7Mary3

New transmission?

No surprise, they have been talking about it for years. International was sort-of in class 5 about 10 years ago with a lo-pro version of the 4200, but it didn't go anywhere. It will be interesting to see what they will come up with. As for GM, they don't have anything in class 5 at the moment. The 3500HD's get an all-new chassis this summer (2011 model year) that will put them in class 4. GCWR on the pickups will be over 20,000#'s I am told. Rumor is there will be a larger class 5 at some point as well.

Whaddya talkin' about, they buy them all the time. Just not new ones, but 200,000 mile clapped out squads and taxi's.

I think it is mainly due to the Mazda not selling as well as planned. The Mustang will do better when the new engines are available. I suppose the Camaro might be a bit of a factor too. That thing is selling well, like it or not.

Yes, the H series was an 'over the road' cabover that Ford built from 1961 to early 1966. It was a compination of parts, basically an N series chassis with a modified C series cab mounted high to clear a big Cummins. Often called a 'Two Story Falcon', it may have been the worst class 8 truck ever built. Very crude, not reliable, and very rust prone. Few exist today, and the H series is a favorite topic over on the A.T.H.S. boards. Recently there was story about how the roofs would come loose on H series trucks with sleepers, giving he occupant a nice cold shower! Ford learned a lot from the H, and the W series that replaced the H was a much better truck. Oh, and neat feature on some of the old Page & Page suspensions: They had a cam on the spring hanger that was adjustable, and you could vary the weight distribution between the axles. Very handy for 'pusher' tandems, you could put 65% of the weight on the drive axle for better traction.

Huskiedrive! Yeah, I sort-of remember that. Before my time, I thought it basically was the same as Maxidyne but with a Cummins 'Custom Torque' engine. I knew Mack owned Brockway. Few Brock's made it out west, those that did seemed to have Continental gassers for the most part. Anyway, 2 speed axle control up on the roof would be stupid. Let's see you find that halfway up a steep hill as you are about to loose it. How about the Eaton 3 speed tandem?

I have not seen anything on the 2011 650 and 750 yet. I have heard rumors that the only changes are SCR and a new grille.

Could be a regional thing. Often, all it takes is a couple of active dealers getting chummy with the body builders. As for front discharge mixers, I have never seen one in California. I am not a mixer guy, but I believe the reason is front axle loading (law is 12,000# max). Remember the mixer drum is supported only on the ends, that might have something to do with it. Mixer of choice here is the Peterbilt, usually a long wheelbase chassis with a booster axle, I guess that makes a 12 yard legal. Back in the day it was Pete too (remember they were originally from California) but used to see a lot of R model Macks, and a few Internationals, mostly 'Donald Ducks' and M series on/off road models. Plenty of Ford dump trucks, but never any mixers, no idea why. The local municipality had a fleet of GMC Brigadier mixers, they were around a long time because they didn't rust out here.

Around here, Dodge is making a heck of a run on class 4 and 5, particularly in towing. My guess is there are a lot of dissatisfied Powerstroke customers out there. Hopefully, Ford will win some of them back with the 6.7L. As for front discarge mixers, they are not legal in many states due to their front axle loading.

As far as what I have actually owned, probably the slowest was a 1967 Dodge Charger. It had a 318, and it was kind of a big car, but it wasn't terribly slow. I could get on the freeway O.K.. As far as company vehicles are concerned, I have had some dilly's! An 1983 Dodge Ram D-150 with a 225 Slant Six comes to mind. Very slow, but very reliable and didn't use much gas either. 1985 Ford Tempo was probably the all-around worst. 2.3L HSC. Not reliable, very slow, uncomfortable, and ugly!

I just hope the 6.7L turns out to be a decent engine. I have seen far too many 6.0L Powerstrokes go 'pop', and looks like the 6.4L is not much of an improvement.

Black plastic is fine! I hear the sealed beam headlights are gone. Any link would be appreciated.

Has anyone seen what the 2011 XL will look like? Any pictures?

Very true. Daily rental fleets kill resale because they typically sell off the cars at 18 months, 2 years at the most. That makes for pleanty of clean late model used cars availble at low prices, undercutting new car sales. Commercial fleets typically hold on to vehicles much longer, and when they are sold they are not competing with new cars sales. And the fact that often they are thrashed within an inch of their lives doesn't hurt either!

