7Mary3
-
Posts
3,143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by 7Mary3
-
-
16 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:
I am aware that like sheep, this state is following Calif. But does a state have to follow all provisions? Plus wouldn't a dealer know that it is not a matter of availability and a wait of a year but rather it is well known that a PS will not be available in CA and Oregon in 25, wouldn't that be common knowledge here?
Again my biggest question is why the continued BS given as reasons for unavailability of air brakes??
The utilities around here all run heavy single axles-be they dump trucks towing a tandem tag axle usually carrying a Deere or Cat loader/backhoe or a heavy bucket/polecat towing a big cable reel- I would assume those have cable trailers have air brakes? I would assume 7M you have similar needs??
As for the gas 650/750 air brakes, my hunch FWIW is that it ended up requiring some expensive engineering and Ford doesn't see enough demand to justify it.
We use a lot of large single-axle dumps, but they are 33,000 GVW with a Cummins L9N and Allison 3000 series transmission. Don't even look at Fords for that application, GCW is too light.
-
1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Commercial truck guy at local dealer just told me if you want a 650/750 PS you are looking at a year wait. Apparently profitability/demand for 250-350, and probably 450,550 leave OAP with low allocation. You would think this would now make air brakes on a gas 650/750 a top priority but probably not in their infinite wisdom.
On another note, one of biggest mulch suppliers in Mass/RI has about 10 satelite locations that are fed from main facility that processes the logs. These locations have a 750 with bodies that are probably capable of 15 yds. I went by the main facility the other day and looked like they had a bunch of new trucks in. A couple of days later I stopped at one of the satelites and one of these new trucks was there. Big heavy rubber, aluminum wheels and no V-8 or PS badge. so I went around to other side and there was the DEF tank. No reason PS badge would not have been on this truck as it would not have interferred with wrap/decals. Could these be running some test engine??
Does it have anything to do with emissions? The 6.7L Powerstroke appears to be non-compliant for 2025 CARB. Since Ford has already started the 2025MY for the 650 and 750, the trucks are gas only now here in California. Diesels are not available in 2025 650's and 750's. Isn't Mass. a CARB state?
-
Interesting topic, but it is ironic that Ford will probably be the LEAST likely truck manufacturer to offer the B6.7 Gas. The engine is attracting considerable interest, particularly from the manufacturers currently offering the B6.7 Diesel. Freightliner has already confirmed to their dealers, International is likely, Isuzu/Chevy a strong possibility in their class 6/7 LCF, and Mack would be silly not to in their medium duty. Good thing for Ford is they should still maintain a substantial price advantage over those potential gasoline medium truck competitors.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
IIRC Cummins tried the same thing a half century ago when they converted their small diesel V8 to a "Giesel". Didn't hear any complaints about them, but that might be because they didn't sell many!
Oh yeah! That was done at the request of White Motors. When White spun off Diamond Reo in 1972 the Reo gas engines were included, that left White without a gasoline option. For a year or two White offered the GMC V-6's in some 4000 series trucks until they introduced the 'Giesel'. The 'Giesel' or 'Mustang VIII' as it was sometimes called was basically a Cummins 470 V-8 re-engineered into a gasoline engine. Lower compression pistons, spark plugs where the injectors were, a distributor and a 2bbl. Holley carburetor. I know few were made, but I never heard anything bad about the Giesel either. It was bound to be better than any of the small Cummins V-6 and V-8 diesels!
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, akirby said:
Here we go again. BEVs are not viable for the majority of buyers and won’t be for many years and probably decades. So the choice TODAY for most buyers is ICE or HEV. HEVs provide tangible benefits with almost no drawbacks or compromises until EVs are ready.
As I said, while the BEV mandate so to speak is being pushed faster than is technically and economically feasable at this point, I am nonetheles very much AMAZED at the rate of progess that has been made over just the last 5 years regarding BEV's. If it keeps up at the current pace near 100% of new light passenger vehicles may well indeed be BEV's by 2035. HEV's may represent something of a temporary stop-gap or bridge on the road to electrification, but I don't think they should be viewed as any sort of permanent solution. But in the end no one really believes we can give up ICE's by tomorrow anyway.
