Jump to content

The Inevitable Comparison: GM 6.6 vs. Ford 7.3

C/K Man

Recommended Posts

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted
18 hours ago, SILVER SLED said:

I totally agree on it looking like an LS clone but larger.  I’m just sayin the Ford people aren’t gonna admit it.  Even the square intake port shapes are very similar, the port in the Ford though extends out from the head a bit.  

The 7.3L is not even that much larger.    

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

XY74 Enthusiast

XY74

Posted
Posted

They all look like NASCAR engines to me.  No doubt they share a few tricks with them.  

dgcat Enthusiast

dgcat

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, 07HD said:

I agree if I didn't have to tow anything I would switch back to a gas.

i tow a good size dump trailer,,6to 7000 lbs. also a enclosed utility for my bikes and some traveling. but nothing really heavy,  was time to go back to gas. not disappointed

07HD Enthusiast

07HD

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dgcat said:

i tow a good size dump trailer,,6to 7000 lbs. also a enclosed utility for my bikes and some traveling. but nothing really heavy,  was time to go back to gas. not disappointed

Good luck with it , I'm sure it will do what you  need and then some.

07HD Enthusiast

07HD

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dgcat said:

i tow a good size dump trailer,,6to 7000 lbs. also a enclosed utility for my bikes and some traveling. but nothing really heavy,  was time to go back to gas. not disappointed

My gooseneck horse trailer 43' overall and about 13k empty a little much for a gas.

ShotgunZ71 Senior Enthusiast

ShotgunZ71

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, 07HD said:

My gooseneck horse trailer 43' overall and about 13k empty a little much for a gas.

My 5th wheel is 42' and around 14,500 loaded up and the gas pulls it fine. Mostly flatland and some rolling hills, but it does great. If we towed in the mountains more often or lived there, I may have considered the diesel. Very happy with my choice so far.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted
On 2/13/2020 at 6:21 PM, dgcat said:

well,  on another note.  had 3 diesels, then bought the 6.6 gas. dont miss putting the bra on, dont miss plugging it in. dont miss def fluid. dont miss 30 to 40 cents a gallon more for fuel. dont miss the warm up times in cold weather. kind of like the gas again. and im not a ford guy. drive what you like. i am. lol.  by the way,, the chevy hd front end is the best looking front end out there in my opinion. just saying. lol.....    oh,,, and dont miss regens

hands down its the best looking truck on planet currently!....bar none imo

 

isn't GM coming out with an 8L gas.  thought I saw that somewhere

  • 2 months later...
C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have been noticing on some of the Ford boards that a few 7.3L owners are commenting that their trucks tend to hesitate accelerating from a dead stop with a heavy throttle.  Some Ford owners have been able to eliminate the condition with aftermarket throttle response controllers such as Pedal Commander, but it seems that the real solution is to read the owner's manual and use the proper octane gasoline!  Ford recommends at least 91 octane in the 7.3L gas, and with the right fuel there is no hesitation in most cases..  I find that interesting considering the GM recommends nothing more than 87 octane for the L8T.  I suspect this is a benefit of direct fuel injection.

magnum74 Enthusiast

magnum74

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, C/K Man said:

  Ford recommends at least 91 octane in the 7.3L gas, and with the right fuel there is no hesitation in most cases.

That's interesting. I wonder why there's been no mention of this? GM was up front with the 87 requirement from the outset. Why build a big bruiser push rod for an HD application that recommends a higher grade fuel? For my money, I'd go with a F350 6.2/10-speed anyway. 

ShotgunZ71 Senior Enthusiast

ShotgunZ71

Posted
Posted

My Ford 6.2 did say it was most notable to use 91/93 when towing or hot climates. I really don't know if it did or not, as sometimes I remembered and others, not. On the Silverado, I have put 93 in it one time in over 8400 miles. If I were to be in the mountains, I may try it when towing. Don't think the mileage would increase enough using 93 on a daily basis, though I'm sure it may be marginally better.

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,337 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • B14Sierra
      Cam chain tensioner question

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • dna9656
      No low range 4 x 4

      By dna9656 · Posted

      My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • asilverblazer
      Transmission Woes :-(

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...