I complain about the numbers because chevys all new 6.6L gas HD engine makes very similar power, is the standard no extra cost engine as well. The Ford 7.3L gas has 430hp@5500rpm and 475lb-ft of torque @ 4000rpm. The Chevy 6.6L gas has 401hp@5200rpm and 464lb-ft of torque @ 4000rpm. Torque is what does work and the 7.3L only has 9lb-ft more than the 6.6L at the exact same rpm. Sure it has 29 more horsepower as well but at 300rpm higher, comparing dyno numbers the ford makes virtually the same exact horsepower across the rpm range as the all new Chevy engine. Now it's a comparison of the ford 10 speed vs chevys 6 speed, is that advantage enough to compensate for the worse fuel economy of the larger ford engine?
If there is only 15% drivetrain loss on this truck that's awesome. Yes 4x4 matters. You think the tcase is invisible or something? Power through the 10spd and power is still turning some components in a "disengage" t case. Christ old run of thumb was 15% loss in a manual trans and 20% loss in a slush box
Jeff G isn’t it so strange that Ford “fraud“ can’t understand this well the truth is they do they just don’t care they’re going to produce what they think you should have it’s called socialism dodge gives the people what they want massive horsepower extremely reliable engines go watch the Baja 1000 and you’ll see how many hemi engine is running that race every year more than half
mtrujillo1973 I don’t buy fraud stuff but yes you’re not going to win any contests it’s not made for that nor is any naturally aspirated engine if you compare this to a power stroke the partial cost 3 to 4 times more that’s not a comparison it’s big enough to do the job and it’s made for commercial vehicles
You realize its planned right? You get better confirmation when you go through conflict to get resolution. Kind of how movies work they created some kind of conflict to solve to keep people watching because if they just started facts without making arguments then it wouldn't be as interesting. Basically Nathan is there just to debunk everything the other guy says
And I've seen race cars lose 15% and the automatic's even more 20% but only a real racer or mechanic would know this "those who can do those who can't Teach every one else what their doing wrong"
@@jklewisjkldev I know you don't. Most people are getting loans for about 6 years. so after 8 years assuming 20,000 miles a year you're going to have 160k Miles your used truck with 160k is not going to fetch $8,000 more than the same 7.3 truck. the same way that somebody who spends twice as much on a platinum versus an XLT does not get twice as much on resale. Also at 160k you are getting to the point where the increased maintenance cost for the diesel is just about to take off. 5k DPF replacement, injector issues, etc. If you don't tow over 16-20klbs the 7.3 makes way more sense.
@@jklewisjkldev the Chevy 8.1 l is the third most powerful engine ever placed in a heavy duty pickup. It was rated at 345 horsepower and 455 lb of torque in 2003. On the dyno they regularly make 280hp and 340lb-ft at the wheels. So the 7.3 is doing just fine. You guys forget this is just how big blocks preform. is a diesel more powerful sure but the cylinders are under a hell of a lot more pressure and when something breaks it will be a hell of a lot more expensive diesel mechanics charge 30% more per hour on top of the increased cost of the parts themselves. diesels only make sense if you tow a capacity that the gas engine is not rated for. These new 2020s require even more maintenance than ever before. coolant has to be changed every 60,000 miles in both loops that's easily $1,000. fuel filters have to be changed every other oil change or 500 engine hours whichever comes first. There's two of those. The DPF under ideal conditions as rated by Ford to stand UP TO 250,000 miles. It's currently at least $5,000 to replace. If a tiny bit of water makes it past your water separator you're looking at a full injector job. to the argument that they're more fuel efficient loaded (20K) you're going to get approximately 2 MPG better with the diesel currently where I live diesel is a dollar more per gallon.
This. It's why I want the 7.3 and why I like Ford's aluminum. NY winters and road salt destroy steel bodies. My 2014 ram had rust by 2017. The wheel wells are completely rotted now. Ford's hold up a lot better here
Dalton v Corrosion might be an issue. But if you take care of the paint then the frame will be the only issue. And those frames are huge so they’ll last awhile.
These numbers seem solid, 16% loss on an automatic with a huge drivetrain to lump around seems solid. Look at some other dyno results. The factory numbers are accurate.
Probably the best engine and transmission by Ford since the 5.0 Stang back in the 80's. This engine was built for the commercial market alternative to the diesel. With the EPA regulating diesels to death and the market demanding a big gas engine, Ford made one for the Uhauls, Ryder and Enterprises in the market. While it works in the 250, it was really made for those other markets.
Exactly. That is the point of this engine. It wont be revving out to pull trailers up hills. Looks like this engine will be the best gas V8 in an HD truck.
Right on. ...they don't mention the pulling power which is the whole point and also the test was run in 5th gear instead of direct (7th) which has way less parasitic loss
Dyno a 6.4 hemi and a 6.6 gas GM, see what kind of numbers those put down. Thanks for these types of videos. I don't think there's any other automotive reviewers out there that do these kind of videos. For real world results, you guys are the best, thanks!
I know you are right, And I just got owned but: Let’s be real, the 6.4 Hemi is a joke. Any engine that down shifts to first gear on the Ike is a gutless turd. 6.6 proved its a gutless turd too on the Ike. This big block ford won’t be in first gear like those other trucks. LS motor is just a knock off of the 351w and 351c son.
@@waldero04 at least they did`t break down like the ford did it never made the run,maybe on the back of tow truck. ford fanboys keep talking the same hyped up shit as ford continues to fail.
I’ve been to the dyno with my car about 50-60 times through different dynos. Not one time has anyone said there is a %10 loss. It’s been a %15 for straight drive cars and %20 for automatics. So 358rwhp is right where it should be really. In the long run the gas motor will cost less than the 6.7, sorry diesel owners. With a %15 loss that’s 477ftlbs and 421hp. Plus all dynos are different. I’ve had a 20rwhp difference between dynos.
I could care less at what's cheaper, I want something that's gonna tow without screaming at me and none of the big 3 have a truck that will do that. So diesel it is for me
After finally getting to see the actualI video the 7.3 should be around the 450hp range with the %20 correction that was mentioned in the video! We have 4 2015 F550’s with the 6.7 that weigh around 20,000lbs and 1 V10 F350 that weighs 14,000lbs. Yes the diesel pulls better but that V10 pulls just fine down the highway and has had less issues over the 250,000miles we have had it. As a personal owner I would take the diesel but if I owned the company I’d go with the gas for cost.
Nope your numbers aren't even close. Proper converter, engine and hear ratio and losses as low as single digits can be reality and that's a fact. What's your dyno sheet trap lol...
10% loss is possible with a really effiecient drag race transmission like a Liberty Equalizer that you see in prostock. There is a podcast called The Adventures of Ben Squared and they talk about this subject. The loss with a powerglide transmission was over 20% and with no changes the Liberty was 10%, and these numbers were on a hub dyno so no rear tires killing horsepower either. I think 20% for a truck like this is a very safe number to go off of.
@@jefftalbot8371 4 bolt main caps WITH 2 extra sidebolts for each main, that block looks like the absolute strong they could pheasibly make the bottom end in an aluminum block, i get what you're saying in that that's one huge difference between the 7.3 and .... any diesel is that 99% of diesels are iron block, but don't knock the gasser 7.3! watch the interview where they're talking to the engineers about the engine internals and it just shows that they definitely had longevity in mind and sheer towing grunt, then take a look at say,,, the interview about the new chevy 3.0 I6 diesel with the wet belt driving the OIL PUMP in the back of the engine alomg with the absolutely absurd amount of external emissions equipment how much planned obsolescence devastated any semblance of a reliable modern diesel that isn't cucked by emissions
@@jefftalbot8371 No, this new engine has a cast iron block & heads. In addition, the block is deep skirted which allows for cross bolted main bearings. So that's six bolts at each main bearing - most engines have just two bolts at each main. The crankshaft is forged steel. Most engines use a cast iron crank. Forged steel is better. The cam in this engine is has roller lifters. The rockers are rollerized too. This new engine is designed to be durable and long lasting. Let's hope Ford got it right.
