Ford 7.3L gas power numbers

[ib516]

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

[Copperhead]

FishOnOne wrote:

Copperhead wrote:


Disagree with what?

I disagree with your statement that Fords needs to work more on the 7.3 engine.

Ok. I made the comment regarding the power output per liter ratio. I think they could have done better.

[FishOnOne]

Copperhead wrote:


Disagree with what?

I disagree with your statement that "Fords needs to work on the 7.3 some more".

Look at the 7.3 power curve and it says it all. With a big cube engine it should make its power very easy.

[Copperhead]

FishOnOne wrote:


I disagree... I would be willing to bet the new Ford 7.3 will require less rpms to pull a given load compared to GM's new 6.6 engine. The 7.3 flat torque curve is pretty impressive and should make for a very enjoyable towing experience.

I do agree... that GM's new 6.6 is a big improvement over their 6.0 engine.

Disagree with what? I really didn't touch upon RPM's, as if that even makes a difference. The total output numbers of the new 6.6L L8T engine are 401 HP and 464 Lb. Bumping up close to what the 7.3 is putting out. Only a 11 lb difference in torque. That is not in dispute. That they may differ on the RPM's a little on how they get there is really a non issue. The L8T is intentionally designed to reach peak numbers at a conservative RPM range. It hits peak torque at 4000 RPM and from all indications, like its predecessor the L96 6.0L, it will hit 90% of available torque in the 2100-2500 RPM range. Max HP at 5200 RPM.

The 7.3 reaches max torque of 475 lb at the same 4000 RPM, and reaches peak 430 HP at 5500 RPM, 300 RPM higher than the 6.6L L8T. I think your assertion is flatlined.

[Grit_dog]

Vintage465 has the right mindset. Valhalla360 is apparently pleased with the scorching performance of 80s models trucks.....

[FishOnOne]

Copperhead wrote:
Ford needs to work on the 7.3 some more. The new GM L8T 6.6L gasser has 401 HP and 464 LB. Within kissing distance of the 7.3 numbers.

Either way, I also agree these engines are not overkill. There is a definite market for these. Many folks, especially commercial users which makes up the bulk of the 3/4 and 1 ton market, want a better performance gasser instead of going diesel. Even Fuso is now offering a gasser V8 in their medium duty box trucks to satisfy that desire by their customers.

Many of us who are involved in commercial use of trucks do not have all the wild eyed love affair with diesels that many in the personal user community seem to have. I go thru 21,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year simply because I have no other choice in what I am doing but to use diesels. For my personal stuff, I have a preference of a gasser in my 3/4 ton and welcome these new higher output gas engines as a viable alternative to having a diesel.

I just saw a video where someone was showing a new 2020 6.6L gasser Chevy 2500 yanking around 12K of trailer and track loader in the high country of Oregon. Was definitely a major improvement over the traditional 6.0L Vortec, and they got the ride for a ballpark $40K off the lot. Compare that to the sticker of a diesel 3/4 ton.

I disagree... I would be willing to bet the new Ford 7.3 will require less rpms to pull a given load compared to GM's new 6.6 engine. The 7.3 flat torque curve is pretty impressive and should make for a very enjoyable towing experience.

I do agree... that GM's new 6.6 is a big improvement over their 6.0 engine.

[Copperhead]

Ford needs to work on the 7.3 some more. The new GM L8T 6.6L gasser has 401 HP and 464 LB. Within kissing distance of the 7.3 numbers.

Either way, I also agree these engines are not overkill. There is a definite market for these. Many folks, especially commercial users which makes up the bulk of the 3/4 and 1 ton market, want a better performance gasser instead of going diesel. Even Fuso is now offering a gasser V8 in their medium duty box trucks to satisfy that desire by their customers.

Many of us who are involved in commercial use of trucks do not have all the wild eyed love affair with diesels that many in the personal user community seem to have. I go thru 21,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year simply because I have no other choice in what I am doing but to use diesels. For my personal stuff, I have a preference of a gasser in my 3/4 ton and welcome these new higher output gas engines as a viable alternative to having a diesel.

I just saw a video where someone was showing a new 2020 6.6L gasser Chevy 2500 yanking around 12K of trailer and track loader in the high country of Oregon. Was definitely a major improvement over the traditional 6.0L Vortec, and they got the ride for a ballpark $40K off the lot. Compare that to the sticker of a diesel 3/4 ton.

[ShinerBock]

Vintage465 wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

Learjet wrote:
I'm use to 900 Tq....don't know if I can go back to almost half of that 😞

Just drop down a gear or two...the rear axle will never know the difference.

Unless you are pushing the very upper limits of the tow ratings and doing lots of mountain driving...the modern gas engines are overkill (diesel is just more overkill).

