7.3L in the Bronco?!

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
524
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
yes I was under the impression 'ZILLA was more big block size, but Mr. Wolfe says to the differ. he said SMALL BLOCK. this thing is prime and ready for twin turbo setup that will be good for 1500-2000 ponies if not more …. its a 6 BOLT MAIN !!!!! and it looks mighty :curse: SSSSWWWWEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTT !!!! LONG LIVE THE PUSHROD BIG INCH WINDSOR

Thank you Brian.:clap:
 
Last edited:

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
524
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
If you look at the dyno chart the first column has headers above it. My guess is ……. that is with the cam and headers but the stock intake . I heard him say the sock intake will work well for most up to 6500 rpm's and as easy as it is to change I could see them making a pull with it just to see how it "stacked" up against the dyno mule intake. which is the second column. So it looks like 563 hp at 60000-6300 and the "dyno mule" intake is 588 hp at 6200-6300 rpm. stock intake made for low end, dyno mule made for high rpm but with hydraulic cam it limits rpm for it to really shine. with that intake it needs to see 8500-9500 rpm. Both pulls start to die above 6500 ……… needs a solid cam to shine. But still 563 hp from a stock intake, just a cam swap and still hydralic, 7.3 small block. AWESOME !!!
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,549
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
Looks like they're going after the LS motor's aftermarket niche with a modern pushrod v8. Part of the reason LS motors get swapped in to everything, aside from being fairly stout and common as dirt, is the pushrod design makes them very compact (power dense).
 
OP

BONESTOCK

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
249
Reaction score
206
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
'94 Lightning w/TKO swap, '04 Procharged Mach 1, '13 F150 RCSB 5.0L, '61 Falcon
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #19
Oh yeah!! That last video just shows how little this guy is! It's gonna be in everything! I'm putting this in my Gen 1 Lightning!
 

BAUS67

Well-Known Member
First Name
redneck
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
524
Location
Central PA
Vehicle(s)
88 5.0 LX, 08 F-150 Stepside, 13 Explorer XLT, 97 Jeep Wrangler
They lost torque when they went the "mod" way. Gained RPM but lost torque. Now by starting with a "clean sheet of paper" they have created a small block dimension but with big block bore spacing. So in other words it had a lot of torque before now it has the foundation to build even more !!!
 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
373
Reaction score
525
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
1969 Bronco, 1968 Bronco, 2010 Legacy GT 1985 M1028 (Chevy
Vehicle Showcase
3
I definitely need this in my 69, lol!
 

mattpa

Member
First Name
Matt
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
20
Location
Illinois
Vehicle(s)
2014 Fusion Hybrid SE
Looks like they're going after the LS motor's aftermarket niche with a modern pushrod v8. Part of the reason LS motors get swapped in to everything, aside from being fairly stout and common as dirt, is the pushrod design makes them very compact (power dense).
Honestly, the common as dirt part probably has more to do with it than size. If size were the main concern (and they had built in the last 20 years...) people would be swapping Windsor motors into everything. The 302 from my old Mustang was about the same size as the 4.3L out of my boat when I had both engines out. I considered marinizing the 302 before I sold the 'Stang (but she's better off now, racing every weekend during the season). The 350 out of my dad's boat dwarfed the 302. I don't have much experience with newer Chevy engines, but I imagine they're similar size to their old small blocks.

I think the real question is, why aren't Mopar engine swaps more common? They've always been pushrod motors, and FCA drops them in damn near everything so they should be pretty easy to come by.
 

Rogues Gambit

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
843
Reaction score
838
Location
Eatontown, NJ
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ram Rebel, '07 A4 Quattro
Honestly, the common as dirt part probably has more to do with it than size. If size were the main concern (and they had built in the last 20 years...) people would be swapping Windsor motors into everything. The 302 from my old Mustang was about the same size as the 4.3L out of my boat when I had both engines out. I considered marinizing the 302 before I sold the 'Stang (but she's better off now, racing every weekend during the season). The 350 out of my dad's boat dwarfed the 302. I don't have much experience with newer Chevy engines, but I imagine they're similar size to their old small blocks.

I think the real question is, why aren't Mopar engine swaps more common? They've always been pushrod motors, and FCA drops them in damn near everything so they should be pretty easy to come by.
I'd love if they offered a 6.4 in my hemi or Gladiators with 5.7/6.4s
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
630
Reaction score
524
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
I think the real question is, why aren't Mopar engine swaps more common? They've always been pushrod motors, and FCA drops them in damn near everything so they should be pretty easy to come by.

SBC came out in 1955 and GM sold more cars (had more brands) than Ford or Chrysler (for many years).
So by default, GM was always cheaper and had more cars to hop up. Was easy for GM
to own the V-8 market recently when Ford had a monsterous, but underwhelming 4.6 for years and dodge
was kind of a bit player until recently. Hemi came back about 03/4, IIRC, and chevy already had a 8 year head
start with the LS.

Also, Chevy didn't completely change engine architecture and bellhousings a million times like Ford since the 60's.
https://www.vonskip.com/p/bell-housing-and-bellhousing-patterns.html. Chevy has more or less owned NASCAR
in the last 40 years, except for some time in the 80's (NASCAR used to be way more important for sales/prestige).
Dodge almost completely dropped out of the V-8 race and NASCAR for quite a while.

Even little things like how much easier it was to drop a 350 in Model A's (you could use model A frame on Model T's too)
due to things like oil filter placement, helped Chevy become more popular and dominate.
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,549
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
They took a surprisingly german approach to the LS motor. They picked a configuration and incrementally improved on it for generations. You could say the small block chevy is the Porsche 911 of American V8s.
 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
373
Reaction score
525
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
1969 Bronco, 1968 Bronco, 2010 Legacy GT 1985 M1028 (Chevy
Vehicle Showcase
3
Also, Chevy didn't completely change engine architecture and bellhousings a million times like Ford
^^^^ This is so frustrating on the Blue Oval side of things. I don't get why they do this.

To add to the GM aftermarket supremecy, it was my understanding Ford wanted to be THEE ONLY aftermarket source for their engines through Ford Performance, so they kept a tight lid on all their designs and engineering.

GM, on the other hand, desired a strong aftermarket following and forwarded all their engineering to the aftermarket suppliers, such as Edelbrock. This gave them a huge boost in all manners of aftermarket/racing/cost/performance areas.


Edit:
Upon further thought, this lower cost to "play" in the entry level competitions did a great favor to GM AND it's IMAGE. ...... and we just had a big discussion about IMAGE in another thread.
The lower cost of entry to be competitive lead to more sales, even if those buyers never ran a 1/4 mile.....they bought the image of the few who were doing it.
In the end it WILL boil down to this, whatever they design the Bronco to do, the BroncoBronco absolutely MUST be able to go toe to toe with the jeep and its image.
 
Last edited:








Similar threads




Top