7Mary3

As for the gas 650/750 air brakes, my hunch FWIW is that it ended up requiring some expensive engineering and Ford doesn't see enough demand to justify it. We use a lot of large single-axle dumps, but they are 33,000 GVW with a Cummins L9N and Allison 3000 series transmission. Don't even look at Fords for that application, GCW is too light.

Does it have anything to do with emissions? The 6.7L Powerstroke appears to be non-compliant for 2025 CARB. Since Ford has already started the 2025MY for the 650 and 750, the trucks are gas only now here in California. Diesels are not available in 2025 650's and 750's. Isn't Mass. a CARB state?

Interesting topic, but it is ironic that Ford will probably be the LEAST likely truck manufacturer to offer the B6.7 Gas. The engine is attracting considerable interest, particularly from the manufacturers currently offering the B6.7 Diesel. Freightliner has already confirmed to their dealers, International is likely, Isuzu/Chevy a strong possibility in their class 6/7 LCF, and Mack would be silly not to in their medium duty. Good thing for Ford is they should still maintain a substantial price advantage over those potential gasoline medium truck competitors.

Oh yeah! That was done at the request of White Motors. When White spun off Diamond Reo in 1972 the Reo gas engines were included, that left White without a gasoline option. For a year or two White offered the GMC V-6's in some 4000 series trucks until they introduced the 'Giesel'. The 'Giesel' or 'Mustang VIII' as it was sometimes called was basically a Cummins 470 V-8 re-engineered into a gasoline engine. Lower compression pistons, spark plugs where the injectors were, a distributor and a 2bbl. Holley carburetor. I know few were made, but I never heard anything bad about the Giesel either. It was bound to be better than any of the small Cummins V-6 and V-8 diesels!

As I said, while the BEV mandate so to speak is being pushed faster than is technically and economically feasable at this point, I am nonetheles very much AMAZED at the rate of progess that has been made over just the last 5 years regarding BEV's. If it keeps up at the current pace near 100% of new light passenger vehicles may well indeed be BEV's by 2035. HEV's may represent something of a temporary stop-gap or bridge on the road to electrification, but I don't think they should be viewed as any sort of permanent solution. But in the end no one really believes we can give up ICE's by tomorrow anyway.

Sadly the French and Italian masters of the ruins of Chrysler Corporation seem very content to let the Ram HD's wither on the vine. From what I understand the Hemi gas V-8 will continue in limited production for the Ram HD.

The point is to get away from ICE's. Hybrids still have ICE's. Hybrids, plug-in or otherwise, therefore are not the solution. The recent increase in hybrid interest is driven by current consumer reluctance to buy BEV's and auto manufacturers wanting to recoup ICE costs in danger of eventually becoming 'stranded'. While I believe it is true that many of our elected (and otherwise) officials and environmental advocates are pushing the BEV mandate faster than is technically and economically feasable, it is very clear that BEV's are the long term solution to clean and efficient ground transportation.

Nikola may have started as a scam, but they are making a pretty good go of it now. Jury is still out on hydrogen, but good chance it may eventually replace diesel in long haul trucking. And if it does Nikola will be in a good position: https://www.nikolamotor.com/

I wasn't looking.

Water pumps wear out and leak, but they typically don't fail until after the warranty is up. Draw your own conclusions......

Yes, but consider this: Would an entry or mid-level manager have the authority to make a major engine design change? I wouldn't think so, but it appears those are the people Farley wants to hold responsible for quality problems. BTW, later FWD versions of the V-6 in question have an external weep hole if the water pump starts to leak. So at least an observant owner can get by with paying a mere $1200 to replace the water pump (probably should do the timing chains, guides, and tensioners while you are at it). Still a stupid design....

Does anyone really think Ford's quality issues have anything to do with entry and mid-level management employees? I really doubt any employees at those levels have the ability or authority to correct anything. The 'plan' gives me the urge to sarcastically say this a 'brilliant' move on Farley's part: Task fixing the quality issues to people with no authority to do so, so money isn't spent on costly re-designs and higher quality vendor supplied components. When there is no improvent in quality, pay said employees less. I hope that is not the case.

Didn't hear anything out of Ford from the NTEA show this year, but Ram had a big announcement: https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/article/21284237/stellantis-unveils-ram-professional-its-new-commercial-vehicle-division-to-take-on-ford-pro

Well, that's a pretty minor reduction overall. It's just a different approach to managing EVAP and PCV. Remains to be seen if it would have any effect on intake valve deposits. Many are under the mistaken impression that intake valve deposits are primarily caused by blowby and crankcase vapors. Actually in modern engines the deposts primarily come from exhaust blown back up the intake port. Engines that do not have EGR valves use variable cam timing to accompllsh EGR by opening the intake valve early during the exhaust stroke. This blows a small amount of exhaust through the open intake valve into the intake port where it's drawn back into the combustion chamber during the intake stroke. The exhaust is hotter than the intake valve, so you have a condensing effect which causes the deposits to form on the port side of the intake valve. Of course port fuel injection does a good job of cleaning the intake valves, but I question if this new system would pass enough fuel vapor through the port to clean the valve at all.

If his last name was Jones......