I applaud ford for taking the conventional route. There is a time and place for experimentation, and Ford learned the hard way (see also:6.0, 6.4 powerstroke) that the powerplant in your heavy duty offerings (fleet sales) is neither. The amount of money they lost in warranty claims, and lost sales in successive years would have paid for the development of several new engines. It would seem that they started with the blank space in the engine lineup between the 6.2 and diesel offerings, decided on a power figure, and went for the most cost effective and reliable way of getting there. Tuning an ecoboost to those numbers could've been an option for the 250, but would've been unsuitable for anything heavier. Pretending that they did develop Nathan's hypothetical ecoboost v8, I have only one question- What kind of MPG do you honestly think the truck would pull down? Every single ecoboost driver I have ever talked to all say the same thing- "you can have eco, or you can have boost, you cannot have both at the same time". A 2.7 in a crew cab 4x4 f150 does great on fuel- without a load. Apply a load and the MPG's drop to single digits. Now, scale that up. The mpg loss due to increased load or a heavy foot are far greater in small displacement turbo engines than for larger engines of the same power levels. There are many reasons for this, such as the additional fuel required to keep combustion chamber temps in check, parasitic losses due to increased load on the cooling system, efficiency loss due to increased backpressure in the exhaust system as the RPM's climb, etc. A larger engine experiences many of the same issues, but on a smaller scale. The intake air temps will climb slightly due to increased underhood temps, but they will generally remain within 50-60 degrees of ambient air temp, the engine will need more fuel, but the additional fuel needed to keep combustion chamber temps in check, and, to a lesser extent on a gas engine, egt's down is a fraction of its turbocharged counterpart. The increase cooling load is also present, but once again on a much smaller scale. The exhaust on a larger displacement engine moves through the manifolds, pipe, cats, muffler and exits the truck in a timely fashion- so heat transfer to anything other than the immediate areas in direct contact with these gasses are minimal. Contrast that to a turbocharged engine, where we are effectively storing hot gasses, under pressure for longer periods of time (the best turbochargers usually operate at or around a 1:1 boost/ backpressure ratio at full load, so if we have 30psi on the intake side, there will be a similar number between the exhaust port and the turbocharger ) which allows for additional surface area (pistons, cylinder walls, valves, etc) to be exposed to these additional temperatures for longer periods of time- and we have to add fuel, and increase cooling to accomidate this. Yes, at the sort of altitude y'all test at, the ecoboost feels like a rocket ship, but performing similar testing at sea level would yield a much smaller difference, and that smaller difference, coupled with the increased maintenance, fuel economy (as described above), cost of developing the engine, and consequences for getting it wrong are why we will likely never see an ecoboost in a 350 or larger platform. There is a place for small displacement gasoline turbo engines, but the technology does not scale well (see also: everything in the 2nd paragraph, but with additional surface area for heat soak), and with current tech, It isn't heavy duty gasoline applications.
Stuffandjunk Andthings Yes. This engine was designed for their fleet/commercial division. I for one am glad they went this route even if it appears boring to the average joe. This engine wasn’t designed to ‘light the world on fire’ with gaudy numbers. It’s going to be a solid reliable choice for commercial applications and should provide dependable power and long service life. Not everything is a dick measuring contest
Navi-star made the 6.0 and 6.4. That’s why ford tried to bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit against them. These guys on this Channel can read numbers and compare them. And yes they do a good job running trucks up and down that mountain but don’t have much understanding of a combustion engine or the rest of the vehicle. So take there “advice” with a grain of salt
@@paulpaulie I like this channel quite a bit, my response was more a general reply, not aimed in any way towards the people here, but an explanation of the "hows &why's" such an engine is bot likely. Almost 100% sure Nathan knows this as well, but someone had to play devils advocate for the purposes of the video.
Apparently you haven't talked to many Ecoboost owners. I've exceed EPA ratings in two of them and I don't have a light foot at all. They are built to take boost and I can certainly prove you can have Eco and Boost. Besides, Ford was referring to the fact that you get both in one vehicle. It's a lot better solution than a anemic 5.3 Silverado with 3.08 gearing and AFM with lifter failure.
@@302Mustang13 I never said that the 5.3 was any better O just stated the facts about the trend of smaller, turbocharged engines, and why you are unlikely to see them in heavy duty trucks.
i want one but unfortunately i purchased a 19 f250 with the 6.2 in it a year ago before hearing about this engine .. i do wonder however how the 10 speed will hold up
Gasoline is so much cheaper than diesel fuel unless you're hauling professionally or as a full time RV set up I just don't get the diesel premium so I agree..."big winner..
I'll take the slightly underwhelming power figures in exchange for an engine that will most likely have fewer problems as it ages, as well as producing basically peak torque at 2,000 rpm. Also, big pushrod engines are just better.
@I know you are right, And I just got owned but: You are still here with your Sippy Cup? GM and RAM (Dodge) have YEARS of experience taking money from the Government...meanwhile making mediocre trucks...I have owned them ALL (Except Nissan)...and by far I had the most mechanical problems with GM and Dodge...and they ALL rot away where I live!
Nice troll attempt guy with stupid name. For those that actually live in the North, we all know Fords are top dog as Solid Front Axles reign supreme here.
Stephen Blanck im from the northeast and while i see fords plowing snow the most i also see quite a lot of dodges and chevies and once or twice a single cab tundra. Picking a plow rig might be as simple as brand loyalty but you are correct about the straight axle advantage.
This is a work truck not a raptor. Its output is perfectly respectable for a gas engine in a work truck. Also, 16 percent is really solid for a pickup. This isnt a challenger. It has heavy wheels, heavy tires, heavy driveshaft, heavy transferase internals, and most different than a car, an extremely heavy axle. The ring and pinion, carrier, and axleshafts and hubs are simply massive. The rear axle weighs north of 350 lbs and the rotating mass is probably around 150 lbs. 16 percent is really spectacular for a heavy duty truck. Ford v10’s dominated towing before the 7.3 came out and their wheel hp, was closer to just above 200 hp. The 7.3 has more wheel hp by far than the v10 made at the crank. Anyway, the 10 speed is likely using very little horsepower compared to the rear axle which i believe, is the biggest producer of loss. Its a evil in a heavy duty truck that is required. That strong, full float axle is what makes a heavy duty truck, a heavy duty truck!
Ford most likely look at a working truck type of market and saw little to no reason for a stick shift, when you think about it, what companies or workers want to drive stick shift truck fleets in 2020
The 2019 Power Wagon lost almost 100 hp and 100 lb-ft of torque in one dyno I watched. That Godzilla engine keeps it pretty real compared to the 6.4 Hemi.
The 6.4 Hemi is a small block engine and should have never been used in a heavy duty application Diesel engines and Big Block engines are the only way to go. Small block engines should only be used in half ton trucks and muscle/sports cars.
@@rustybeatty6567 we had one RAM 5500 that came in with a custom steel utility bed that was for like a landscaping business, full 3/4 or 1 ton drivetrain with 10 bolt wheels and dual rears..... all powered by a 6.4 hemi by all means that's a badass motor in a half ton but i remember even driving it out of the shop that 6.4 had to scream just to move that big truck around and it barely moved enough to get out of its own way the only reason the company ordered the truck with a guzzoline engine over the cummins was because the huge gasoline cost of having a 6.4 hemi huffing and puffing and screaming in the RPM range nonstop is STILL less than maintaining and fixing a modern neutered diesel with the supremely pricy DPF systems, DEF bullshit and the cost deficit of having a truck down for the count while the expensive DPF is on backorder for a week, ford's play of having an overbuilt, non-emissions neutered gasoline V8 with usable torque from 2k RPM is definitely going to be one that benefits the business owners/towers/operators that just need heavy towing done
@@BullittKid08 , that's a good thing. I have a 2017 Corvette, it is fine, but friends have had the 'shudder' problem. It is supposedly caused by the torque converter. 6.2L is a good engine. I don't know about the 6.6L . Thanks for the info.
Looks like the power band on the 7.3L is high and flat, so it’s making a lot of power early and the delivery should feel smooth. Also the 10 speed in the super duty is massive, and a lot of the loss. I also can’t see how those numbers are weak tho
It seems like this truck loses about 16.2% of its power through the drivetrain which is actually quite good for a heavy, automatic vehicle such as this. What’s more impressive is that at ~408 rwtq, it’s actually making more than the advertised torque. Ford rated the torque at 475, but this reading shows about 486 lb-ft. Should be a really strong hauler 💪.
Since Dyno's vary from machine to machine, you should only take the information as a before and after comparison of doing a performance upgrade. You could easily run it on a different dyno and see 20hp/tq more or less than what that machine read. Just use the same dyno when evaluating performance mod gains. Unfortunately the video being referenced is a sample size of 1 and scientifically limited in saying that is THE value.
73L VS 62L Even though this TFL review centers around the overall number. We are still impressed with the 7.3L and its more about the differences between each engine to us here at 5 Star Tuning. We wanted to show for those who have a 6.2L and or those wanting a 7.3L what could they expect approx. hp/tq to wheel between the engines.(stock form) We can run in 7th gear (the 7.3) and it will produce a higher number but will hit the factor speed limiter half way in WOT run. We might do that onces we get into development in a a couple of weeks . We also have our 2nd 7.3L coming in today (about time lol) it has a 3.55 gears, we will get some more runs with it to compare
5 Star Tuning Sales - so please request a Ford F-350 one ton with 3:73 or 4:10 rear end, with moderate sized tires - truck equipped to work, and run a full set of dyno tests again to see what the comparative numbers are. We’ll then know whether the7.3 in stock form is a POS, or candidate for mild tune to bring the numbers up to where they should be.
The average person has very little appreciation for duty cycle. That's where the new 7.3 shines. This truck can pull at over 50% load at constant duty, and over 65% at 50/50 cycle.
