Chicago 2019: 2020 Ford F-Series Super Duty

I didn't think we'd see over 7 liters in a production engine again ever.

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I didn't think we'd see over 7 liters in a production engine again ever.

It is nice to see though.

I didn't realize the V10 was still around..interesting.  

45 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I didn't realize the V10 was still around..interesting.  

You see them more on the F-550 to F-750 chassis cab models. Very rarely on the F-250 to F-450.

From speculation in a couple articles, it sounds like that 7.3 V8 is going to be a new old-school pushrod V8.  "The motor uses a new cam-in-block, overhead valve architecture with cast iron block and forged steel crankshaft.."

Interesting retro move, compared to the OHC V8s they've been doing for over 20 years..

13 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

From speculation in a couple articles, it sounds like that 7.3 V8 is going to be a new old-school pushrod V8.  "The motor uses a new cam-in-block, overhead valve architecture with cast iron block and forged steel crankshaft.."

Interesting retro move, compared to the OHC V8s they've been doing for over 20 years..

Good for toughness and more compact packaging. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Good for toughness and more compact packaging. 

And low end torque, which is good for towing and Super Duty grunty stuff..

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

And low end torque, which is good for towing and Super Duty grunty stuff..

This was my thinking. Smart move to utilize the torquey design. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I didn't think we'd see over 7 liters in a production engine again ever.

Aren't there still rumors of a 7 liter going into the Rams? 

Yes to rumors, but nothing announced yet. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Good for toughness and more compact packaging. 

And its a damn fine looking truck to boot!

Man, you really have to appreciate how competition improves the breed(s)!

I would still opt for the rock solid reliability of the Cummins, but the 7.3 gasser in the Ford Super Duty would (if it is all that it should be) would make me choose the 7.3 over the Ram 6.4!

Yet if you need this type of a work truck and especially if you have a farm, you probably already have Diesel tractors, so why bother with the Gas Motor when I bet the Diesel is far more efficient. ?

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

This was my thinking. Smart move to utilize the torquey design. 

Aren't there still rumors of a 7 liter going into the Rams? 

On a side tangent, FCA needs to do an  'LA Rams' edition of the Ram in purple and yellow...

Wow they managed to make it look smaller and like agile. I think the RAM looks the most luxo but this looks the most techy in top trims

30 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

Wow they managed to make it look smaller and like agile. I think the RAM looks the most luxo but this looks the most techy in top trims

It looks fantastic in all trims....but top trims especially.

8 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I didn't think we'd see over 7 liters in a production engine again ever.

Me either.  Why not just twin turbo the 5.0 V8 they already have?  I don’t get why they still isn’t an ecoboost V8.   And it can’t be fear of turbo in a pick up because the F150 is mostly turbo and the diesel in the heavy duty is turbo.

I also thought that V10 died in 2010 that engine was old 10 years ago.

So it's almost, but not quite a 460 cubic incher.  Fabulous.  Of course it will be tres useful in a truck like this.  So heartwarming to see.

I get the feeling that the 7.3 liter V8 will put out about 50 more hp and torque than the 3.5 liter V6 in the Navigator.  I think it sad if any engine isn’t over 100 hp per liter so that V8 better make at least 730 hp and 730 lb-ft.

8 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I get the feeling that the 7.3 liter V8 will put out about 50 more hp and torque than the 3.5 liter V6 in the Navigator.  I think it sad if any engine isn’t over 100 hp per liter so that V8 better make at least 730 hp and 730 lb-ft.

You still fail to understand how horsepower works. This is going to be a relatively slow turning torque monster, not a high horsepower high revving engine.  Gotta have high revs for high horsepower and that just isn't a good recipe for a tow truck. 

53 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I get the feeling that the 7.3 liter V8 will put out about 50 more hp and torque than the 3.5 liter V6 in the Navigator.  I think it sad if any engine isn’t over 100 hp per liter so that V8 better make at least 730 hp and 730 lb-ft.

I don't think you understand the point of this engine. 

44 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You still fail to understand how horsepower works. This is going to be a relatively slow turning torque monster, not a high horsepower high revving engine.  Gotta have high revs for high horsepower and that just isn't a good recipe for a tow truck. 