I would say I disagree with most of this reply. The new engines aren't overkill IMHO. You used to have to get a run at most any hill and hope to crest it at 55mph. I've had big blocks, small blocks, old diesels, new diesels. Been pulling trailers since I was 16 and owned my own since 1982. What we have now is what we need. I mean unless what you call pulling a trailer is going from your house 5 miles to the beach. But for real towing..........we are finally there. And dropping a gear to make it over a hill and calling it the same......nope. If it's overkill, I'm happy to be in the "over the hill kill" group.

Great point. I will also add that what we tow has gotten much heavier and our speed limits have increased too. It wasn't that long ago that you needed a 1 ton drw diesel to tow a 10k trailer. Now, a half ton with a 6 cylinder EcoBoost can easily tow that and maintain the speed limit up most grades.

[colliehauler]

kw/00 wrote:
I think it has great numbers to start with. Soon I’m sure some builders will get it programmed and put out more HP and TQ. Glad to see the big 3 invest in larger gas engines for the HD series trucks.

I was thinking more in the lines of twin turbos.

[Vintage465]

valhalla360 wrote:

Learjet wrote:
I'm use to 900 Tq....don't know if I can go back to almost half of that 😞

Just drop down a gear or two...the rear axle will never know the difference.

Unless you are pushing the very upper limits of the tow ratings and doing lots of mountain driving...the modern gas engines are overkill (diesel is just more overkill).

I would say I disagree with most of this reply. The new engines aren't overkill IMHO. You used to have to get a run at most any hill and hope to crest it at 55mph. I've had big blocks, small blocks, old diesels, new diesels. Been pulling trailers since I was 16 and owned my own since 1982. What we have now is what we need. I mean unless what you call pulling a trailer is going from your house 5 miles to the beach. But for real towing..........we are finally there. And dropping a gear to make it over a hill and calling it the same......nope. If it's overkill, I'm happy to be in the "over the hill kill" group.

[kw_00]

I think it has great numbers to start with. Soon I’m sure some builders will get it programmed and put out more HP and TQ. Glad to see the big 3 invest in larger gas engines for the HD series trucks.

[ExxWhy]

90%? More like 99.9% when certain people get involved........

I guess we will know more about the 7.3/10 spd combo in December or so when they let the media types drive them around the block.

[ShinerBock]

spud1957 wrote:
Sooooo....great numbers for the 7.3 huh?

I think that's what this thread was about.

Yeah, and the Tesla semi thread was about a semi. This is probably not the best forum for people who don't like things going off topic because it happens in about 90% of the threads.

[spud1957]

Sooooo....great numbers for the 7.3 huh?

I think that's what this thread was about.

[ShinerBock]

Groover wrote:
"In fact, the US's NOx limit is 30 times lower than the EU emissions, and the CO and CO2 limits in the US are much higher than EU. This is why EU diesels do not have to have EGR's like we do in the US which allows them to not only have higher power output, but also better efficiency."

I have found that most people don't seem to be able to understand that just because a lot of something is bad doesn't mean that even a little bit is bad. Heck, some people have died from drinking too much water. Some Americans now suffer from lack of vitamin D and related symptoms because too much sunlight is bad. Moderation is not in our vocabulary anymore. I have long felt that the best way to reduce GHG is to back off on some of the other rules that hurt the efficiency of all ICE engines.

I agree.

Another thing that a lot of people don't understand is that the bureaucrat that thought up the NOx limit for the diesel truck makes to meet, did so without knowing what it would take to achieve such numbers. These numbers are set in stone years before implementation, and manufacturers have to figure out how to meet them. So when they say that diesels have to go from a NOx of 1.2 g/hp-h to .02 g/hp-h, they don't know that they are doing it at the expense of efficiency of all diesels, more oil has to be converter to fuel since these trucks are not as efficient, more pollution from making DEF, more pollution from making DEF jugs, more pollution from DEF plants, more pollution from fleets that deliver DEF, and so on.

Also, just as with most government rules, once they are set in stone, there is no going back or reviewing to verify that the new limits are better for the environment when all things the manufacturers had to do in order to meet these numbers years later are accounted for.

[Groover]

"In fact, the US's NOx limit is 30 times lower than the EU emissions, and the CO and CO2 limits in the US are much higher than EU. This is why EU diesels do not have to have EGR's like we do in the US which allows them to not only have higher power output, but also better efficiency."

I have found that most people don't seem to be able to understand that just because a lot of something is bad doesn't mean that even a little bit is bad. Heck, some people have died from drinking too much water. Some Americans now suffer from lack of vitamin D and related symptoms because too much sunlight is bad. Moderation is not in our vocabulary anymore. I have long felt that the best way to reduce GHG is to back off on some of the other rules that hurt the efficiency of all ICE engines.