7.3 did not have EGR, and you could access every part of the engine to do whatever you wanted without lifting the cab.
you are thinking of the nightmare they called the 6.4.

 

Actually I was thinking about the 2011 F250 with the 6.7 diesel that I once owned. So good point there since the discussion is about the 6.2 vs the 7.3 diesel. My mistake...

 

no problem.
i agree the 6.7 under hood is "cluttered".
but if you take all the pollution junk off the engine, it all of a sudden has plenty of room under hood to do damn near anything you want.

 

I would take a 6.2 over a 7.3. Even though the 7.3 is a reliable motor, the 6.2 would outpull it even with a tune. Not to mention the better truck and tranny your getting.

 

Ok. I suppose you win the race up a hill. But that's not the only way to define "outpull." I'll venture that the average 7.3 goes further before a rebuild, & gets better fuel mileage. You're right about the tranny only in reference to automatic behind the 7.3. The ZF6, however, lasts forever.

That said, it's really not an either/or to me. When the 7.3 wears out (if ever, lol!), I'll be looking at the 6.8s with the ZF6 (through 2010), and the 6.2s beyond that year. Both are absolutely bulletproof. I'm not a fan of the fuel economy with gassers, but the other advantageous reasons stated, plus their simplicity in comparison with modern diesels just outweigh the disadvantages.

Now, there's a pretty good comparison. 6.8 vs. 6.2 gas motors! Pros/cons?

 

I don't get what you're objection is ...
I said torque is work, not power.
Then you said I was wrong, and then said "Torque ... is rotational work."
Your objection is to what, agree with me??????

Force = mass x acceleration
Linear work = force x distance as measured in a straight line
Rotational work = force x distance as measured at the radius of the application of moment arm
Power = work per unit of time

You are confusing the distance around the circumference (whether measured in linear units, or angular units) with the distance of the moment (radius); a classic misunderstanding.

Think of it this way ... consider an electric motor; a typical PSC 25hp motor that runs 3600 rpm. That 25hp rating means it's making 36 ft-lb of torque at that rpm. But even if you stalled the motor (locked rotor), there is still 36 ft-lb of work available. Rotating or dead still, the amount of "work" is the same. One is dynamic work and one is potential work. How fast it does that work is the concept of "power".

Work is ALWAYS force x distance.

Power is ALWAYS work / time.

In a rotational model you induce the element of time, because it takes time to cover the circumferential distance. Time is not of consequence to the force applied at the radius moment location.


Your objection is summarily dismissed.

 

You used quotes and then took my statement out of context. Quotes are meant for taking statements verbatim, but you used an ellipsis to remove the vital part of that statement. For example, "Force times distance is work," is not the same as "Force ... is work." lol!

Since you made a point of unsolicitedly teaching bogus information, I made it a point to correct you. You can't convince me that torque is work, because it is not and I am well-educated. Likewise, you have convinced yourself so thoroughly that you're here trying to teach the subject and if you accomplish anything, it's going to be to the detriment of anyone trying to learn. I think my response was enough to flag to the casual reader that they should do further research. I suggest simply going to google and typing "Is torque work?" Or let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+torque+work

Here's a preview: "Torque and work can not be interchanged because they do not represent the same thing."

And a preview of "is torque rotational force": "Torque is the rotational equivalence of force."

 

Torque is a product of an equation, not an input. (product used in the sense of true math; a product is the result of multiplying two inputs).
Your theory makes torque a "force"; an input.
Torque is rated in units of force and distance; we'd commonly say 'ft-lbs". This is because it's a mathematical formula; force x distance.
It is improper to call torque a Force. Force = mass x acceleration. We'd say "pounds" for force (Newtons, ounces, etc for units).
It is impossible for your theory to be correct. You cannot call torque a "force", because it would only have the units of force (pounds in our example).
Imagine this conversation .... "Hey Joe - how much torque does your engine make at peak?"
Joe - "925 pounds".
WRONG!

Torque is an output of a mathematical equation, not an input of force.

