7Mary3

I was around for that one, and that was not always case. Ford had a notoriosly junky and wear-prone steering column shifter, sloppy linkage, and a weak detent spring in the transmission. They could fall out of 'park' from vibration with the engine idling, but true you shouldn't leave a vehicle idling unattended with the parking brake not set.

This. Other manufacturers saw this coming some time ago, don't know what took Ford so long to address the issue. Ford needs to adopt a system like GM's Global B. Global B did have some issues in the beginning with OTA updates killing batteries but they have that situation well in hand now, and within the next couple of years Global B will be rolled out across all vehicle lines.

For Ford, Otosan has been the partnership exception rather than the rule. If it wasn't for the Transit Ford would be long gone from Europe now, and without Otosan, there would be no Transit for Europe.

Yes, there was a VAL, a VIM, a VALE, who knows what it all stood for. Not sure to what extent they were related to the 555's, but they looked similar. The 555's had pretty much disappeared from the option lists of all the major truck manufacturers by the mid-70's, but Cummins brought the engine back with a turbo as the VT-225 in the late 70's. I think Ford passed on them but starting in 1980 GM offered the VT-225 in their medium duty conventionals for about 6 months. The engine really didn't fit in the GM truck and was so difficult to install it significantly slowed the assembly line down at Pontiac East every time one came down the line. Needless to say it was dropped from the option list but quick (replaced by the Cat 3208T I believe). Funny I saw a lot of Dodge short-nose conventionals with the 555 in them.

The small Cummins V-6 and V-8 were interesting engines, they started as a joint venture between Cummins' British subsidiary and Chrysler of Europe. Chrysler used the engines in their British and Australian trucks, eventually offering the small V-8 in some of their medium duty U.S. trucks. One of the largest users of the V-6 was Ford, as it was one of the first diesels available in the F series in the mid-60's. https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/31209-when-the-dodge-boys-sold-trucks-down-under/

Ford Otosan is small compared to Daimler Truck, Volvo, Traton, and Iveco.

I don't think it's a mistake. It's a way forward for Otosan. It is interesting to note that Iveco bought Ford's medium and heavy truck business in Britain back in the late 80's.

This is significant. I have thought for some time that Otosan would need a partner for their medium/heavy truck operations going forward, and this is the first move in that direction. I don't feel however that this is a negative reflection on Otosan, it's just a response to the market. Ford Motor can't really offer much support to Otosan with regard to their medium and heavy truck operations, and Otosan is too small to go it alone. BTW, should Ford pull out of Europe, Otosan is in a great postion to inherit the Transit franchise.

No doubt the Octane powered Kenworth will be more expensive than the gasoline powered F 650/750, so it remains to be seen how Ford's sales will be impacted. I find Kenworth's selection of the Paccar TX-B automated manual transmission a bit of a surprise, I would think an Allison would be a natual for this application. Kenworth is already claiming 10% more fuel efficiency than 'other gasoline engines in its category'.

Same outfit, though the fire apparatus chassis business was spun off.

An update, it appears Shyft Group will support Isuzu's operations in South Carolina as an upfitter: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-shyft-group-and-isuzu-expand-collaboration-to-drive-long-term-growth-in-north-america-302384537.html

Mary Barra doesn't seem to having too much trouble managing all that jazz. If Bill Ford Jr.'s last name was Jones...... Don't get me wrong I think he's a good guy and is smart enough to know he can't run Ford but sometimes I wonder if the Ford family's control over Ford is hindering their ability to get good CEO's.

Can't say I disagree with any of that, but I wonder if the common denominator is a particular individual or group of individuals. Anyway..... Your comment about Stellantis duly noted!

Are all the CEO's bad, or is there another common denominator?

In other news, I hear the Shyft Group will eventually stop manufacturing Isuzu trucks when Isuzu's South Carolina plant comes on line.

Any F-650/750 news? Only change for 2026 appears to be the deletion of an optional bumper.

Thanks for that bit of information, I seem to remember reading that there were no roof strength standards in 1999 when the Super Duty was introduced. I had heard (but unable to verify as yet) that GM and Chrysler strengthened the roofs of their trucks in subsequent redesigns in the mid-2000's in anticipation of new roof standards from the N.H.T.S.A.. The cab of the 2017 Super Duty is substantially stronger than the 1999-2016 cab despite it being manufactured out of aluminum. I agree, what is the point of a standard if the courts can require performance that exceeds a given standard?

Very interesting. I believe Chrysler designed the M-48 and built most of them, but Ford assembed a number of them as well. Ford design the M-247 York self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, but the less said about that one the better. Ford build a lot of M-4 Shermans during WWII.

I doubt it will be overturned, but it may be substantially reduced. At least some of the lawsuits have been consolidated into a class action. There was also a $1.7B suit over a crash that happened back in 2014, I am not sure if it was appealed.

More weight = less payload, simple as that.

Builtmore division of Shyft Group, Charlotte, MI..

I agree, but I doubt the Octane would fit in the N series without hanging out 3 feet past the back of the cab. Liable to be expensive and who knows how bad the fuel economy would be. The GM V-8/Hydramatic is really the perfect match for these trucks, low intial cost, reliable, decent fuel economy and performance. Plus anyone can fix them. The Octane in the F series should be a no-brainer. I suggested to an Isuzu guy a few years ago when the F series went on sale they should offer the PSI 8.8L CNG and gasoline engines in it. I am sure making a buisness case for that would have been tough, but the fleet I work for would have gone for it.

Isuzu has been eyeing having their own plant in the U.S. for a long time. Currently the Isuzu (and Chevy LCF) trucks not imported from Japan sold in the U.S. are assembled by the Shyft Group in Charlotte MI.. I suspect Isuzu may not renew their contract with the Shyft Group when it expires. Isuzu is also on the verge of introducing an EV N series, and I hear that will require a new plant. Whether or not it sells remains to be seen, however. Having Chevy distribute Isuzu trucks again is kind of a double-edged sword. It makes Isuzu happy as there are many areas in the country that are not well served by Isuzu dealers but there are plenty of Chevy dealers. Naturally Isuzu dealers in metropolitan areas would rather not have the competition. In my area (L.A.) a quick check didn't show much descrepancy in price between an NRR at an Isuzu dealer or a LCF5500 at a Chevy Commercial dealer, both around $62,000 for a gas job. Seems consistant with the rest of the country, but I don't doubt what you say. No telling what Isuzu's plans are for the U.S.. UD, and Fuso are long gone, and Hino isn't selling many LCF's anymore which pretty much gives Isuzu the whole market. I have always felt that Isuzu could incrementally increase their sales with a few more configurations, such as a tandem (talked about at one time), gasoline engine for the F Series (possible now with the Cummins Octane?) or a 4X4 N Series (popular in Australia). Pure speculation but maybe Isuzu would like to build a class 6/7 conventional.

First off, I don't necessarily agree with the amount of the awards in some of these cases, and no question any situation with a vehicle flying 81 feet through the air will not end well, regardless of the circumstances. However, the roof strength of the Super Duty truck has been questioned almost since the vehicle was introduced back in 1999, and there has been a number (some claim more than 200) of lawsuits against Ford alleging the Super Duty roof poses a danger in roll-over accidents. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs claim that Ford downgraded material or removed structural members of the Super Duty roofs to save weight and cost, and in addition allege Ford lobbied the N.H.T.S.A. against roll-over/roof crush standards for certain light trucks. If these lawyers can prove that Ford knew their weight and cost cutting design changes made the Super Duty more prone to roof failure and tried to stop the adoption of roof crush standards for applicable light trucks Ford could be in some serious trouble.