I just bought a Lariat Pkg and put about 600mi on it, then put a fairly new 3200 lb 2 place horse trailer on it for about 14hrs total. First 7hrs were no horse in it, 2nd 7hrs we had one horse in the trailer now towing 4500 lbs +/-. The motor and Lariat pkg did exactly what I wanted to do. I felt it actually performed better with pulling a trailer. MPG was 13mph unloaded and 10mph loaded in tow-hall mode. The transition seemed to be the key to making this work as it kept it no lower than 5th gear going up some steep grades at 60~70mph with most of the time in 8~10 at highway speeds (65-70). I can see where a tune will help the lower end 0-30mph pull and acceleration, but after that this pkg performs. Really like this truck so far. Under a load this truck does seem different vs. unloaded or in a tow situation. Well done Ford, i'm impressed so far with now just over 2k+ on this pkg and looking for things to tow :)
What about simplicity? I like that it's so simple. Maybe an owner could work on his own stuff again without the need for specialized tools. Looks like there is actually room to work in the engine bay because it's not a wide engine like the OHC's. Price? You dont have to buy 2 or 4 cams for upgrades or replacement. No fancy timing belts and chains. Its port injection. Direct injection is rumored to be causing carbon build up on intake valves. I believe this will be the next LS for hot-rodders in 10- 20 years
It sounds absolutely realistic. Let’s see a 6.6 / 6.4 / 7.3 comparison. The supercharging argument also goes for Nathan’s power wagon baby too - where’s the blown hemi?? HD trucks still gotta do HD things.
I'm sorry Roman but I agree with Nathan here. Nobody in their right mind is going to supercharge the 7.3. That's like saying you want to supercharge the GM 8.1L of the 2001-2006 ERA. Also the same goes for the Ford 460 cubic inch engine or even the Dodge 8.0L V10 out of the 2500-3500 trucks. Nobody is going to do that to an old fashioned push rod large displacement low revving gas v8 engine.
I feel the need to point out that a lot of people are comparing it to the diesel drivetrain loss A Diesel's going to have less drivetrain loss because. Boost is dependent on the load. So for a diesel the more you load it the better the power numbers will be. This 7.3 is just fine. If you watch the dyno video yes we see torque management occurring. this helps longevity and also and probably more importantly means that when you really low down the truck you're not getting random torque spikes. nobody wants to be full throttle heading up the Ike and all of a sudden get a random surge of power followed by a random big ass dip. the other thing people forget is this vehicle is tuned correctly for fuel efficiency with a stoichiometric fuel ratio while fully loaded. Most vehicles run rich which creates more heat and burns more fuel. Also point out that when they do the ike run we will not see a fuel economy improvement. This is because despite being a stoichiometric ratio.since all the normally-aspirated trucks are starving for air there going to be pretty close to a stoichiometric ratio. Otherwise the cats like literally melt from the unburned fuel.
The dyno test showed a fairly good result and the flat power curve is what you want. Peaky power doesn't perform well in the real world. Keep in mind that Ford doesn't want to risk loosing the very profitable diesel sales!
Curious about the mpg now compared to my V8 6.2. I absolutely love my engine and it has been a smooth flawless work horse. Ford made a solid 7.3(Yes I know it's International. But it's in Ford's line up) 5.0 and solid 6.2 gasser. Now a 7.3? Awesome. Wish Ford the best.
Just wait till the tuners get hold of them and start doing twin turbos and other stuff And we start getting 1000 + hp 😍😍👍👍 Give one to mr roush and stand back
Good info,I agree it's a first year production. Give Ford time too bring a muscle option on the 7.3.Im sure Rousch will have performance parts available soon.
Do you not get it? this is for commercial use mostly, no company is gonna be buying these and then putting superchargers that cost thousands to make up for the lack of power. ITs disappointing to see numbers like this out of such a big engine.
Yall need to research before making a video. Considering the tire size and gear ratio on the truck they tested, those are stout numbers, definitely matching or beating the advertised crank numbers. 4.10 gears and big tires kill dyno numbers.
The 360 was less powerful that a 390. Yet when you tear the engine down you see that the 360 was beefed up for reliability. Resistance to strain is more important on a large truck. And that resistance also leads to more weight and inertia. Which in turn gives the engine more mass to throw at the load it is hauling. Mileage isn't the only efficiency that matters in a big truck. The efficiency of each combustion cycle is made easier when you have the mass to make the crankshaft want to keep spinning. That's why the old Windsor could lug itself form a dead stop in 2nd gear. Not just torque but inertia of mass.
I love that ford put this engine out. I do wish it had slightly higher numbers but the 6.4l hemi in the ram 2500 puts out way less than this for the same mpg. I like the old push rod bug block v8 design. My concern with the 5.0 v8 is that its too complicated and thus more likely to break and cost more to fix. I guess we have to see how reliable the 7.3l actually turns out to be over the next few years. I think ford did good tho. Maybe they will release a supercharged version in a couple years when they’ve perfected this engine. First year engines always have some quirks or bugs to work out so its probably better they didnt jump straight to supercharging it. I also dont think the transmission is responsible for the parasitic loss as its the same transmission as the powerstroke and you didnt see that kind of loss when you dyno’d it. Unless ford needs to fine tune the software for it hooked up to the 7.3l
It’s stupid that the EPA doesn’t rate heavy duty trucks. If anything heavy duty users/commercial users care more about fuel economy than half-ton truck users.
Thanks for the video guys, I appreciate all you guys do. On that note I agree with Nathan. Those are some pretty good numbers drop in HP and torque. I know all manufacturers vehicles don’t give you real world HP and torque which I think should be measured at the rear wheels and not at the crank. Now if you want those hp and torque number you as a consumer have to go spend more money on your $55,000 to $60,000 truck. That is ridiculous. Thanks for sharing Nathan and Roman.
I am getting 15.7MPG with my 2019 6.4L 2500 RAM Laramie, and I paid $10k less than a similar equipped Ford F250. I don't get how Ford justifies the price for their trucks.
15% drivetrain loss on a 4x4 is low. You get about 15% drivetrain loss through a manual transmission. 18% to 20% through an auto. Then add approximately 2% for the transfer case. So you are closer to 22%. I'm an ASE certified tech in drivetrains. Specifically manual transmissions. Just for a little of my background. Overall engine output would be underrated by Ford once again, by about 10%.
that and more than anything is all about the TQ....400 hp is plenty to maintain speed....1300+tq gets things moving...remember the old saying...."torque gets you there and hp keeps you there"
HP is derived from torque and engine speed. What you really want for heavy loads is horsepower at low RPM, which this engine and transmission combination will provide.
Jason Hall horsepower is a calculation. Torque is an actual measurement. And you want torque to peak as early as possible to get the load moving and you want horsepower to peak within the most used RPM range.
@@jghall00 that's what made the old 7.5 such a great pulling motor, EFI motor or Carb with EFI timing set has close to 400 lb ft available at or in some cases below 1500 RPM, ~425 lb ft by 2,000 rpm stock, with ~300 HP from 3000 RPM staying around to a bit over 5,000 rpm, it allows you to pull around your load at any RPM, peak numbers aren't impressive by today's standards, but they're available at nearly any RPM.
I had a 2012 F-150 Ecoboost that I towed a 9500# camper with and did so for many years. I recently sold that truck and bought a new godzilla F-350. The super duty tows more solidly (same camper), doesn't shift as much as the Eco. I am very happy with it. I am talking strictly power, obviously it will tow better as a heavy duty truck, but the new truck has more power, and does less shifting and it doesn't have 1000 miles on it. I think it will get better as it breaks in more.
Headers, cam and tune, bet the 7.3 makes makes close to 450rwhp. Like everyone has said, 16% drive train loss isnt bad at all. Considering heavy duty axles and giant driveshaft. I've lost 20hp just switching to a bigger final drive.
@@dansherwood1043 I'm just guessing based on similar cube and designed engines like the 7.0 LS and how they respond. I may be wrong, but it seems tuned on the reliability end stock
Where is he getting 10% loss from? 16% is actually really good for this truck. You have heavy duty trans and drive shaft and rear end and tires. I hope this was just for content, because his argument is stupid.
The 7.3 actually did very well on the dyno pull. If you figure all the parasitic loss due to the weight of the truck and losses through the drivetrain, the torque numbers may be well over 500 lb ft., which is what you want in a truck to begin with. Great video guys!! 👌 Keep up the good work.
Everyone forgets meeting epa might have something to do with it. Same reason the 8.l1 vortec was low power. Choked up to meet sound and emission restrictions.
We had a couple 6.2 liter fords at a place that i worked they pulled heavy trailers around 4 states for most of their lives but 250k miles and all but 3 are still being used cant complain they get their money out of them for sure
Yeah I'm not sure why people pit those big ass tire's on the truck. It only adds more strain to the drivetrain. Maybe at highway speeds it may make a bit of a difference, but most work trucks see stop and go more than highway nowdays. Lol
Why do auto manufacturers give hp, and torque numbers at the crank?? Thoes numbers are useless to the consumer. GIVE US REAL WORLD NUMBERS AND NOT FLUFF..Dammit man..
The power losses in that Dyno pull are completely normal and in line with a HD pickup. Ford designed this engine with a pretty broad sprad of applications, INCLUDING their medium duty Trucks, where reliability with employee drivers holding the thing to the wood up a grade are de rigour... If anyone paid attention when they revealed this new engine, it's got forged internals and heads that look like they potentially can flow a LOT of air. I predict it will be a Hot Rodder's dream for those wanting more power in their play trucks, and be an economical, reliable servant in guys work trucks.
When you dynoed the truck,were you in tow/haul?? My 14 f350 6.2 has noticeable power increase when in tow/haul. Curious if it really makes a difference or just seat of the pants feel.
Is it possible that in tow haul mode it alloys more torque out of the transmission cause ford likes to limit the power to the transmission. My 6.2 has same results as you.
It's entirely possible that they limit it off the line in normal mode so people who don't know how to ease into the throttle don't spin the tires. Some of the tow pigs do the same thing even in tow mode. So yeah I guess in a way it's a power gain if normal mode isn't giving you the published power while tow mode does.
@@pyrorye-80 Yeah the only way it could be seen as a gain is if the system is limiting the output in regular mode. But you're still not getting more than the published specs.
I think a lot of that Parasitic loss is coming from big heavy wheels and tires. Heavy rear end and heavy drive shaft. Heavy hard ware is going to take more power to spin and move.
Roughly 15% loss through a 10 speed and a transfer case is great! The old standard was 15% for manual and 20% for autos back in the day. I think this motor is exactly what it needs to be
No way, it's n.a. . Think of this engine like the old Ford 300 I6. It's a workhorse, not a Maserati. Guys who buy this truck want rock solid reliability, not 0-60 times.
Ben Katz agree, me and you would lol, but tons of guys still will tune it. With modern fuel systems and this displacement, there is a lot of extra power. Look at the 5.0 tune they did and 5 star does it while still protecting the engine. Some douche tuners out there will super push these.
Jigsaw Wookie 5.0 tune put that out and that is with 5 star who offers a warranty. Other unresponsible tuners will get these numbers easy, all about the software. But yes agree no turbos means less. The 3.5 added like 190lb tq lol
Ray Jay they got 50hp out of a6.2 with older software... not sure why 75Hp would be some insane thing I said here...even if it is 50-60 it would be pretty impressive.
Got my 2020 Godzilla XLT. 4x4. Love it. Towed my trailer great. Only bad on the truck is gas mileage. Only getting 14 on hwy empty in eco mode. But the 10 speed is super smooth.
Super super wrong. “I’m many cases it’s around 10%” do your homework Nathan. Only sports cars can achieve a low parasitic loss like 10%. Porsche is a good example of that. Most cars, trucks, even some performance cars lose 15%. Thats a base number most mechanics and tech shops will use. 15% is completely average. Your making this seem like a big deal when there are plenary of over priced vehicles losing 20% out there.
I put my 03 Cobra with about 20k miles on a Mustang then a Dynojet. On the Mustang dyno it made 355 hp to the ground. The Dynojet it made 372 hp to the ground. Oh, it was about 34 degrees on the Mustang dyno and mid 50s when I was on the Dynojet. Both were a few feet above sea level (in Seattle area)
According to Fuelly, the average recorded MPG on a 6.4 is like 12mpg. Add larger tires, lower gear ratios, and additional weight and I guarantee your Power Wagon isn't getting anywhere near 20mpg.
Nathan, only front drive cars can hit the 10% drivetrain loss figure. That’s because they don’t have a drive shaft, or, more importantly, a 90 degree turn in the power flow at the differential. 16% loss in a 4WD measured at the rear wheels is actually quite good. A testament to the efficiency of the 10spd auto!
Good old TIME will tell if it's a reliable engine..but FORD quality it's a very serious concern to me .. will know soon enough. So far I'm sold but as usual I'll wait a year to decide. Good points guys.
10% losses? The industry standard rule is roughly 15% on cars. Mow add in a transfer case. 16% is actually pretty good.
True. These guys are idiots. And fat. And old. And wannabe Clarkson and May.
I agree also. However if they hit the speed limiter they should have dynoed in a lower gear
Also the Tremor wheels and tires. I see that as a disadvantage on the dyno
Not only that, but the altitude they are doing this at? Say just 4000 feet? (Low for Colorado) at least another 10 percentage points
@@Joeyhurt1990 5star tuning is located in South Carolina. I believe they are close to or at sea level.
People complaining about the power are missing the point of this engine. I applaud Ford for making a big, simple, and hopefully reliable v8
People only look at peak numbers. Look at how early that power kicks in and lasts thru the rpm range.
David Suppa yep, it’s all about the power underneath the curve
jook13 that’d be a first for them in a while, they needed it
I complain about the numbers because chevys all new 6.6L gas HD engine makes very similar power, is the standard no extra cost engine as well.
The Ford 7.3L gas has 430hp@5500rpm and 475lb-ft of torque @ 4000rpm. The Chevy 6.6L gas has 401hp@5200rpm and 464lb-ft of torque @ 4000rpm.
Torque is what does work and the 7.3L only has 9lb-ft more than the 6.6L at the exact same rpm. Sure it has 29 more horsepower as well but at 300rpm higher, comparing dyno numbers the ford makes virtually the same exact horsepower across the rpm range as the all new Chevy engine.
Now it's a comparison of the ford 10 speed vs chevys 6 speed, is that advantage enough to compensate for the worse fuel economy of the larger ford engine?
Damn Straight!
15% drivetrain loss on a 4x4 automatic transmission with 35" tires is excellent...which puts Ford's power ratings spot on
Agreed
Cant count the 4x4 part it was not running in 4 wheel drive but it's still not a bad power Los
@@bignlittleoutdoorstexascam3031 transfercase is a extra parasitic loss in any drive mode.
If there is only 15% drivetrain loss on this truck that's awesome. Yes 4x4 matters. You think the tcase is invisible or something? Power through the 10spd and power is still turning some components in a "disengage" t case. Christ old run of thumb was 15% loss in a manual trans and 20% loss in a slush box
Yes you count the 4x4 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Motor that works hard, last long, doesn’t break the bank. Welcome back Ford. Might see this in a new F350 for me.
It is about time!
This is the type of thing more car companies should go for.
I’d rather have more reliability than 30 more horsepower.
Jeff G isn’t it so strange that Ford “fraud“ can’t understand this well the truth is they do they just don’t care they’re going to produce what they think you should have it’s called socialism dodge gives the people what they want massive horsepower extremely reliable engines go watch the Baja 1000 and you’ll see how many hemi engine is running that race every year more than half
mtrujillo1973 I don’t buy fraud stuff but yes you’re not going to win any contests it’s not made for that nor is any naturally aspirated engine if you compare this to a power stroke the partial cost 3 to 4 times more that’s not a comparison it’s big enough to do the job and it’s made for commercial vehicles
Scott I wouldn’t call Dodge reliable. They have a lot of issues as well. Look at how many Hemis have the soft cam issues. It’s a widespread issue.
Adding gdi would add power and efficiency without any reliability loss. I don't understand that choice
@@AmericanSurvival001 Your rambling is completely unreadable. Use some punctuation for heavens sake.
16% loss isn't bad for a truck with 3/4 ton axles and big tires and rims. So Nathan you are absolutely wrong.
scot miller
I agree, Nathan's a dumbass.
Rodney Tatman yup
You realize its planned right? You get better confirmation when you go through conflict to get resolution. Kind of how movies work they created some kind of conflict to solve to keep people watching because if they just started facts without making arguments then it wouldn't be as interesting. Basically Nathan is there just to debunk everything the other guy says
And I've seen race cars lose 15% and the automatic's even more 20% but only a real racer or mechanic would know this "those who can do those who can't Teach every one else what their doing wrong"
@@Daniel-sd3qk What their what is doing wrong?
None of the numbers matter when it's a 8k savings and still running strong 10 years down the road.
Exactly!!!
You get the 8k back when you sell. The power numbers are pathetic.
@@jklewisjkldev I know you don't. Most people are getting loans for about 6 years. so after 8 years assuming 20,000 miles a year you're going to have 160k Miles
your used truck with 160k is not going to fetch $8,000 more than the same 7.3 truck.
the same way that somebody who spends twice as much on a platinum versus an XLT does not get twice as much on resale. Also at 160k you are getting to the point where the increased maintenance cost for the diesel is just about to take off. 5k DPF replacement, injector issues, etc.
If you don't tow over 16-20klbs the 7.3 makes way more sense.
@@jklewisjkldev the Chevy 8.1 l is the third most powerful engine ever placed in a heavy duty pickup. It was rated at 345 horsepower and 455 lb of torque in 2003.
On the dyno they regularly make 280hp and 340lb-ft at the wheels. So the 7.3 is doing just fine. You guys forget this is just how big blocks preform.
is a diesel more powerful sure but the cylinders are under a hell of a lot more pressure and when something breaks it will be a hell of a lot more expensive diesel mechanics charge 30% more per hour on top of the increased cost of the parts themselves.
diesels only make sense if you tow a capacity that the gas engine is not rated for.
These new 2020s require even more maintenance than ever before. coolant has to be changed every 60,000 miles in both loops that's easily $1,000. fuel filters have to be changed every other oil change or 500 engine hours whichever comes first. There's two of those. The DPF under ideal conditions as rated by Ford to stand UP TO 250,000 miles. It's currently at least $5,000 to replace. If a tiny bit of water makes it past your water separator you're looking at a full injector job.
to the argument that they're more fuel efficient loaded (20K) you're going to get approximately 2 MPG better with the diesel currently where I live diesel is a dollar more per gallon.
100%
I'd rather have old school big block reliability then modern day disposable performance.
Its a small block stroker motor, watch the video on Tony's Garage and it has a 1500 hp capable bottom end!
Mike Johnson exactly
Less complexity is almost always more durable.
That is how I feel. I had all these 4/6cyl engines with turbo's.
I'm in the market for a new truck next year and I'm seriously considering buying the new 7.3L. Depending on how it holds up in the next year of course
@@joepellish5380 , that's great. So much fun spec-ing out a new vehicle. Get what you want so that you enjoy it for years to come. Good luck.
Yah my 6.9 IDI is still going after 33 years and it's been hella neglected by some folks.
The engine was made for many heavy duty applications. You can bet it will be made for cost efficiency and simplicity.
People just want a trucks that works good, needs nothing, lasts long
Art, exactly!! This is a nice truck except for the price.
When they don't there's always GM (Garbage Motors) and RAM (Rubbish At Manufacture) ;-)
This. It's why I want the 7.3 and why I like Ford's aluminum. NY winters and road salt destroy steel bodies. My 2014 ram had rust by 2017. The wheel wells are completely rotted now. Ford's hold up a lot better here
Dalton v
Corrosion might be an issue. But if you take care of the paint then the frame will be the only issue. And those frames are huge so they’ll last awhile.
That's why I bought a Tundra.
These numbers seem solid, 16% loss on an automatic with a huge drivetrain to lump around seems solid. Look at some other dyno results. The factory numbers are accurate.
10-12% is usually achieved by manual transmissions in sports cars, 16% is good for an auto truck.
My 7.5 460 is 30 years old and still running great! I can't wait to rebuild it!
Again.
Everyone talking peak numbers but look at that torque curve!!! I believe in Andre's video the torque was kicking in at 2000 rpm. What a beast.
Probably the best engine and transmission by Ford since the 5.0 Stang back in the 80's. This engine was built for the commercial market alternative to the diesel. With the EPA regulating diesels to death and the market demanding a big gas engine, Ford made one for the Uhauls, Ryder and Enterprises in the market. While it works in the 250, it was really made for those other markets.
Does anyone notice the torque curve comes in very early 2000 rpm
BB specialty...
Exactly. That is the point of this engine. It wont be revving out to pull trailers up hills. Looks like this engine will be the best gas V8 in an HD truck.
Nick Ahhh exactly
Right on. ...they don't mention the pulling power which is the whole point and also the test was run in 5th gear instead of direct (7th) which has way less parasitic loss
Really want one! And I’m a Mopar guy!
Dyno a 6.4 hemi and a 6.6 gas GM, see what kind of numbers those put down. Thanks for these types of videos. I don't think there's any other automotive reviewers out there that do these kind of videos. For real world results, you guys are the best, thanks!
I agree! To see what the best gasser is , output wise.
I know you are right, And I just got owned but: Let’s be real, the 6.4 Hemi is a joke. Any engine that down shifts to first gear on the Ike is a gutless turd. 6.6 proved its a gutless turd too on the Ike. This big block ford won’t be in first gear like those other trucks. LS motor is just a knock off of the 351w and 351c son.
Waldero04 💯 The LS is a Ford Windsor. GM guy Get Analy Damaged when they Here this
@@Contreras-z4e
ok, non homework sheep
@@waldero04 at least they did`t break down like the ford did it never made the run,maybe on the back of tow truck. ford fanboys keep talking the same hyped up shit as ford continues to fail.
I’ve been to the dyno with my car about 50-60 times through different dynos. Not one time has anyone said there is a %10 loss. It’s been a %15 for straight drive cars and %20 for automatics. So 358rwhp is right where it should be really. In the long run the gas motor will cost less than the 6.7, sorry diesel owners. With a %15 loss that’s 477ftlbs and 421hp. Plus all dynos are different. I’ve had a 20rwhp difference between dynos.
I could care less at what's cheaper, I want something that's gonna tow without screaming at me and none of the big 3 have a truck that will do that. So diesel it is for me
The new 6.7 put out incredible numbers on the dyno.
After finally getting to see the actualI video the 7.3 should be around the 450hp range with the %20 correction that was mentioned in the video! We have 4 2015 F550’s with the 6.7 that weigh around 20,000lbs and 1 V10 F350 that weighs 14,000lbs. Yes the diesel pulls better but that V10 pulls just fine down the highway and has had less issues over the 250,000miles we have had it. As a personal owner I would take the diesel but if I owned the company I’d go with the gas for cost.
Nope your numbers aren't even close. Proper converter, engine and hear ratio and losses as low as single digits can be reality and that's a fact. What's your dyno sheet trap lol...
10% loss is possible with a really effiecient drag race transmission like a Liberty Equalizer that you see in prostock. There is a podcast called The Adventures of Ben Squared and they talk about this subject. The loss with a powerglide transmission was over 20% and with no changes the Liberty was 10%, and these numbers were on a hub dyno so no rear tires killing horsepower either. I think 20% for a truck like this is a very safe number to go off of.
So excited for this beast, the engine was built as stout as a diesel internally. You guys at TFL are killing it👍🏻
Matt Fischer in an aluminum block?
@@jefftalbot8371 4 bolt main caps WITH 2 extra sidebolts for each main, that block looks like the absolute strong they could pheasibly make the bottom end in an aluminum block, i get what you're saying in that that's one huge difference between the 7.3 and .... any diesel is that 99% of diesels are iron block, but don't knock the gasser 7.3! watch the interview where they're talking to the engineers about the engine internals and it just shows that they definitely had longevity in mind and sheer towing grunt, then take a look at say,,, the interview about the new chevy 3.0 I6 diesel with the wet belt driving the OIL PUMP in the back of the engine alomg with the absolutely absurd amount of external emissions equipment how much planned obsolescence devastated any semblance of a reliable modern diesel that isn't cucked by emissions
@@jefftalbot8371 the 7.3 is an iron block with aluminum heads
SNOOF AYY , “pheasibly”...that is boldly creative.
@@jefftalbot8371 No, this new engine has a cast iron block & heads. In addition, the block is deep skirted which allows for cross bolted main bearings. So that's six bolts at each main bearing - most engines have just two bolts at each main. The crankshaft is forged steel. Most engines use a cast iron crank. Forged steel is better. The cam in this engine is has roller lifters. The rockers are rollerized too. This new engine is designed to be durable and long lasting. Let's hope Ford got it right.
Love that oldschool big V8. Awesome.
I applaud ford for taking the conventional route. There is a time and place for experimentation, and Ford learned the hard way (see also:6.0, 6.4 powerstroke) that the powerplant in your heavy duty offerings (fleet sales) is neither. The amount of money they lost in warranty claims, and lost sales in successive years would have paid for the development of several new engines.
It would seem that they started with the blank space in the engine lineup between the 6.2 and diesel offerings, decided on a power figure, and went for the most cost effective and reliable way of getting there. Tuning an ecoboost to those numbers could've been an option for the 250, but would've been unsuitable for anything heavier. Pretending that they did develop Nathan's hypothetical ecoboost v8, I have only one question- What kind of MPG do you honestly think the truck would pull down? Every single ecoboost driver I have ever talked to all say the same thing- "you can have eco, or you can have boost, you cannot have both at the same time". A 2.7 in a crew cab 4x4 f150 does great on fuel- without a load. Apply a load and the MPG's drop to single digits. Now, scale that up.
The mpg loss due to increased load or a heavy foot are far greater in small displacement turbo engines than for larger engines of the same power levels. There are many reasons for this, such as the additional fuel required to keep combustion chamber temps in check, parasitic losses due to increased load on the cooling system, efficiency loss due to increased backpressure in the exhaust system as the RPM's climb, etc. A larger engine experiences many of the same issues, but on a smaller scale. The intake air temps will climb slightly due to increased underhood temps, but they will generally remain within 50-60 degrees of ambient air temp, the engine will need more fuel, but the additional fuel needed to keep combustion chamber temps in check, and, to a lesser extent on a gas engine, egt's down is a fraction of its turbocharged counterpart. The increase cooling load is also present, but once again on a much smaller scale. The exhaust on a larger displacement engine moves through the manifolds, pipe, cats, muffler and exits the truck in a timely fashion- so heat transfer to anything other than the immediate areas in direct contact with these gasses are minimal. Contrast that to a turbocharged engine, where we are effectively storing hot gasses, under pressure for longer periods of time (the best turbochargers usually operate at or around a 1:1 boost/ backpressure ratio at full load, so if we have 30psi on the intake side, there will be a similar number between the exhaust port and the turbocharger ) which allows for additional surface area (pistons, cylinder walls, valves, etc) to be exposed to these additional temperatures for longer periods of time- and we have to add fuel, and increase cooling to accomidate this.
Yes, at the sort of altitude y'all test at, the ecoboost feels like a rocket ship, but performing similar testing at sea level would yield a much smaller difference, and that smaller difference, coupled with the increased maintenance, fuel economy (as described above), cost of developing the engine, and consequences for getting it wrong are why we will likely never see an ecoboost in a 350 or larger platform. There is a place for small displacement gasoline turbo engines, but the technology does not scale well (see also: everything in the 2nd paragraph, but with additional surface area for heat soak), and with current tech, It isn't heavy duty gasoline applications.
Stuffandjunk Andthings
Yes. This engine was designed for their fleet/commercial division. I for one am glad they went this route even if it appears boring to the average joe. This engine wasn’t designed to ‘light the world on fire’ with gaudy numbers. It’s going to be a solid reliable choice for commercial applications and should provide dependable power and long service life. Not everything is a dick measuring contest
Navi-star made the 6.0 and 6.4. That’s why ford tried to bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit against them. These guys on this Channel can read numbers and compare them. And yes they do a good job running trucks up and down that mountain but don’t have much understanding of a combustion engine or the rest of the vehicle. So take there “advice” with a grain of salt
@@paulpaulie I like this channel quite a bit, my response was more a general reply, not aimed in any way towards the people here, but an explanation of the "hows &why's" such an engine is bot likely.
Almost 100% sure Nathan knows this as well, but someone had to play devils advocate for the purposes of the video.
Apparently you haven't talked to many Ecoboost owners. I've exceed EPA ratings in two of them and I don't have a light foot at all. They are built to take boost and I can certainly prove you can have Eco and Boost. Besides, Ford was referring to the fact that you get both in one vehicle. It's a lot better solution than a anemic 5.3 Silverado with 3.08 gearing and AFM with lifter failure.
@@302Mustang13 I never said that the 5.3 was any better O just stated the facts about the trend of smaller, turbocharged engines, and why you are unlikely to see them in heavy duty trucks.
I predict Ford will sell more of these than any other truck engine.
i want one but unfortunately i purchased a 19 f250 with the 6.2 in it a year ago before hearing about this engine .. i do wonder however how the 10 speed will hold up
It has a long way to go to beat the old 300 six.
Gasoline is so much cheaper than diesel fuel unless you're hauling professionally or as a full time RV set up I just don't get the diesel premium so I agree..."big winner..
tranz15. 10speed is to much, lots of stats show no improvement over the 8speeds. The ZF8speeds are awesome, they put them in everything!
I'll take the slightly underwhelming power figures in exchange for an engine that will most likely have fewer problems as it ages, as well as producing basically peak torque at 2,000 rpm.
Also, big pushrod engines are just better.
Looks like nearly peak torque is always available, that combined with the 100% duty cycle is what makes it an excellent HD engine.
Why doesn’t anyone ever talk a plowing snow? Towing not the only thing these trucks are used for!
@I know you are right, And I just got owned but: You are still here with your Sippy Cup? GM and RAM (Dodge) have YEARS of experience taking money from the Government...meanwhile making mediocre trucks...I have owned them ALL (Except Nissan)...and by far I had the most mechanical problems with GM and Dodge...and they ALL rot away where I live!
I just found out how good my 2018 titan plows in tow mode. 100 percent
Nice troll attempt guy with stupid name. For those that actually live in the North, we all know Fords are top dog as Solid Front Axles reign supreme here.
Sure, but most, majority don't plow but pull. That's ratings.
Stephen Blanck im from the northeast and while i see fords plowing snow the most i also see quite a lot of dodges and chevies and once or twice a single cab tundra. Picking a plow rig might be as simple as brand loyalty but you are correct about the straight axle advantage.
This is a work truck not a raptor. Its output is perfectly respectable for a gas engine in a work truck.
Also, 16 percent is really solid for a pickup. This isnt a challenger. It has heavy wheels, heavy tires, heavy driveshaft, heavy transferase internals, and most different than a car, an extremely heavy axle. The ring and pinion, carrier, and axleshafts and hubs are simply massive. The rear axle weighs north of 350 lbs and the rotating mass is probably around 150 lbs.
16 percent is really spectacular for a heavy duty truck.
Ford v10’s dominated towing before the 7.3 came out and their wheel hp, was closer to just above 200 hp.
The 7.3 has more wheel hp by far than the v10 made at the crank.
Anyway, the 10 speed is likely using very little horsepower compared to the rear axle which i believe, is the biggest producer of loss. Its a evil in a heavy duty truck that is required. That strong, full float axle is what makes a heavy duty truck, a heavy duty truck!
Sucks ford didn't put a manual behind the 7.3
If only man, but it seems the manual truck is dead.
Ford most likely look at a working truck type of market and saw little to no reason for a stick shift, when you think about it, what companies or workers want to drive stick shift truck fleets in 2020
That's why I'm glad ford offers this as a crate engine. Im going to drop in my 03 f350 so I can maintain my stick shift.
7.3 Godzilla is a beast....thanks Roman n Nathan
The 7.3 will be one of Ford's best engines for years to come.
The 2019 Power Wagon lost almost 100 hp and 100 lb-ft of torque in one dyno I watched. That Godzilla engine keeps it pretty real compared to the 6.4 Hemi.
The 6.4 Hemi is a small block engine and should have never been used in a heavy duty application Diesel engines and Big Block engines are the only way to go. Small block engines should only be used in half ton trucks and muscle/sports cars.
@@rustybeatty6567 facts.
@@rustybeatty6567 we had one RAM 5500 that came in with a custom steel utility bed that was for like a landscaping business, full 3/4 or 1 ton drivetrain with 10 bolt wheels and dual rears..... all powered by a 6.4 hemi
by all means that's a badass motor in a half ton but i remember even driving it out of the shop that 6.4 had to scream just to move that big truck around and it barely moved enough to get out of its own way
the only reason the company ordered the truck with a guzzoline engine over the cummins was because the huge gasoline cost of having a 6.4 hemi huffing and puffing and screaming in the RPM range nonstop is STILL less than maintaining and fixing a modern neutered diesel with the supremely pricy DPF systems, DEF bullshit and the cost deficit of having a truck down for the count while the expensive DPF is on backorder for a week,
ford's play of having an overbuilt, non-emissions neutered gasoline V8 with usable torque from 2k RPM is definitely going to be one that benefits the business owners/towers/operators that just need heavy towing done
@Phu Doan What? No one mods those 6.4s. They have locked ecus and weak internals for modding.
Phu Doan Seriously? 🤦♂️
They didn't mention the insane torque it had at a low rpm on that video though
I would like to see an F250 7.3L v8 Gas vs the NEW 6.6 GM Gas 2500 Truck!!! Who build a Better V8 Gasser?!
Good idea. I am a Chevy guy but I think I would go for the Ford. GM has the 'shudder' problem with the 8-speed transmission.
@@rondail5675 6.6 comes with the dependable 6L90
@@rondail5675 2500 and 3500 dont use 8 speed
@@BullittKid08 , that's a good thing. I have a 2017 Corvette, it is fine, but friends have had the 'shudder' problem. It is supposedly caused by the torque converter.
6.2L is a good engine. I don't know about the 6.6L . Thanks for the info.
D Castorena and the ram 6.4 with the new 8speed
Looks like the power band on the 7.3L is high and flat, so it’s making a lot of power early and the delivery should feel smooth. Also the 10 speed in the super duty is massive, and a lot of the loss.
I also can’t see how those numbers are weak tho
It seems like this truck loses about 16.2% of its power through the drivetrain which is actually quite good for a heavy, automatic vehicle such as this. What’s more impressive is that at ~408 rwtq, it’s actually making more than the advertised torque. Ford rated the torque at 475, but this reading shows about 486 lb-ft. Should be a really strong hauler 💪.
The guy at 5 star said they hit the speed limiter...... there's still more in it.
Alex mike the curve had already flattened out.
Touche
Hitting a speed limit doesn’t mean they didn’t max out the power.
There is a lot more in it, it has not been out long enough, the speed people will will make a smoker out of this engine, just watch!!
@Mr. Morton aka. Highlander I agree brother
Since Dyno's vary from machine to machine, you should only take the information as a before and after comparison of doing a performance upgrade. You could easily run it on a different dyno and see 20hp/tq more or less than what that machine read. Just use the same dyno when evaluating performance mod gains. Unfortunately the video being referenced is a sample size of 1 and scientifically limited in saying that is THE value.
Can’t wait to hear one with custom exhaust
Hell yes!
A good Magnaflow would be stellar.
73L VS 62L Even though this TFL review centers around the overall number. We are still impressed with the 7.3L and its more about the differences between each engine to us here at 5 Star Tuning. We wanted to show for those who have a 6.2L and or those wanting a 7.3L what could they expect approx. hp/tq to wheel between the engines.(stock form) We can run in 7th gear (the 7.3) and it will produce a higher number but will hit the factor speed limiter half way in WOT run. We might do that onces we get into development in a a couple of weeks . We also have our 2nd 7.3L coming in today (about time lol) it has a 3.55 gears, we will get some more runs with it to compare
5 Star Tuning Sales - so please request a Ford F-350 one ton with 3:73 or 4:10 rear end, with moderate sized tires - truck equipped to work, and run a full set of dyno tests again to see what the comparative numbers are. We’ll then know whether the7.3 in stock form is a POS, or candidate for mild tune to bring the numbers up to where they should be.
