ESP08

I honestly don't think the 6.8 will see the light of day. Maybe if Trump stayed in office...

Chrysler is the only manufacturer I'm aware of that uses twin screw superchargers in a production capacity (today). The fact that twin screws have one rotor that must spin much faster than the other reduces the durability, service life and blower speed capability of the TS. The TVS design is inherently superior and only hindered by Eaton's limited rotor size selection.

I agree, but I suspect the upcoming Z-versions will address that. The basic C8 proportions aren't bad but these base models definitely seem underbaked and a little dainty (or cheap) somehow.

Nobody buys that overpriced junk, the sloppy mechanics crowd only buys $500 Gen IV 5.3s from the junkyard.

Mods haven't been attractive for swaps because the 2V is the LS junkyard competitor and the OE ECU wasn't capable of supporting the RPM needed to make really powerful 4V combos -- being capped to 7000 rpm before experiencing coil driver induced misfires. Regardless, *NO* engine family has been as quick or as fast as the Mod with OE cylinder head and block castings in either the 1/4 mile or standing mile. Not bad for an engine family that hasn't been embraced by enthusiasts. The Gen 3 Hemi also hasn't been embraced by enthusiasts in the way the LS has in spite of also having some inherent architectural performance advantages, FYI. The late model Ford aftermarket is *much* stronger than Mopar's. DAMB is the Ford verbiage for direct acting mechanical bucket.

Note that with the Gen 2 3.5 EcoBoost Ford went though the expense of ditching the DAMB setup for the Modular-style cam over follower RFF arrangement.

The Coyote was able to reduce engine width while retaining the Mods cam over follower arrangement. The Mods cam over follower arrangement is probably the most ideal RFF setup as it retains the roller follower (lower friction and longer life than the more compact DAMB) while minimizing reciprocating mass and failure points. The 6.2's rocker arm arrangement, while allowing for ideal valve angles with a single cam per bank, is clearly not as reliable nor any more compact that the Mod's RFF arrangement.

Right, and the reason having the intake valve on the "wrong side" on the intake cam is it results in one of the worst intake valve angles seen in recent memory. It's an absolute flow killer on an engine that was already valve area limited due to bore diameter. It just shows that Ford was never overly concerned with the 2V as a performance application. Thankfully there were the 4V engines. OEM 2V on the left, TFS on the right.

Isn't that just another name for tan line?

That was the 777, the cylinder heads were modified "production-intent" Boss heads. The valve covers only looked wider because of their styling; that engine definitely had the production Boss SOHC rocker arm arrangement. Good article on it here: https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotive-history/how-a-secret-21st-century-7-liter-ford-v-8-reached-9000-rpm/ The 6.2 is such a great foundation for a performance engine it's a damn shame Ford is letting it die without giving it a fair shake. Just look at those cylinder heads, with larger valves and ports allowed by Godzilla's 4.22 bore you have a legitimate performance engine:

They've already made the investment in cylinder deactivation for Coyote though, and given the widespread problems with DoD/AFM OHV lifters the two-piece OHC follower method may likely being the more reliable implementation of cylinder deactivation in the long run.

I can't remember the last time Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, et al. opinions mattered or even normally aged well in retrospect. I'm assuming the Mach-E won, I would check but I don't want to give C&D the clicks...

I am still holding out hope the 6.8 is an all aluminum variation of the old 777 Boss

More than likely. Take the 7.3s 4.22in bore diameter combined with the 6.2s 3.74in stroke and you get a 418ci 6.8. Godzilla and Boss share bore spacing.

That hasn't been the case in with previous iron to aluminum block transitions. The 4.6 lost ~80 lbs going from iron to aluminum with steel sleeves The 5.4 lost ~110 lbs going from iron to aluminum with PWTA liners

Ford has been running Eaton TVS superchargers since 2013 which is a roots style rotor with notable durability and slight efficiency advantages over twin screw rotors of similar displacement.

Coyote long block - 425 lbs 7.3 Godzilla long block - 540 lbs

The thing is a Predator powered Raptor @ ~720 HP would eat the TRXs lunch on the straights and also be the lighter and more nimble truck. Predator is lighter than Hellcat. The current SuperCrew Raptor is 5680 lbs vs TRX @ 6400 lbs. I'd agree with you with if Raptor R wasn't a halo product but it is, it needs at least match the TRX in straight line.

Sand should not be entering the inlet tract. For desert running something like a Donaldson Powercore would cure that issue as that's what they were designed for. Ford does not need to give themselves a major performance handicap for what is (IMHO) a non-factor design criteria. I also doubt a healthy N/A 6.8L V8 -- especially a Godzilla derivative -- would offer enough of a performance benefit over the HO 3.5 EB to be worth even talking about. Although a 6.8L version of the long-runner intake Gen 3 Coyote (Mustang GT trim) would make ~630 HP/570 lb-ft any 6.8L high performance variant of Godzilla will be stuck around LS7-ish numbers. Figure 500-530 HP, 470-500 lb-ft best case for a 6.8 Godzilla with fairly wild for a OE truck V8 cam timing (it will need to rev to 7000) and heads that flow 30-40 cfm more than the 7.3 truck heads. A naturally aspirated 6.8 liter DOHC 4V @ 630/570 could compete with the TRX given the weight advantage of having no SC/IC system compounded with a slightly lighter base chassis. A "Hi-Po" 6.8 liter version of Godzilla will need some boost to avoid having the TRX eat its lunch. Hooray for the return of pushrods... (◔_◔)

I hope you're right

F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II The P-38 was the original Lightning

Branding a high-performance, fully electric F-Series a Lightning is very fitting. The Mustang Mach-E's backlash came mainly from branding a crossover a Mustang, people felt they were diluting the Mustang name.

We'll see how the F-Series BEVs spec out. If the Lightning ends up with a unique motor arrangement and a claimed 0-60 in the 3.0 second range I'd say it's safe to assume the Lightning specifically is a direct response the the triple-motor Cybertruck's 2 year old performance claims.

Cybertruck had 3 powertrains announced in 2019: single motor, dual motor and a triple-motor capable of 0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds. You don't think Ford's choice to resurrect a legendary high-performance nameplate has anything to do with Cybertruck's top spec models?