Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Packard V8

Can we all spell "Cost/Benefit Analysis!"

Steve.k wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:34 pm

pamotorman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:15 pm how many chevys do you see out there with a ford engine vs how many fords do you see with a chevy engine. I rest my case.

Chevy doesn't have chassis worth putting Ford in!LS swap into fox body is a chassis that just plain works. Very little mods.

??? They are going into everything though... 3rd gens, S10, RX7, Jeeps, "Rods" of all sorts etc... I would venture a guess they are swapped more than Modular and Gen3 Hemi combined.
Soon as chevy makes a chassis "worth" putting a Ford in (more like fitting in) guys will put in a BBC, not worth the aggravation or expense to be cubes limited...

Dont see it around here. Fox bodies thats about it.

pamotorman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:43 pm Economy of scale is what's happening there.

If I can buy a block, heads, etc. for 2/3 the price to make the same power, and nothing to do with the architecture, why wouldn't I? Everybody and their brother is making Chevy parts...

that is because chevy only had 2 different architecture for 50+ years the SBC and the BBC and ford even changed the bell housing bolt pattern on different engines.
[/quote]

I’ve heard this argument for most of my adult life and I must respectfully disagree with you on this.

General Motors categorized their huge variety of engines under the division they were intended for. So a Pontiac 350 shares no commonality with a 350 from any other division.

The 396 rat has nothing in common with a 389 Poncho or a 400” Olds. I could list comparisons like this all night.

FoMoCo on the other hand calls ALL engines in their arsenal “Ford” engines.

So now you have a 351W intended for bread and butter car and truck business while at the same time you have a 351C intended for the performance cars. Remember that’s Ford’s AND Mercury’s. (BTW same bell housing flange)

Furthermore Ford always took an engineered approach to expanding a engine line. For example with the 2.87” stroke 221, 260, 289 and 302 engines the 8.2” deck the rod length and the crankshaft journal sizes all match the architecture and intended purpose of these small lightweight V8’s.

Now moving up to the 351W and it’s intended purpose of lugging bigger cars, trucks and vans you have a taller deck with a longer and beefier connecting rod that is the correct length to maintain what Ford felt was the ideal L/R ratio.

The crankshaft journals with their greater overlap for toughness and little things like bigger main bolts and head bolts and oil pump drive shaft. At the same time many parts will interchange.

It’s all in how you look at it I guess. I think Fords are simple compared to Gm’s Smorgasbord.

Going backwards, to pushrods? What next, back to flatheads?

Lucky me, im associated with a manufacturer that is developing and producing the new 7.3l intake. Their is strong similarities like the 5.0l coyote intake and LS style intakes such as the low front entry throttle body.

What ive discovered, the 7.3l intake has the same port head width and port spacing as a 6.2l engine, but thats where the similarities end.

No injector bosses, no coil pack clearancing, no fuel rail mounts.

Underside clearancing does not match up to a 6.2l engine block.

Runner port entrance bottle necks down to head port shape, unlike any other intake ford has produced.

Port shape favors a single intake valve.

My conclusion is this...Ford pumping the brakes and reversing in technology, uhm NO! Although it is possible!

One possible senario is Koenigsegg freevalve technology. Theve been running it for 5-6 years now and implimented the free valve technology with the Ford modular engines they used in their supercars. It only makes sense that Ford steps toward advancing technology rather than stepping backwards.

We might see actual camless engines!

Geoff2 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:26 am Going backwards, to pushrods? What next, back to flatheads?

Or moving in a more practical direction for the expected use, emission and fuel mileage..And as mentioned more compact lighter weight engine less expensive engine as mentioned....I said before, do the current trucks with DOHC V8 engines, Ford, Toyota,Nissan, out preform the GM wedge or Dodge hemi ? No they dont , they all have about the same pulling power and fuel mileage when comparing similar power ratings...The actual power to displacement doesn't matter for a truck..

I think with the electronics capability today and head design ford can make a big cube engine such as the modern 7.3 that generates big tq numbers slow running engine. With the new transmission engine rpm is kept in sweet spot to be easy on fuel. The pushrod design gets rid of alot of complex parts and costs. Win win all the way around. It will be much needed in the heavy pickup class. Ive run powerstroke diesels since 97. The repair costs are considerably higher than gas and with the latest gas engines and diesel price they offer very little gains. The new 6.7 with def gets considerable less milage than 5.0 f150 that we have. The only benifit of diesel right now is towing heavy trailers which we do continually there is no good option in gas at this point.

MichaelThompson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:38 pm

pamotorman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:43 pm Economy of scale is what's happening there.

If I can buy a block, heads, etc. for 2/3 the price to make the same power, and nothing to do with the architecture, why wouldn't I? Everybody and their brother is making Chevy parts...

that is because chevy only had 2 different architecture for 50+ years the SBC and the BBC and ford even changed the bell housing bolt pattern on different engines.

I’ve heard this argument for most of my adult life and I must respectfully disagree with you on this.

General Motors categorized their huge variety of engines under the division they were intended for. So a Pontiac 350 shares no commonality with a 350 from any other division.

The 396 rat has nothing in common with a 389 Poncho or a 400” Olds. I could list comparisons like this all night.

FoMoCo on the other hand calls ALL engines in their arsenal “Ford” engines.

So now you have a 351W intended for bread and butter car and truck business while at the same time you have a 351C intended for the performance cars. Remember that’s Ford’s AND Mercury’s. (BTW same bell housing flange)

Furthermore Ford always took an engineered approach to expanding a engine line. For example with the 2.87” stroke 221, 260, 289 and 302 engines the 8.2” deck the rod length and the crankshaft journal sizes all match the architecture and intended purpose of these small lightweight V8’s.

Now moving up to the 351W and it’s intended purpose of lugging bigger cars, trucks and vans you have a taller deck with a longer and beefier connecting rod that is the correct length to maintain what Ford felt was the ideal L/R ratio.

The crankshaft journals with their greater overlap for toughness and little things like bigger main bolts and head bolts and oil pump drive shaft. At the same time many parts will interchange.

It’s all in how you look at it I guess. I think Fords are simple compared to Gm’s Smorgasbord.
[/quote]

my post referred to chevy not all GM. GM figured it out many years ago it was not a good idea to have so many different engines. remember the stink when GM put chevy engines in pontiac and olds. caddy still puts chevy engines in some of their models

Great reading PAMOTORMAN------THANKS. Mark H.

henry ford

The Japanese seemed to realize early on about comparability across platforms. Just scale them up Or down but keep some of the fundamentals the same.

You see this a lot in the motorcycle world.

It seems as though the intake description provided would lead me to think Ford maybe following GM's lead and moving to a fairly simple pushrod OHV Direct injection big block along the lines of the newer GM LT truck engine.
As for free valve solenoid Koeniseeg valve train I don't think Ford or anyone has that technology or systems in the 250,000 mile durability area that these truck makers want or need to stay in premium warranty longevity. That could appear in the future but I don't know that they want to stretch that far now with the importance of their truck market.

Main question is when would someone be able to get one....... The way it looks it maybe around 2022 before its out for production???

If we can believe the op's posted article it talks as though this new 7.3L will appear in the 2020 model releases in late 2019. That's not a long wait, next year at this time of year.