We Finally Know the Ford Super Duty 7.3L V8 Power Numbers & They Are Lower Than We Thought!

[@Thisisnotedward]

430 horsepower 475 torque Just saved you 8 minutes

[@michael4265]

Thisisnotedward you’re my hero

[@randyvinson7928]

Thisisnotedward thanks

[@RicardoVargas-dy9tf]

Thank you. It took a while to look for this

[@akman1931]

Thank you

[@devinbender8428]

Thisisnotedward EXACTLY what I was expecting . 30 more HP and 10 more lbft than Chevys new 6.6

[@booya6437]

In what world is 430 horsepower and 475 pound feet of torque low for a gas engine? This is meant to be a workhorse and if anyone has looked at the dyno charts, they would see this engine makes 400+ pound feet of torque at 1500 rpm - this engine is hardly disappointing

[@JAMESWUERTELE]

Boo Ya I’d like to test drive one when they come out.

[@kelvinhill9874]

lee hancock did you miss the part of the video when they showed it and talked about the high torque number at 1500rpm?

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

i mean gas big blocks were basically pumping out the same numbers in the early 1970s with the same displacement , so the numbers at face value really aren't that impressive , but these engines probably run on 87 octane and will run for 300k miles before any major service where as the old big blocks lasted 100k miles if you were lucky , ran on premium leaded fuel and got 6 mpg no matter how you drove it,, and that was in a car lol.

[@booya6437]

Dalton Michaels And is there something wrong with that? I’m honestly not seeing why this is a problem. This engine is meant to outlast your interest in it, not to be a race truck.

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

@@booya6437 i think you missed my point. im saying these engines are clearly superior in every way , even though the power numbers at face value really aren't any higher than they used to be.

[@Matt-mh5ud]

This thing is so old school I might just shed a tear. More than enough horespower, low-revving, and VERY impressive torque curve from off idle up. This thing finally gives die hard fans that loved the old 300 or 460 something to clap for. Being so unstressed, it should last a lifetime.

[@dre04mach]

I have a feeling they built in a lot of overhead on this engine and won't take much to revise it next time GM and dodge get a power bump... They've been toying with GM lately - usually with the diesels.

[@ahmirbaileysfitness5642]

460 gassers are still better😯

[@som1alive]

Brother I have to agree. I hated and still do hate the twin OH cams in almost ALL the new motors. So good to see old-school lifters and ONE CAM!!!

[@dre04mach]

@@som1alive For efficiency and streetability at high power, you can't beat the twin OH cams.. Once you crank up the power, the coyote will stay much more streetable, whereas the big blocks will barely idle, make no vacuum, and get 6mpg...

[@6bt_str864]

Agreed. I can see this thing having that typical Ford "Seasoned crispness" that the 5.0 HO had with it's tried and true dependability 🤘 Im all in on this giant "lizard"

[@jbird1173]

The 7.3 powerstroke made 250hp 505 ftlbs. For the gasser to get close to that torque and almost double the hp is impressive.

[@jpippinator]

The 7.3l Powerstroke is the perfect engine for towing. It’s not fast but plenty of torque and the detuned larger displacement engine is a reliable workhorse. Even if they reissued that engine, it would be raped with emissions systems. This 7.3 gasser seems like the next best thing.

[@andrewwelch7561]

Agree with Jpippinator. Also it's hard to compare an engine made 20 years ago to one made today

[@Potatorq]

7.3 powerstroke was the king of durability. My 2000 f250 has 340k miles with the original engine. If the new 7.3 gasser can be that durable it would be an incredible engine.

[@Michaelation08]

@@dsch1znit 😂😂😂😂

[@gjolinares23]

@@dsch1znit 🤣

[@RyanRKJ]

It seems to me like the majority of negative comments here are not from people who drive commercial vehicles, or oversee the maintenance of commercial fleets. Ford was not designing this engine for the Mustang, or trying to make the F-250 a race truck.

[@kbarrett1844]

Ryan rkj - Well said!

[@alexs3187]

Exactly!!

[@sean-yb5hc]

You're absolutely right, brother!

[@bigal6684]

Very good point......peak #'s are essentially meaningless in this application. Off-idle response and power up to normal shift RPM is key.

[@fread51]

Thank you

[@ryanmartinage]

400 lb ft at 1500rpm in a NA gas v8. Thank you ford. This is how trucks should be.

[@ejcheli]

Totally! So sick and tired of these tiny little 4 bangers with turbos bursting at the seams trying to rev to 12000 just to get power in a truck.... so dumb.

[@hellojoe70]

Get a diesel

[@ryanmartinage]

Chris Stewart or I’ll get a solid big block truck that’s easy to work on, makes a lot of low end grunt, and to top it off several thousand cheaper. This is the engine to get unless you really need the diesel.

[@errickkitchin36]

I agree here. I have a feeling Ford will sell a lot of these. Companies will love them and so will normal people. Plenty of people want more grunt than what the 6.2 has, but don't need nor want a diesel.

[@WilliamStewart1]

@@hellojoe70 couldn't pay me enough to buy a modern diesel pickup truck.

[@johnbergeron5015]

The numbers are low because it has a tow cam with relatively low peak torque but a very flat and long torque curve. Ideal for a truck.

[@thomasjackson3833]

I am sure it can be tricked out for a fun project car

[@roninespiritu]

omg they sent an engineer and not a Salesperson. I'm impressed.

[@NukePooch1]

Seriously impressed. For the use case, it's more than enough power, and as long as there's no 'oops' in the design, this will last forever. This engine makes total sense in a HD truck.

[@brianaustin6184]

N Pooch agreed,I think this engine fits the hd market better then the 6.6 gasser Chevy and 6.4hemi

[@wrzl1675]

Brian Austin it’s only 29 hp and 5 lb ft over the Chevy 6.6 which means it will have undetectable “seat of the pants” power gains over GM. Like he said, they thought it would make a lot more power being that it’s a 7.3 and they’re right because that tiny power gain is nothing.

[@donrichter3523]

Maybe, but 6.4L still has cam/lifter wear problems, and Ram still rates their engines using 89 octane. Who the hell is putting 89 in these. Optimize the engine for 87!!