Is that because of an increase in cars sales to fleets, or a drop in truck sales to fleets? Can't help but think discontinuing the diesel E series cost Ford a lot of truck fleet sales.

FWIW, I rather like the current GMC Sierra styling. The Chevy doesn't look near as good. Unfortunately, while I really like the new F-150, the Super Duty has gone from bad to worse. The 2011 is horrible. Not surprised the stylist is now working for Maytag. Or is it Whirlpool? At least the current Tundra is still the worst looking pickup I have ever seen.

There was some old kook on another board that was absolutely convinced Ford would rule the automotive world if they would just build a diesel powered Crown Vic........ All kidding aside, a 3.7L V-6 F-150 is a great idea and will find a lot of buyers.

These are cargo vans operated by a major utility. I have seen many instances where a fleet would favor a certain vehicle over another due to one or two characteristics that would be completely insignificant to 99% of the other customers. In our case, the drivers prefer the GM product primarily because of performance and being more user friendly to the specific type of work they do. There have been instances where Ford had a preferable product too.

You asked. In my fleet, we have scads of 3/4 ton full size vans, including a few Sprinters and older Dodge B vans. Comparing the Ford E-250 to the Chevy Express 2500, our drivers prefer working out of the Chevys. Better ride, better ergonomics, lower floor height (particularly at the rear) the back doors open wider, and the 6.0L Chevy has A LOT more power than the 2 valve 5.4L Ford, but gets consistantly better fuel economy. As for reliability, they are about neck and neck, though (thanks to 'Twin-I-Beam') the Fords are going though tires more often.

That's just it, many ambulances are purchased by private ambulance companies. Police cars, on the other hand........

My sources tell me that American Medical Response has recently placed a very large order with GM for Duramax powered GMC G-3500 vans for ambulance use. Looks like few ambulance operators or municipal fire departments are buying Ford's gasoline powered ambulance prep. package van. No surprise there. Hope that Ford comes through with the 4.4L 'Lion' diesel for the E series, or comes up with another suitable replacement.

Jury is still out on that one. Ask again in five years........

The LCF went up against 3 established competitors with great reputations for high quality reliable trucks. Unfortunately, the LCF proved to be quite unreliable and failed miserably. Quality and reliability are not 'Blue Diamond' strong points! Perhaps it would have done better with a different drivetrain. As for the Cargo, I hope it stays gone. It was never as good as the old C series, and didn't improve when it became a Freightliner product.

Galpin is in the middle of L.A.'s suburban sprawl! I-5 also runs through the San Fernando Valley, downtown L.A., Orange County, San Diego County, ect.. Galpin is right at Roscoe Bl. and the 405 freeway in Van Nuys, right down the street from the giant Budwieser Brewery where all the beachwood aging takes place.....

I am sure Ford would like to sell the 6.7L to other OEM's at this point, because from what I understand there is little likelyhood it will meet the sales targets Ford planed for during the 6.7L's development. This isn't because of the engine itself, it is due to the collapse of the 'personal' light truck market and the shift away from diesel, due in a large part to substantially increased fuel and diesel engine purchase prices. That however might be a difficult objective even if the 6.7L is a stellar engine. The medium and heavy commercial truck market is becoming vertically integrated, and no more are you seeing a wide selection of vendor supplied diesels offered in these vehicles. More and more, each manufacturer is either emphasising proprietary (in-house) engines or in closely aligning with only one engine supplier. For instance, the Daimler Truck N.A. Companies are using their own Mercedes and Detroit Diesel engines, Navistar is using their own medium duty diesels along with proprietary M.A.N. and Caterpillar engines, Volvo and Mack are of course using Volvo, and PACCAR is going with Cummins exclusively. I would imagine Ford will want to see the 6.7L in the 650 and 750, but from what I hear it will be International's decision whether to offer it or not. My question is what bell housing bolt pattern will the 6.2L 'Boss' engine have? I think Ford might have a better shot at selling that engine to other OEM's than the 6.7L diesel, particularly it gaseous fueled versions are available.