mobile-menu-icon
Ford Authority
Sponsored

Ford To Deploy Pushrod Tech In New 7.3L V8 Truck Engine, According To A Report

Sponsored

As Ford’s 5.0-liter dual-overhead-cam (DOHC) “Coyote” V8 becomes ever more modern, picking up dual-injection and Plasma Wire Arc Transfer cylinder liners in the 2018-model-year Ford Mustang GT, a report has emerged that suggests the automaker’s next big truck engine to be built at Windsor could go a bit more old-school. An admin at the SVTPerformance forums, one “SID297”, claims to have knowledge of a 7.3-liter pushrod V8 that’s set to go into production at Ford’s Windsor Engine Plant, which will reportedly replace the company’s aging 6.8-liter SOHC “Triton” V10.

Why Use A Pushrod Design?

Although largely a relic of the past, pushrod engines – a.k.a. overhead-valve (OHV) engines – have stuck around in some applications due largely to their low complexity, reliability, and cheap production. They carry the added advantage of relatively compact external dimensions, hence why Chevrolet’s small-block V8s so often tend to be the engine-swap candidate of choice; you can stick an LS just about anywhere. And of course, where there’s less metal, there’s usually less mass.

The First In A Series

Ford’s 7.3-liter OHV V8 will reportedly be just the first in a range of pushrod-type V8 engines, which will replace the 6.8L Triton V10, and could spell the end for the 6.2L Boss V8. It’s expected to first appear in the Ford F-Series Super Duty for 2020. The block could be cast from either traditional gray iron or Compacted Graphite Iron (CGI), SID297 says. CGI could allow Ford to design a stronger, lighter block than the iron-block 6.2L and 6.8L engines.

Windsor Investment

Ford’s alleged new 7.3-liter OHV V8 ought to be a boon for the workers at the Windsor Engine Plant, which was in desperate need of some fresh investment. The plant’s 2- and 3-valve 6.8L V10 engines have been mostly sidelined to products like the E-Series cutaway and stripped chassis, the Ford F-650/750 Super Duty, and the F-450/550 Chassis Cab.

Sponsored

Aaron Brzozowski is a writer and motoring enthusiast from Detroit with an affinity for '80s German steel. He is not active on the Twitter these days, but you may send him a courier pigeon.

Subscribe to Ford Authority

For around-the-clock Ford news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest Ford updates.
It's totally free.

Sponsored

Comments

  1. vbondjr

    This is the first intelligent thing ford has done in over 30 years! Bring back the pushrod V8

    Reply
    1. Samoyed1112

      What a stupid comment… what about leading the entire car industry with the widespread adoption of smaller-displacement engines. Something that even though some people criticize, the entire car industry as a whole has adopted.

      Reply
  2. vbondjr

    I’m impressed This is the first intelligent thing ford has done in over 30 years! Bring back the pushrod V8

    Reply
  3. lyn schahinger

    Pathetic Ford, going backwards with engine tech. > push rod ohv ineffecient design. No other manufacturer besides typical GM/Chev & not for long Dodge use that approach.
    Don’t step backwards Ford and design a 4 valve DOHC v8.
    As for you “vbondjr” you statement is just as Pathetic, too.

    Reply
  4. Reply
  5. lyn schahinger

    CGI or not Willy > push-rod OHV 2 valve cylinder heads is still a huge design step in the WRONG direction. This is the 20teens not the 1950’s.

    Reply
  6. Willy Persson

    This engine is most likely smaller due to the lack of OHC and has thinner cylinderwalls because of the turn to CGI in the block and may leave some important space under the hood for some hybrid solutions. It will fit under lower hoods and may find its way to more models. Wait and see.

    Reply
  7. CHUCK STEMPLE

    THE TECHNOLOGY FOR PUSH ROD ENGINES IS WAY BETTER THAN EVEN IN THE 1980’S. THIS DESIGN WILL BE EFFICIENT AND PROVIDE THE NEEDED POWER IN A MORE COMPACT PACKAGE.

    Reply
  8. lyn schahinger

    Sorry Chuck, I don’t agree. Every yes Every auto manufacturer around the world including the good ol’ USA, have long moving on from “THAT” old tech.> push-rod 2 valve OHV design. Except of course (typical GM)& FCA_USA.
    If it was so wonderful, like you might think, why didn’t they just stick to it.!
    “Provide the needed power in a more compact package” Well without THAT push-rod OHV “Noaks-Arc” tech.=
    Even MORE power & torque with better fuel economy & who needs a more compact package in a truck.?!
    Just look at the Mustang quicker than a Chev Camaro with 5 liter V8 against a 6.2 V8.
    Come on CHUCK ,get ya $hit together.

    Reply
    1. CHUCK STEMPLE

      WELL NOIW THAT WAS IGNORANT. DO YOU EAT WITH THAT MOUTH?

      Reply
  9. lyn schahinger

    Well Chuck,, you’re now proved how Naive & Limited (automotive tech wise) you really are.
    Going by your capital lettering, with your comments. So you have to “yell” every time you talk, just to be noticed or are people sick of what your saying.?! 🙂

    Reply
    1. Rick

      Don’t agree with your viewpoint on this. The overhead cam motors have been maintenance and durability problems since day one. The timing chains (particularly the guides) can be a pain, the cam phasers were a problem for years, the design of the coolant passage over the front of the block is terrible, the engine is really REALLY wide, making the exhaust routing an issue, and don’t get me started on the sparkplug well issues. A general maintenance procedure of pulling a bad head went from a hassle to a nightmare, and it’s all because of that overhead cam design. Too much stuff going in too many directions in that engine.

      You also forget that maintenance costs drive fleet truck purchases as much (or more, like WAY more) than being new or innovative. Something that’s easy to work on, is dead stone reliable, and takes a beating without complaint is going to be far more efficient over the long run than something with the latest tech and a 1/4 mile of timing chains. Speaking as one of the rare engineers that actually turns a wrench, and does so on these engines in these trucks, trust me that simpler is better.

      If you want new and latest and most current, the answer isn’t an I/C engine, anyway. It’s an electric motor with a battery pack under the truck bed, and you know it. I long for the days when exhaust systems, cooling systems, intake systems, emissions control systems, fuel systems, transmission systems, and oil systems all go the way of the dodo.

      Reply
      1. lyn schahinger

        Is it just the good old USA that has problems with “that” OHC design cause the Europeans & Japanese dont seem to have any problem with it, Rick

        Reply
  10. Huspeedz

    Given the incredible simplicity of design, and the cost savings that single cam, push rod motors incorporate, both the SBC and the SBF motors prove the possibility of enormous power potential. As to whether the push rod design is archaic, in truth, longevity, e.g., the mighty SBC, doesn’t always equal or warrant the designation, ” archaic.”

    Reply
    1. lyn schahinger

      Just stay where you in the 1950’s Nospeedz

      Reply
  11. Ford Motor Company

    We are actually putting a 7.0 version of this 7.3 engine into the 220mph Crown Victoria GT7

    Reply
  12. Lyn Schahinger, but smarter

    This engine is going to be for light/medium duty trucks. Innovation isn’t necessarily what customers want. They want a durable drivetrain with little to no downtime. We see plenty of 4-550 trucks with 6.8l engines that are tired or in need of major repairs because they just don’t make the power need in these heavy trucks. The LS has been a major success.

    Reply
  13. Kent Pull

    As philosopher Plato said, “simplicity is the mark of a genius“, thus Ford going with a new gas 7.3 L v8 with simplicity in its design from ground up while improving reliability, fuel economy, lower emissions, and overall superior performance on all levels makes Ford’s engineers geniuses. Now if Ford would put the 3.0 v6 Powerstroke with the 10 speed HD transmission into the cutaway chassis E450, in both a hybrid and non hybrid combination and in F4/550 in a hybrid combination that is genius to the next level. Tough. Reliable. Smart. Way to go Ford!

    Reply
    1. Mr. Fleet

      To Mr. Kent Pull the 3.0 powerstroke is not suited for heavy duty applications or any application for that matter there is no longer a benefit of running diesel in medium duty sector especially in a fleet scenario. I am a fleet mechanic and I have many trucks in my care and for the cost of repairs in a diesel and downtime and required driver training their is absolutely no benefit. We have 6.2L gas and 6.7L diesels the 6.2 gives us zero issues the 6.7 on the other hand let me count the ways, exhaust systems, injectors, water pumps, egr coolers, spun main bearings, random oil leaks and a few more “minor” issues. And not to mention a general higher price all around for parts. And for the cost of one exhaust system for a 6.7 I can purchase 2 crate motor 6.2 out of Ford so tell me where is the benefit?

      Reply
  14. CHUCK STEMPLE

    NO LONGER INTERESTED IN THIS LINE OF THOUGHT,DEAD ISSUE. BORING ME TO DEATH.

    Reply
  15. Rowdy412

    I wonder how soon Ford will be offering this engine in a E-450 chassis for RV sales. What a great market to use this in!

    Reply
  16. gregsfc

    It’s pretty much guaranteed this engine will be in Econoline and even 650 applications; aka LHD and medium duty. Ford has as much as said so. When, we don’t know, but I’d say very soon. Demand will be high, but not so high that they can’t start planting it everywhere they want to put it. Basically everywhere we see a diesel HD choice above 8600 GVWR except Transit or any gas choice truck will get this engine standard or as an option.

    Reply
  17. Sukhoi31m3

    Well let’s see; 482 horsepower and 557# of torque in an engine that’ll be easy to service (oil changes, spark plugs etc) and I’m sure it’ll use 87 octane gas. Roller lifters and roller rocker arm fulcrums, stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds. No cylinder de-activation and hopefully no auto stop/ start, or at least defeatable at the push of a button.
    Sounds pretty good to me. I like torque better than high revving engines and this one will have it in spades, backed up a 10 speed auto.
    Hmmm, I wonder what a base model regular cab, 8’ bed with this engine will go for.
    Just might be my next truck – I like simplicity.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel
Sponsored