More power...arh arh arh

 

50hp/80tq, ok. 15/30, pfft.

 

hoping its all a software tune! I suspect the 23 7.3 uses the new mustang intake and MAS extender.

 

I think maybe during the reveal she let the cat out of the bag. the woman mentioned 450 hp right after talking about the 7.3 and then introduced the 6.7 which already has 475. so she either revealed 7.3 has 450 hp or misstated the 6.7 has 450 instead of 475. the 7.3 needs to be more powerful than the 3.5 eb

its after the 38 minute mark. after watching it again i think she got the 6.7 hp wrong. ~500/600 would be satisfying

 

I’m 100% fine with the power level of the current 7.3 gas. What I want is for them to refine the heck out of it so its durability forces Ram and GM to step up their game. I love the fact that in the year 2022 the only company left making a port injection pushrod motor with no cylinder deactivation is ford.

 

It just irritates me that Ford had such a h***-*n for OHC pickup engines over the last 25 years that had so many idiotic features/failures and sucked....only to FINALLY go back to a reliable LS-esque, pushrod, 2V engine.

I completely agree with the running on all eight sentiment. Cylinder deactivation is a STUPID concept and like most braindead EPA-mandated BS, serves only to shorten engine life and cause reliability issues.

 

I hope you do realize that the OHC design allowed Ford to stay ahead of their pushrod competition since the early 90s. Ram uses cylinder deactivation to remain competitive to Fords OHC engines. GM V8s use direct injection and cylinder deactivation again to remain competitive to Ford's OHC engines. Ford didnt just pursue the OHC engine because they wanted to be different.

Ford reintroduced the pushrod engine as of late because the variable camshaft timing technology is now sufficient enough to stay at the front of the competition with a dated pushrod/port injected design. The EPA also has nothing to do with the HD trucks engines outside of a very lax emissions standard that a catalytic converter takes care of. The HD trucks dont have to meet fuel economy standards like consumer vehicles do. At the same time though when Ford's OHC engine is getting 1-2mpg better than GM or Rams pushrod design, you can understand why they went with fuel saving technologies (cylinder deactivation and direct injection) to remain competitive on paper at the very least.

 

I don't really see them offering us with 2020-2022 a software update, although I would love it. Running a 5Star 87 octane tune on my 2020 and love it.

 

let’s not pretend the OHC program was some sort of overwhelming success in the 3/4-1ton segments, the 5.4 triton was universally hated by everyone on power except those who tow and haul light, not to mention its sparkplug issues. The 6.8 got some guts but hardly easy on gas. The 6.2 has been more balanced and reliable but again outside of its durability, even Ford people can’t say its power is segment leading. GM and Chrysler have been running on VVT pushrod for over a decade and one could say ford just let them do the hard lifting and used the GM motors as a stepping stone for the Godzilla.

 

The 5.4L is really the only one that has legitimate complaints against it. When the OHC engines are compared to their intended competition they are more efficient.

5.4L 2V and 3V was competitive with the GM 6.0L and Chrysler 5.9L. The 5.4L did its job with a smaller displacement and better overall efficiency. The GM 6.0L and Chrysler 5.9L is just as underwhelming as the 5.4L when towing and plenty of operators share the same view of their performance in a 3/4 ton truck.

The 6.8L 2V was competitive with the Chrysler 8.0L and the GM 8.1L. Again smaller displacement with better overall efficiency. Both the 8.0L and 8.1L were discontinued because of their lack of efficiency. The 6.8L went on to be revised into an even more efficient 3 valve version.

The 6.8L 3V had no competition, it clearly outperformed the Chrysler 8.0L and GM 8.1L until they were discontinued and not even replaced with a modern alternative engine.

The 6.2L 2V is competitive with the 6.4L Hemi, GM 6.0L, and even the newest GM 6.6L. The GM 6.0L is quite underwhelming compared to the 6.2L. The 6.4L is directly competitive and the 6.6L is slightly ahead but its very debatable in the overall platform performance of the trucks.

Overall the OHC engines are a great success. The OHC engines used variable camshaft timing and nothing more to be efficient and competitive. The 6.8L 3V was never even fitted with variable camshaft timing. Now Ford is out ahead with pushrod technology, only using variable camshaft timing and no other technologies to increase efficiency to remain competitive with GM or Ram.

Its just my opinion at the end of the day but Ford has always been ahead of the competition with their engine development, OHC design played a leading role in that. Ive owned every 3/4 - 1 ton platform since 2003, sometimes multiples. Ford HD trucks have always been the better overall platform.

 

When compared to the Chrysler 8.0L and the GM 8.1L it is much better and truly outlived both of them. One of Ford's best designed and built engines. Sure haven't seen many motorhomes with either the Chrysler 8.0L and the GM 8.1L engines in them. Must be a reason, eh?

 

The 8.1 IS in quite a few motorhomes. You probably haven't searched for them to buy to see that but the Chevy Workhorse chassis was actually a pretty good motor home chassis. The 8.1l is also a good motor and the 6.8l was just produced longer. It was not better or more efficient and thats why it was produced longer.
Now people in here are speaking as to why manufacturers ended production of items as if they were privy to the meetings. The 8.1l had plenty of potential. After all they had a crate engine on the same platform. Did you forget about the GM ZZ502? Definitely has more power than any of the gas engines in 3/4 & 1 tons today. The 8.1l was a detuned 502.
A lot of things are possible that never come to be but when towing there IS no replacement for displacement.
How efficient would a 500hp 6.2l OHC be? I suspect the mileage would be atrocious just like any 500hp engine but a big block will be less effected by load cause of the larger rotating mass.

 

LOL you really love diving in head first without a clue. Both GM and Chrysler announced through many publications that their 8.1L V8 and 8.0L V10 would need significant reengineering to stay competitive in the class II and up platforms, hence why they were discontinued. They could not match the overall efficiency of the 3V 6.8L which was produced while they were still in production.

Chrysler at least made an attempt to fill the gap with the 5.7L Hemi and 6.4L Hemi. GM never even tried, their 6.0L strayed far behind the pack up until they discontinued it for the new direct injected 6.6L.

Hate the OHC engines if it suits you, but at least take a look at the 6.2L and 6.8L 3V power curves. They are broad and usable just like a pushrod engine.

 

yet with all that success they ditched the OHC program and went pushrod.

that tells all I need to know.

 

The 6.8l 3v had 362HP and 460TQ
Chevy 8.1l had 340HP and 455TQ
Please explain how that is "more efficient"
*E450 motor homes were only rated at 305HP and 420TQ

The 3v V10 from Ford was not an amazing engine compared to its competition it was just on par. GM dropped theirs and Ford kept making their fuel sucking OHC V10.
The 8.1l in the workhorse chassis was rated at 340HP and 450TQ
I've driven a 3v V10 motor home and a Chevy 8.1l motor home and the 8.1 felt like it had more power.