All I can say is putting a turbo or or supercharger on that engine is gonna make a ton of heat with all of that hot air.
The average person has very little appreciation for duty cycle. That's where the new 7.3 shines. This truck can pull at over 50% load at constant duty, and over 65% at 50/50 cycle.
It's all about how early that torque curve comes in on a NA motor. Nathan you need to educate yourself on how good that is for a NA v8.
The parasitic loss is due to turning a massive drivetrain.
And massive 35's
Shanel1174 *part of the drivetrain*
D D No shit?
16%loss is nothing when considering its auto, 4x4, 3/4ton running gear , 35s.
I just bought a Lariat Pkg and put about 600mi on it, then put a fairly new 3200 lb 2 place horse trailer on it for about 14hrs total. First 7hrs were no horse in it, 2nd 7hrs we had one horse in the trailer now towing 4500 lbs +/-. The motor and Lariat pkg did exactly what I wanted to do. I felt it actually performed better with pulling a trailer. MPG was 13mph unloaded and 10mph loaded in tow-hall mode. The transition seemed to be the key to making this work as it kept it no lower than 5th gear going up some steep grades at 60~70mph with most of the time in 8~10 at highway speeds (65-70). I can see where a tune will help the lower end 0-30mph pull and acceleration, but after that this pkg performs. Really like this truck so far. Under a load this truck does seem different vs. unloaded or in a tow situation. Well done Ford, i'm impressed so far with now just over 2k+ on this pkg and looking for things to tow :)
Speaking of Godzilla and King Kong who’s ready for the Godzilla vs Kong movie this year!?
What about simplicity? I like that it's so simple. Maybe an owner could work on his own stuff again without the need for specialized tools. Looks like there is actually room to work in the engine bay because it's not a wide engine like the OHC's. Price? You dont have to buy 2 or 4 cams for upgrades or replacement. No fancy timing belts and chains. Its port injection. Direct injection is rumored to be causing carbon build up on intake valves. I believe this will be the next LS for hot-rodders in 10- 20 years
Yeah as others have said 15% is pretty typical for a 4WD truck. Especially one spinning big heavy wheels/tires.
It sounds absolutely realistic. Let’s see a 6.6 / 6.4 / 7.3 comparison. The supercharging argument also goes for Nathan’s power wagon baby too - where’s the blown hemi?? HD trucks still gotta do HD things.
Leave the turbos to the v6 and 4 cylinders. V8 American made big block needs to stay as it is.
I'm sorry Roman but I agree with Nathan here. Nobody in their right mind is going to supercharge the 7.3. That's like saying you want to supercharge the GM 8.1L of the 2001-2006 ERA. Also the same goes for the Ford 460 cubic inch engine or even the Dodge 8.0L V10 out of the 2500-3500 trucks. Nobody is going to do that to an old fashioned push rod large displacement low revving gas v8 engine.
I really hate the fake good cop bad cop skit. Comes of so phoney.
Old school push rod v8, no multiple camshafts, no turbos to deal with, easy maintenance, cheaper repair bills, better reliability. I'm a fan of it
I can see Chevy and Fiat guys hating on this. But that’s why they’re chevy and fiat guys
I feel the need to point out that a lot of people are comparing it to the diesel drivetrain loss A Diesel's going to have less drivetrain loss because. Boost is dependent on the load. So for a diesel the more you load it the better the power numbers will be. This 7.3 is just fine.
If you watch the dyno video yes we see torque management occurring. this helps longevity and also and probably more importantly means that when you really low down the truck you're not getting random torque spikes.
nobody wants to be full throttle heading up the Ike and all of a sudden get a random surge of power followed by a random big ass dip.
the other thing people forget is this vehicle is tuned correctly for fuel efficiency with a stoichiometric fuel ratio while fully loaded. Most vehicles run rich which creates more heat and burns more fuel.
Also point out that when they do the ike run we will not see a fuel economy improvement. This is because despite being a stoichiometric ratio.since all the normally-aspirated trucks are starving for air there going to be pretty close to a stoichiometric ratio. Otherwise the cats like literally melt from the unburned fuel.
The dyno test showed a fairly good result and the flat power curve is what you want. Peaky power doesn't perform well in the real world. Keep in mind that Ford doesn't want to risk loosing the very profitable diesel sales!
Curious about the mpg now compared to my V8 6.2. I absolutely love my engine and it has been a smooth flawless work horse. Ford made a solid 7.3(Yes I know it's International. But it's in Ford's line up) 5.0 and solid 6.2 gasser.
Now a 7.3? Awesome. Wish Ford the best.
Just wait till the tuners get hold of them and start doing twin turbos and other stuff
And we start getting 1000 + hp 😍😍👍👍
Give one to mr roush and stand back
Good info,I agree it's a first year production. Give Ford time too bring a muscle option on the 7.3.Im sure Rousch will have performance parts available soon.
Do you not get it? this is for commercial use mostly, no company is gonna be buying these and then putting superchargers that cost thousands to make up for the lack of power. ITs disappointing to see numbers like this out of such a big engine.
BARTEK MEDES Facts are facts Ford still makes the best trucks available
@@bartekmedes8281 will see ,did not know you have complete insite and control of the aftermarket world.
Yall need to research before making a video. Considering the tire size and gear ratio on the truck they tested, those are stout numbers, definitely matching or beating the advertised crank numbers. 4.10 gears and big tires kill dyno numbers.
Well said.
The 360 was less powerful that a 390. Yet when you tear the engine down you see that the 360 was beefed up for reliability. Resistance to strain is more important on a large truck. And that resistance also leads to more weight and inertia. Which in turn gives the engine more mass to throw at the load it is hauling. Mileage isn't the only efficiency that matters in a big truck. The efficiency of each combustion cycle is made easier when you have the mass to make the crankshaft want to keep spinning. That's why the old Windsor could lug itself form a dead stop in 2nd gear. Not just torque but inertia of mass.
These are work trucks not dragsters .No need to make things over complicated when you don't need to.
I love that ford put this engine out. I do wish it had slightly higher numbers but the 6.4l hemi in the ram 2500 puts out way less than this for the same mpg. I like the old push rod bug block v8 design. My concern with the 5.0 v8 is that its too complicated and thus more likely to break and cost more to fix. I guess we have to see how reliable the 7.3l actually turns out to be over the next few years. I think ford did good tho. Maybe they will release a supercharged version in a couple years when they’ve perfected this engine. First year engines always have some quirks or bugs to work out so its probably better they didnt jump straight to supercharging it. I also dont think the transmission is responsible for the parasitic loss as its the same transmission as the powerstroke and you didnt see that kind of loss when you dyno’d it. Unless ford needs to fine tune the software for it hooked up to the 7.3l
It’s stupid that the EPA doesn’t rate heavy duty trucks. If anything heavy duty users/commercial users care more about fuel economy than half-ton truck users.
That loss on the dyno is pretty typical for a truck. My ‘08 4x4 hemi that made “345 hp at the crank” only made like 280 on the dyno.
That 2020 7.3 is a Tremor with different wheels and tires, maybe a disadvantage for that particular truck?
JayXJ I was thinking the same thing, the larger and softer tires soak up horsepower and torque. This is a normal thing.
Yes potentially, but those are factory wheels and tires. That’s what you get when you buy the truck.
John Moore Yes, they are factory. Doesn’t negate the fact that they’re bigger and softer and absorb more power.
The drivetrain loss is actually very reasonable given it's a 4x4. The numbers are a bit underwhelming but the torque curve is excellent.
Forgot to talk about it being a natural aspirated engine at altitude
There is no altitude. They tested it in florence, sc off of I 95. Five star tuning with the 843 number is florence, sc.
Thanks for the video guys, I appreciate all you guys do. On that note I agree with Nathan. Those are some pretty good numbers drop in HP and torque. I know all manufacturers vehicles don’t give you real world HP and torque which I think should be measured at the rear wheels and not at the crank. Now if you want those hp and torque number you as a consumer have to go spend more money on your $55,000 to $60,000 truck. That is ridiculous. Thanks for sharing Nathan and Roman.
Nathan also likes the #Titan....consider that....NateDawg you are wrong
I am getting 15.7MPG with my 2019 6.4L 2500 RAM Laramie, and I paid $10k less than a similar equipped Ford F250. I don't get how Ford justifies the price for their trucks.
... stop giving Nathan crap for miss speaking on 10%.... Andrea breaks it down correctly on the dyno video. Not a big deal, don’t lose your minds.
15% drivetrain loss on a 4x4 is low. You get about 15% drivetrain loss through a manual transmission. 18% to 20% through an auto. Then add approximately 2% for the transfer case. So you are closer to 22%. I'm an ASE certified tech in drivetrains. Specifically manual transmissions. Just for a little of my background.
Overall engine output would be underrated by Ford once again, by about 10%.
Just like how Semi Trucks only make 400 HP average and 1000+ torque out of 12+ liters, it is for reliability.
that and more than anything is all about the TQ....400 hp is plenty to maintain speed....1300+tq gets things moving...remember the old saying...."torque gets you there and hp keeps you there"
Jed Knutson horsepower sells engines, torque wins races.
HP is derived from torque and engine speed. What you really want for heavy loads is horsepower at low RPM, which this engine and transmission combination will provide.
Jason Hall horsepower is a calculation. Torque is an actual measurement. And you want torque to peak as early as possible to get the load moving and you want horsepower to peak within the most used RPM range.
@@jghall00 that's what made the old 7.5 such a great pulling motor, EFI motor or Carb with EFI timing set has close to 400 lb ft available at or in some cases below 1500 RPM, ~425 lb ft by 2,000 rpm stock, with ~300 HP from 3000 RPM staying around to a bit over 5,000 rpm, it allows you to pull around your load at any RPM, peak numbers aren't impressive by today's standards, but they're available at nearly any RPM.
I had a 2012 F-150 Ecoboost that I towed a 9500# camper with and did so for many years. I recently sold that truck and bought a new godzilla F-350. The super duty tows more solidly (same camper), doesn't shift as much as the Eco. I am very happy with it. I am talking strictly power, obviously it will tow better as a heavy duty truck, but the new truck has more power, and does less shifting and it doesn't have 1000 miles on it. I think it will get better as it breaks in more.
5 Star Tuning is in South Carolina...it was not tested in Denver!
They are from texas originally, but this is in florence, sc. I bought a diablosport tuner for my challenger from them.
Headers, cam and tune, bet the 7.3 makes makes close to 450rwhp. Like everyone has said, 16% drive train loss isnt bad at all. Considering heavy duty axles and giant driveshaft. I've lost 20hp just switching to a bigger final drive.
job for gale banks
Almost a 95rwhp gain? Maybe, but who is gonna swap in a cam with a HD truck?
Cai, full exhaust and tune and I'm guessing you add 25-30hp.
@@dansherwood1043 I'm just guessing based on similar cube and designed engines like the 7.0 LS and how they respond. I may be wrong, but it seems tuned on the reliability end stock
Where is he getting 10% loss from? 16% is actually really good for this truck. You have heavy duty trans and drive shaft and rear end and tires. I hope this was just for content, because his argument is stupid.
The 7.3 actually did very well on the dyno pull. If you figure all the parasitic loss due to the weight of the truck and losses through the drivetrain, the torque numbers may be well over 500 lb ft., which is what you want in a truck to begin with. Great video guys!! 👌 Keep up the good work.
I agree with Roman on this.
Everyone forgets meeting epa might have something to do with it. Same reason the 8.l1 vortec was low power. Choked up to meet sound and emission restrictions.
Once you put a super charger on it with a tune and labor you could have bought a 6.7, just a thought
The 7.3 would be my choice for simplicity, longevity, and reliability with its push rod, naturally aspirated design.
Should test 7.3 in towing including mpg
cant wait to find out.
Under 10 mpg
whatiwant
Under 5mpg
@@4468861989 highway loop at 70 miles an hour on a tremor with 430 has pulled 15 MPG.
travis10ist What makes you think they won’t??
We had a couple 6.2 liter fords at a place that i worked they pulled heavy trailers around 4 states for most of their lives but 250k miles and all but 3 are still being used cant complain they get their money out of them for sure
I would like to see the 7.3L run on the dyno with factory 33’s instead of 35’s.
Yeah I'm not sure why people pit those big ass tire's on the truck. It only adds more strain to the drivetrain. Maybe at highway speeds it may make a bit of a difference, but most work trucks see stop and go more than highway nowdays. Lol
james heichel because those big ass tires come stock on a tremor.
Why do auto manufacturers give hp, and torque numbers at the crank?? Thoes numbers are useless to the consumer. GIVE US REAL WORLD NUMBERS AND NOT FLUFF..Dammit man..
Bigger tires and a transfer case cause more parasitic loss.
The power losses in that Dyno pull are completely normal and in line with a HD pickup.
Ford designed this engine with a pretty broad sprad of applications, INCLUDING their medium duty Trucks, where reliability with employee drivers holding the thing to the wood up a grade are de rigour...
If anyone paid attention when they revealed this new engine, it's got forged internals and heads that look like they potentially can flow a LOT of air.
I predict it will be a Hot Rodder's dream for those wanting more power in their play trucks, and be an economical, reliable servant in guys work trucks.
Exactly
When you dynoed the truck,were you in tow/haul??
My 14 f350 6.2 has noticeable power increase when in tow/haul. Curious if it really makes a difference or just seat of the pants feel.
It's usually just more aggressive shifting. I don't believe it's an actual power gain.
Is it possible that in tow haul mode it alloys more torque out of the transmission cause ford likes to limit the power to the transmission. My 6.2 has same results as you.
It's entirely possible that they limit it off the line in normal mode so people who don't know how to ease into the throttle don't spin the tires.
Some of the tow pigs do the same thing even in tow mode.
So yeah I guess in a way it's a power gain if normal mode isn't giving you the published power while tow mode does.
Changes shift pressures and rpm. No power gains by switching that on
@@pyrorye-80 Yeah the only way it could be seen as a gain is if the system is limiting the output in regular mode. But you're still not getting more than the published specs.
I think a lot of that Parasitic loss is coming from big heavy wheels and tires. Heavy rear end and heavy drive shaft. Heavy hard ware is going to take more power to spin and move.
The 6.7s seriously impressed me. The power that thing put down with the emissions intact was unreal.
Roughly 15% loss through a 10 speed and a transfer case is great! The old standard was 15% for manual and 20% for autos back in the day. I think this motor is exactly what it needs to be
Can’t wait to see what a 5 star tune will do.!
No way, it's n.a. . Think of this engine like the old Ford 300 I6. It's a workhorse, not a Maserati. Guys who buy this truck want rock solid reliability, not 0-60 times.
LMMFAO! DREAM ON!
Ben Katz agree, me and you would lol, but tons of guys still will tune it. With modern fuel systems and this displacement, there is a lot of extra power. Look at the 5.0 tune they did and 5 star does it while still protecting the engine. Some douche tuners out there will super push these.
Jigsaw Wookie 5.0 tune put that out and that is with 5 star who offers a warranty. Other unresponsible tuners will get these numbers easy, all about the software. But yes agree no turbos means less. The 3.5 added like 190lb tq lol
Ray Jay they got 50hp out of a6.2 with older software... not sure why 75Hp would be some insane thing I said here...even if it is 50-60 it would be pretty impressive.
Got my 2020 Godzilla XLT. 4x4. Love it. Towed my trailer great. Only bad on the truck is gas mileage. Only getting 14 on hwy empty in eco mode. But the 10 speed is super smooth.
Super super wrong. “I’m many cases it’s around 10%” do your homework Nathan. Only sports cars can achieve a low parasitic loss like 10%. Porsche is a good example of that. Most cars, trucks, even some performance cars lose 15%. Thats a base number most mechanics and tech shops will use. 15% is completely average. Your making this seem like a big deal when there are plenary of over priced vehicles losing 20% out there.
I put my 03 Cobra with about 20k miles on a Mustang then a Dynojet. On the Mustang dyno it made 355 hp to the ground. The Dynojet it made 372 hp to the ground. Oh, it was about 34 degrees on the Mustang dyno and mid 50s when I was on the Dynojet. Both were a few feet above sea level (in Seattle area)
Should be called Gaszilla
You might be right. What do you figure, 17mpg highway?
Seriously- cant figure out why they think 13.7 is even close to good
@@rondail5675 If it's empty running highway on level ground, I can see around 20 MPG which is what my 2019 Power Wagon gets.
@@WilliamStewart1 , that is good for a full-size truck. Plus it has the power to have a little excitement from time to time.
According to Fuelly, the average recorded MPG on a 6.4 is like 12mpg. Add larger tires, lower gear ratios, and additional weight and I guarantee your Power Wagon isn't getting anywhere near 20mpg.
Nathan, only front drive cars can hit the 10% drivetrain loss figure. That’s because they don’t have a drive shaft, or, more importantly, a 90 degree turn in the power flow at the differential. 16% loss in a 4WD measured at the rear wheels is actually quite good. A testament to the efficiency of the 10spd auto!
Nathan come on 10%? No, 15 to 20% is normal. Don’t put misleading information out to people that don’t know like you.
David Gutierrez he miss spoke. Andrea said it correctly in the Dyno video.
Should do a 7.3 Gas vs 7.3 Diesel comparison
I'd love to see this engine in a F150!
Good old TIME will tell if it's a reliable engine..but FORD quality it's a very serious concern to me .. will know soon enough.
So far I'm sold but as usual I'll wait a year to decide.
Good points guys.
Nathan always has to bash everything that isn't a powerwaggon
Actually I feel like these videos Nathan is portraying the personality of the comments on the video.
@@KoolCordell the commenters hating on Nathan crack me up more than Nathan playing the part of the commenters... 😂
Powerwagon don’t care