7Mary3

My understanding was that the excess capacity was not at a large plant suitable for building Super Duty's. Ford was able to not only consolidate all Super Duty production at KTP, but also free up other truck plants for exclusive F-150 production. Remember 1999 was when the large pickups became a different platform than the F-150.

It is very easy to understand. Ford found they could make a lot more money putting their resources into the Super Duty line than they could in heavy trucks.

Ford's heavy truck operation might have been operating at a small profit, but remember that KTP was turned over to the exclusive production of the Super Duty line after heavy trucks were discontinued. I think without KTP the Super Duty would not have been as successful. And no question per unit a Super Duty pickup was far more profitable than an HN80. Then consider how many Super Duty's KTP could produce a day compared to HN80's. Have to say this was one of Nassar's (few) good ideas. What was stupid was the whole HN80 program. Ford should have just left the old Louisville Line in production until 1998 then discontinued it and changed over to the Super Duty. The Louisville was still selling and I don't think Ford ever recouped the expenses of the HN80 program when they sold it to Freightliner. Hindsight is 20/20........ Freightliner wanted the Ford's heavy truck operation for its share of the vocational market (Freightliner was weak there at the time) and the dealer network. Freightliner got a good deal, but ultimately they designed better vocational trucks than the HN80 even after putting substantial money into the HN80 (Sterling) after they set up production in Canada. HN80 was dropped in 2008, a little over 10 years after introduction. I wonder to this day if Freightliner ever made any money on the deal.........

It's a joke, many manufacturers actually build all their vehicles to meet the California standard, the only difference is the emission label under the hood. If I am not mistaken, the manufacturers have to submit their vehicles to the California Air Resources Board for testing and certification as they do to the E.P.A,. If true, I am sure the C.A.R.B. does not do that for free, and that is likely the real reason why California is so adamant about retaining the right to tax, I mean test, vehicles sold in their state.

Anyone catch the second paragraph?: https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/04/ford-brazil-plant-caoa/ I wonder if "push to exit the heavy truck market" also means Otosan. Exor, the parent of FCA and CNH/FPT/Iveco, recently announced plans to separate Iveco from CNH. Rumor is that Iveco may be spun off. If so, Iveco as a stand-alone could be a logical partner for Ford's former Brazilian truck operations and the truck unit of Otosan. Iveco has had ties with Otosan in the past as an engine supplier through FPT. A combination of Iveco, Ford Brazil, and Otosan could be a very viable player in the heavy truck markets of Easter Europe, Asia, and South America.

Ahh, no.

This is good in some respects. BEV's are clearly the future for passenger cars, CUV's, and some light trucks. Most manufacturers now regard hybrids as dead-end technology. Hybrids have played an important part on the road to BEV's, both in customer acceptance and the advance of battery technology, but they will soon be eclipsed by the next generation BEV's. Ford seems to have not gotten that memo. And that leads to a nagging perception I have (that I hope is wrong) that Ford is actually behind in BEV technology. And the technology isn't the only issue, more importantly is how to make BEV's profitably. Grand statements by senior executives, historic buildings full of forward thinkers, and (fresh off their diesel scandal) Johnny-come-lately VW ultimately might not amount to much. At least they are not chasing the elusive H dream.

No, the 7.3L is not a derivative of the 6.2L. I was referring to the 7L Boss that was in the Mustang picture I posted. Point is was trying to make was that the 6.2L Boss design is capable of going to 7L.

FWIW, I heard it was a 6.2L derivative.

My sources tell me that the medium duty Silverado and the International CV will both get a recalibrated version of the new 6.6L V-8 mid-2020. The engine will likely be offered with various 6 speed Allison transmissions, and will have somewhat lower ratings than 6.6L's in the GM HD pickups. International does indeed use gasoline, CNG, and LNG versions of the PSI 8.8L in their IC school buses. There were rumors that the PSI 8.8L would eventually be offered in International DuraStar medium duty trucks, but it looks as though those plans have changed. There is rumored to be a new 8L+ gasoline/CNG/LNG V-8 engine under development that GM (Chevy) and International will share in an upcoming class 6/7 truck they are jointly developing.

Simply because GM has a partner firmly established in class 7/8 and Ford does not. If GM did not have a partner, I think it wouldn't make sense for GM to go any larger than class 5. That's the only reason.

If the F-600 takes enough sales from the F-650, could it lead to Ford dropping both the 650 and 750? 750 sales are negligible, if 650 sales drop 30% or so due to the F-600, what would Ford do?

Even if they could not use the existing hood on the 650/750, it would be easy and inexpensive to come up with a new one to match the aluminum cab. I understand why the 650/750 started off using the then-current steel Super Duty steel cab, but it does not seem to make much sense to not switch to the aluminum cab at some point. I don't think a new purpose-designed cab is in the bards, there is just not enough volume to justify it.

Speaking of one-offs: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-engines/7b70s-experimental/index.htm

LS's are cheap, but they are also plentiful, have great aftermarket support, are extremely durable, and respond very well to performance modifications. Have to admit it's really about the best all-around V-8 I have ever seen. The friggin' things are in everything from a Corvette to a UPS truck. Why wouldn't you want to race one in a Fox Mustang, that combination is fast as hell. The 7.3L may indeed have a lot of potential, it's just going to be a bit expensive and we will have to work through the learning curve on it. Not being factory in performance cars will work against it, but if it has potential the aftermarket will 'discover' it. Imagine if someone cast an aluminum 7.3L block.........