7.3L V8
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
I will never own a battery powered vehicle.
but the final differential is not the only answer.. but the DIFF has 90 plus years of development behind it... no one wants a change...
and I am NOT saying go to CHAIN.... but sticking with the diff.. can not get much better.
.
a Truck Transaxle in the rear.... transverse engine 8L gas,, flat 8 cylinder. under the bed..... no 90 degree..
and I did drive semi-truck a few years.....
I guess I really am from Mars
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
NASCAR...
a few years ago.. they were working on a Screw drive final system..
reason...
when an engine locks-up... the screw drive will fail, allowing rear wheels to continue to rotate.. less crashes..
stopped the research... to much "Cost" to bring into production.
a few years ago.. they were working on a Screw drive final system..
reason...
when an engine locks-up... the screw drive will fail, allowing rear wheels to continue to rotate.. less crashes..
stopped the research... to much "Cost" to bring into production.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 104
From: Southern KS
The thing that sticks out to me is that the V10 is incredibly trouble free for the heavy duty application. For Ford to go to this much trouble to replace it you would think that fuel efficiency is the main goal. A little more power will be nice but I am betting efficiency is the main difference.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
The thing that sticks out to me is that the V10 is incredibly trouble free for the heavy duty application. For Ford to go to this much trouble to replace it you would think that fuel efficiency is the main goal. A little more power will be nice but I am betting efficiency is the main difference.
My V10 with 4.30s was incapable of hitting 12 MPG. I think 11.7 was my best tank.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
efficient
maximize cylinder swirl .. 3 and 4 valve is harder to control swirl..
reason when possible.. direct injection is selected. and not behind a valve.. ( indirect injection )
being the 7.3L is single spark plug... swirl and flame travel is maximized without duel spark plugs.
all my guessing. no fact is known by me.
still interested in the odd intake system... throttle body under intake .. large upper arch runners.
I hope Ford is forthcoming with design information.
maximize cylinder swirl .. 3 and 4 valve is harder to control swirl..
reason when possible.. direct injection is selected. and not behind a valve.. ( indirect injection )
being the 7.3L is single spark plug... swirl and flame travel is maximized without duel spark plugs.
all my guessing. no fact is known by me.
still interested in the odd intake system... throttle body under intake .. large upper arch runners.
I hope Ford is forthcoming with design information.
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 764
Likes: 30
efficient
maximize cylinder swirl .. 3 and 4 valve is harder to control swirl..
reason when possible.. direct injection is selected. and not behind a valve.. ( indirect injection )
being the 7.3L is single spark plug... swirl and flame travel is maximized without duel spark plugs.
all my guessing. no fact is known by me.
still interested in the odd intake system... throttle body under intake .. large upper arch runners.
I hope Ford is forthcoming with design information.
maximize cylinder swirl .. 3 and 4 valve is harder to control swirl..
reason when possible.. direct injection is selected. and not behind a valve.. ( indirect injection )
being the 7.3L is single spark plug... swirl and flame travel is maximized without duel spark plugs.
all my guessing. no fact is known by me.
still interested in the odd intake system... throttle body under intake .. large upper arch runners.
I hope Ford is forthcoming with design information.
As to the intake, that isn't hard to make a reasonable guess here. Two things jump out here:
1) by putting the runners on top, they can make they longer, with a smoother (larger radius) approach to the intake valve; these aid torque development at lower rpm.
2) it also has the effect of the runners staying cooler in applications running under heavy load. There is less mass to heat up in the throttle body than the runner, so keeping the runner cooler (where more contact surface exists long the walls of the runner) means a cooler charge.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
earlier I asked.. as Acura years ago had duel runner intake.. computer controlled... for there V6..
low rpm and high rpm
as for valves.. they stick out into the swirl... disrupting it...
your view, my view..
low rpm and high rpm
as for valves.. they stick out into the swirl... disrupting it...
your view, my view..
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Yep, I think Chuck is right on this one. My old Contour had a similar system, and when it broke there was a huge difference in how it drove. When stuck open it wouldn’t even start, but when stuck closed it had no power at higher RPMs.
My Pacifica has an even slicker system that was introduced with the 2nd Gen Pentastar. It uses a dual-lift cam profile on the intake cams that shifts to high lift above 3,000 RPMs. This system is credited for a 15% torque increase below 3K.
https://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/PUG-2015.php
My Pacifica has an even slicker system that was introduced with the 2nd Gen Pentastar. It uses a dual-lift cam profile on the intake cams that shifts to high lift above 3,000 RPMs. This system is credited for a 15% torque increase below 3K.
https://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/PUG-2015.php
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 22
From: very South Texas
that is the reason I ask
design is compromise ...
down low.. or up high..
adjustable intakes.. adjustable cam lift/duration.. all helps.. for each area.. = a more useful engine.
just like adjustable compression.. adjustable displacement..
as is the 6.2 L.. adjustable camshaft timing... its even considered Old by today's standards...
design is compromise ...
down low.. or up high..
adjustable intakes.. adjustable cam lift/duration.. all helps.. for each area.. = a more useful engine.
just like adjustable compression.. adjustable displacement..
as is the 6.2 L.. adjustable camshaft timing... its even considered Old by today's standards...
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
The 3V 5.4l did, which was used from 2005 – 2010 in the Super Duty. It was introduced in 2004 for the F150, and has been plagued with issues with the VVT system. Most manufacturers got these right the first time around, but this system was a disaster by most accounts.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
That's one of the big benefits of DOHC designs, as the new ones can independently control the intake and exhaust cams. Which makes for an incredibly flat torque curve from low RPMs that usually screams all the way to redline.
The 3.6L Pentastar engine in my van completely embarrasses the 4.6L V8 I had in an old Town Car that weighs about the same. Modern engine controls can do some amazing things.