Like I said, you're among many whom misunderstand what torque is. Torque is rotational work. Work is force x distance. TORQUE IS NOT A FORCE; it is a product, not an input.

Think I'm wrong?
Solve this equation with the units of measure using your method ...
HP = (torque x rpm) / 5252
HP = (force x rpm)/5252
HP = ft x revs/min / 5252

In the real world, 1 hp = 550 ft-lb/sec (distance x force) / time

So your formula would be thus:
1 hp = some quantity of "force" / 5252 ( 5252 represent the unit-less conversion of revs/min to radians/sec)
1 550 ft-lb/sec = "x" lb / 5252
Where'd the distance disappear to in your method ?????
You're flat wrong; the units don't balance.

Go back to take physics again, and focus on unit resolution.

I'll let you have the last word; it'll be wrong, but you can enjoy it.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

Definition from Webster(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torque):
From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque):
From Fundamentals of Physics: Sixth Edition by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker:
In case you missed it from the picture (or if in the future the pictures no longer post), the textbook says: It's kinda like I actually teach the subject or something... Thanks for the last word! All the best!

 

double-post

 

Since we like to argue, I'll say after 15 years with 2000 7.3, 12 of those "modded"(DP tuner, exhaust, intake, turbo, and downpipe) the 2017 6.2/6R140 is a better driving/towing experience hands down. If you really want to compare apples to apples, you need to put the 7.3 in front of a 6R140 at least in my case. My 7.3 had good power and would probably win a drag race but that's about it and drag racing is not important to me. For towing I'll give the nod to the gasser. The biggest difference I see is I don't have to limit my uphill speed to the EGT gauge. All I need to do is grab a gear and spin some RPM and the 6.2 goes. I loved my 7.3 and it never let me down but with 17 years difference in the trucks, one would hope the latest model is an improvement and I think it is. On paper it's easy to say how one is better than the other but towing the same loads, over the same roads, imo my 17' does a better job. It's not just the engine, it's the entire package.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that this current generation is inferior to the older generations. The new trucks have so much more going for them and not just the engines. The entire drive-trains are better. The cabs are roomier and quieter. The functions and features are more prevelant and prominent. There are things today's vehicles can that were just dreams two decades ago. Remember, the previous SD platform came out in 1999; it was designed back in 1995. That's 25 years ago! Even a modded truck such as yours will pale in overall application contrasted to today's trucks, as you state.

The 6.2L with 4.30 gears is very comparable in terms of pulling prowess to the old 7.3L with 3.73s. And the new trucks do this with more grace and panache'. Despite what Chris and I will always vehemently disagree on, it's just a term (semantics) that we debate. The reality is that the capability of the gas system of today's trucks equals the capability of the older diesel trucks. Torque is a concept that is translated into thrust at the road surface; that's what moves vehicles. The 6.2L/4.30 is essentially an equal to the old PSD/3.73, and it does so within a more refined package.

 

We don't have to get along or agree to enjoy the subject of the conversation. And, you're right about the semantics. Effectively, I'm fairly confident you'll come to the same conclusions I will, given the numbers. Incidentally, the 7.3 puts out ~500 lbs-ft, and the new 6.2s put out ~430 lbs-ft. If you calculate the rwtq after the effect of the rear gears, 500*3.73/4.30 = you'd need 434 lbs-ft to achieve equivalence. Pretty damned close! Of course, that doesn't take the trans gearing or tire size into account. Yeah, for me there's no concern over whether the 6.2 can pull the weight. It obviously can. I'm just happy that they've got a reliable reputation.

Does anyone know if the 6.2 improved fuel economy towing vs. the 6.8 V10?

 

Does anyone know if the 6.2 improved fuel economy towing vs. the 6.8 V10?[/QUOTE]


In my experience no. However it blows the doors off it in unladen economy. My 05 v10 was pretty much 9-10mpg all day. Put the trailer behind it about 9k TT and it was 8.5-9mpg. So at least it was consistent. With the 25 gallon tank you didnt pass many fuel stops.