Hey Ford!!! Screw you guys!!!!

[rusty ol ranger]

Which is why we don't do that.

I'm not a fan of the 6F35 trans either, but it does keep these 4-cyls in their power bands.

What im saying is that its not exactly apples to apples here.

 

[19Walt93]

My former diesel tech is a big fan of the 7.3 gas engine, after working on 6.4's and 6.7's the engine bay probably looks empty to him,though. The worst problem we had with the 6.8 V10 was warped exhaust manifolds and broken manifold bolts, or improperly torqued spark plugs blowing out, the OHC chain drive system gave zero trouble. I like simpler designs better but it's hard to complain about the modular engine family's reliability. 4.6 Crown Vic cruisers took a merciless beating for years. If you haven't driven them, EcoBoost engines aren't like turbo motors from the 80's that needed to be screaming to make any power, they start boosting just above idle, anyone who's towed with both the current 5.0 and a 3.5 EcoBoost will buy the 3.5.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

My former diesel tech is a big fan of the 7.3 gas engine, after working on 6.4's and 6.7's the engine bay probably looks empty to him,though. The worst problem we had with the 6.8 V10 was warped exhaust manifolds and broken manifold bolts, or improperly torqued spark plugs blowing out, the OHC chain drive system gave zero trouble. I like simpler designs better but it's hard to complain about the modular engine family's reliability. 4.6 Crown Vic cruisers took a merciless beating for years. If you haven't driven them, EcoBoost engines aren't like turbo motors from the 80's that needed to be screaming to make any power, they start boosting just above idle, anyone who's towed with both the current 5.0 and a 3.5 EcoBoost will buy the 3.5.

Yeah, the mod motor timing systems 3v aside were pretty good.

Just a lot of engine bay filling fluff.

Standing beside a 7.3 trucks the exhaust manifolds were in plain sight. I could easily see all the spark plugs. It looked about like the 302 in my Ranger.

 

[snoranger]

I love how you pick the literal weakest version of the 460 to prove a point. Youre as bad as CNN.

You picked the year!!!

Ford/GM Trucks peaked in the late 70s,

 

[ericbphoto]

 

[G8orFord]

Gears do not change the output power at all. If you put 600hp into a 10:1 gear set you get 600hp out of it (minus minor friction losses). HP is roughly equal to torque x rpm - the gears just trade one against the other so you get 10X the torque at 1/10 the rpm, but the power is constant.

So yes, take that 1.5L spinning at 10k and run it through a 2.86:1 gear set and your 600hp is now at 3500rpm. It really is that simple.

LOL, yes you have the same hp output, but you're spinning more gears to get you there, more friction loss and heat so no, it's not quite that simple. Piston speed is greatly increased along with wear. Today's metallurgy allows some of this over yesterday's tech, but it would also hold true in larger displacement, lower rpm engines. Fact is, it takes "x" amount of fuel to produce "y" amount of hp. You can arbitrate that to a degree with the efficiency of the design.

This all started over they keyed vs. friction fit timing gears. No one has yet to give me a satisfactory explanation why this is neccessary. I don't buy the "more precise timing" argument at all. Curious if the 7.3 has keyed timing components or friction fit.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You picked the year!!!

I meant the trucks peaked in the late 70s as an overall package, not just engine wise

 

[snoranger]

I meant the trucks peaked in the late 70s as an overall package, not just engine wise

Just keep changing the story until it fits with the agenda.

 

[8thTon]

But it wouldnt outpull a friggin lawnmower.

You take one of these modern engines and bolt them to a 3speed C6 and a 3.07 rear like whats in my 77, it would friggin puke.

Thats my point.

Yes, the losses in that C6 are huge, but what does that have to do with the engine? And if the 3.07 gears are not correct for the power band than that would be dumb, so you’d want to use the correct gears.
Power is power, it doesn’t matter what makes it it still does the same thing.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Just keep changing the story until it fits with the agenda.

Sorry next time ill consult a lawyer to make sure every thing is squared up.

Yes, the losses in that C6 are huge, but what does that have to do with the engine? And if the 3.07 gears are not correct for the power band than that would be dumb, so you’d want to use the correct gears.
Power is power, it doesn’t matter what makes it it still does the same thing.

Ive said why the whole gear thing is stupid before when comparing engines. I dont feel like typing it all out again

 

[8thTon]

LOL, yes you have the same hp output, but you're spinning more gears to get you there, more friction loss and heat so no, it's not quite that simple. Piston speed is greatly increased along with wear. Today's metallurgy allows some of this over yesterday's tech, but it would also hold true in larger displacement, lower rpm engines. Fact is, it takes "x" amount of fuel to produce "y" amount of hp. You can arbitrate that to a degree with the efficiency of the design.

This all started over they keyed vs. friction fit timing gears. No one has yet to give me a satisfactory explanation why this is neccessary. I don't buy the "more precise timing" argument at all. Curious if the 7.3 has keyed timing components or friction fit.

Practically speaking we’re not really talking 10:1 on these engines, and you wouldn’t need more gears, just the correct final drive which is going to be there anyway. Friction losses for gears are actually very low.

Engines at higher rpm usually have shorter strokes which decreases rod angle, and they have good coolant circulation and oil pressure. Low rpm engines at high load tend to want to bang the rod bearings down through the oil film near TDC when the cylinder fires. It’s all a matter of designing for the intended use and rpm.

 

[8thTon]

Ive said why the whole gear thing is stupid before when comparing engines. I dont feel like typing it all out again

So when did 3.07 become the morally correct gear ratio? You’re just setting arbitrary requirements to support your notions.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

So when did 3.07 become the morally correct gear ratio? You’re just setting arbitrary requirements to support your notions.

Im using it to make a point.

I drug my 30ft 7000lb travel trailer with my 77 F250 with a 169hp 400 backed by a C6 and a 3.07 rear.

My point is if you put *insert over engineered garbage here* in that postion it would puke. Why? The 400 has torque.

 

[snoranger]

Sorry next time ill consult a lawyer to make sure every thing is squared up.

Good idea.

That way you don’t change it half way through again.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Good idea.

That way you don’t change it half way through again.

I said the *trucks* peaked in the late 70s, not nessaceraly the engines. Even though imo they are miles ahead of the shit that came later.