7.3L HP/TQ: stock & with tunes

[Tempsho]

How much hp and tq does a stock 7.3L make?

How much hp & tq would a 7.3L make with lets say a 100HP tune?

[cleatus12r]

Your stock 2002 was rated at the flywheel for either 250 or 275 HP depending on transmission. Figuring in a 20% drop for drivetrain loss would put you at 200 or 220 rear wheel horsepower respectively.

The horsepower gains advertised by a lot of tuning companies are figured at the rear wheels.

Torque doesn't really matter as long as you know that the peak will be between 2200 and 2600 RPM depending on how healthy your high pressure oil pump is.

You can do the math.

[tgarrisoniv]

i hate the idea of judging "horsepower" its not real. Horsepower is what dealers use to sell a truck. torque is what pulls 40K lbs up a hill. a 99 1/2-01 psd 7.3 has 314 ft-lb of torque at 2750 rpm stock to the rear wheels. at 100 hp tune of a "power hungry" tune you get 398.4 ft-lb @ 2750 rpm... on my dyno at least...

[cleatus12r]

Horsepower isn't real?

Want a lecture? I'll SHOW you that torque is meaningless......if you're trying to pull a load up a hill at a decent rate of speed.

[cleatus12r]

It's sad when I try to get things out of my head but they keep haunting me for days; especially stuff on internet forums.

I'm going to dissect previous post a little bit. Don't take offense at it because it's a personality quirk of mine. I like to teach.

"torque is what pulls 40K lbs up a hill."


Yes. You're right. Torque WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD is required to pull 40,000 pounds up a hill. However, in it's simplest mechanical form, think about how much torque you'd need to do that on a 6% or 7% grade (typical for most US interstate systems in mountainous country). This HAS to be measured at the drive wheels of the tow vehicle as there isn't an internal combustion engine-equipped vehicle in production that doesn't use a transmission for torque multiplication.

A person could use an old steam engine (massive amounts of torque, but very low horsepower because of a very low RPM) to use as propulsion for a vehicle. Would it pull your 40K GCVW up a hill? You bet it would. Do you have all day for it to do it? I know that most people are far too impatient for that! A person could "gear-up" the vehicle in this case to turn the wheels faster and actually get some speed out of the vehicle. Time for some simple math:

A steam engine creates GOBS of torque from nearly 0 (yes, ZERO) RPM up to a maximum 500 RPM or so. Let us assume that our particular steam engine is capable of a maximum 500 ft. lbs. of torque at 300 RPM (thermodynamics and other losses cause a drop in torque at anything much higher than that). Simple math concludes that this amount of torque at this RPM gives us a whopping 29 horsepower. This is at the engine flywheel, mind you. At a 1:1 gear ratio all the way to the drive wheels, this would give us 300 RPM axle speed. Using a normal tire diameter for a modern pickup such as 32 inches, we would get a road speed of 28.5 MPH. That's unacceptable by today's standards and downright dangerous. Keep in mind also that the torque at the road surface of the tire will be less than the 500 ft. lbs. at the axle shaft.

Let's now assume that we want our steam engine to pull 40K lbs. up the same hill but at 60 MPH. That would require a tire RPM of 630. So in essence, we need to put in a gear ratio of 0.5:1 somewhere in the drivetrain. Here's what happens in a perfect world with no drivetrain loss: Our 500 ft. lbs. of initial torque suddenly becomes 250 ft. lbs. at the axle shaft. That will end up being FAR LESS than the 314 ft. lbs. at the wheels than what was given in the example of the stock 7.3L truck. Horsepower is very real and very necessary to get a job done in a timely manner. When dealing with horsepower, TIME is the key word.

That's a very simple rundown of what I'm explaining. People always fall back on the "diesel makes low-end torque" mantra. While it's true that the mechanics and fuel characteristics of the diesel engine lend themselves to making peak torque at a lower RPM than a gasoline engine, bear in mind that the things that limit a diesel engine are also the things that a gasoline engine capitalizes on.

The first of these is RPM. From a general standpoint (and I'll use the 7.3L Powerstroke in this example because it is what we all know and love), we are limited to a window of 800 to 3300 RPM to make our torque. As a general rule of thumb, a stock 99-03 7.3L truck will make peak torque between 2400 and 2600 RPM and fall off pretty sharply after that. Maximum torque starts at around 2000 RPM. As a whole, if you ask all of the "torque bandwagon" folks, we have a 600 RPM window where we're actually doing something. However, with the dyno sheet sitting within plain sight of where I am sitting (and having spent a heck of a lot of time with heavy trailers in tow up long mountain grades), there's no way that I would try pulling a heavy load up a 6% grade at 2200 RPM (70 MPH), nor would I have any luck with it. Heck, 2600 RPM (peak torque) is still going to be a far cry from ideal for a trailer weight of 20K+ up some of the hills around here. Why is it necessary to downshift and get the RPM HIGHER than the torque peak of the engine to maintain speed up a hill?

In the above text, I mentioned torque peak and maximum torque range. Now I will get into horsepower. Remember, we haven't gotten into the gearing aspect of this yet. Take a 4R100 transmission's 4th gear ratio of 0.71:1 and apply that to the engine's rated torque of 525 ft. lbs. The driveshaft torque becomes 373 ft. lbs. After the final drive (ring and pinion) ratio of 3.73:1 we end up with an axle torque value of 1390 ft. lbs. This is at 2600 RPM (peak engine torque) which would be 91 MPH; not exactly a speed that I'd want to be pulling 20K+ lbs.

