« prev   random   next »

1
0

Big really, big block V-8

By kt1652 following x   2019 Feb 13, 11:08am 636 views   11 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Real Americans drive push-rod 7.3L engines.
5.0L are for cheapskate tree-huggers who don't need to tow a house once in a while.
We waited for the announcement, Holley Dominator 4barrel carburetor's return, with bated breath!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-ford-made-7-3-211700404.html

1   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Feb 13, 11:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

kt1652 says
Real Americans drive push-rod 7.3L engines.
5.0L are for cheapskate tree-huggers who don't need to tow a house once in a while.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Didn't read the article ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is a shame, because it's very short and says it all right there:

"If you used [the 7.3-liter] in an F-150 or something, it would not return the kind of fuel economy at light load as some of our other engine offerings that we deploy in that vehicle," Beltramo said. "There would be a hit for the displacement. But when you start talking about running day-in day-out, at high weights...the displacement brings a big fuel-economy benefit."
2   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (0)   2019 Feb 13, 11:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

As I understand it, a non-stressed, slow-revving, pushrod is going to be cheaper and more efficient when under a huge load when compared to a 1/2-sized turbo engine. However, when not under a huge load, the 1/2-sized turbo engine will be more efficient. In a pickup truck it's possible that you operate under the huge-load scenario enough to go with the big engine; thus, the option.

For most of us, our engines are used in daily commutes. We operate under huge load for a few seconds a few times a day (at most) while accelerating to get up to highway speed. A smaller turbo engine can give more power, lighter vehicle, and better fuel economy all simultaneously.

I don't think putting a 1.6L turbo in 4000 lb "trucklet" is going to work — with that much weight you'll be using the turbo a lot. But suppose you have a "sporty" car or even a sports car. You want 2x or 3x more power than necessary, so, generally, the engine will be operating a very light load.
3   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Feb 13, 11:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hugolas_Madurez says
kt1652 says
Real Americans drive push-rod 7.3L engines.
5.0L are for cheapskate tree-huggers who don't need to tow a house once in a while.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Didn't read the article ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is a shame, because it's very short and says it all right there:

"If you used [the 7.3-liter] in an F-150 or something, it would not return the kind of fuel economy at light load as some of our other engine offerings that we deploy in that vehicle," Beltramo said. "There would be a hit for the displacement. But when you start talking about running day-in day-out, at high weights...the displacement brings a big fuel-economy benefit."

Translation: Push rod is old as dirt engine tech. Therefore it is way cheaper to manufacture than them overhead camshafts and multi-valve designs Mercedes or Volvo truck engines.
Got it, updated Hummer H2 strategy. lol
'Automakers talk about fuel-economy and how it impacts engine design a lot, but what's interesting here is that at least in the US, trucks like the Super Duty don't have any standards to meet. The EPA doesn't require automakers to report fuel-economy figures for pickups with a GWVR of over 8500 pounds, so these trucks can be as efficient or inefficient as the automakers like.'

4   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (5)   2019 Feb 13, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

kt1652 says
Translation: Push rod is old as dirt engine tech. Therefore it is way cheaper to manufacture than them overhead camshafts and multi-valve designs Mercedes or Volvo truck engines.


No, it's no a translation in any way shape or form. It's a speculation from someone not understanding neither engine tech, nor economics. If we are to talk about what's cheaper, Ford already has a line of overhead camshaft V8 engines and for them just making a bigger OHC engine would be much cheaper, than developing a brand-new pushrod line.
5   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Feb 13, 11:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SunnyvaleCA says
... My car doesn't even come equipped with a trailer hitch and it's max payload including passengers is something like 550 pounds. (Yes, 2 obese people would overload it.) With a modest size turbo engine, you would only run hard for 5 seconds (after that you'd be at lose-your-license speeds).


A typical Harley rider with girlfriend is more than that.
:-)
5 sec pedal to the metal? - in a P100D, you may join Paul Walker.
6   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Feb 13, 11:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Take a deep breath, lighten up. Go smell some flowers.
I just hate push rod and ohv and tool-tech.
7   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Feb 13, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hugolas_Madurez says


"If you used [the 7.3-liter] in an F-150 or something, it would not return the kind of fuel economy at light load as some of our other engine offerings that we deploy in that vehicle," Beltramo said. "There would be a hit for the displacement. But when you start talking about running day-in day-out, at high weights...the displacement brings a big fuel-economy benefit."