Even a torque monster should put up big numbers.  The Mercedes V12 is a torque monster and that makes over 100 hp per liter and was doing that 10 years ago.  And a high rev engine should be more in the 200 hp per liter range.  I bet this engine also makes peak torque at 3400 rpm, too high for a puller.

Since Ford hasn't released any numbers, no point in speculation.    No one cares about hp per liter, just meaningless statistical nonsense...

I would wager good money they're going to put out a number larger than 1000lb-ft of torque..because competition..

The updated 6.7**

12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Even a torque monster should put up big numbers.  The Mercedes V12 is a torque monster and that makes over 100 hp per liter and was doing that 10 years ago.  And a high rev engine should be more in the 200 hp per liter range.  I bet this engine also makes peak torque at 3400 rpm, too high for a puller.

This is a work truck engine. What part about that is difficult to understand. 

Check this spec out.. 

Mercedes Unimog has a 7.7L 6cyl making 299hp and 899tq. That's some weak-ass sh!t. 

12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Even a torque monster should put up big numbers.  The Mercedes V12 is a torque monster and that makes over 100 hp per liter and was doing that 10 years ago.  And a high rev engine should be more in the 200 hp per liter range.  I bet this engine also makes peak torque at 3400 rpm, too high for a puller.

MB V-12 dates back to 1998. It's also only rated to tow a measly 7700 lbs.

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is a work truck engine. What part about that is difficult to understand. 

Check this spec out.. 

Mercedes Unimog has a 7.7L 6cyl making 299hp and 899tq. That's some weak-ass sh!t. 

Diesels tend to be low on HP and high on torque.  Low RPM torque is what counts w/ diesels and work trucks.

21 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Even a torque monster should put up big numbers.  The Mercedes V12 is a torque monster and that makes over 100 hp per liter and was doing that 10 years ago.  And a high rev engine should be more in the 200 hp per liter range.  I bet this engine also makes peak torque at 3400 rpm, too high for a puller.

Even if it did, it probably also makes great torque at 1700rpm also. 

You always manage to bring Mercedes into a thread somehow..... total fanboi. 

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Diesels tend to be low on HP and high on torque.  Low RPM torque is what counts w/ diesels and work trucks.

Oh I know but compared to the D3's diesels.. WEAK. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Oh I know but compared to the D3's diesels.. WEAK. 

Maybe for the Unimog's European markets, they make enough....they aren't in Texass..

Just now, Robert Hall said:

Maybe for the Unimog's market, they make enough....they aren't in Texass..

I can't tell if you're serious or think I'm being serious.. I'm just digging at the Mercedes fanboi in the room who always likes to take digs at anything American. 

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I can't tell if you're serious or think I'm being serious.. I'm just digging at the Mercedes fanboi in the room who always likes to take digs at anything American. 

I'm being serious....899 lbs/ft (or rods to the hectare or whatever EU measurement is in use) is plenty enough...

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

I can't tell if you're serious or think I'm being serious.. I'm just digging at the Mercedes fanboi in the room who always likes to take digs at anything American. 

And deservedly so.

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I'm being serious....899 lbs/ft (or rods to the hectare or whatever EU measurement is in use) is plenty enough...

I know it's plenty, just as if this new 7.3 put out 500lb-ft would be plenty but not as much as others or other options or whatever the fck he's trying to convey. 

3 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Diesels tend to be low on HP and high on torque.  Low RPM torque is what counts w/ diesels and work trucks.

Because they are turbocharged.  Which is why Ford could have turbocharged their 5.0 V8 and had a better engine and saved development cost.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

This is a work truck engine. What part about that is difficult to understand. 

Check this spec out.. 

Mercedes Unimog has a 7.7L 6cyl making 299hp and 899tq. That's some weak-ass sh!t. 

Diesel.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I know it's plenty, just as if this new 7.3 put out 500lb-ft would be plenty but not as much as others or other options or whatever the fck he's trying to convey. 

My point is Ford made a new engine that will likely be weaker and thirstier than if they Ecoboosted the 5.0 V8.  They spent more money for a worse engine, makes no sense.  Unless the specs of this V8 are amazing which I doubt since they didn’t release them.

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Diesel.

ReAlLy? 

Ram makes due with 1.0L less displacement in their 6 cyl and they make 400hp and 1000lb-ft or torque. 

Ford makes due with 1.0L less displacement and they make 450hp and 935lb-ft or torque

Chevy makes due with 1.1L less displacement and they make 445hp and 910lb-ft of torque. 

