7Mary3

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.........

I think that would be safe to say.......

Are they 'mostly' Bluebird Visions? I was under the impression the 6.8L was already out of production. Of course it is possible Roush has new engines in a warehouse somewhere, but remember that both Thomas and IC Bus are offering propane fueled school buses now using the PSI 8.8L. I bring this up because my local district has bought many propane fueled buses in the last few years. They started with Bluebirds, but switched to Thomas and IC. I am told the PSI engine is more reliable and lasts longer than the 6.8L on propane. In any event, it's all be certain there will be propane versions of the 7.3L shortly, and I expect it to be a superior engine to the 6.8L.

Purely based on limited information and pictures I have seen so far....... The 7.3L is not exactly what I would consider to be a 'Big Block', as it's bore spacing is only slightly more than a GM LS/LT. From what I gather it's 4.595, same as the Ford 6.2L. Judging by the cylinder bore, bore spacing, and machined cooling passage between the bores (don't know how deep that is), I don't think you would be able to bore it much past .060, but that's just a rough guess on my part at this point. It does look like there is enough room in the crankcase to swing a bigger stroke crank, and that will probably be the best way to get substantially larger displacement out of it. Cylinder heads look O.K., but the very tall valve springs might be an issue at high r.p.m.'s. External size and weight are great, again roughly the size of a GM LS/LT. However, there is something funny about the oil pump configuration, it's at the front of the engine, chain driven, and below the crank. Oil pan is a funny dip in the front that I assume is for the pump. Might make some swaps a little harder. In any event, because the 7.3L is not going into any high performance vehicles there probably will not be much aftermarket for it. Still, I think the engine will be great for it's intended applications (commercial trucks). I think the 6.2L probably has more high performance potential than the 7.3L does. Great cylinder heads, block capable of more than 7L displacement. Too bad it hasn't been given much attention since it's not in Raptor anymore.

Hard to figure engine weights, some crate engines are near fully dressed, some are long blocks and that's it. FWIW, I read somewhere that a 6.2L complete without accessories was around 580 lbs.. That's about the weight of a GM iron block truck 6.0L, and I think those engines would be pretty close.

That's a different spec for them. It's the step-van type vehicles they want a galvanized chassis under.

Respectable numbers, about what I would expect. The engine does look remarkably compact. Something I Noticed in the video, around 3:54. The F stripped chassis appeared to have a galvanized frame. That is something UPS has had in their spec for package car chassis, and a reason Ford for some time was not providing chassis to UPS. Ford didn't want to offer a galvanized chassis, so a lot of UPS's business was going to Freightliner. Looks like Ford may be trying to get some UPS business, a galvanized chassis and a gasoline engine is just what they want these days. BTW- since the F series has an aluminum cab, if Ford would offer a galvanized chassis on the Super Duty I bet a lot of customers in the northeast would pay a lot of money for that option.

Rumor is specifications will be released 8/1/2019.

So, what changes are in store for the 2021 F-650 and 750? I hear 2020 will be a very short MY, and the 2021's will go on sale 1st. Q 2020. 7.3L gas V-8 for sure, maybe the aluminum F series cab?

No, not a word.

That's a good point, but these days I see a lot of trucks that don't have a lot of body rot but have so much chassis and suspension rust they are junk just the same!

I work for one of the biggest public utility fleets on the West Coast. We have not bought any GM full size pickups/chassis-cabs since early 2018 when they stopped building regular cabs due to the model changeover (a lot of regular cab tooling went to Navistar for the Chevy and International medium duty trucks). Though the number of truck we buy per year does vary, we often buy several hundred trucks at a time. So, I do believe that Chevy's numbers are depressed due to certain models being unavailable. As for Ram, their dealers are blowing out the 'old' Rams with so much money on the hood it's hard to say no. Not a half bad truck either, considering it's age. In any event, I think it's a safe bet that Ram will not be able to keep up their current sales pace and GM will start to improve towards the end of this year.

The big question is what will the next generation F series be made from! The weight savings of the aluminum F-150 was significant over the previous design for certain models (I never saw a straight comparison of models similarly equipped, it seemed that the aluminum example always had an Ecoboost, the steel version usually had a 6.2L). The Super Duty was even more confusing, as Ford claimed the body weight savings was 'spent' on making the chassis heavier, so overall the truck weighed about the same. HOWEVER, compared to GM and Ram, the aluminum Fords seem to weight as much as competing trucks. I doubt the boxed frame of the current Super Duty weighs any more than the boxed frame of the current GM HD trucks. GVW's are similar, but certain Super Duty configurations have embarrassingly low payload ratings. If that isn't due to tires, one has to wonder. Mixed metals makes a lot of sense, I am not seeing a big advantage to 100% aluminum. No doubt aluminum body construction is eating Ford's margins a bit.

Wow, had no idea there were only 100 dealers handling the 650/750. More dealers should help. Is the increase in sales due to the increase in dealers or did Ford land some good fleet orders?

You are not necessarily wrong, it's kind of apples and oranges. Allisons are torque convertor 'true' automatics. They don't need as many gear splits because of the torque multiplication factor of the torque convertor, are a lot smoother, and they deliver power continually through shifting. Allisons are superior off-road (the military is almost exclusively Allison in their larger trucks). I would say Alllsons are more expensive than AMT's, but more durable and less efficient in highway service. It's not really that torque convertor automatics are better than AMT's, it's more like different tools for different jobs. Incidentally, Allison has a new transmission called the TC-10, which is sort of halfway between a traditional Allison and an AMT. It's basically a 10 speed AMT with a torque convertor instead of a clutch.