7Mary3

True, and Twin-Traction-Beam didn't do much for ground clearance or unsprung weight.

Well, a crew cab with an 8' bed is pretty much usless off road, but if that's what the mall cruiser crowd wants than Ford should offer it. The XL off road package sounds interesting. Ford should design a good 4X4 IFS for the Super Duty.

KTP back in the day:

I don't think JV's with Chinese auto manufacturers is necessarily a problem, but if they drag Chinese suppliers over that could be. That's the concern of GM and others.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-ceo-trump-officials-discussed-224022105.html

Wrong forum

I think the significant thing is the NA Transit and the EU Transit will go their separate ways, and I will wager the NA Transit will be a larger commercial oriented van. This will probably spell the end of the E-Series. Chassis-cab production will continue at Avon Lake too, at least the Super Duty 250-600 models.

The 650 and 750 6.7L Powerstroke trucks use the 10R, but the 7.3L gasoline versions use the 6R. I think the F53 stripped chassis may also use the 6R with gas engines. I really wish the 6R140 was available with the 7.3L or 6.8L gasoline engines in the 250 and 350.

Speaking of air brakes and 7.3L gasoline engines, I saw a 7.3L propane powered Bluebird Vision schoolbus yesterday and it sure sounded like it had air brakes. Bluebird says air brakes, both disc and drum, are options on gasoline and propane 7.3L Visions. https://blue-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Gasoline_Vision_Spec_Sheet_2021-0121.pdf

Could have been worse. F sales are down, aluminum body supply problems continue but the inventory is in good shape. No surprises with EV sales... And Heavy Duty Truck is down another 21%.

In cab fuel tanks in trucks were actually quite safe, that location is well protected in most any collision and the only hazard is if the truck rolls on its side and the filler cab is knocked off. GM's truck side mounted fuel tanks were the subject of much debate but ultimately were not proven to be of any significant hazard (the NBC Dateline story on the subject was proved to feature a rigged test). In any event the GM trucks met all applicable safety standards when they were produced, as did the Pinto. The question is does that limit the manufacturer's liability? Often it does not. The Pinto was a piece of junk. The 2.0 and 2.3 were great engines, but the rest of the car was built as light and cheap as possible. I saw many instances were they folded up badly in collisions.

Took a good look at the 2027 650/750 order guide. Basically no changes at all, diesels still not available in California and no air brakes for the gasoline models. I am thinking that whatever the issue is with offering air brakes with the 7.3L the cost of fixing it is just not justified by the expected sales. That's maybe not too much of a surprise seeing how the Cummins Octane gasoline medium duty engine is starting to look like a sales dud. I was thinking there would be considerable interest in it, but it looks as though Kenworth and Peterbilt will be the only ones offering it in a truck. International's IC school bus division will also offer it, but that seems to be it. Freightliner was supposed to have it by now, and rumors were Isuzu and International would have it in their trucks soon as well. Another surprising thing I have noticed is that here in California I am not seeing more new 7.3L Ford 650/750's. Diesel emissions regulations are still up in the air with the conflicting EPA and CARB standards, so one would think there would be some kind of market for gasoline medium duty trucks at least until the regulations get resolved. I passed by a large Ford Pro dealer Friday and he didn't have a single 650 or 750 on his lot. Loads of Transits and 250/350's, along with a fair number of 450/550's, but nothing larger. The only gas engine medium duty trucks I see are the Isuzu/Chevy LCF's. Also noticed Ford dropped the special CNG/LPG instrument cluster option for the 650/750, but did keep the gaseous fuel prep package option. Makes no sense...

None whatsoever. I just made the comment that I would like to see a 'Godzilla' with a smaller bore (7.3 and 6.8 share the same bore, just the stroke differs) for high perfomance aftermarket activities. As edselford pointed out, the 7.3L block cannot be over-bored very much due to the siamesed cylinders, which required the fly cut across the block deck between the cylinders for cooling. While that has not caused issues with the NA 7.3L, similar cuts on many Ecoboost engines proven to be disasterous. GM's 6.6L block is basically a high performance 'LSX' block with the extra head bolt bosses deleted. While it is siamesed too (though it really doesn't need to be) GM bored coolant passages between the cylinders which does not compromise the head gasket sealing surface. The 6.6L block can take a .060" or more over bore with ease but a 'Godzilla' can only be bored .030" over, and even that could be risky due to core shift and head gasket sealing surface (notice Wolfe welded up the cuts on some of the 7.3L's he built). Of course the drawback to the GM 6.6L block is that it is very heavy! There is no problem with the 7.3L in stock truck applications now that the cam/lifter issues seem to be under control. I would not hesitate to buy a truck with a 7.3L because of the engine.

I don't think Wolfe was the guy. In the video series Revin' Evan did on the Godzilla some years ago Wolfe talked about the Godzilla design and it didn't sound like he had much to do with it. Wolfe has indeed done a lot of performance work on the Godzilla since though.