"...It's a speculation from someone not understanding neither engine tech, nor economics...."
#1, Pushrod ohv engines are cheap to make but produce low engine efficiency.
Your second argument is for heavy duty work trucks, low rpm torque is more important than HP/displacement. so PR-Ohv are better.
Which is illogical when a diesel engine will provide much higher torque at low-mid rpm and lower fuel cost - just go diesel, like all real work trucks.
Let's take the situation in Europe and Japan, where fuel cost is 2-3X costlier than the US, if what you said is true, wouldn't all the MB, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Hyundai... work duty trucks be using push-rod engines to "maximize" fuel economy? It would be very foolish to spend more on the engine AND pay more for fuel use. None of them use push rods.
The real reason is push rod engines are cheap to make and American gas is cheap so we dont care about efficiency.

Also big 8500 lb Gvw are not subjected to Gas Guzzler Tax:
The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely used for non-commercial purposes.
See - no name calling, just facts.


8   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2019 Feb 13, 2:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This was common practice and knowledge 50 years ago when the trend was toward bigger and bigger engines turning more slowly in cars that weighed only 4,300 lbs. Big Pontiacs used 400 and 428 engines driving through 2.41 axle ratios--the low speed torque was effortless and the engine loafed at all highway speeds. Oldsmobile took it a step further when they designed a package for the 1967 Cutlass Supreme coupes and convertibles called the Turnpike Cruising option for $300. Featured the 442 heavy duty suspension, 400 engine with a two barrel carb and 2.41 or 2.56 axle ratio depending on which magazine you read along with the three speed Turbo-Hydramatic 400 with switch-pitch stator. The same principle was applied to the '68 big cars when the 455 was used first in Oldsmobile's Delta 88 and 98 models using a 2.56 axle. Of course, all this power went away during the 70's with emission controls and use of smaller engines to meet better mileage due to gas shortages, so maybe the good 'ol days are coming back. I'd love to see another 429/460 engine in the Lincolns or Mercurys!
9   Hircus   ignore (0)   2019 Feb 13, 3:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

In recent years BBC stroker kits have become very affordable.

I'm not sure about this engine builder's reputation, but the point is that you can get 632 cubes for ~10-13k...wow!
https://blueprintengines.com/collections/gm-compatible-big-block-crate-engines/displacement_632-c-i
10   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Feb 13, 3:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

kt1652 says
'Automakers talk about fuel-economy and how it impacts engine design a lot, but what's interesting here is that at least in the US, trucks like the Super Duty don't have any standards to meet. The EPA doesn't require automakers to report fuel-economy figures for pickups with a GWVR of over 8500 pounds, so these trucks can be as efficient or inefficient as the automakers like.'


If you can afford a Super Duty, the last thing you're worried about is fuel cost or efficiency.


kt1652 says
Real Americans drive push-rod 7.3L engines.
5.0L are for cheapskate tree-huggers who don't need to tow a house once in a while.


Yes, because everyone tows their house behind them, day after day.
11   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Feb 13, 3:12pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

P N Dr Lo R says
This was common practice and knowledge 50 years ago when the trend was toward bigger and bigger engines turning more slowly in cars that weighed only 4,300 lbs. Big Pontiacs used 400 and 428 engines driving through 2.41 axle ratios--the low speed torque was effortless and the engine loafed at all highway speeds. Oldsmobile took it a step further when they designed a package for the 1967 Cutlass Supreme coupes and convertibles called the Turnpike Cruising option for $300. Featured the 442 heavy duty suspension, 400 engine with a two barrel carb and 2.41 or 2.56 axle ratio depending on which magazine you read along with the three speed Turbo-Hydramatic 400 with switch-pitch stator. The same principle was applied to the '68 big cars when the 455 was used first in Oldsmobile's Delta 88 and 98 models using a 2.56 axle. Of course, all this power went away during the 70's with emission controls and use of smaller engines to meet better mileage due to gas shortages, so maybe the good 'ol ...

Yeah, my HS auto teacher liked to say, No replacement for displacement."
Or if you want to maximize GPM, Gallons/mile. :-)

You like globs of torque, smooth, quiet ride? Obviously an EV fanboy. Couldn't resist.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions