7Mary3

https://www.truckinginfo.com/10229638/daimlers-new-debut

Whether or not you think the F-650 looks good it looks the way it does because Ford used the old Super Duty cab on it. No doubt that decision was made to save money, but that cab works reasonably well. However (and this comes from the personal experience of driving a LOT of late model medium duty trucks) trucks like International and Freightliner that use cabs specifically designed for large commercial trucks do have significant advantages. Visibility, ease of entry/exit, instrument panel layout (seen where Ford puts the brake air pressure gauge?), significantly larger in every dimensioin (in particular room for a GOOD air ride seat), and a better steering column angle. GM did pretty good by using a cab made out of some full size van parts on the Kodiak and TopKick, I was hoping Ford would try something like that. I think if Ford went to the current aluminum Super Duty cab on the 650 and 750 it would be an improvement. That new Postal vehilce has to be the ultimate 'form follows function' vehicle I have ever seen! It's so ugly it HAS to work great!

Yes, I remember that thing. Was it Mercury Marine?

I believe Ford is pretty much out of the industrial engine business. Most the engines listed on that site have been out of production for some time. Ford was supplying Generac but Generac has gone 'in house' with their own engines, an 8.8L based on the old Chevy Big Block and a new 4.5L 4 cylinder that's basically 1/2 of the 8.8L. Probably the largest supplier of industrial engines presently is Powertrain Solutions International. They market GM supplied and GM based engines they build in their own plant. Ford could probably make a go of marketing the 7.3L as an industrial engine.

Cannis had been with Ford for 35 years, so there is probably no more reason for his retirement than that. He by all accounts had a successful career.

Ted Cannis to retire: https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2024/09/12/ford-pro-ceo-ted-cannis-retire/75187916007/

This thread got me thinking about that book again. It is good, a fascinating look at a dysfunctional company in a dysfuctional industry, at least at the time. Each of the 'Big 3' was in their own unique bad situation, brought to a head by the financial crisis. I have a little different perspective on the Mulally years these days. No question he was the right man for the Ford CEO postion at the time (Bill Ford certainly was not, but at least he knew that) and his common sense pragmatic approach was spot-on. However, you can't help but notice after he left Ford the company went back to a lot of its old bad habits. I often wondered if Fields and some other executives were just waiting Mulally out, figuring after he was gone and Ford was solid financially they could go back to 'business as usual'. Boeing's recent troubles also come to mind, and while a lot of what Mulally did there got Boeing out of their post 9/11 crisis but now they seem to be in a far worse crisis and some are saying the roots of many of the issues Boeing is currently facing are the results of some of Mulally's policies not being properly managed, notably relying on subcontractors. Seems to me while you would be hard-pressed to find fault in Mulally's performance both at Boeing and Ford in both cases things eventually went bad after he left. Of course you can't blame Mulally for what idiots may have done after he left, but it is ironic that neither Boeing or Ford found people to 'carry the torch' after he was gone.

No, different market. The GM vans are for last mile delivery, like UPS and FedEx. The GM vans compete with Rivian and Workhorse. The Ford F53 chassis will be in trouble eventually.

Here's the latest on the 2026 F-650. Looks like a lot of really significant updates! Who posts this nonsense?

I think Ford needs to get away from the belt-drive oil pumps for one. I think the head issues that some of the smaller Ecoboost engines have been corrected already, if so that's good. Never should have happened in the first place. 6.7L Powerstroke rear main oil seals and upper pan gaskets have been an issue forever. CP4 fuel pumps too, but that's more of a vendor issue. 7.3L cam and lifters another ongoing issue, but there is a recent TSB for a reflash that increases oil pressure at idle for some years. One annoying thing that Ford started doing recently is eliminate the keyways on camshafts and crankshafts. You need a bunch of expensive special tools to line everything up when changing timing chains/sprokets/guides, and the only thing holding the sprockets and phasers is bolt torque. All these issues seem to be the result of too much cost cutting.

Generally I agree with that statement however I think a number of Ford's current ICE's require some re-engineering effort to correct design issues.

I think the advance of battery technology will make that disparity a short term phenomena. As soon as the gap in price between 'small' and 'large' EV batteries narrows, consumers will opt for larger vehicles with longer range even if they are still somewhat more expensive. As I said it may be true short-term but I don't expect it to be the norm in the future. Battery technology is advancing to fast.

I have a hunch Farley will be proven wrong about margins and customer preferences regarding EV's long term. Short term this may succeed, but Ford will have a ton of competition. Part of Ford's quality nightmare because is the best and brightest in the company are all on the unprofitable EV side.

I was told in the head-long rush to the EV future, many ICE engineers were basically fired, because it would supposedly be too difficult for them to make the transition to EV's. Better to hire fresh talent off the street. Wonder if there was any truth to that.

The PTU's didn't have enough oil in them, there was no practical way to change the oil in the PTU on the vehicle, and the catalytic converter was mounted so close to the PTC it would 'cook' the oil in it.