Tell Mercedes if they need any pointers to come across the pond. 

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

My point is Ford made a new engine that will likely be weaker and thirstier than if they Ecoboosted the 5.0 V8.  They spent more money for a worse engine, makes no sense.  Unless the specs of this V8 are amazing which I doubt since they didn’t release them.

So far that whole BS argument of Turbo engines are more fuel efficient is just that BS. Once you put your foot into it to create the power they have proven to be thirstier than naturally aspirated motors.

I would expect Ford to use this new Beast of a motor in their medium duty line of commercial trucks where it will out last a smaller sized turbo'd gas motor.

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

ReAlLy? 

Ram makes due with 1.0L less displacement in their 6 cyl and they make 400hp and 1000lb-ft or torque. 

Ford makes due with 1.0L less displacement and they make 450hp and 935lb-ft or torque

Chevy makes due with 1.1L less displacement and they make 445hp and 910lb-ft of torque. 

Tell Mercedes if they need any pointers to come across the pond. 

Mercedes Trucks do have a 155,000 mile powertrain warranty, a bit longer than what you get a Chevy or Ford, and Unimog has to hit the Euro VI emissions standards too, which probably play a role in engine tuning.  But we are comparing commercial truck to retail/personal use truck here.  The Merceds Actros has 3,000 lb-ft of torque, granted it is a 15.6 liter engine, but Mercedes has no problem making torque out of their engines.

Daimler is also the #1 commercial truck seller on this side of the pond too, they know trucks better than anyone.  Daimler invented the truck after all:

That is NOT the "first" truck.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

That is NOT the "first" truck.

It is in SMKs alternate reality.

The 5.0L does not have a duty cycle that involves pushing a truck that itself probably weighs in dually form supercrew cab twice as much as the F150 5.0L.

It is not a work engine. And they did modify a version of the Coyote-Voodoo lineage for the GT500. That is meant for a sports car. Not a heavy duty.

7 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

The 5.0L does not have a duty cycle that involves pushing a truck that itself probably weighs in dually form supercrew cab twice as much as the F150 5.0L.

It is not a work engine. And they did modify a version of the Coyote-Voodoo lineage for the GT500. That is meant for a sports car. Not a heavy duty.

Correct.  Though maybe the 7.3 will eventually find it's way into a Mustang 4WD Super Duty edition.

8 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

It is in SMKs alternate reality.

According to the Book of Knowledge, it was in 1895.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck

16 hours ago, dfelt said:

I would expect Ford to use this new Beast of a motor in their medium duty line of commercial trucks where it will out last a smaller sized turbo'd gas motor.

Without actually saying that.. Ford said that. They said they know the requirements of medium duty trucks and all that. I believe it is in the below video. I don't know how to embed them so you can just click "play". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FtNlfAbc2w&feature=youtu.be

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Correct.  Though maybe the 7.3 will eventually find it's way into a Mustang 4WD Super Duty edition.

 

According to the Book of Knowledge, it was in 1895.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck

Right...and in 1895 a major Buggy works in  Columbus was building the types of carriages actually pulled by horses. they had another good decade in them. Building the first in 1895, if that actually was the first, has zero bearing on their ability to build trucks today.

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Correct.  Though maybe the 7.3 will eventually find it's way into a Mustang 4WD Super Duty edition.

I'd LOVE to see a swap into the mustang with this! I don't care what the power numbers are stock, it would just be really cool. 

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Right...and in 1895 a major Buggy works in  Columbus was building the types of carriages actually pulled by horses. they had another good decade in them. Building the first in 1895, if that actually was the first, has zero bearing on their ability to build trucks today.

Perhaps, but M-B has been building trucks pretty much uninterrupted for over a century, so it's not like they are a newcomer to trucks like some are asserting.  Maybe not US style light and heavy duty pickups, but commercial trucks in general have long been one of their major product lines. 

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I'd LOVE to see a swap into the mustang with this! I don't care what the power numbers are stock, it would just be really cool. 

Yes...don't know if it would fit without major mods... a Power Stroke diesel Mustang would be interesting also (I think some of those have been swapped into modern Mustangs).   

21 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

  No one cares about hp per liter, just meaningless statistical nonsense...

 

This x 10000000000