in another thread about this topic.

"Let me first state that I am a big fan of the 3.5L Ecoboost engine. I had one in both my personal F150HD and F150 work truck putting over 250k miles combined on both.

The main problem with putting a gasoline turbocharged engine into an SD is heat. Gasoline turbocharged engines create a lot of it when worked hard for a sustained period of time. This is why the 3.5L Ecoboost has an open deck block even though most turbocharged gasoline engines put in cars are closed or semi-closed such as the infamous Supra 2JZ block which is known for handling high psi and over a thousand horsepower. This is needed to carry away the cylinder heat when you are under a sustained high load such as towing. Most gasoline turbocharged engines in cars are not under high loads for a long duration of time like a truck is when towing so a closed or semi-closed will offer enough cooling in these applications.

Most HD/SD V8 gas are iron closed deck designs for a reason. This aides in long term durability in their duty cycle. These engines can have a closed deck block and still remain cool because they are generally at high rpm when under load which is moving air in and out of the cylinders at a high rate which aides in cooling. While turbocharged engines move a lot of air into the cylinder to compress it(which creates more heat), they generally operate at much lower rpm which causing more heat buildup in the cylinders and block.

Diesels are an iron(CGI) closed deck design, but even though diesels are turbocharged like the Ecoboost they retain a lot less heat within their blocks due to their higher thermal efficiency. It is much more efficient at converting thermal energy into mechanical energy so an open/semi-closed deck is not needed to keep them cool under high constant load.

There is much more to it than slapping any ole engine into an SD/HD truck application and calling it good. Many things would have to be considered. I am not saying it will never be done(especially with the new cooling tech that was just discovered) or that the Ecoboost is not a long lasting durable engine. I am just saying that the cooling requirements of an SD/HD duty cycle is probably the reason why Ford has not put a small 4.X V8 Ecoboost in an SD."

[danrclem]

I've been thinking that there may be a turbo in the future for this engine. If a 3.5 can make the power that it does I have to wonder where a turbo would take this engine. Are there any reasons why a turbo wouldn't work with this engine?

The 7.3 as is would have more than enough power to do anything I'd want it to do so fuel mileage would be my only concern. I do expect it to have better mileage than my 6.2 but only time will tell.

[dodge_guy]

Sounds like it’s ready for DI and forced induction.

However I’ll wait to see how it does before I say it’s the better than the V-10. The 7.3 has big shoes to fill!

[ShinerBock]

This comment

" they drop the compression ratio from 16.2:1 to 15.8:1."

Tells me that the new Powerstroke is going to have a fairly decent power ratings upgrade. They would have to reduce the compression ratio to meet emissions at higher power levels. However, fuel mileage may be slightly effected.

[Groover]

I just came across the article that has some interesting comments about the 7.3.

2020 For truck engines

My favorite part:
"The wear evident on an engine dismantled for our viewing after 3,200 hours of max-output running (that's 133 days of 24/7 flogging) is apparently so minimal that it's difficult to extrapolate a projected failure mileage."

Also:
"Built To Last Indefinitely
The 7.3-liter's forged steel crankshaft features oversized main and rod bearings, and it's fixed to the block with four vertical and two horizontal cross bolts. Many of the materials in use are upgraded to turbo-engine specifications. The roller bearings on the valve tappets are carbon-nitrided, piston-cooling oil jets are employed, the valvetrain is fed much higher rates of oil flow, and the variable-displacement oil pump is designed to be able to increase oil flow to maintain pressure as bearings wear or when viscosity drops at very high temperatures."

The are also some interesting comments about the new diesel and transmissions as well.

[Mr_Biggles]

I will be looking for a truck in 2 years to tow 9-10,000 lbs. The 7.3 looks on paper to be the perfect engine for that weight. I will be watching this engine’s reviews closely.

[mich800]

RoyJ wrote:
That's weird, I can both click on link by wnjj, or directly view the photo I posted.

Anyway, the L8T makes just over 400 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm, but dips sharply down to 340 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm, in a fairly linear fashion.

The 7.3 holds on much stronger at low rev.

Are you a member of that forum? Most likely it links and logs you into the forum giving you authorization. Many forums make you have an account and logged in to view users pics.

[danrclem]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


I would call it a semi closed block similar to the 6.2, but with small slots between the cylinders for coolant flow.

Link

Thanks for the video. I would consider that more of a semi-closed deck too. Most semi-closed only have support front to bottom and right to left. The 7.3L block seems to have more than that. Either way, it definitely has more structural cylinder support than the 6.2L which will go a long way in longevity and how much power it can handle.

I would not be surprised if ford does not make a blown version of this engine for smaller vehicles. The block and other internals seem well equipped to handle it.

The 6.2 is known to be a good engine so if the 7.3 will outlast it then it should be a super engine. I'm anxious to see actual tests and see what it can do.

[RoyJ]

That's weird, I can both click on link by wnjj, or directly view the photo I posted.

Anyway, the L8T makes just over 400 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm, but dips sharply down to 340 lb-ft @ 1000 rpm, in a fairly linear fashion.

The 7.3 holds on much stronger at low rev.

[Copperhead]

Whenever I click on these links, I get an "Error 101, the owner of this website does not allow hot linking".

[wnjj]

FishOnOne wrote:

wnjj wrote:

RoyJ wrote:

Copperhead wrote:
Please repost as I am unable to open whatever graph, chart, whatever you are talking about.

Look at the post again, I've adjusted the image size.

It looks like you can’t hot link that picture. You can click here to see it: https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/uploads/monthly_2019_06/5cffff9056848_L8TvsL96SAEHPTorque.jpg.09ecd...

Went from bad to worse...

Huh? Roy’s picture shows nothing but an empty frame for me. The link above shows in a full screen window so I can at least check out the graph. How is that worse?