[@NukePooch1]

@@wrzl1675 In HD vehicles that are meant for fleets and severe work conditions, it's not about a huge power gain, it's about durability and efficiency. Having approximately the same amount of power in a larger-displacement, less-stressed engine, it's possible that this engine will be immensely durable and long-lasting.

[@adamstansbeary1764]

I'm more curious about torque between 1500 and 2500. Can it cruise and pull a hill with a load and not shift. So annoying when going over rolling hills and you have to chose between staying in a low gear or letting the transmission shift for every little hill. Peak torque only matters if it's in the low end of the rpm range to me.

[@alexstepanski]

I love everyone talking trash.12v Cummins were 175hp/400tq. This is a easy to work on gasser with a cat/simple egr system.

[@55afishead]

Diablodrift well your right about one thing. You will need to work on it! Lol!

[@morgan-xv9bc]

So a 7.3 diesel has low stats to yet both can do a million miles no sweat somthing a gaser cant do without a rebuild plus do easy mods on a diesel and them numbers get bigger where a gas u cant

[@cooperallen282]

That's just stock, upgraded you can easily get that number up

[@chickenknucklez2604]

@@morgan-xv9bc I like the 7.3 diesel but as far as the new diesel's I would take this 7.3 gas or a v10 any day. Be there done that!!

[@55afishead]

@@alexavila8690 www.cars.com/articles/what-are-the-most-reliable-cars-for-2020-hint-genesis-lexus-make-em-418187/ Heres a list of the most reliable. There's a search engine named Google. Check it out and then you won't have to ask me for this info. LOL!

[@teop7887]

Ford has publicly given an explanation for the "low" power numbers: Enables to run at a lower compression ratio Less stress on the motor, less overheating, more durability Allows use of heavier duty parts Allows use of regular fuel Allows for a flatter torque curve Engineered specifically for heavy towing, at constant speeds, not bragging rights. Done. ✌️

[@deandrej674]

lower compression you say? sounds like ford engineered this engine for the aftermarket to get their hands on and slap on a Turbo or supercharger and give it BIG BOOST numbers

[@ratman5727]

Yep, made to do work, -all day, everyday. This is going to be a great engine. The GM 6.0 is the same deal, de-tuned to run the living crap out of it all the time, and survive. Besides, these are exceptional power numbers, especially for 100% duty cycle, -in fact, the real question that begs to be asked is, -who else can make these numbers right now? -And at 100% duty cycle? -Yeah, the answer is nobody! Even as a GM guy, I am giving Ford a big thumbs up on this one!

[@crankychris2]

If you ask, which engine should I put a blower on, 6.4 HEMI, or FORD 7.3; the answer is obvious. As is, it will make a great motor home power plant. With boost, it will make a 1000+ hp reliably, unlike a Mopar 6.2L.

[@verbotn]

To me the explanation is that the Ford engineer mentioned the commercial market as being the inspiration for their performance targets, the commercial fleet purchasers will be more concerned with fuel efficiency than having obscene amounts of power.

[@jaymase3735]

That is the exact recipe for reliability and durability. Finally Ford is turning around their engineering department. The decision to partner with GM to build 10 speed was an even better decision. Ford is sure turning things around.

[@DeezNuts-sx9jd]

If Ford could just bring back the excursion (based on the 2017+ Super Duty) with the options of either the 6.7 Powerstroke or the 7.3 gasser, mated to the new 10-Speed Transmission that'd be great.

[@billhumme5228]

Yeh. What happened to the excursions. I have two with the v10 . Thinking of dropping a 632 gas engine in it.

[@DeezNuts-sx9jd]

Emissions killed the Excursion, so Ford killed production after 2005 in America, and 2006 in Mexico

[@CreatedMind]

Would love to have one based off the new trucks!

[@chuckmuellerleile8729]

I'd be first in line if they ever brought back the Excursion. My 02 is getting pretty tired with 300k plus.

[@chris1451]

@@DeezNuts-sx9jd No, public opinion killed the Excursion. At the time, the environmentalists were louder and screamed about this truck as being to big. Never mind the suburban was as big. Ford had no problems meeting emissions. It was a double standard that killed it.

[@UncleElroy21]

That engine alone could bring this Toyota guy back to Ford. No replacement for displacement! And thank god it’s a pushrod motor.

[@stewbird4676]

Agreed, have my name down for one already

[@39impala]

When did toyota make heavy duty trucks?

[@mark7067]

@@39impala The don't, and no one suggested they did.

[@wildbill23c]

Me too, except wasn't all that impressed with the build quality of the 2nd gen Tundras, power from the 5.7L V8 was fine but the axle bearings didn't hold up long, and I had the front diff howl/growl issue that resulted in a replacement front diff both issues occurred early on well below the 100k mark, and resurfaced around the 102k mark...was far from impressed with these recurring problems that Toyota couldn't seem to fix...and they're vehicles are outdated by several years....granted its a full size truck that Toyota was trying to pass off as a heavy duty truck for a few years, it wasn't even close and the front independent suspension gave me several alignment issues in areas that were never a problem with a solid axle. If they want to go heavy duty they've got a long...long ways to go, because their current Tundra isn't even close....not even borderline HD 1/2 ton with the issues I had with very light towing/hauling duties.

[@som1alive]

This 100x. No more TOHC!!! Garbage technology and overcomplicated engines.

[@mikegoliath8678]

Dont compare this to diesel, you can still get a diesel. This is big power for folks that dont want the diesel issues. Ford did really good here.

[@AkioWasRight]

Peak numbers aren't important, the torque curve is.

[@15Jeep]

Yes.....along with durability and reliability.

[@jigsaw3334]

When I saw it was gas, I wanted to hate it. But wow. 400ft lbs at 1500rpm for a gasser, even Chevy and Ram are twisting their mustaches figuring out how they are gonna compete..

[@ratman5727]

Yeah, this one is going to be a great engine...

