The New Ford 7.3L Pushrod Gas Truck Engine

Qball

Qball

Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,284
Location
Triad
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
https://www.fordnxt.com/news/the-ford-pushrod-returns-with-the-new-godzilla-7-3l-ohv-big-block/

A big torquey OHV gas engine for Ford's big Super Duty pickups. If the mid-range truck manufacturers had any sense at all, they would adopt this line of thinking and develop a big displacement OHV fuel injected gas engine for the mid-range truck market.

If they could do so and make the engine reliable, even if the fuel mileage couldn't compete with the current mid-range diesel monstrosities, the savings in the cost per gallon of fuel and more importantly, the cost savings in maintenance would more than make up for any possible mpg weakness.

But with today's technology, tighter tolerances, and better more efficient fuel delivery systems, a large displacement gasoline truck engine may not fair that bad in the mpg department vs. a diesel today compared to how it was back in the '70's and '80's.

The company I used to own ran two 1997 Chevrolet 3500 stake bed trucks equipped with 454 fuel injected big blocks. We ran those trucks for at least six years, got over 600,000 miles out of each engine, sold both trucks to a customer for use on his farmland in 2003, and was told by this customer several years later that he was still running both trucks on his farm with no engine problems at all.

After we sold those two 3500s in 2003 along with some Ford F-450 and 550 Super Duty trucks, we started buying larger mid-range trucks such as Chevrolet 5500s, IHC 4300s, Freightliners, Kenworths, etc.....

Our maintenance costs were much higher with the diesel powered trucks, particularly after the forced introduction of Diesel Exhaust Fluid and the accompanying systems.

Our vehicle maintenance costs were lowest when we were running either gas powered trucks or trucks powered by diesel engines equipped with mechanical fuel systems.

In my opinion, Ford is making a good move by introducing this big displacement OHV gas engine to their heavy duty pickup truck line and finally joining GM by implementing this idea.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
445 cubic inches....yeah Baby....some fine looking exhaust headers on that thing.
Click to expand...
You need one of them in a half ton, 2 wheel drive truck. It’ll be like a race car
 
We are going to the V-10 Ford gas engines in our Ford ambulances and getting away from the diesels. Cost of fuel and maintenance issues I guess. The gas mileage really sucks and they have nowhere near the get-up and go that the diesels have. We will see if they have the same or better lifespan.
 
@Qball will it fit in you JK? :cool:


Good to see something other than a OHC motor from Ford. The current 6.2 seems like a fine motor, but that leaves a large power gap between the 6.2 gasser and the 6.7 diesel.
 
Last edited:
phideux said:
We are going to the V-10 Ford gas engines in our Ford ambulances and getting away from the diesels. Cost of fuel and maintenance issues I guess. The gas mileage really sucks and they have nowhere near the get-up and go that the diesels have. We will see if they have the same or better lifespan.
Click to expand...

Those SOHC V-10's will probably cost less to maintain than the current diesels they're running in those ambulances, but that's a good example of what I've been discussing on here. Those SOHC modular engines are not good truck engines for heavy duty use. That's why Ford is finally reintroducing the OHV "Cam-In-Block" pushrod engine for their Super Duty trucks. I would imagine a big heavy ambulance would be a great target market for this new 7.3L Ford.
 
the variable valve timing on a single cam in block engine is gonna be fun

ford 7.3l.jpg
 
Mike Overlay said:
the variable valve timing on a single cam in block engine is gonna be fun

View attachment 106031
Click to expand...
As long as they don't go managed displacement it'll probably be okay, but they probably will.
The GM L96 has been doing it a few years. Imagine the GM 6.6 gasser will be the same.

I say that but then the 6.0 in the Caprice with DoD is not suitable for fleets. We're doing heads, cams, and cam bearings in 30-60k motors pretty regular.

According to some Ford engineer the only reason they went pushrod is for packaging, they're looking to sell this thing to real heavy truck manufacturers, and I'd guess cram it in their vans as well.

My question is do they see new regs on the horizon? or are they seeing a drop in sales as the ridiculous maintenance costs and unreliable nature of DPF/DEF are becoming known? Between ignorant operators and fragile/unreliable sensors I'd say a minimum of 10% of our class 6+ fleet is down at any given time. Our Light/Mid duty trucks seem to fair slightly better, but we started reducing the number of diesels there 6 years ago.
 
Mike Overlay said:
the variable valve timing on a single cam in block engine is gonna be fun

View attachment 106031
Click to expand...

I imagine a hydraulic cam phaser like in the early LS engines. It works well until you start wanting to get real performance out of the engine. It can also cause engine oil temp issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For a second I wondered if this was going to be a special handle Ford was issuing so you could push your vehicle to the side of the road when it breaks down......

;)
 
Well, the current 6.2 (379 CI) makes more than 1 HP per CI. This could get interesting..

440-460 HP and 480-500 FT/LBS seems doable.
 
Last edited:
jmccracken1214 said:
I think it’s so dumb for them to bring a 7.3 back, their most iconic Diesel engine and make it gas.