-
1
-
-
Sadly the French and Italian masters of the ruins of Chrysler Corporation seem very content to let the Ram HD's wither on the vine. From what I understand the Hemi gas V-8 will continue in limited production for the Ram HD.
-
The point is to get away from ICE's. Hybrids still have ICE's. Hybrids, plug-in or otherwise, therefore are not the solution. The recent increase in hybrid interest is driven by current consumer reluctance to buy BEV's and auto manufacturers wanting to recoup ICE costs in danger of eventually becoming 'stranded'. While I believe it is true that many of our elected (and otherwise) officials and environmental advocates are pushing the BEV mandate faster than is technically and economically feasable, it is very clear that BEV's are the long term solution to clean and efficient ground transportation.
-
1
-
-
Nikola may have started as a scam, but they are making a pretty good go of it now. Jury is still out on hydrogen, but good chance it may eventually replace diesel in long haul trucking. And if it does Nikola will be in a good position:
-
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
I'm guessing the water pump issue is like the cam phaser issue on other Ford engines-it happens, but not to the point that a complete redesign needs to happen. Or PTUs on D3 platform
Water pumps wear out and leak, but they typically don't fail until after the warranty is up. Draw your own conclusions......
-
1
-
-
Yes, but consider this: Would an entry or mid-level manager have the authority to make a major engine design change? I wouldn't think so, but it appears those are the people Farley wants to hold responsible for quality problems.
BTW, later FWD versions of the V-6 in question have an external weep hole if the water pump starts to leak. So at least an observant owner can get by with paying a mere $1200 to replace the water pump (probably should do the timing chains, guides, and tensioners while you are at it). Still a stupid design....
-
Does anyone really think Ford's quality issues have anything to do with entry and mid-level management employees? I really doubt any employees at those levels have the ability or authority to correct anything. The 'plan' gives me the urge to sarcastically say this a 'brilliant' move on Farley's part: Task fixing the quality issues to people with no authority to do so, so money isn't spent on costly re-designs and higher quality vendor supplied components. When there is no improvent in quality, pay said employees less. I hope that is not the case.
-
Didn't hear anything out of Ford from the NTEA show this year, but Ram had a big announcement:
-
Well, that's a pretty minor reduction overall. It's just a different approach to managing EVAP and PCV. Remains to be seen if it would have any effect on intake valve deposits. Many are under the mistaken impression that intake valve deposits are primarily caused by blowby and crankcase vapors. Actually in modern engines the deposts primarily come from exhaust blown back up the intake port. Engines that do not have EGR valves use variable cam timing to accompllsh EGR by opening the intake valve early during the exhaust stroke. This blows a small amount of exhaust through the open intake valve into the intake port where it's drawn back into the combustion chamber during the intake stroke. The exhaust is hotter than the intake valve, so you have a condensing effect which causes the deposits to form on the port side of the intake valve. Of course port fuel injection does a good job of cleaning the intake valves, but I question if this new system would pass enough fuel vapor through the port to clean the valve at all.
-
If his last name was Jones......
-
1
-
-
Again from a fleet perspective, this is particularly hilarious:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/ford-ceo-forget-tesla-pro-unit-is-auto-industrys-future.html
I am a bit skeptical to say the least. I don't think Ford Pro is what Bill Ford Jr. or Farley really want to focus on, but since their endeavors in EV's and self-driving cars have been less than successful they need to promote what successes they currently enjoy to Wall Street. Completely understandable, but Ford really needs to improve their game on the commercial side or there will be serious trouble. Interesting comparison of Ford Pro to Ferrari, but keep in mind the real success for Ferrari came AFTER they were spun off of Fiat!
-
11 minutes ago, iamweasel said:
All of the above, honestly. Just seems like every high level decision lately isn't working out.
But more importantly from the dealer side, the one thing that is much worse than before is the simple lack of communication regarding what's going on with production, scheduling, parts availability, product support, etc. All the basics of building cars and trucks. Ford seems to almost go out of their way to NOT help answer questions and find solutions to problems. The randomization of which orders get scheduled or cancelled and which ones get priority is a total cluster%$#@. My company has several OEM's and the only company we hate dealing with more than Ford is Hino.
Hino? Did they ever come back?
From a fleet perspective I would have to say Ford is the least cooperative OEM as well. Recalls galore, parts on intergalatic backorder, long delivery times. It's not the dealers either. Ford did manage to get us some E-Transits, probably because they have a bunch somewhere and can't get rid of them.
