Godzilla Goes to Work, Triton Kicked to Curb in Ford's Revamped Commercial Range

For natural aspiration, 500ft-lb out of 7.3L is a slight stretch, especially for a low-revving engine as truck motors usually are. 600 isn't happening anytime soon; that'd be 82ft-lb per liter, while most engines are around 60 and the record is a Ferrari 458 at 89. Gassers and diesels make comparable torque, other variables held constant. Diesels are often turbocharged to match gasser power, which gives them a major torque advantage.

@Gedrven I think 500 is possible, I think Ford can hit it, and it will be about as important of a number for them as the new Cummins 1000ft-lbs figure is to Ram. They only need 36 ft-lbs more over the new Chevy gasser, I imagine 7/10s of a liter should get that and then some. I think it will happen, we will see. Either way I’m very interested and would love to see this engine in a Raptor to replace that awful sounding weed eater in it now.

@Gedrven The GM 6.6 liter is making over 70 ft-lbs per liter. With a few years to reverse engineer it, Ford should be able to match that. 510 ft-lbs is well within reach.

@Hummer 600 lb-ft is not happening, regardless of any worries about cannibalizing diesel sales. A Viper V10 makes just that much naturally aspirated, with over a liter extra displacement, high-flow heads, cam-in-cam VVT, and tuned for premium gas. No naturally aspirated engine in a passenger vehicle has ever made more torque from the factory to my knowledge. This engine needs to meet the needs of commercial customers who will run it hard for hundreds of thousands of miles and expect low operating costs. I expect it will come in right around where the last 7.3L Powerstroke finished (525 lb-ft), at least in F250/350 tune. Ford may detune the engines in the heavier trucks for longer engine life as they do now.

@ToddAtlasF1 The GM 6.6 is direct injected. The Ford 7.3 is not. GM had no choice but to pull out all the stops wrt torque density, if they wanted to stick with the smallblock and still have acceptable power. Ford doesn't have to worry, as they use a larger block. For the kind of continuous-heavy use cases the 7.3 is intended for, a moderate to low compression hence torque density, and lots of displacement, is the ideal formula, if size poses no restriction.

@jack4x 525 ft-lbs is still very respectable out of a gas truck engine. That would be a home run imo if they can reach that.

@Hummer You guys are seriously arguing this? My 472 inch Cadillac motor made 525 lb/ft from the factory, and that was in 1969, carbureted, with points. 500 lb/ft is no stretch, and 600 is very doable.

@Hummer Sorry, duplicate post. I will point out 472 cid is 7.7L.

A pickup with up-class capabilities is appreciated, while an extra wimpy version within a class is not, and there's no real reason for it, since midsize pickups are basically 1/2 tons already. I forget what killed the F-100 and C-10 (CAFE?), but an F-600 (pickup based) work truck (cab-n-chassis) makes a lot of sense for the trades, and who's going to build the first F-600 King of all "Pickups" (aftermarket conversion) sounds interesting.