When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've seen in three different sources the 3.55 on the F250. The Order Guide being the most reliable thus far. It does correct my previous post that the F350 comes standard with non-EL 3.73
Compression and engine size determine torque. Stroke has some effect but the other two are the main influencers.
At least that b/s ratio does calculate out to the right displacement; 445 cubes = 7.3L (with some minor rounding).
As for torque, the stroke has a LOT to do with torque, if all other things are considered "same as". This is because torque is a product of force and distance. That "distance" in the formula is represented by the arc radius of the crankshaft con-rod journal (aka the stroke).
It's very likely that the 7.3L is certainly going to have higher towing ratings than the 6.2L, but the question is "by how much?" if the 10-spd is applied to both in the same chassis? And for some bizarre reason, you cannot get the 6.2L/10pd in the F250, but you can get the 7.3L/10spd in the F250. So you can't get the "old" engine with the "new" tranny, unless you step up to the F350, but you can get the "new" engine/tranny in the lighter F250 ... What manner of logic is that????
All this being said by many members here, I think we can agree the new 7.3L is hopefully going to be impressive both in it's full torque curve (once trustworthy data reveals whatever that might be), and more importantly, that it's longevity is as good or better than the 6.2L (an engine known for it's durability and longevity with very few problems).
I do look forward to the new 10spd trans, but I'll take a wait-n-see approach to understand how reliable it will become.
Odd that the Torqshift G (6R100) is now available in the F350 with the 6.2L for the P-96G HD payload group, but only in the RegCab model ... https://media.ford.com/content/dam/f...rder-Guide.pdf
Perhaps they're trying to find some volume usage for the "G" tranny.
. To get more air thru the n/a engine and thus make more power the only choice is to rev it higher.
And that's what building your speed up before the hill does. If you're going to go up a grade in one gear, then downshifting before the grade might make sense. But if you end up downshifting to a lower gear on the grade afterwards, you accomplished nothing, because in the end you're doing exactly what I recommended in the first place. And this applies equally to both gas and diesel engines. If you're on a roller coaster profiled highway where you can "turn it loose", letting it roll downhill and then letting the momentum carry it partway up the next hill will save fuel. Holding to a set speed going down then downshifting before the next hill would be foolish in this situation.
And that's what building your speed up before the hill does. If you're going to go up a grade in one gear, then downshifting before the grade might make sense. But if you end up downshifting to a lower gear on the grade afterwards, you accomplished nothing, because in the end you're doing exactly what I recommended in the first place. And this applies equally to both gas and diesel engines. If you're on a roller coaster profiled highway where you can "turn it loose", letting it roll downhill and then letting the momentum carry it partway up the next hill will save fuel. Holding to a set speed going down then downshifting before the next hill would be foolish in this situation.
Agreed, I used to always laugh at the company guys who get their hand slapped for going over a certain speed for "letting it roll" on the big road.
I drove a truck one time that was governed at 70 and the jake would come on at 75 automatically....nothing like brakes coming on at the bottom of a big pull....that must be good for safety and efficiency right? ha ha
Agreed, I used to always laugh at the company guys who get their hand slapped for going over a certain speed for "letting it roll" on the big road.
I drove a truck one time that was governed at 70 and the jake would come on at 75 automatically....nothing like brakes coming on at the bottom of a big pull....that must be good for safety and efficiency right? ha ha
Exactly. The 2014 Mack I'm in, you can set the upper limit for the engine brake while it's on cruise. But then again, the company I drive for doesn't want you exceeding 75 going down hills. I read an article once long ago written about doing this in Sweden, I forget term they had for it, but it was proven to save fuel by letting the vehicle build speed downhill before going up the next. Of course this is only safe to do on a road that you know.
And that's what building your speed up before the hill does. If you're going to go up a grade in one gear, then downshifting before the grade might make sense. But if you end up downshifting to a lower gear on the grade afterwards, you accomplished nothing, because in the end you're doing exactly what I recommended in the first place. And this applies equally to both gas and diesel engines. If you're on a roller coaster profiled highway where you can "turn it loose", letting it roll downhill and then letting the momentum carry it partway up the next hill will save fuel. Holding to a set speed going down then downshifting before the next hill would be foolish in this situation.