-
Question: Are the CT DOT Fords gas or diesel? Reason I ask is Conneticut is a CARB state (as is Mass.) and I am wondering if the 2025 diesel 650's and 750's will be available in other CARB states.
-
A 'B' series Cummins is the current 6.7L, installed in a Ram or otherwise.
And speaking of the 650 and 750, according to the thread on sales of these trucks are down 42.7% over last year. A 737 sales for January and over 5000 units in inventory?
-
2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Got it...but what happens in '25 to 450-600? And the JV GM/Internationals-don't have a gas option-at least for now they don't- seems like they are really shafted???
Yeah, I'm wondering what happens in 2025 for Ford too. No idea what GM/Navistar is up to, there were a lot of rumors about a class 7 and gas engines before Covid, but since they seem to be content with what they have. There has been very few updates to those trucks since introduction.
-
2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:
So back to CARB and model year '25. This reg only includes class 6 and 7. So a 550 at 19,500GVW is exempt?
And while we keep referring to 650/750, an F-600 at 22,000 is also exempt?
The 600 and lighter F series trucks are still 2024 models. The 650 and 750 are now 2025MY, and that appears to be the problem with CARB. Same for Isuzu, they are now 2025MY also.
-
32 minutes ago, iamweasel said:
On the Daimler side, they tell us that it's the date of the engine is what matters. You can't build an engine in Detroit on 1/1 and ship it to North Carolina to be installed in a truck that same day, you know? (DTNA also flipped to 25MY starting 1/1/24.)
So over the past 3 months theoretically you could have:
1) A 24MY truck with a 23CY engine
2) A 25MY truck with a 23CY engine (engine built a week or two before the year is over)
3) A 25MY truck with a 24CY engine
DTNA really goes out of their way to avoid #2. They don't want to have any gray-area issues with the EPA/CARB, so they will start to produce their 25CY emission engines late in 24CY and time-it so any truck rolling down the line in 24CY gets a 24CY engine. I have had a few oddball trucks over the years like item #2, though. Those situations only happened when there was a production/supply issue of some sort that messed up the timing.
Yes, that's been my understanding for years. No idea why 2025MY trucks with engines manufactured in 2024CY appear to be an issue now.
-
A manufacturer can advance to the next model year any time after Jan. 1st.. Ford, Isuzu and some others have been doing this for some time. Not sure what the laws are regarding emission standards, it used to be the year of manufacture of the engine, not the truck. Somehow now the MY of the vehicle factors in. It appears the current 6.7L Powerstroke does not meet 2025 CARB standards, and that's why the diesel 650 and 750 will not be available in CARB states for the 2025MY. Certain 2025 Isuzu and Chevy trucks powered by the 4HK1 will not be available either. The 6.7L Cummins does comply with 2025 CARB regulations.
I have a feeling that if the 8.3L Duramax rumors are true (and the engine is a diesel) it is in response to upcoming CARB and EPA regulations.
-
There are new rumors that GM (and probably Isuzu) are working on a new 8.3L Duramax diesel engine. No word yet if this engine will be for heavy duty pickups or commercial trucks, or both. The larger displacement may be in response to more stringent diesel emissions regulations, possibly a way to maintain current H.P./torque output while making the engine 'cleaner'. Interesting to note that the Isuzu 4HK1 and 6.7L Powerstroke will not be available in 2025 medium duty commercial trucks in CARB states.
-
1
-
There's a Secret Fleet of New Ford Excursions Hiding in a Dubai Warehouse
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by 7Mary3
Reminds me of a story I heard about the Excursion: Supposedly it was discontinued only because Bill Ford Jr. was on a 'green' kick and didn't like the negative publicity large SUV's like the Hummer were getting at the time. The Sierra Club was calling it the 'Ford Valdez' after the tanker that sunk. Even though the sales of the Excursion never came close to the GM Suburbans I can't believe the vehicle wasn't profitable. Nonetheless, Ford probably should have offered a long wheelbase Expedition from the start.
I had a buddy that really wanted an Excursion but could only find ones with the 5.3L or 6.0L Powerstroke. It was a good wagon with the 7.3L or V10, and everyone knew that......