Conversely, 2600 RPM IS feasible in 3rd gear while maintaining a reasonable and prudent speed (65 MPH). Let us figure out what kind of numbers we're putting to the ground here.....525 ft. lbs. into and out of the transmission (1:1 gear ratio) and then multiplied by 3.73:1; 1958 ft. lbs. at the axle.

By what I've been writing, it seems as though I believe more in torque than I do in horsepower. However, like I said at the beginning of this text, "Torque WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD is required to pull 40,000 pounds up a hill."

Here's where things get interesting. I'm going to interject a bit of gasoline engine information here (since I need to prove my point :D ) because typically we know gasoline engines to be good at making torque at higher RPM and in smaller displacement engines making more peak horsepower than torque.

Engine A: 7.3L Powerstroke with modifications to make 920 Ft. lbs.
Engine B: 8.5L 521 c.i. gasoline engine that makes 920 Ft. lbs. (built in desktop dyno with realistic parts...yes, it's turbocharged :cheesy smile: )

Which one will put the most "power to the ground"? I assume that we all agree that the truck that puts the most power to the ground will accelerate the fastest and also maintain speed better. The example will put two identical trucks equipped/loaded the same against each other with the engine being different.......Here are some more particulars (both equal at 920 ft. lbs. although I didn't want to get too unrealistic with the gas engine, so it's ONLY 905):

Powerstroke engine:
450 HP @ 2800 RPM
920 Ft. Lbs. @ 2400 RPM
4R100/3.73 gears

Gasoline engine (built on desktop dyno):
835 HP @ 5800 RPM
905 Ft. Lbs. @ 4600 RPM
E4OD/3.73 gears

Don't get too excited over the horsepower difference and the gasoline engine being "bigger"....the 920 Ft. Lbs. is all we're worried about here because as most people are convinced, that's all that matters.

The next posts will include numerous screenshots of results from the above data. I purposely used 10,000 lbs. as a weight because anything more than that just drug out the acceleration times so badly that it wasn't even worth looking at.....

[cleatus12r]

The first two shots are of the basic vehicle setup. They are identical save for the maximum RPM.

The diesel is on the left, the gasoline engine is on the right.

[cleatus12r]

The following two shots are the torque curves for each. The diesel graph was emulated from an existing 400 HP dyno run while the gasoline graph was transcribed from Desktop Dyno software. Again, the diesel is on the left and the gasoline engine is on the right. Don't get too bent out of shape as to what seems to be a much flatter, more broad torque curve on the gas engine because the RPM axis covers twice the ground and it affects the way the curve appears.

[cleatus12r]

The bread and butter.....

0-60 times. The times and 60 MPH speed are shown in the upper left hand corner of the graphs.

[cleatus12r]

As you have realized, there is no reason to EVER build a full-on gasoline engine to tow with. Sure, it will kick the crap out of a diesel with similar torque numbers, but it's going to use 35 gallons of gasoline to feed 6000 RPM all the way up a 4-mile ascent.....if the engine even lives that long.

I don't hate diesels. I love them. I love my Powerstrokes. However, when people ask me how much torque they will get and that horsepower doesn't matter, I just give them the option to double the advertised horsepower rating....and be mindful of where the torque peak will be in the RPM range.

I think your dyno is a bit off. Your rear-wheel torque reading on a 100 HP tune should be in the neighborhood of 600 ft. lbs. Most stockers will run in the vicinity of 200 HP and 420 Ft. lbs. at the rear wheels.

[cleatus12r]

As a matter of fact, out of pure curiosity, I made a few different calculations and found that the 521, if only allowed to make 680 ft. lbs. at a similar RPM would only then just be on par with the 920 ft. lb. Powerstroke in terms of acceleration.

Gearing is where it's at and torque multiplication THROUGH gearing means that higher average horsepower will win every time (just not from a durability standpoint).

[turbosuzuki]

WOW im really lost now then, all this time i thought that the diesels torque was what it was all about, well that sucks. :shrug: Nice write up though :thumbs up yellow:

[dietoremain]

WOW im really lost now then, all this time i thought that the diesels torque was what it was all about, well that sucks. :shrug: Nice write up though :thumbs up yellow:

He explained it very well.. But torque is a product of power band and diesels have a much BETTER power band than a gasser any day(more work in less RPM) and that is why they put down so much 'torque.' That is why you wont see gassers with a torque # double that or more of HP... and of course why gassers arent big tow rigs, they suck, literally lol..

Hope that helps too.

[cleatus12r]

But torque is a product of power band Torque is a product of volumetric efficiency.


and diesels have a much BETTER power band than a gasser any day(more work in less RPM) and that is why they put down so much 'torque.'
Torque is the product of compression and diesel fuel burning characteristics. Also, the term "better powerband" is not really accurate.


of course why gassers arent big tow rigs, they suck, literally lol..

Gassers make great tow rigs. However, at the RPM that most of them would be required to run to put the most power to the pavement, they don't lend themselves well to being fuel efficient.
Remember, not every trailer is required to be pulled in a competitive environment either.

[dietoremain]

That makes sense...

We just have a much more useable powerband than gassers thats for sure.. as said they rev very high to make power.

Thanks for clearing it up.. I've been on so much of these HP vs TQ threads that I dont know what to think any more. :|