MN12Fan

The displacement of the new 7.3 is impressive compared to Ford's other V8s like the 5.0 or even the 6.2. There's a Motor Trend article that says that the 7.3 has a bore and stroke of 107.2mm x 101mm (4.22in x 3.976 in), so it must have pretty wide bore spacing. They also point out that the 7.3 weighs 50lbs less than the old 6.8L V10. https://www.motortrend.com/news/11-powertrain-points-2020-ford-f-series-super-duty/

Wouldn't a 2-valve design have less parasitic loss of energy at low RPM due to fewer moving parts?

In keeping with the prehistoric animal naming convention, how about calling it Ranger Sabertooth?

When you say the Focus' transmission can't be fixed, are you referring to how it feels compared to a regular automatic or do you literally mean that it can never be made to be reliable? I was fortunate that my transmission didn't have a major fault until last year, but I know people have had terrible experiences from the beginning as Ford fumbled through the various clutch revisions and other fixes they were coming up with. But is all this effort wasted? Is a recently updated transmission like mine or one in a brand new Focus still just a time bomb? That's a real money pit for Ford if this is the case.

Kinda wonder how this will end up after everything that's gone on already. I bought a 2012 brand new almost six years ago and have had the stereotypical transmission issues, but nothing critical happened until about a year ago at around 65k miles when I needed a new TCM (I got the latest clutch plates in the process though because the dealership thought that was the issue originally). Since that fix the car drives quite well; better than it did originally in fact. I also had door latch failures which were finally fixed under recall. It's a shame because outside of these issues it's been a really good car. I'm hoping the car lasts with the fixes it's had because it's been paid off for a year and I like the fuel efficiency.

^^ And replace the faulty parts with updated designs. I have a 2012 Focus that I bought new and it had the stereotypical shudder from the beginning but I was able to live with it. I never had any catastrophic failures like some have encountered with total loss of power or anything like that. I have over 70k miles on it now. Earlier this year the car started to get a check engine light and enter into "limp home" mode where the upper gears would get locked out so I thought, "here we go, extended warranty time." The interesting thing here to me was that once the car was stopped and shut off and then restarted, it would drive normally for a good while, which struck me as a TCM issue. When I took the car in to the dealership, however, they examined the transmission and found the clutch plates were out of spec and replaced them with the F-revision. Didn't do anything with the TCM other than reflashing it. Got the car back and it drove well; transmission was smoother than when it was when it was new and the shudder was eliminated. But then that same day I got that CEL/limp home situation as before and so there it was: the TCM. Took it back, got the updated TCM and the car's been great ever since. Despite the inconvenience of the whole transmission issue, it never bothered me as much as it did for some because major problems didn't happen to me until after Ford came out with significant improvements for the transmission. Though the dealership could have been more proactive and replaced the clearly faulty TCM with the other transmission parts at the same time to save me a trip, they had all of the new parts in stock and fixed the car over a few days. In fact, the most annoying experience with my car was with door latch failures - which have finally been recalled, thank God. Both right hand doors failed within a week of each other about a year ago and I had to pay a little out of pocket ($100 deductible with an extended warranty I bought with the car) to get them fixed. Since those parts were pre-recall, I expect all four doors will need to be fixed once the dealership gets the parts. And I intend to get my money back. Much more ridiculous part failure, if you ask me. When a transmission fails, fine, they're relatively complex. But a door latch? Way to reinvent the wheel...

The author's assertion that the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 is a "truck motor" is inaccurate. The engine was used in the MKS and Taurus SHO first, not to mention that the engine was first unveiled to the public in the Lincoln MKR concept under the name "Twin Force". Even the 3.5L Duratec V6 upon which the original EcoBoost V6 was based was used in cars and crossovers long before it found its way into the F-150.

I agree Lincoln needs a couple of higher volume car lines, especially to fill the space being left by Mercury, but offering anything above this is already ruled out? I just find it strange that with the PAG being gone and Lincoln being Ford's only luxury brand that the company would take such an apparently hardline position of not wanting to develop anything more unique or...to put it bluntly...anything that transcends a Taurus-based MKS. With an IS competitor Lincoln could at least offer something with a sportier foundation, perhaps leading to spiritual successors to the LS and Mark VIII, but where does the platform come from?

So Lincoln can follow a strategy similar to what Lexus does with the RX and ES. What about the rest of it? Lexus manages to offer the IS line with RWD/AWD, two V6s and a V8, the GS line with RWD/AWD and a V6 and V8, the LS line with RWD/AWD and a V8, and now the LFA with RWD and a V10. Where are the Toyota brand's twins to those? If Lincoln is really chasing Lexus, why stop with the RX and ES? Jim Farley "doesn't believe that Lincoln really needs an up-market luxury car to thrive", but does this mean there's no room for said up-market luxury car at all? Does he think that his former employer was doing more than they needed to in order to be a successful luxury brand?