[@DarkLinkAD]

Nah, the old 8.1 non vvt made most of its torque at 500rpms. (depending on the application ofcourse). Displacement takes the voodoo out of the equation.

[@systemsoundbar5253]

Ford's 6.2 and 7.3 are the only v8s available now a days that require regular fuel and doesn't have the direct injection and cylinder deactivation , stop and go crappy technology that will comprise the durability and reliability of these engines. Last of the true v8s.

[@foxwithshades7080]

I thought the 6.2l and 7.3l had both port and direct injection.

[@systemsoundbar5253]

@@foxwithshades7080 no, just port fuel, however Ford's newer 5.0 mustang engine is both port and direct injection.

[@foxwithshades7080]

@@systemsoundbar5253 that would be my confusion. Ya I guess they are then. The 6.6L Chevy made is Direct injection, but no premium required and no AFM. I believe the 6.4L Hemi is premium fuel.

[@SkeldZ06]

The GM 6.0 didn't have any of these things either. The GM 6.6 has direct injection but not the other things you mention.

[@pryme2013]

Toyotas 5.7 uses regular fuel and has none of that crap....its why I have one.

[@scottconn62]

That was one flat torque curve.

[@greasysteve5671]

Just like the 300. Pullin stumps at idle

[@scottconn62]

@Jbog07, I'm guessing it will do well in this application since it optimized for low rpms and higher loads. It's funny. I have a Mustang and I've read a lot in forums about people wanting to supercharge this beast for drag racing. I'm sure that will become another revenue stream for Ford Performance and other suppliers.

[@roninkraut6873]

Greasy Steve One of the best Ford engines EVER

[@candyred3v]

@@scottconn62 the last gen gt500 had 500 footpounds at 1500 while this has 400. supercharges this thing could hit 600+ at the same 1500 rpm range with some other mods as well.

[@scottconn62]

@@candyred3v, I think 600 would be easily achievable. The thing is that, in a Mustang, the nose would be way too heavy to be in anything but a drag car. That is unless Ford Performance pulls an aluminum rabbit out of their hat. Make it out of aluminum (heads and block with steal liners) and you would have an engine that would probably be manageable for a Mustang and completely evil in a Raptor.

[@gabemarlin]

Everyone who is complaining about the “low” power forgets that this engine runs at 14:7:1 air fuel ratio all the time, even under full load. The 6.4L Ram runs around 12.7:1. So the 7.3L is 13.1% larger but uses 14.6% less fuel per unit of air, so for a given RPM and load, assuming the load is enough to make the 6.4L enter enrichment, the 7.3L will be using less fuel than the 6.4L and the 7.3L will be making more power. The engineering of this engine is very impressive, especially given that peak hp and torque are only two of thousands of considerations that the engineers have to account for and are but a small picture of the character of an engine. Full torque at 1500 RPM paints a better picture. The DIESEL 7.3L of 1999 only made a tiny bit more torque and much less horsepower and it had a turbo and intercooler! A simple tune to make the new 7.3L run the same air fuel ratio as the 6.4L Ram would result in a power gain of roughly 20 hp, math is 14.6% more fuel = 5% more power due to the thermal efficiency of gas engines (around 30%), but of course would result in worse fuel economy. (Edit) I’m sure my math isn’t perfect but is good enough for quick KZbin comments.

[@uknowimright6269]

@gabemarlin..my '99 250 sd crew has 400,000+ on it was water pump and transmission at just over 300,000. Wish the new ones were like it

[@gabemarlin]

uknowimright6269 Not arguing against the old 7.3L at all. Would take one in a heartbeat over any of these newer trucks. My 1st gen Cummins is still truckin’ with 260k w/ only a water pump change at 230k

[@kevintucker3354]

Andrew Smith You are talking shit just to hear yourself talk shit. I’m embarrassed for you...

[@Treyk901]

Andrew Smith go away troll.

[@musclebone7875]

@Andrew Smith I agree. Should be 550hp/600tq

[@Digit09z]

Looks like Ford built a gasser that should outlast their diesel.

[@robertrichardson9953]

I'll keep my million mile diesel

[@bandabanderos]

Not that hard 😂

[@areed1234]

put it in the category of the 7.3L diesel for simple and long lasting

[@eclipsegst9419]

@@robertrichardson9953 bet it isn't a new one. The old 7.3 IDI and 7.3 Powerstroke could do that easily but I've never seen a 6.0 or newer with over 500k

[@darrin2053]

The big 3 have all have something I like, Fords diesel is NOT one of them

[@Thirty-OughtSick]

6:32 is HP and Torque Numbers 430 Hp @ 5500 rpm and 475lb-ft at 4000rpm.

[@bobbyj870]

Not all heroes wear capes....

[@phattygoodness7347]

To me, that's pretty unimpressive. The Ram pickup 6.4l Hemi is 410/429. For almost an entire litre more of combustion area, it just doesnt seem like theyre generating a significant increase of power. Maybe it is...but on paper it doesn't seem impressive to me and the fuel economy has got to be addressed vs the power. Is it worth it?

[@Toxically_Masculine_Crusader]

@@phattygoodness7347 I get what you're saying, but I guarantee you economy is going to come into play. Dodge's are notorious gas guzzlers. The 6.4 in a power wagon is an awesome machine, but after doing just a little bit of upgrade work you are in the single digits for fuel economy. Also, another thing to think about, this engine is designed to go in trucks built for pulling. Having over 400 ft lbs at almost idle is going to make a world of difference for beginning to move. I am ready to see what type of fuel economy these engines will be providing. I feel that is where this engine will end up shining.

[@robertjohnson4784]

You guys don't get it ford just went backwards back to a single camshaft because their modular engines were notoriously known to give problems especially with the camshaft on top of the valves new motor single camshaft coils on top of the valve cover looks like a LS engine to me Chevy 6.2 L 420 HP 460 ft lb of torque they jumped up to a 7-3 to make 10 more horsepower LMAO

[@kevinanglin678]

@@phattygoodness7347 6.4 is more of a performance type of motor than a work horse motor just like Chevrolet old 8.1 in early 2000's

[@ES44AC-2]

The moral to this story is the manufacturers are tired of meeting over burdensome emissions requirements for diesel engines. New diesels are much more expensive to maintain due to B.S. requirements. Ford and GM used to make engines that had their HP & Torque in the low rpms in the 60's ,I guess what's old is new again.

[@whiskeytangofoxtrot9403]

Amen to that my 6.7 diesel is crazy expensive for everything and you have to take it to a dealer to code everything or pay $600+/ yr for IDS. Factory power makes 400hp 800 lbft torque and pulling 14k lbs it makes easy work of it.

[@quintindowell9498]

@@whiskeytangofoxtrot9403 yes parts are expensive, I have a 16 comes with 440 and 860, but I use forscan which is free and it reads just about any module and pulls the codes on the newer Ford's.

[@Garth2011]

Yep, truck makers may as well invest more in the gas engines for light duty trucks. The DPF/DEF systems add too much cost and maintenance to the new trucks plus, of all things, the engines fail long before they should, area of 150,000 miles and they are worn out from high heat levels. If you are lucky, you will get 150,000 miles but many will see engine failure at 90,000 or so. Sad for those diesel markets and they average another $11,000 in cost.

[@chrism1966]

Garth Clark I’m no fan of dpf/def but these trucks are lasting a hell of a lot longer than 150,000. I work in the hot shot industry for a company out of Indiana with 1500 drivers and the bulk of them are newer pickups of all makes with well over 300k miles on these truck. Though personally I use the 5.9 Cummins 03 came stock with no cats or egr. 😆

[@Garth2011]

@@chrism1966 Most of the failures are coming from vehicles that spend much time on short trips, city driving etc. Those who are on the road for long distance tend to benefit best as the temps are always in the upper range thus the DPF doesn't regen so much. As I known it, below 30 MPH none of these diesel will regen ever.

[@cup_and_cone]

Everyone: Canadians talk slow Stephen: Hold my Moosehead

[@joparsons20]

if you thought he was talking fast you should here some newfies….

[@christopherking2012]

Give it time for some guy to work that engine over. It'll make 600hp w/o a sweat.

[@crankychris2]

9-10 lbs boost, it will be closer to 800 hp.

[@bosse641]

Oh my, salivating. That 7.3 N/A V8 is something I really would like to have in a truck. Awesome.

[@DoRC]

The engine is designed for the commercial market where longevity is much more important than wringing every last ounce of power out of an engine. It's the same reason that the same diesel engine will make a lot less power in a medium duty commercial application than its consumer counterpart.

[@sntstafford]

Modern day incarnation of the low-rev 429 of the 6th gen medium duty F-series; redline at roughly 4000 rpm, slow as a worm on hot asphalt, but would pull anything, all day long, with the occasional oil change thrown in for good measure.

[@rickyde0255]

I'm waiting for this to show up in class a motorhomes.

[@dre04mach]

I have a feeling motorhomes were one of the biggest demand for this motor... the 6.2 just didnt' have the torque to live up to the V10's numbers... and they finally had to have a replacement for that in the medium duty stuff.

[@ninersforlife7682]

Good video. I have read some of the comments where people are saying it doesn't have enough HP or TQ and it should have made more for a big motor. Of course it can we should all know by now whenever manufacture comes out with a new motor they never give it its max horsepower and torque because if they did they would have to make significant changes to it in another year or two automakers always gradually build HP and TQ. 😊

[@willvaughan5734]

Andrew Smith you big stooooopid, clearly you don’t understand this motor is perfect for its intended customer.

[@Rj-to8qm]

@Andrew Smith you don't need any more for this. Less power=more reliability

[@Treyk901]

Andrew Smith you’re the joke here. That engine is designed for towing and hauling, not racing. This engine is making big tq right off idle meaning it gets the load moving easily and maintains speed and acceleration without drama and high revs. And it can do it all day everyday reliably and the engine will last long doing it.

[@rogerfreas4139]

Identified as a ram/ gm troll, sour grapes!

[@eclipsegst9419]

@Andrew Smith holy shit you're stupid. It's a truck engine. Swap it in a project vehicle and I guarantee it would make 600+ with just a cam and tune.

[@MikeL-vu7jo]

forged steel crank awesome strong way to go , 430 hp at 4000 rpm , nice , hats off to my employer .

[@JaredGrissett]

Cam swap away from 500+hp.. this engine would be sweet in a Fox.

[@philllsxga.7737]

Ha !! KZbin stock bottom end record. KZbin k.p. mustang...

[@kscott9706]

Hot rod magazines doing one as we speak

[@crankychris2]

A clean Crown Vic sleeper with 10-12 psi and a pair of M/T's in the cavernous trunk. :))

[@toddharper-ok]

Can't wait to see the HD gas engine showdown when all 3 are available. Thanks TFL, I appreciate your guys' work to make these videos happen. And Mr. Truck is great too.

[@Ford_Raptor_R_720hp_V8]

with a GCVW rating of 25,000 pounds or more, you need to drop cylinder pressures if you want to extend engine life, which is precisely what Ford did

[@eklaiss]

I can't wait til you guys get to tow with it up Ike!

[@eklaiss3268]

Dirty Harry I agree! Lol

[@wildbill23c]

@Dirty Harry I don't think they have the driving skills to tow that fast.

[@brandonh.8882]

Modern technology and old skool come together, this is the result!

[@mmcalifornia8600]

Hmm, funny how everything comes full circle. Nice to see them building real engines like International and the old ford engines were built

[@smrtguy77777]

And people wonder why Toyota still has their 5.7 from 2007!!! It’s called reliability and durability. Can’t believe Ford even admitted it took a step back because their super duty customers want more durability, amazing. Heard so many horror stories about ecoboost, it’s nice Ford is recognizing that.

[@pryme2013]

The 5.7 is excellent, I have no plans to trade in(down) my Tundra. And they have been using a 4.30 gear set since 2007. Ford finally got on board lol

[@mrlariata9290]

This could be the truck I buy. F350 red, crew cab, long bed, in a lariat package. I'm excited.

[@victorbeltran5866]

Mr Lariata probably $85+

[@n1n0z24]

Diesel or gas ?? Im buying one in the near future to use it a as rig welderbut im not sure what engine to choose

[@TheBigFunOne]

victor beltran not for a gas powered lariat more like 58,000-63,000

[@06RedfireGT]

@@victorbeltran5866 Not even close. The only Fords at that price are optioned out Platinum or Limited duallies.

[@curtisgarren6069]

I have a feeling that Ford will do a slight redesign in a few years, and bump the numbers up. For a gas engine to have that flat of a torque curve, I believe it is detuned. After this engine builds a bullit proof reputation Ford will bring on the power. Ford has done this many times. Just look at the modular power numbers go up through out the years.

[@WilliamStewart1]

No one cares about peak numbers inna work truck, the curve and longevity is what should take priority over all else.

[@curtisgarren6069]

Agreed but, No one needs near 1000 ftlbs of torque out of a diesel either. But that's what we all want. In order to sell more trucks than other auto makers they give us what we want.

[@curtisgarren6069]

5.4, 6.2, 6.8, all superduty gas engines since 2000. And all recieved a power upgrade.

[@WilliamStewart1]

@@curtisgarren6069 The diesel part I 100% agree with, to me these small displacement V8 diesels making the power levels they do now is a ticking time bomb in my eyes. 200k throw aways now.

[@matthewc1206]

The commercial 6.7 is detuned for longevity anyways.

[@markhull1366]

From the research I've done, the 2020 Gen1 10R140 Torqueshift Trans had a lot of problems with an internal chain and caused very early failures. Ford had to replace a lot of these with a Gen2 which corrected internals. All 2021's had these installed. The engine appears bulletproof and they're already cranking 750+ HP out of them.

[@thollingsworth4910]

Oh my God! This engine should be making 900hp and 1200 lb ft of torque at idle! Those are the thoughts of the majority of people saying numbers are low. This is going to be a great running engine with plenty of power.

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Why aren't people impressed with the numbers? Sure it's 7.3 liters so you naturally think big power numbers, but it was design to work low rpm and do it for hundreds of thousands of miles reliably. Not race at the track. This is why the GM 6.0 crushed the others in this area of longevity, reliability and cost over time. It didn't have the same hp and tq numbers as other 6.0s because it was designed to be a work horse and it did its job.

[@Si0nbarzahd]

Nobodys is impressed because we had gas engines like this 20 years ago, dodge 8.0v10, Ford 6.8. Were all engines like this. This one has more hp, but they because it revs higher.

[@donrichter3523]

What a tard! Those engines got shit fuel economy, and durability wasn’t anything great. Nor did they make these power numbers in actual HD truck use, Viper numbers don’t apply here. With a 14.7 vs the typical 12.7 air to fuel ratio, the fuel economy on these should be greatly improved, especially under a load.

[@Wired4Flight]

MOST IMPORTANTLY ---- you can easily access the damn spark plugs. Ford finally learned!

[@natemcgowan5416]

Coming from a Chevy guy, god I am so glad to see a REAL truck motor. Big displacement, V8, naturally aspirated, hopefully bulletproof, and loads of low end grunt. Good job Ford 👍🏻

[@daseteam]

Let´s have a big-block Mustang.

[@Mixwell1983]

7.3 turbo mustang coming 2021

[@anthonywebber2211]

@@Mixwell1983 Not likely

[@daseteam]

@@Mixwell1983 : ))

[@danielduvall687]

Going to be a damn good motor. I’m more a Chevy guy but I’m liking this and the direction that Ford went with this. Sounds like the whole drivetrain will be a solid performer with great durability.

[@imkindofabigdeal4308]

I'd like to see an option to get a turbo-normalized version of this engine. Sea level power at altitude for folks living and towing in the Western mountains. No longevity concerns as it wouldn't be stressing the motor at all. I'd also guess not significant cannibalizing diesel sales (very different solution).

[@andyharman3022]

Nice idea! I keep expecting Ford to adapt their Ecoboost gasoline technology to heavy duty pickups, and I have no doubt they have thought of it, too.

[@imkindofabigdeal4308]

@@andyharman3022 I am sure that Ford is hedging bets here - emissions controls will likely make diesel a much tougher choice for anyone not absolutely needing it. Having a forced induction engine of this displacement would enable a viable alternative for the 5th wheel crowd.

[@XxMusclecarsxX]

Look at the block, heads and the valve angles!!!! That thing awesome, looks like a nascar engine

[@marcmo7138]

looks like a LT4

[@Stlthpntr]

@@marcmo7138 Looks a lot like a Mark IV 427 big block fron the '60's.....look at the angles of the valve springs sort of like a "porcupine" design. Solid engineering from the '60 too. And Dr. Oldsmobile said in the early '60'es that a wedge shaped combustion chamber was more powerful at lower rpm than a hemi...he was right too.

[@StoneysWorkshop]

I am excited about this commercial focus on gas. I will be purchasing a service truck so I will be happy to check this out

[@randythompson4006]

This engine is all about a flat torque curve. 400+ ftlbs at 1500 rpm. It'll be a great towing engine.

[@offroadingidiot]

Did he say every Super Duty that Ram builds at the beginning? Lol

[@PatrickRich]

so basically they just took a page out of gm's book. I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of the engine team at all, I think the devil is in the details, but it shows what real users have known for a long time about the inherent advantages of pushrods and cubes for packaging, torque, durability and economy. On that last note - we wont get fuel economy numbers as I'm guessing there isn't a single vehicle this engine will go in thats class 2a, everything will be 2b where fuel economy numbers aren't required to be published. Its interesting that its not too far off a 20 year old big block design in terms of peak torque. I had a vortec 7400 that peaked at 410 lbs-ft @3200 rpm back in 97 (before supercharging). Got crap mileage but it was strong everywhere and the mileage didn't take a real hit with a load.

[@buckhorncortez]

Took a page from GM's book? .Sure, because Ford has never produced a push rod motor...? I guess the 460 doesn't count? 390? 302? 289? 351? Etc., Etc.

[@chris1451]

Stupid gm bs. Ford does it first. Ford does it best. Push rods are best for trucks. Not in sports cars like comaros and corvettes. Ford wipes gm's ass in every category. gm... God's mistake.... Even gm's latest big truck gasser is lacking compared to Ford.

[@swss12]

about time they started caring about HP below 4000 rpm. no one towing with trucks rides high RPM all the time. better to have low end power and torque

[@brly4542]

This was a good move, not looking to just make a huge peak number. Should be an awesome HD engine, looking at the torque curve it should perform like a 6.8 v10 with a tune, very similar power levels

[@jakechaplin9766]

6.8 is gutless compared to this

[@randybrandes8885]

My 04 v10 has 538000 miles now and still running strong

[@roninkraut6873]

Andrew Smith Alright man, I’ve seen you comment on nearly every thread. You’re either a troll or a Chevy/Mopar fanboy which is nearly the same thing. Go back to your link’n’logs and let the grown ups talk

[@arnoldoluna362]

@Andrew Smith 500,000+ Miles. How unreliable it could be?

[@jerrodcorey25]

450 horsepower and 500 pound feet of torque would be nice numbers

[@kevintucker3354]

800 horsepower and 1000 pound feet of torque would be nice numbers. I think Ford did very well with this new engines performance in its application though.

[@rxonmymind8362]

A supercharged Tundra blew past that. But, they don't have it anymore.

[@Treyk901]

Rxonmymind supercharged F150 5.0 running 10s and it’s available now and for under $50k.

[@rxonmymind8362]

@@Treyk901 Sweet! Good to know. Though I have reservations about turbos.

[@vincent08vac]

@@rxonmymind8362 you said supercharger right?

[@DanielJaegerFilms]

This is basically the old 7.3 Powerstroke diesel from a couple decades ago, but gas. It’s built for durability, is obviously de-tuned and will probably run forever. With those power curves, all they have to do to stay above competitor power numbers is re-tune it. Seems like a good idea to me.

[@kens97sto171]

Nice... Looks good. So.. Ford finally figured out why Chevy and Ram have been using pushrods.. In a bigger V8 your not reving the engine that much. Simplicity, compactness and reliability.. Over dual overhead cams.

[@henryw.1587]

Had nothing but OHC problems out of my 5.4. Chains and cam phasers were replaced twice by 150,000 miles...truck did have a hard life, pulled trailers everyday. Got tired of it being in the shop though. Nice to see a pushrod engine.

[@kens97sto171]

@@henryw.1587 Yeah the 5.4 is notorious for the cam phaser issues.. along with spark plugs either shooting out or getting stuck in the head depending on which year and valve setup it has. Unbelievable....

[@henryw.1587]

@@kens97sto171 Only thing nice I could say about the truck was I never once serviced or had a transmission issue at the time I sold the truck. Thats about it...had it about 3 years and spent about 4-5 months total in the shop getting the motor torn apart and put back together. Was not reliable.

[@kens97sto171]

@@henryw.1587 Yeah.. that motor was just not a great one.. and such simple things like spark plug problems and cam phasers..lifter. these are NOT things that should be problems from a manufacturer that's been building cars for over 100 years.

[@henryw.1587]

@@kens97sto171 the truck just didn't need that type of setup. Those 5.4s just aren't that high revving to begin with...my 2006 5.3, 170,000 miles, still have not spent a single cent on motor issues. Been cooling and transfer case issues. The GM LM7 engine is a tank. Owned a few 00-06 5.3s...tahoes/suburbans/sierras... Same story.

[@gerrygamache5677]

Good old single cam pushrods and lifters proven they still have lots of power and a nice low center of gravity.

[@eclipsegst9419]

I figured they would be in this range. Flat torque curve and reliable are most important in this application. In all reality we are just plain spoiled as hell. The old 460 only made half as much HP and the tq curve wasn't this flat either. The V10 makes only 3/4 of this hp and also nowhere near as flat a tq curve. That all said, this engine should certainly make some huge numbers when people start swapping it. A bigger cam, longtubes, and a tune should easily push it well past 500hp, and I would guess it will handle some serious boost too.

[@gen-x-zeke8446]

I like where the oil filter is. I also love how clean it is on top.

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

With that torque this is easily a 500+ hp engine with a couple of mods, especially since it's an ohv

[@duane9707]

Looks like Ford made this engine bullet proof. No doubt a mild supercharger will get the torque and HP past 500 easy!

[@BUILTDIESELMAFIA]

Anyone complaining about these numbers are just being silly. IT'S A WORK TRUCK ENGINE. Its tuned for longevity. Its torque curve is also stupid awesome. 400 ft lbs at 1500 rpm!!!! Theres plenty of room left to up these numbers in future models.

[@TheTerribleGamer]

Power seems about right. The large displacement just means the engine doesnt have to work as hard to make the power and makes beefy torque nice and low. Plus this engine seems to be overbuilt so should be about bulletproof.

[@edwardpate6128]

Where was this event at? Looks like a neighborhood street!

[@crackpipejoe3508]

Socialist Shithole Canada!!!!!!

[@mikeecho8772]

@@crackpipejoe3508 you clearly have never been to a true socialist country....

[@SuperSnallygaster]

Applebee's

[@logdon17]

That was my first thought, looks like they could be holding a local car show in a church parking lot instead of a billion dollar company unveiling their cash cow's upgraded engine

[@jdla140]

Ram's 8.0 v10 made 400 ft/lbs at 800 RPM's and 450 at 2400 25 years ago. You would think after 25+ years there would be more on the table for a big displacement N/A gas engine

[@lavneh4670]

Look at the A/F raitio

[@Treyk901]

Yeah... and could get a whopping 11mpg hauling nothing. The point of this engine was to get great towing capabilities while getting great WOT mpg (stoichiometric 14.7:1). The problem with that ratio is that it’s not great for performance which is why they chose 7.3 liters. They had the power numbers and mpg numbers they wanted and set out to find the proper displacement to make it happen.

[@Montana270]

That v10 lasted for like... A year before junking it? XD

[@roninkraut6873]

Trey K Thank you for being intelligent. All of these other knuckle heads on here complaining that it didn’t make 1000 hp and whatnot have zero grasp on what this engine was made to do.

[@fordmanx3]

I miss the 488 V10

[@juanggqrza679]

Damn 400lb ft @1500 rpm. I can already imagine my truck... crew cab dually lariat fx4 package 4.30 gears and 10 speed trans!!!! It will pull my 5th wheel like nothing!!!

[@jonathonsmith7694]

I like how Ford has gone with a “humble” looking truck. Miss the mid 90s trucks for that 😁

[@MikoMuru]

Sounds like a great engine to supercharge. =)

[@cmusic52]

that and a new cam

[@jeepcollector91]

I'm just happy Ford is keeping the E-Series in production for many more years. If only Ford would bring back the van configuration of the E-Series.

[@acdii]

3.5 EB power in a Superduty gas. About time Ford! That flat torque curve is amazing when towing, should be a great addition to the line up.

[@stevenp3176]

NA gas engines made for a heavy truck running on 87 octane doesn’t make 600hp shocker. Then runs through a very heavy drive train will always show “low” numbers. I’m happy they didn’t go DI like Chevy did. This engine should live a long and happy life with cheap maintenance costs. Perfect for fleet use.

[@lanceripplinger8352]

Old school V8 finally. I bet this thing will see some heavy modifying by enthusiasts. Especially if Ford makes this available in a crate motor package.

[@jameshenson4871]

I have predicted this engine will end up in a few hot rods. I would love to see the measurements compared to a 302 or 351W based engine. Just for kicks and giggles I would like to see the size compared to fords modular engine and throw in Coyote measurements for entertainment purposes.

[@stegomon]

Cant wait to see a supercharged version swapped into raptor

[@derektrujillo2292]

Man I can't wait to hear one of these things with straight pipes and a tune thing is going to sound freaking awesome

[@stephenriggs8374]

Can’t wait to sit in the seat of a 2020 with the 7.3 and see how it drive on the road

[@squirtsomedirt3161]

Im tempted to pick one up in CCLB, It would pair nicely in the driveway with my 1989 F250HD 7.3idi 5speed.

[@wildbill23c]

If only the new F250's and larger trucks still had manual transmissions, the new 7.3L V8 Gas engine would have me back on the lot for a new work truck but without a manual option I'll keep driving my old stuff.

[@squirtsomedirt3161]

@@wildbill23c absolutely. I love manuals. Puts power down to the ground better, better engine braking, cheaper to fix, and far more fun.

[@ryanmartinage]

Good numbers. The difference is going to be that torque curve on the big block. It will be a great option on a HD truck.

[@kevintucker3354]

I think it would be a great option on a half ton!

[@ryanmartinage]

@@kevintucker3354 They said it would fit... We can hope.

[@mistamaog]

Numbers don't disappoint. Looks like an awesome engine

[@JimLBon]

The torque curve on the 7.3 is downright sexy. Great gas engine right there.

[@SVTCO]

GM needs to train under Ford for a few months to learn how to design and build a truck.

[@cammedls3532]

I guess ford had to do the same when designing this "new" engine lol

[@SVTCO]

@@cammedls3532i guess you're guessing "lol". Regardless, everyone knows GM is bottom shelf. The guys that actually like these horribly designed GM trucks are the kind of guys with fat wives.

[@flash1034]

Oh please...please bring back a stout 6 speed manual transmission!

[@hanskinslo326]

That will probably never happen, unfortunately.

[@spencerrounds679]

Ford made the 5 speed in manual

[@panthermartin7784]

Why bring back something that dont sell?

[@Icutmetal]

No thanks. Automatics are so much better now, I don’t see the point anymore. I had the ZF5 in a 1997 F350 7.5L; it got old quick.

[@roninkraut6873]

It won’t happen but it is more for to row your own gears

[@guyconnell2250]

Impressive enough. I just finished a 1700 mile trip with my '19 Silverado 1500 with the 6.2 towing an enclosed trailer with three motorcycles. I'd say around 4500 lbs total. At speeds of 65-70 I probably averaged 9 mpg. The Ecodiesel I traded for it got 12-13 towing same setup. My concern with the new 7.3, especially in a Super Duty, would be the mpg. I am sure you guys will test that in the future but let's just say I am not very optimistic.

[@BEBNC1]

Just pulled a 7000lb Sea Hunt Game Fish (boat) from NC to FL in a 2019 GMC AT4 w/6.2....and with 4 passengers. Averaged 11.4 on interstate 95. Damn great ride. Damn great fuel economy.

[@guyconnell2250]

@@BEBNC1 Yeah mine gets better mpg pulling our 20' boat as well. About 12-13. My Ecodiesel got 17-19 pulling the same boat.

[@goldranger6914]

I'm loving Ford's 2019 and 2020 lineups. I just bought a 2019 Ranger in November, and these 2020 Superduty's look badass. I've never owned anything even close to a full size truck, but if I were in the market for one, Ford would be my first stop.

[@milojacomilo_a9005]

Wow!! You do know that the RVrs are going to love this outstanding engine with that 10speed so the RV manufacturer are going to dive into this one so Ford will have to make allot of those.

[@possumpopper89]

Use a shotgun microphone instead of an Omni directional mic so we can hear the engineer over the crowd.

[@ratman5727]

As a basically died-in-the-wool GM guy, I am thoroughly impressed with this new Ford engine. Some may call it a step backwards because it is pushrod, -etc. the fact is, pushrod engines work, -and work really well, especially in truck applications. It really looks like Ford did a phenomenal job on the design of this one, -this is positive progress. To the folks saying they are disappointed with the numbers, -remember that the guys that run fleet rigs DO NOT want to have ANY rig that is operating on the edge, -it must make those numbers all day and everyday with minimal maintenance, so they are intentionally detuned to achieve that. GM did the same exact thing on the 6.0, it is not an impressive engine power-wise, but you can beat the living tar out of them day in day out (the exception being the occasional bad lifter or two). I don't care whose name is on the valve cover, when something good like this comes out, it should be touted as good. These are some amazing times, look at all of the exceptional engines that are being produced today, the Hemi, Coyote, LS, Cummins, Duramax, Powerstroke, -all are world class....I am very impressed with the numbers this engine produces, especially for something that is N/A.

[@johnnyd687]

I love how you explain the horsepower and torque. It's kind of like 'Yeah, I know it sucks. But at least it doesn't suck as bad as the other guys.' I guess I'm just spoiled with my '19 6.7

[@brandongomez7418]

Ford Needs to bring back the Econoline with this 7.3 engine because the transit vans are junk

[@wildbill23c]

I was watching another 7.3L numbers release the other day that mentioned the Econoline word....is the Econoline still available in other markets maybe? A quick search says yes, but only as a stripped chassis, so with that I'd think you could get an Econoline 3/4 or 1 ton van still if you got the wallet to persuade them to do it LOL. Those econoline vans were great, and with a Quigley 4x4 conversion they'd go anywhere. They made great conversion vans and you could have the Westfalia pop-top installed in them as well.

[@hugeCRSfan69]

couldnt agree more, the transit vans are a joke compared to the econoline/e-series vans, those were real trucks. the transit van is basically a unibody car based tall wagon. it feels like a tin can too. those vans were built for europe and thats where they should have stayed, let americans have their trucks

[@KC-zr1rd]

Agreed. I was looking at those as options for work trucks but have no tow capacity at all. Even the Mercedes sprinters are useless for towing. An E series with the ability to tow 10k plus would be awesome.

[@wildbill23c]

@@KC-zr1rd I'm not sure what the E-Series vans were rated to tow, but had to be pretty comparable to the F-Series trucks they were based on I would think.

[@georgetate5764]

My company has owned over 17 e350 econoline Van's a few 5.4 Triton with over 300k all orginal. Iv been buying used low mileage econoline Van's to keep us going. The transit van is a weak and flimsy peace of crap.

[@AdammJarvis]

Sounds like he says "the super duty builds for every ram built". Pretty sure he means brand but man I had to rewind 5 times cause it sounds like he said ram 😂 around the first 45 seconds of video

[@__red__general2369]

@4:13 THANK YOU FORD!! that oil plug & oil filter Is placed very well!! Well done. Cant wait to service these engines!!

[@marksiegel3782]

Damn, I'm excited Great video. Just waiting for prices. I want the gas super duty.. Had the V10 it was a good truck. Never had any issues. Thanks for info

[@hugeCRSfan69]

this engine is awesome, make mine an extra cab f-250 XL with the standard bed

[@Farms2000]

hugeCRSfan69 no problem where do you want it delivered

[@ripfletching]

Now this was a good video I appreciate it I believe this engine is built for a work truck but with the components that is in this engine the 7.3 L I could for see this being a monster hot rod motor. It is designed for low RPM by the government but as he stated and you can tell by its components this engine is capable of high rpm’s with a little modification

[@jkheslekrants]

And Boost lol. This thing will be beast with boost

[@MarkSmith-pd3nt]

In an earlier video, it was stated the 7.3 is actually smaller then the coyote 5.0 in the Mustang...

[@robedmund9948]

Why are they showing a 6.7L diesel at 8:42? Was the 7.3 not available?

[@dam4274]

It will be interesting to see how well it performs as the V10 replacement in Class C motorhomes.

[@engineeringVirtue]

You combine the new engine, 10 spd automatic, and tremor functionality and that's a strong argument for buying a 2020. But, still waiting for EPA mpg, pricing and towing specs ....

[@Scundle864]

Matthew Marlowe EPA doesn’t do mpg for heavy duty trucks.

[@jordansterling9184]

I've had the pleasure of testing this engine in prototype form on several occasions and I can say that I'm not as impressed as I'd like to be. The engine feels old, very similar to the feel of Chevy's 454 and some of fords engines back in the 80-90s which isn't really a bad thing but it doesn't feel up to par with the competition despite having slightly more power. I truly appreciate that they're going for durability though. My biggest disappointment would have to be the mpg. I was only able to average between 6-11 mpg throughout a fairly diverse route. Granted, every truck I tested was weighted down by about 3-5k pounds in the bed which suggest that most owners will be lucky to average 15mpg empty. While testing Rams updated 6.4 with the new 8 speed on the HD platform I was able to average close to 20mpg under the same driving conditions while the truck was empty and about 11-15mpg under load.

[@randomprojectsusa5196]

Jordan Sterling And where have you been able to test these 7.3s?

[@jordansterling9184]

@Yar Nunya There's a reason I didn't state who I worked for or where I tested. I also did not disclose any official information regarding the engine or it's features, just my overall thoughts which is not in violation of my NDA since it is opinion not factual based. But if you sleep better at night thinking I'll be dismissed then more power to ya.

[@jordansterling9184]

@@randomprojectsusa5196 There's a reason I didn't state who I worked for or where I tested. Your allowed to not believe me if you'd like. I'm just on here adding my educated opinion to some unanswered questions.

[@MrChevystroker383]

No one was thinking "smaller is better" but ford. Now y'all wanna go back to the good ole pushrod V8. This motor looks a lot like something I've seen before🤔. Gm must have been doing something right. I'm all for practicality, but let's stop acting like you just cornered the market with an all new invention. We all know the last company out will have better numbers than the ones before, it's just the game they play. I hope it survives because I love big blocks. There's no replacement for displacement

[@BEBNC1]

Was waiting for this comment. The Ford fanboy's have done nothing but harp on OHC/small displacement and disparage GM smallblocks for two decades now. All of a sudden, they're singing this one's praises. Ford is taking a page from GM's playbook, tbh. Go to any larger commercial company....if there is a heavy duty gas truck there it's a GM product, more often than not.

[@nomansland78]

Nice to see a strong reliable gas motor come out.

[@Cobra4993]

Not really a low number and when you consider the torque curve, it has very usable torque. I would actually consider buying a truck with the 7.3 in it just for the amount of torque at low RPMs. In case you didn't know, that means when you step on the gas pedal it just goes instead of having to wait for it to get into higher RPMs.