What exactly would you expect? It’s cammed a little differently, and has a significantly stronger top end which is reflected in the higher horsepower rating. All without the high tech gadgetry most other modern engines have, which adds complexity they can fail. less moving parts in general; one less cam, two less pistons, and nary a balance shaft. I’d call that an improvement.

 

I definitely agree on the design improvement. Simplicity is awesome!

But I have been reading a lot of posts about "that torque curve" when it really isn't any different from the 6.8. Granted, there is quite a bit more hp. I really hope that they can offer a slightly hotter version of this in the F250 at some point after the initial introduction.

I will be buying a truck in the next couple of years and the 7.3 is surely on the short list. I can't wait to see if there are some economy improvements over the 6.8. That would make or break it for me.

 

iirc the 3v v10 with the 5 speed torqshift was only about $600 extra

 

gas engine torque band from peak TQ to peak HP


Here's an interesting synopsis of the various HD application engines:
Ford Super Duty 7.3L Godzilla V8 vs. GM, Ram V8 Engines
For reference, the 6.8L 3v had the following:
362 hp @ 4750 rpm
457 fl-lb @ 3250 rpm

Looking ONLY at the peak values ... (from claimed Tq peak to the calculated Tq at HP peak)
the 6.8L made a bit more "grunt" down low versus the new 7.3L gas motor. The 6.8L makes it peak torque 750 rpm lower. But it's peak HP is also lower in the powerband.

To really understand how they all stack up to each other, you have to look at the pure torque curves relative to the rpm. (understanding that we are assuming a flat "curve" from peak to peak; it's not reality, but that's the easiest way to represent on a graph)
What the new engine tech allows us to have is more torque below peak torque, lower in the rpm band. The old 6.8L didn't have VVT, where the new 7.3L does. ( I don't have that info, so it's not included here)
The new Ford and GM engines are very closely matched. (With both having new 10-spd trannies, they will be very comparable. this may not be accurate info.)


Here's the thing to keep in mind about pulling a load ... Torque is king. Not HP. HP is a mathematical tool to quantify torque at some arbitrary rpm value. HP does NOT pull a load. HP only describes how quickly you can pull something, but it does not describe how much it can pull. If you are wondering if you can pull an RV or Bobcat up a hill, you need to know TORQUE.


So here's how you would read the graph ...
(for the sake of ease of comparing only the engines, we will assume all other things are equal such as tires, tranny gears, diff gears, etc)
Say you need a minimum of 400 ft-lb of torque to pull your load up the hill. All engines shown above provide that as a minimum at some rpm value; they can all pull the load. But the engine that makes a minimum of 400 ft-lb at the highest rpm value, will pull it up the hill the quickest.
Torque pulls the load. RPM pulls it faster.
So you FIRST have to find an engine that can provide the torque.

If you need 450 ft-lb of torque, well the Ram 6.4L and Ford 6.2L are going to leave you cold; they cannot pull the load at all.
The other three can pull the load, but the newer engines (7.3L and 6.6L) will get you up the hill faster than the old 6.8L,

 

That's the most confusing way to look at torque that I've ever seen. And I'm an engineer, so I've seem some wonky charts in my day.

 

Kinda….

It's just a rough graph of torque from torque peak to HP peak. (rough because I doubt all those "curves" are straight lines.

Staying between the torque peak and HP peak would generally be the area of maximum "oomph".

 

As I stated in the post, the flat lines are for simplicity; the nature of the curve is unknown because we only have two points that are easily discovered via published data from the SAE tests done by the OEM. The "powerband" as most of us would recognize it, runs from peak torque to peak HP. But "horsepower" is just a term for a specific torque at a specific rpm. The engine makes the most torque at peak torque. It makes less torque at peak HP. The concept is not unfamiliar to those who understand the concept of "torque rise"; that describes the effect as to how torque magnitude goes up as the rpms fall, moving from peak HP to peak TQ. However, once you drop to peak TQ, and continue to fall down the rpm band, torque will fall off again.

Any truck will pull the most load at it's peak torque rpm. Anything above or below that rpm is not going to produce maximum thrust force at the road surface.

What the graph allows you to understand is how the engines compare/contrast to one another. The GM 6.6L and the Ford 7.3L are pretty much similar. Although I recently was informed that the new GM 10-spd may not be offered with this 6.6L engine after all; I cannot confirm or deny that at this point. If not available, that would seriously cause it a burden vs the Ford's 10-spd.

As for the topic of the old 6.8L to the new 7.3L, they both will pull a load about the same, but the newer engine will get it done quicker, because it has higher rpm to play with.

 

Seems curious that you would take the time to make that chart, yet not be certain the gm hd 6.6 gas has a 6 speed. Its had the 6 speed all along since its intro Feb 6th.

Early reviews of gm 6.6L are good. With the GM on lots Ford has already done internal testing. Wouldnt we like to be a fly on the wall.

 

I think the most important aspect of the 7.3 isn't going to be the power. I think once people start rolling over 200k miles we'll see what they're made of. If you can't/don't deliver on the power, reliability trumps all. No one cares how much power it has if it lasts, that's why the 7.3L PSD is still a desired platform. They were extremely durable engines. Ford needs that again, not that the current engines aren't good, but they're not what they could be.

 

Agreed. I want best in class performance AND what you said.

 

All they need the 7.3L to do is last as long as the 6.2Ls. They will go over 200,000Mi. easily.

 

The accuracy of the chart has zilch to do with the tranny. I don't follow GMs like I used to (when I used to own a Dmax). The effectiveness of the entire drive-train, as a system, will favor the Ford because of the tranny gear choices. It will be able to stay near peak torque more often, allowing more load to be moved. Wanna place a bet on GM offering that new 10-spd Alli mated to the 6.6L in a year or two, to keep up with the 7.3L/10-spd?

I agree with others about the reliability factor. That will be PARAMOUNT in the long term for the new 7.3L. The engine it is overshadowing (the 6.2L) has a stellar reputation for being reliable, overall. If the 7.3L ends up being a problem, it will be panned quickly like the 6.0L PSD that replaced the 7.3L PSD. More power in an unreliable package won't help the Blue Oval's reputation. I'm not saying it will be unreliable; I see nothing outwardly to indicate concerns. I just hope they did their homework and made the right design and material choices. As long as they did that, it will be a big winner!

 

Yes of course gm will offer the 10 speed in a couple years. But perhaps by then the 7.3L has DI. It's designed for it.

 

Hell to the No on DI. That’s exactly what you don’t want for a long life motor. Oil dilution and carbon build-up on the valves. Not good for motors that are going to be in rigs that will have extended idling. Having dual DI and Port injection just adds complexity. Ford need to keep this motor simple and reliable.

 

I think this is a really overblown concern. We’ve been seeing DI in widespread use for nearly 9 years now, and there are some extremely high-mileage examples out there with 300K+ miles.

How many EcoBoost engines have you heard of fail because or lubrication or carbon issues?