Been doing that for years in different trucks but with my 2013 6.2 it works the best, the last two days running I-25 in Wyoming and I-90 in Montana that's what I've been doing but most of the time setting the CC at 65 and overriding it going down hill to build up speed in 6th and downshifting in manual to 5th and let it run depending on the road, at least when I'm going down hill in manual the truck dosen't downsift to try and keep the speed at set point. I don't advise it on all roads but when its the right road it's fun to do and breaks up the drive.
Exactly. The 2014 Mack I'm in, you can set the upper limit for the engine brake while it's on cruise. But then again, the company I drive for doesn't want you exceeding 75 going down hills. I read an article once long ago written about doing this in Sweden, I forget term they had for it, but it was proven to save fuel by letting the vehicle build speed downhill before going up the next. Of course this is only safe to do on a road that you know.
Definitely. the truck i mentioned above was a pos sterling day cab with Mercedes 460 hp engine? a few hills i frequented regularly it became second nature to knock the stupid thing out of gear on a downhill so i could hit the hill at 75-80 and slide it right back into gear right as i got back down to 75 mph. If the jake kicked on it would not kick back off until round 68 even though truck was governed at 70. Looking back it was stupid but i would top the hill doing the speed limit. Got into a real truck later on with a 13 speed, mostly cruised at 65 but could get a run if i needed to without any stupid nanny features.
At least that b/s ratio does calculate out to the right displacement; 445 cubes = 7.3L (with some minor rounding).
As for torque, the stroke has a LOT to do with torque, if all other things are considered "same as". This is because torque is a product of force and distance. That "distance" in the formula is represented by the arc radius of the crankshaft con-rod journal (aka the stroke).
It's very likely that the 7.3L is certainly going to have higher towing ratings than the 6.2L, but the question is "by how much?" if the 10-spd is applied to both in the same chassis? And for some bizarre reason, you cannot get the 6.2L/10pd in the F250, but you can get the 7.3L/10spd in the F250. So you can't get the "old" engine with the "new" tranny, unless you step up to the F350, but you can get the "new" engine/tranny in the lighter F250 ... What manner of logic is that????
All this being said by many members here, I think we can agree the new 7.3L is hopefully going to be impressive both in it's full torque curve (once trustworthy data reveals whatever that might be), and more importantly, that it's longevity is as good or better than the 6.2L (an engine known for it's durability and longevity with very few problems).
I do look forward to the new 10spd trans, but I'll take a wait-n-see approach to understand how reliable it will become.
Odd that the Torqshift G (6R100) is now available in the F350 with the 6.2L for the P-96G HD payload group, but only in the RegCab model ... https://media.ford.com/content/dam/f...rder-Guide.pdf
Perhaps they're trying to find some volume usage for the "G" tranny.
From what I've seen the 7.3 will pull ~4k lbs more than a 6.2 looking at the gooseneck ratings. Also looking at the intake runners on a 7.3 vs a 6.2 they're a lot bigger.
Definitely. the truck i mentioned above was a pos sterling day cab with Mercedes 460 hp engine? a few hills i frequented regularly it became second nature to knock the stupid thing out of gear on a downhill so i could hit the hill at 75-80 and slide it right back into gear right as i got back down to 75 mph. If the jake kicked on it would not kick back off until round 68 even though truck was governed at 70. Looking back it was stupid but i would top the hill doing the speed limit. Got into a real truck later on with a 13 speed, mostly cruised at 65 but could get a run if i needed to without any stupid nanny features.
That's what mine's got, 13 speed. Love it. Motor's a 505 MP8. Puts out 40 lbs of boost in a pull. First truck I've driven in a long time that wasn't afraid of hills.
I was really wanting to run e85, and the 7.3 is not flex fuel. Then I thought, “oh well, the 6.2 with the new 10 speed ought to be plenty of truck for me.” Now I find out, no 10 speed in f-250 with 6.2.
People who don't understand how it's all delivered only look at peak numbers. Pushing 400ft lbs at 1500rpm is incredible for this type of platform. Lower revs will equate to a longer life. Not to mention the admirable list of over-engineered parts demonstrated at several events.
I'd be surprised if this engine didn't go 300k under good care without needing much of anything other than fluids.
This looks to me like my kind of engine. Power all day and it will survive for 20 years without an overhaul
I was really wanting to run e85, and the 7.3 is not flex fuel. Then I thought, “oh well, the 6.2 with the new 10 speed ought to be plenty of truck for me.” Now I find out, no 10 speed in f-250 with 6.2.
C-mon Ford!
f350? rides the same, extra rear leaf and overload, stouter rear axle
Is there an offical release date out there for the 7.3 yet?
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