I also think ford sucks, to each their own
Click to expand...

Copy, paste and Google:

"Chevrolet moving to Mexico"

"Ford moving to Detroit"

and choose your poison. They are not "bringing back their most iconic diesel engine and making it gas", they are introducing a new gas engine option that is 7.3 liters. Besides, the "most iconic engine" ain't got no holes for spark plugs. Riding the 7.3 namesake to 40 something years as the best selling truck in America is marketing genius.
 
Burt Gummer said:
I looked and haven’t seen any yet
Click to expand...

Scott88 said:
Well, the current 6.2 (379 CI) makes more than 1 HP per CI. This could get interesting..

440-460 HP and 480-500 FT/LBS seems doable.
Click to expand...

BatteryOaksBilly said:
You read my mind...any HP figures yet??????
Click to expand...

The estimates I saw were 450hp and 500ft/lbs. Those are just estimates and not published from Ford. Honestly though, if they can't make 500HP and near 600 ft/lbs they aren't doing much in my opinion. It sounds like they're throwing good internals at it so turn the wick up a little bit.
 
Scott88 said:
What's up with dual alternators?

Looks plumbed for an oil cooler or a remote filter as well.
Click to expand...

Any truck they are planning to put that in has a high likelihood of needing a heavy charging system and nearly every production truck or performance car has some type of oil cooler in place now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim
spittinfire said:
Any truck they are planning to put that in has a high likelihood of needing a heavy charging system and nearly every production truck or performance car has some type of oil cooler in place now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right on, I just don't recall seeing dual alternators before on a 3/4 or 1 ton. One for each battery? I have a couple of Ford's with oil to coolant coolers. I know some folks delete them to avoid possible cross contamination. Maybe this one will be a thermostatic oil to air.

Big block Mustang anyone?
 
Last edited:
I don't give a rats as about hp numbers,
500 ft/lbs of torque is not too shabby for gas. A little map tuning and some exhaust and it could sing a little deeper I'm sure.
It isn't gonna go head to head with a diesel for towing but thinking about a mustang or a performance truck,, that could be a drive shaft twister.
 
Can't wait to try one in 1/8th with the bone stocker I've got now. It weighs 250 pounds more than the last 5.0 Mustang I had in '16. The new 10 speed is a Wonder!
 
Buddy of mine is building a '67 Comet with a 557ci BBF. Can't wait to go for a ride in that monster.
 
It is most likley headed for the ambulance and RV markets where a high electrical drain and heavy duty cooling is needed.
 
Every day we stray further and further away from God... 9mm aks, mossberg making pistols, highpoints with threaded barrels and a ford 7.3 gas, and there diesels are no longer international based........
 
I'm not an old guy, and I remember when 180-250 hp were good, respectable numbers for a full size truck that you'd happily tow a camper with.

Now days I see folks saying 390-450 "isn't enough" to tow a boat. If your pickup isn't putting out Freightliner levels of power, its just not adequate?

Whats up with that? I think its cool that these levels of power are available, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I "need" it.


I'm interested in the new motor though. My work truck will probably be up for replacement in the next 5 years, so perhaps I'll get an F350 with the new 7.3 to try out.
 
Scott88 said:
Right on, I just don't recall seeing dual alternators before on a 3/4 or 1 ton. One for each battery? I have a couple of Ford's with oil to coolant coolers. I know some folks delete them to avoid possible cross contamination. Maybe this one will be a thermostatic oil to air.

Big block Mustang anyone?
Click to expand...
My 11 f250 6.7 has dual alternators
 
You could tow comfortably at 2000 rpms..... lower rpms should equate to better fuel mileage. Most UPS delivery trucks still use gas engines..... sometimes those things are screaming down the road..... I'd hate so see how much fuel they go through in a week.

If they keep it considerably cheaper than diesels and they don't have any major problems (knock on wood), this will be a big deal in Heavy Duty trucks.
 
RedneckFur said:
I'm not an old guy, and I remember when 180-250 hp were good, respectable numbers for a full size truck that you'd happily tow a camper with.

Now days I see folks saying 390-450 "isn't enough" to tow a boat. If your pickup isn't putting out Freightliner levels of power, its just not adequate?
Click to expand...


My first truck was a 1990 GMC Sierra with a very tired 350 CI engine. According to Wikipedia it left the factory with 210 HP, and those horses do tend to escape over time. And it was just fine, and did everything I ever asked it to do until the torque converter started slipping. A one ton of the same vintage with the 7.4L made a dizzying 230 HP, but 385 torques. The 3.5L inline 5 cylinder in a Chevrolet Colorado makes more power than that, and the 5.3L ecotec makes more power and the same torque while getting 20 mpg instead of 8.

The last time I looked, Ford wanted $9000 extra over the base price for the 6.7L diesel in the heavy duty pickups. If this 7.3L is a $3000 option instead, then I think a lot of people will go for it. I know I certainly would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom