Ford’s New 7.3-L Engine — Your Predictions?

[Chance]

Ford makes it official. The new 7.3L V8 will be in both the F53 and E-Series, and will have more power and torque than outgoing V10. We’ll have to see if by outgoing they mean current 320 HP, or previous high of 362 HP.


https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...le-lineup.html


It’s also very interesting that the media release mentions two engine calibrations for 7.3L when in E-Series. Maybe they will let driver choose between power and economy.


As separate topics, this information includes a new F-600 which splits difference between F-550 and F-650. Its basically an F-550 with higher GVWR — a natural for larger Super Cs?


There is also mention of suspension and steering upgrades to address F-53 handling.

Originally Posted by Ford

Stripped chassis adds tech

For work or play, Ford stripped chassis are the foundation of choice. F-53 – America’s best-selling Class A motorhome chassis** – gets new standard content to improve steering, upgrade center of gravity capability on higher GVWR models and enhance the driving experience. Both F-53 and F-59, commonly used for walk-in vans, get a new steering column, instrument cluster and electrical architecture.

[JamieGeek]

Other interesting things: the chassis are getting "smarter":

Additional elements of Ford Co-Pilot360™ technologies become available on Ford commercial vehicles for the new model year. For F-650 and F-750 medium duty trucks, plus E-Series and F-53 and F-59 stripped chassis, traction control, hill start assist and auto headlamps are standard. Optional elements on these lines include adaptive cruise control, electronic stability control, lane departure warning, Driver Alert System and auto high-beam headlamps.

The question is will Thor offer the optional items (adaptive cruise, stability control...)?

[axis earl]

Also wonder how quickly all this will happen in the RV market. 2020 models? Should be interesting to see.

[Bob Denman]

It would have been nice to see some actual horsepower and torque numbers...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by axis earl

Also wonder how quickly all this will happen in the RV market. 2020 models? Should be interesting to see.

The release says that it’s 2021 model year for E-Series, which makes sense in a way because the new 7.3L V8 engine is not suppose to be in production into late this year, and we’d have to figure initial ones will go to 2020 model year Super Duty pickups.

I expect F53 should be similar to E-Series timing, more or less.

Originally Posted by Ford

Production of model year 2021 F-650 and F-750 begins in early January 2020.

E-Series evolves

E-Series has been in continuous production for 58 years with more than 2.7 million vehicles still on the road*. Available in cutaway and stripped chassis models that are used for applications like shuttle buses, ambulances and small RVs, E-Series gets updated with new content for 2021.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Other interesting things: the chassis are getting "smarter":


The question is will Thor offer the optional items (adaptive cruise, stability control...)?

That’s a good question. Have you noticed that Thor doesn’t even upgrade to highest alternator capacity on most applications (or at all as far as I know).

What are odds they will spec more options to improve handling, or dual alternator option on 7.3L V8?

I expect that if Transit will offer dual 250-Amp alternators on 3.5L V6, that the new 7.3L will be at least that high. And with over 3,000 Watts per alternator, it should be easy to power an inverter to run a roof-top A/C while driving. That eliminates having to run generator to power A/C.

It all comes down to costs.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

That’s a good question. Have you noticed that Thor doesn’t even upgrade to highest alternator capacity on most applications (or at all as far as I know).

What are odds they will spec more options to improve handling, or dual alternator option on 7.3L V8?

I expect that if Transit will offer dual 250-Amp alternators on 3.5L V6, that the new 7.3L will be at least that high. And with over 3,000 Watts per alternator, it should be easy to power an inverter to run a roof-top A/C while driving. That eliminates having to run generator to power A/C.

It all comes down to costs.

Perhaps with that configuration they could eliminate the generator altogether. I would think that would cost less than a generator but a 3kW inverter may cost as much as the 5kW Onan!

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Perhaps with that configuration they could eliminate the generator altogether. I would think that would cost less than a generator but a 3kW inverter may cost as much as the 5kW Onan!

I doubt manufacturers would eliminate the traditional Onan generator on larger motorhomes, but having dual alternators with proper electrical setup may make it possible to offer the Onan as an option (or option to delete).

If you can run rooftop A/C while driving, and inverter can power microwave, or coffee maker, etc., then what’s left for smaller 30-Amp rigs that don’t boondock?

Most RVers stay in campgrounds with hookups, and at National Parks and many other places they don’t allow generators most of the time anyway, so need for an Onan would be reduced. Obviously boondocking, ballgames, or racetrack would still require a generator for now.

An extra alternator should cost less than $1,000, and an inverter/charger anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000 depending on quality and rating. It should be easier to install a 30-Amp inverter/charger than a generator, so overall cost not that different.

If I could eliminate a 4,000 Watt Onan and get an extra 3,500-Watt alternator plus full-house 3,600 Watt (or ~ 4,000) inverter/charger for same cost, I’d trade for the Onan. I rarely used the Onan I had, and at football games could use my portable if needed at night for A/C.

[Bob Denman]

So here's my question. If you go with twin alternators and a large inverter: wouldn't you find yourself eventually having to run the chassis engine to power things?
(And wouldn't that use more fuel than an Onan generator?)

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

So here's my question. If you go with twin alternators and a large inverter: wouldn't you find yourself eventually having to run the chassis engine to power things?
(And wouldn't that use more fuel than an Onan generator?)

Yes you would, and yes the chassis engine would use a bit more than the Onan--but not as much on the smaller B's and even on an Axis if the engine is a V6 instead of the monster V-10.

Here is the kicker, however: I doubt anyone would know you're running the chassis engine as it sits there silently idling away. You could run it at 3am and not wake a soul.

[Bob Denman]

Good point about them running quieter...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

So here's my question. If you go with twin alternators and a large inverter: wouldn't you find yourself eventually having to run the chassis engine to power things?
(And wouldn't that use more fuel than an Onan generator?)

If you were forced to run the 7.3L V8 solely to run a microwave or A/C, then yes, it would use more fuel.

However, when would you actually do that, and for how long? And how much of that would be offset by running A/C more efficiently while driving versus an Onan?

Think about it, if you stop for lunch and run a cold generator to power the microwave for a few minutes, is that more efficient than using batteries and inverter and then recharging while driving after lunch? I doubt it.

Anyway, I’m not worried about a gallon of fuel either way. I just like convenience, and stopping for lunch with full inverter power so I can run microwave, or make coffee, etc. by just turning the microwave on beats having to start a generator. I must be spoiled, because it’s not a big deal to crank a generator, but why do it if you don’t need to?

Do a search to see just how little most people actually use their Onan. And a lot of that is excersising the Onan which is a complete waste of fuel. Either way difference in fuel should be minimal unless you boondock frequently.

[Metalman]

Engine charging vs generator charging depends on the use of the RV. In our situation, we rarely stop overnight at campgrounds and sometimes need to run the generator all night to run the AC. I would prefer not to idle the RV engine for six or seven hours. Just the possibility of CO entering the coach would scare me. I don't know about the new engines with computer controlled fuel injection, but idling an engine for long periods of time could create problems because of an overly rich mixture. Vehicle engines are designed to run a higher RPMs than idle.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Metalman

....cut.... Just the possibility of CO entering the coach would scare me. I don't know about the new engines with computer controlled fuel injection, but idling an engine for long periods of time could create problems because of an overly rich mixture. Vehicle engines are designed to run a higher RPMs than idle.

CO emissions from a generator may be greater than from a modern vehicle engine. We’d still have to worry about CO2, but safety alarms should address both concerns with either approach. As covered on other threads, running A/C overnight is possible from lithium battery bank, but it’s a little expensive still. Ultimately, that’s what I want without spending a ton on the Volta system. This Ford dual-alternator option should be a huge step in that direction.

Regarding idling at night, I have done it to run my vehicle A/C when it was too hot to sleep, but don’t like to. I don’t worry about engine though; more concerned about exhaust. If you watched some of the Ford engineer interviews at Chicago’s 7.3L V8 introduction, one of them stated that they know that some of these engines idle for weeks at a time in severe weather. Apparently in places like Alaska, emergency vehicles are often left idling to keep them ready for immediate action.

[Muggs]

My onboard generator has 381 hours now in almost 3 years. When at track for 2 or 3 days at a time I use a champion 3500 W R/V ready 120 volt unit. It likely has close to 10 times the hours. I like the idea of the bigger modern style engine but it would not motivate me to replace current unit. Overall I have been impressed with the overall performance of the V10/6 speed in the e450 chassis. It is my first ever Ford product.

[Bob Denman]

I had about 90 hours of generator-time in about a year. While I really like the idea of having the most alternator possible: my rig is parked a whole lot more than it is moving...

[Chance]

A generator-less motorhome won’t be for everyone. On the other hand, lots of RVers with trailers camp without built-in generators, which shows it’s possible under some circumstances.

I used our Onan a lot less than 90 hours a year. We never ran it while driving to power rooftop A/C, and stayed in campgrounds with full hookups.

We mostly ran it occassinally to power microwave for a few minutes, or to power A/C for an hour or two to keep dogs cool while eating out, hiking, or cycling. These power needs could have been met without a generator.

I’m not suggesting I’d idle engine frequently for A/C, but even if done, it would cost about 1/2 gallon per hour (more or less) while parked, so at 90 hours per year of generator time, fuel savings would be in range of 50 gallons per year. If part of that 90 generator hours is while driving, extra fuel is even less than 50 gallons a year. The extra $150 per year or so in fuel shouldn’t be the deciding factor itself. Other issues are more important (at least to me).

[JamieGeek]

Not much in this article but it does list HP and Torque values for the pickups:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/ca...up/1878556001/

430 HP, 475 lb-ft

[Metalman]

Looks like a great power plant for going grocery shopping and taking the kids to soccer practice.

[DonkeyFluffer]

Even detuned, to say, 400 horsepower and 450 torque for the F53 and E450, it should be a significant boost over the 6.8 V10. Being overhead valve, it shouldn't rev as high to climb the grades. Therefore less noise up front.

I doubt MPG's get better though.

I'm encouraged that they tested "hundreds" of these engines. I wouldn't normally, but now I do see myself buying a first year engine.