7Mary3

Wonder what effect this will have: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../705080338/1148

And the article says Ford F series truck sales are down 14%......

CO- Carbon MONOXIDE. Is reduced by the cat.. CO2- Carbon DIOXIDE. A byproduct of combustion of hydrocarbon fuel. Can ONLY be reduced by burning less fuel.

The new CAFE regulations are for fuel economy. Plus, the ONLY way you can reduce CO2 emissions (the supposed 'greenhouse gas') is to reduce the amount of fuel burned. So, if the fuel economy standards are increased 40% (one of the proposals) and/or the EPA regulates CO2 emissions, you may not see any passenger cars over 3L. Since the economy standards are an average of all light vehicles produced by a manufacturer, the domestic manufacturers will no doubt try to preserve as much of the full size light duty pickup market as they can (F-150's are Ford's most profitable vehicle). So, there is a good chance that V-8 RWD cars like the Mustang, Crown Vic., Camaro, 300C, Charger, and Magnum will be 'sacrificed' in order to build more light trucks. There's an article about this very scenerio in the new 'Motor Trend'.

I hope so, but honestly I am not too optimistic that the 'Boss' will ever see the light of day in anything other than a Super Duty pickup. If the proposed CAFE/greenhouse gas regulations are inacted, it will likely spell the end to most all RWD car platforms. Many on these boards though GM was stupid for halting all RWD car development, but the truth is that it was in reaction to the new regulations. It all depends on Washington.

The 4% per year was what the EPA wanted to do. And, that probably would not have too much an effect on RWD performance cars. BUT- the proposed California standard would basically require a CAFE of close to 40 m.p.g., and if California prevails, other states would have the right to go by the California standard instead of the EPA's. That's what the automakers are afraid of. A CAFE standard that high would basically mandate hybrids and nothing larger than a 3L V-6. You could basically forget any RWD car, full size light truck or SUV under 8,500# GVW.. Don't think Ford or any other manufacturer would be able to get by this one. It sounds to me like GM is taking a 'wait-and-see' approach.

Would you like to know the whole story as to why Ford got out of the heavy truck business (at least how it was explained to me)? There was actually quite a bit to it, not just Jac Nassar. First, you need to realize the level of infighting that has traditionally gone on within Ford. The commercial truck group always had to fight other groups for funding, a difficult situation due to the rather small profits the heavy truck operation generated. Trucks like the C and L series went on for so long more because Ford didn't want to spend money on them than because they were really great trucks. When the C series cab tooling finally wore out, and emissions-compliant diesels would not fit in it, it was replaced 'on the cheap' by a truck designed by Ford's foreign operations (the Cargo). The L series was supposed to have fared better- money was finally allocated in the 1992 to replace that by then 22 year old design. The replacement for the L, the 'HM80', was also supposed to replace the F series medium duty trucks as well, which helped justify the project. Unfortunately, the HM80 ran over budget and behind schedule. The first prototypes were shown to fleets in 1994, but the comments were so negative the truck required extensive (and expensive) redesign. The total cost of the HM80 was rumored to be more than 200 million, and some versions of the trucks finally went on sale in the summer of 1996. The fact that the project was in trouble was noticed by Ford's light truck group, a group with considerable influence in the corporation due to the very high profits they were generating. You see, the light truck group wanted the Louisville plant badly for their new 'Super Duty' heavy duty pickup line, and the 'Suburban Killer' (Excursion) SUV version. The light duty group made their case based on the fact that Louisville was capable of building 40 HM80 trucks a shift, with a per unit profit of about $9000 (for a total of $360,000 per shift). If Louisville was converted to light duty/SUV production, 1,350 units could be build per shift, with a per unit profit of about $1,250 (for a total of $1,687,500 per shift, about 4.5 times the profit of the heavy trucks). Not too hard to see why the light duty group won. Ford sold the heavy truck operation to Freightliner for $200 million. Since that sale did not include the medium duty F series, Ford adapted the Super Duty cab to the old F series medium chassis to create the 2000 F-650 and 750. The intent had been to offer a medium duty based on the HM80, but with the sale that truck was cancelled. Freightliner eventually offered a medium duty based on the HM80, the Sterling Acterra. As you probably know, in 2004 Ford stopped producing the 650 and 750, relying on International to produce a version of their 4400 for Ford with a Super Duty cab and Cummins or Cat engines. Some of this information was told to me by people associated with Ford at the time, and some came from a recent discussion on the American Truck Historical Society's website. That's the story as it was told to me.

I agree, that plant is probably for commercial trucks. There are rumors that GM and Isuzu may combine medium and heavy commecial truck operations in the U.S.. G.M. currently assembles most of the Isuzu commercial trucks (gas powered NPR's, and the larger F series which is actually built on a GMC Topkick chassis).

