ESP08

The 1st photo is of the Allison and the 10R140. They are identical in size. The 2nd photo is of the 10R80 and the Allison.

Next Gear is not wrong nor did they say the 10L1000 and 10R140 are the same. If you what pay attention to what David Ames actually says he confirms it. "There was a smaller version of this that was co-developed with Ford. This was done completely separate from it and done with Allison." His first sentence makes it clear the 10L1000 is derived from the 10R80 - only that Ford wasn't directly involved with development of this particular Allison branded derivative of the 10R80. This is the marketing double speak I referred to. Looking at the 2 transmissions side by side you easily see they are fundamentally the same animal i.e. derivatives of a common source/architecture. Next gear came up with their claim based on hands-on experience building and modifying both transmissions. Every company that builds and modifies both transmissions will arrive at the same conclusion because Next Gear's claim is the reality. EDIT: A couple photos to drive this point home. Make note how small the Allison 10L1000 input shaft is versus the Ford 10R140. (Allison on the left -- Ford on the right )

That is all marketing double speak. GM might have developed to 10L1000 without Ford's "cooperation" but like the 10R140 it's essentially just a scaled-up 10R80. "The Allison 10L1000 is a near mirror of the Ford 10R140, with a few proprietary differences to apply to Allison's engineering and currently held patents." - Next Gen Drivetrain who builds these transmissions

I hope he is as well

Where did you hear that?

Indeed, but the 7.3 would also make more torque with 4-valve heads. This little 330ci 5.4 4-valve does well for itself on the torque front with a TVS 2650.

Negative, that's the 130 cubic inches difference.

And yet it is offered as Ford Performance crate engine so in spite of your assertion that Ford "only" cares about selling more F-Series trucks the reality is that Ford would like to make in-roads into the performance aftermarket as a distant secondary objective.

I’ve attached a dyno graph for the last 5.4 4V (GT500) TVS 2650 combo I put together. Also on E85. Some points… This 5.4 pull was done with an non-ported VMP Gen 2 TVS 2650. The VMP Gen 3 and front feed 2650s (as shown in the Godzilla video) have proven to be worth 80-100 rwhp (at peak) more than the VMP Gen 2 on similar combos due to inlet flow limitations of the Gen 2 case. This pull was also done on 31” bias ply tires which I’ve seen rob significant power on the dyno -- the tune of ~50 rwhp I believe on an engine dyno this 1215 rwhp 5.4 combo would have easily made 1450 HP as it sat, and upwards of 1500 crank HP with a front feed TVS 2650. With a Gen V Whipple 3.0 even more still. I’ve seen nothing from the 7.3 as of yet that has impressed me for the level of build or accomplished anything that this relatively tame 10.5:1 steel rodded 5.4 4V wouldn’t match and/or exceed. I think the 7.3 is an OK performance platform largely thanks to being 445ci. It’s not bad by any stretch but looking at it as the basis of a performance build it is only retreading ground already covered. Where I’m coming from it that it disappoints me to think that Ford has had the Boss architecture sitting there since 2011 that offers nearly identical displacement capacity as the 7.3 and only needed a set of DOHC 4-valve cylinder heads (and Siamese-bore AL block) that could have given it power density on par with the old Supercar headed 4Vs and Coyotes. I’d like to hope that is what the 6.8 is but with Ford’s shifting focus to EVs (see new CJ drag car) I have my doubt it will come to pass.

It is when you realize both the 5.2 Predator and 5.8 Trinity have made a lot more with the same blower. 1015 crank HP would be about 860 rwhp -- and more like 820-830 with full exhaust and inlet as it sits in the car -- which would barely worth a mention on most of the current GT500 forums. Continued below

Except Stray Kat and myself were debating who was departing the internal combustion engine era on a higher note. Also that's a terrible analogy...

By today's performance standards the 7.3 is mediocre at best. While a more than decent truck engine it's simply an also ran in every single respect as performance platform. It's just yet another in-line valve (minimally canted to be more accurate), large cube small block with similar displacement capacity as it's crosstown competitors. Totally mundane... I've been a Ford fanatic for longer than 20 years and have never once craved a replacement for the 351W. The LT6 will be remembered for years after it goes out of production because it broke new ground, the 7.3 will be about as memorable as the Ford 360 once Evan Smith and Brian Wolfe stop sensationalizing the builds.

The LT6 won't have the mass appeal or wide availability of the LS but I'm sure it will see success with later boosted variations though. Regardless, GM signs out of the ICE era on the highest note of their entire history. Ford signs out of the ICE era with a whimper thanks to the 7.3 Godzilla...disappointing. If only we could have gotten a high performance variation of the Boss architecture. SMH

Pretty sad when GM's V8 swan song will likely be LT6 and it's derivatives.

Escape is a cut and dried compact SUV. Escape is to Edge what the RAV4 is to Highlander over at Toyota... or Focus was to Fusion a few years ago at Ford. Killing Edge leaves a pretty glaring hole in Ford's lineup. A shortened 2-row version of the RWD would Explorer be a great replacement. Edge's biggest problem right now is that it is too close in price to Explorer.

It's a distant secondary consideration for the typical half-ton buyer, IMO. Given the typical usage cycle of half-tons I'm sure the vast majority of buyers would prefer better unloaded MPG than better towing MPG. Towing MPG will be a much greater consideration for the 3/4 and 1 ton buyer.

Towing mileage doesn't factor into EPA so rating so that's pretty irrelevant for half tons.

While this car has some cheesy details I think it's decent indicator where the C8 proportions can be taken in future iterations. FAR from horrible:

I don't think cheesing it up with vents is the way to go. But a more aggressive (larger/wider) wheel & tire combo, lower stance, better implemented front/rear fascias and hood can help it immensely if done correctly. Some of the all time best looking cars are mid-engined -- the C8 isn't one of them but MY point is there is clearly a LOT of room for improvement over the base C8.

The 5.0 isn't going anywhere. Ford just invested in DoD for the Gen IV 5.0 and the same UNIFOR press release that mentioned the 6.8 said 5.0 is staying in production at Essex for the foreseeable future.

Yeah I mean I read the UNIFOR press release when it dropped a year ago just like everyone else and it was extremely light on 6.8 details. That was also a year ago under different CAFE projections. I'm just wondering about Stray Kat's statement about Windsor getting ready for 6.8 production. If the 6.8 is really just short-deck 7.3 like many speculate, and IF the AL blocks are coming from Nemak down the road...I'm just wondering what Windsor has to get ready for? IF the 6.8 still sees the light of day I'm hoping Stray Kat's statement is implying that the 6.8 is more than just a short deck AL block 7.3.

Would that even involve Windsor Engine Plant? I thought Ford was getting their AL castings for Windsor/Essex Engine from the Nemak Essex Aluminum plant?

Except a GT500 has a lot of road presence and a base V6 Mustang has almost none.

If it's just a short deck 7.3 what is there to set up?

No, but ride height, wheel/tire package, front and rear bumper design will. A lot dictates road presence beyond chassis hard points. It's like saying a the V6 Mustang can't be made into a GT500.