Maybe Mulally's recent visit to Toyota HQ was to see if Farley can be returned?

And with a completely overhauled engine lineup coming out in a little while a complete redesign a year later would be a surprise.

What? This? http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/test_numbers.html The Mustang GT tested was fully loaded with OPTIONS, as in things you don't have to get, including some things the Camaro doesn't even offer like a glass roof ($2000 alone). As pointed out in the comparison, the Mustang has the lower starting MSRP of $30,495 versus the Camaro's $31,795. And as far as weight is concerned, I don't know where you're getting a 200 lb increase from. The starting curb weight Ford claims for the 2011 Mustang GT is 3605 lbs. Motor Trend's test car weighed in at 3612 lbs. Ford claims a base 2010 Mustang GT starts at 3533 lbs. The increase is well under 100 lbs, let alone under 200.

My favorite argument is that the Camaro's horsepower bump is just "icing on the cake" and that the car's "so popular" that it would continue to outsell the Mustang anyway without the upgrade. Really? If GM was so confident in the Camaro's prowess they wouldn't have done anything; certainly not after just one model year. And considering that this whopping eight horsepower increase will have no significance beyond allowing GM to advertise "best in class" horsepower, it becomes quite obvious that they're shaken by the 2011 Mustang's performance. I'm glad GM brought back the Camaro as it can have a positive effect on the evolution of the Mustang, but I hate it when people take the Camaro out of context. The more rabid enthusiasts like to pretend that the 2010 Camaro was some spontaneous and original idea created in a vacuum with no outside influence. Yet, at the same time, there are pictures that exist of Camaro development mules with Mustangs parked next to them. Coincidence? The Camaro couldn't "raise the bar" if GM engineers didn't know what to raise it against. And now, barely a year after it went on sale, we hear about the Camaro getting a horsepower increase on the eve of the 2011 Mustang going on sale with its all-new powertrains. Coincidence?

I dare say that front end looks better than the GT. With 305 horsepower now makes it even more appealing.

If anyone deserves blame for anything in this situation it is NBC, which shouldn't be too surprising because they're the ones who make the final decisions when it comes to their programming, not Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien. Jay Leno could have handled the whole Tonight Show departure thing better I think, but NBC is the far greater bad guy in this. NBC basically went to Leno back in 2004 or 2005 when he was a ratings leader in late night and said, "Conan wants to take over The Tonight Show in a few years and we would like you to step aside because, frankly, we don't think you can sustain your ratings much longer since you're getting kinda up there in age and we don't want to lose Conan. But don't worry, we'll figure out something for you to do afterward." So, Leno agreed and Conan was set to succeed Leno with Leno being available for some other show down the road maybe. There was just one problem: Leno's ratings didn't go down. NBC went ahead with replacing Leno with Conan as planned, but NBC was nervous and Conan was in the hot seat as a result. Leno's ratings hadn't gone down as NBC had expected so, wanting to have their cake and eat it too, they wanted to keep Leno in some capacity and so he wouldn't go to another network (the reverse of NBC's original problem with Conan). This led to NBC's fiasco of trying to balance their prime time/late night lineup with two high profile talk show hosts. By being too greedy to let Leno go, NBC sabotaged their own prime time lineup and late night by setting a much higher bar for Conan to jump over. NBC exacerbated the problem by proposing moving Leno to a short, half-hour show just before Conan's Tonight Show -- practically moving Leno and Conan back to their original positions with Jimmy Fallon bringing up the rear. This, of course, was unrealistic and NBC ended up doing the very thing they wanted to avoid several years before: losing Conan. Conan shot himself in the foot to a point since he wanted The Tonight Show in the face of Leno being a popular host, love him or not. NBC gave Conan a chance but he failed to deliver -- though at the same time I would argue that the chance NBC gave him wasn't long enough, let alone fair since Leno was retained and acted as a spoiler with his new show. I don't blame Leno for agreeing to go back since I'm sure NBC made him a good deal, but out of protest to NBC's horrible mishandling of the situation he should have left -- but only for this reason. Why should he retire from show business before he's ready? Carson had ten years on Leno as a Tonight Show host. Regardless, even if Leno did leave NBC may have been left with "buyer's remorse" with Conan, assuming Conan would have performed the same way he did in his short time at The Tonight Show. But, as we know, Leno got The Tonight Show back. He may have a better track record than Conan when it comes to ratings but I can't help but think that this whole situation damaged Jay Leno as a brand. Time will tell. As for Conan, I think he'll be better off once his non-disclosure agreement expires. He wanted to move up in the world but NBC just didn't make it easy for him. Another network will.