FORD`s super secret Megazilla V8

[rusty ol ranger]

Why not put a turbo on the 7.3? Or two of them.....

Hurt longevity.

 

[JohnnyO]

A 7.3 is 445 cubes. So why the does it take 8qts.

normally OHC engines have higher oil capacity. (4.6 takes 6qts)

There goes your savings. a diesel is still way more, but come on.

Longer oil change interval. Many commercial owners aren't real big on regular maintenance. My wife's Chrysler minivan holds 6 quarts in a little 3.6L V6 and the OCI is 10,000 miles. I change it every 5000 anyway.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Longer oil change interval. Many commercial owners aren't real big on regular maintenance. My wife's Chrysler minivan holds 6 quarts in a little 3.6L V6 and the OCI is 10,000 miles. I change it every 5000 anyway.

I wonder if it has something to do with variable valve timing....doesnt that use oil to operate?

 

[fastpakr]

I think theres been a whole in the market ever since GM killed the 8.1.

Ever since the mid-late 90s when the 454/460 got killed because of emissions diesel was really the only way to go. Sure ford had the V10 but at the time it was new untested tech and diesel fuel was cheap and there was basically zero emissions regulation on diesel.

Once diesels became saddled with unreliable emission equipment, expensive parts, etc etc alot of people who needed power but wasnt gonna tow like a semi (IE. The vast majority of 3/4-1ton customers) were screwed. You had your choice between high revving glorified small blocks or cough up the money for a diesel.

Engines like the godzilla fill a large void for people like construction workers, who may need to haul 10-11k lbs of building material but just across town....or the snowplow operator who dont wanna deal with the diesel in the cold bullshit, or the fleet guys who need more oomph then a 6.2 but wanna avoid the ovrrall diesel expense.

I for one think its the best thing ford has done engine wise in many years

If only there was a powertrain technology that was perfect for high output / shorter distance applications with minimal maintenance...

 

[Roert42]

If only there was a powertrain technology that was perfect for high output / shorter distance applications with minimal maintenance...

Your right.

They should have made it a two stroke.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If only there was a powertrain technology that was perfect for high output / shorter distance applications with minimal maintenance...

Lmao. No ones gonna buy a work truck with a drivetrain pioneered by power wheels.

Im not even getting into this debate.

 

[19Walt93]

Your right.

They should have made it a two stroke.

Ford was working with a company called Orbital in the early 80's to get a 2 stroke engine for use in the Escort. It got great mileage and made good power until they leaned out the oil mixture enough to satisfy the EPA. Then it started having durability problems. If you run a 1 liter 2 stroke that makes the power of a 2 liter for 1/2 the fuel and it pollutes 25% more as measured in parts per million out the tail pipe, you still reduced the total pollutants. But the EPA measures pars per million, not parts per mile, so we burn more fuel. Between the EPA regulations and extra weight to meet the crash standards, it took until 2008 for a Focus to deliver the gas mileage that a 95 Escort got.

 

[Snoranger]

If only there was a powertrain technology that was perfect for high output / shorter distance applications with minimal maintenance...

 

[19Walt93]

OHC's need to spin to make power. Pushrod engines make more power down low.

Where the engine builds power is determined by the bore/ stroke ratio and cam profile. It doesn't matter where the cam lives, it only matters how far and how long the valves are open. Look at the 427 vs the 428, they were the same engine family but the 427 was a high RPM screamer and the 428 was more of a torque engine and worked better on the street.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ford was working with a company called Orbital in the early 80's to get a 2 stroke engine for use in the Escort. It got great mileage and made good power until they leaned out the oil mixture enough to satisfy the EPA. Then it started having durability problems. If you run a 1 liter 2 stroke that makes the power of a 2 liter for 1/2 the fuel and it pollutes 25% more as measured in parts per million out the tail pipe, you still reduced the total pollutants. But the EPA measures pars per million, not parts per mile, so we burn more fuel. Between the EPA regulations and extra weight to meet the crash standards, it took until 2008 for a Focus to deliver the gas mileage that a 95 Escort got.

My sister had an 88 1/2 escort pony. 1.9L tbi....manual steering/brakes, 4 speed manual. Ran it from northern ohio to tenneesee one year back in 93ish....running 65mph it got 41mpg.

Hell late 40s/early 50s flatheads in cars were claiming 18mpg.

 

[19Walt93]

A 7.3 is 445 cubes. So why the does it take 8qts.

normally OHC engines have higher oil capacity. (4.6 takes 6qts)

There goes your savings. a diesel is still way more, but come on.

The marketing knuckleheads think a 10,000 mile oil change interval is a good thing, the more oil in the engine, the longer it takes to get polluted enough to cause sludge and harm. Plus, the oil helps cool the engine.

 

[stmitch]

The marketing knuckleheads think a 10,000 mile oil change interval is a good thing, the more oil in the engine, the longer it takes to get polluted enough to cause sludge and harm. Plus, the oil helps cool the engine.

It's a fleet engine. Besides the fact that every oil change costs money, time spent getting oil changes is time that the vehicle isn't making the company money. "Up time" is huge for fleet businesses, and it's something that modern diesels have struggled with. For those that may not need to tow 20k on a regular basis, this engine makes tons of sense from a $/mile perspective vs a diesel or Ford's other gassers even.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Where the engine builds power is determined by the bore/ stroke ratio and cam profile. It doesn't matter where the cam lives, it only matters how far and how long the valves are open. Look at the 427 vs the 428, they were the same engine family but the 427 was a high RPM screamer and the 428 was more of a torque engine and worked better on the street.

OHC has better valve control and can run heavier valve springs to support wilder cams with OEM reliablity... and it is easier to have more valves which really helps flow.

The DOHC 5.0 (460hp) is generally on par with the pushrod GM 6.2 (455hp) and laughs at the Mopar pushrod 5.7 (370hp), it is much more efficient at generating hp per cube than its pushrod counterparts... at the expense of real estate.

And again, heavy duty engines run with more oil than lighter duty engines.

 

[MikeG]

And don't forget variable valve timing. Yeah more complicated stuff.... but it flat out works. You can get low end torque, and high end power. Not sure if it could be adapted to OHV engines but really works great with 4 valve/cylinder heads.

My Mazda 3 goes 15,000 miles between oil changes (admittedly a few hamsters in a wheel but it is enough for the size of the car), and hit about 3,500 RPM and the valves open up.... you can really feel it. Put two of those engines together as a 4.0 liter or 4.6 liter v8 and it would smoke anything made in the 1970s of a similar displacement, while getting much better mileage and being considerably lighter.

No, I wouldn't run one in a dump truck, but for a passenger vehicle (which most pickups really are) it is worth considering. Durability? I'm edging up on the 345,000 mile oil change.

So not all the 'modern' stuff is bad although back in the day, my sisters had a Datsun 310 fastback that would top 50mpg on the highway. Stupid-simple car too. Oh well........

 

[rusty ol ranger]

OHC has better valve control and can run heavier valve springs to support wilder cams with OEM reliablity... and it is easier to have more valves which really helps flow.

The DOHC 5.0 (460hp) is generally on par with the pushrod GM 6.2 (455hp) and laughs at the Mopar pushrod 5.7 (370hp), it is much more efficient at generating hp per cube than its pushrod counterparts... at the expense of real estate.

And again, heavy duty engines run with more oil than lighter duty engines.

Ill bet the GM beats it for torque though. Which is what matters