Need to be careful here. This is GM's possible response to the proposed regulations. If these new standards do become law, they will affect Ford as well. Could take the Crown Vic., Mustang, and new Lincolns out too.

My guess? They are going to get away from fleet only vehicles, like police cars, taxis, limo's, ambulances, and medium trucks.

Are these vehicles really 'cash cows'? Since the majority are purchased by fleets, I doubt it. One of Ford's problems has been that they rely on too many low margin fleet sales. Chevy dropped the Caprice when fleet sales accounted for more than 50% of total sales. BTW- the '65 Galaxy 500 lived on in Brazil until 1983 with little more than a new grille and tail lights.

The problem is that if/when Ford resumes ambulance chassis production, they will no longer have an exclusive on this type of vehicle. GM is coming out with a very similar 14,500# GVW Duramax diesel powered cut-away ambulance chassis. This is in addition to the larger Kodiak truck they make that is suitable for ambulance service. In any event, it's a niche vehicle with a small profit margin. Wouldn't be surprised if Ford is using the engine dispute with International as an excuse to get out of the market.

I knew they would never get the 6.4L in the full size vans.

I still say selling the heavy truck division was a sound idea. At least part of the proof is in the fact that Freightliner has not done very well with Sterling (the former Ford heavy truck operation). Freightliner specializes in commercial vehicles. The part I didn't understand was why did Ford spend all the money to redesign the heavy trucks only to sell the line less than 2 years later? I was told that the 1996 Louisville trucks were more than 2 years late to market and way over budget, so maybe Ford just wanted out as quickly as possible. In any event, it took Ford until 1997 to figure out what Chrysler knew in 1975 and GM knew in 1988: Heavy trucks represent a poor ROI for high volume auto manufacturers. It's a specialized field best left to companies like PACCAR.

4 Stupid decisions: 1. Buying Jaguar, Range Rover, and Aston Martin. 2. Using the Modulars in trucks. 3. Letting Lincoln die. 4. Replacing the 7.3L Powerstroke with the 6.0L. 4 Good decisions: 1. Buying Mazda and Volvo Cars. 2. The new Mustang. 3. Selling the heavy truck division. 4. Developing the 'Boss' engine family. 4 Decisions that need to happen: 1. Sell Jaguar, Range Rover, and Aston Martin. 2. Not have any relationship with Navistar whatsoever. 3. The 'Panthers'- either redesign or discontinue them. 4. Make a serious commitment to fixing Lincoln.

It isn't on any of the option lists I have seen so far. I doubt Ford will offer it as a factory option, as spray-in liners are a good source of profits for the new car dealers. Also, the Line-X and Rhino dealers would not like it, either. GM was going to offer Line-X a few years ago, but I heard the dealers put up a fuss.

Ford seems to think that there was a certain 'magic' to the Taurus name. The truth is that when it was introduced, the Taurus was a revolutionary midsize car. But, as time went on, it became more and more of a bland boring rental car with a spotty reliability record. The 'catfish' restyle was a disaster. Ford was only able to keep the sales crown with it by dumping them on fleets. Taurus resale, which had already taken a hit due to reliability issues (most notably head gaskets and transmissions) really went down hill when it became primarily a rental fleet vehicle, which means large numbers of them flood the used car market. I think whatever clout the Taurus name had back in '87 is long gone now. The only way Ford will ever catch the Camry is by producing a car that is absolutely dead-nuts reliable, refrain from giving them away to fleets to build sales, and continously and relentlessly improving it. The name doesn't even matter. 8 or 10 years from now, if they do that, they might have a chance. I just hope they have 10 years.

Ought to name it 'Hertz' or 'Avis'.

Yeah, an '08 International 4400 or a Topkick!

You might be able to make the case that by offering an entire line of vehicles from compact cars to heavy trucks, a company could be more attractive to a large fleet. However, I don't think that was usually the case. Fleets, both large and small, almost always buy low bid. Time and time again, it doesn't matter how bad the vehicle might be, the vendor with the lowest price will win the bid. With regards to Ford's class 8 trucks (not pickups or cars), the vast majority of them were purchased by fleets because Ford was the low bidder. Hence, there wasn't much profit in them for Ford. Nor were they particularly good trucks (again, I am only talking about the heavy models, such as the L series). Ever see an owner-operator driving a Ford L-9000? In the 25 or so years those things were around, I could probably count the number of owner-operator Fords I saw on one hand. Even GMC got some of the premium market back in the 70's and 80's with the big conventional General, and International with their Transtar Eagle. What was bad for Ford was the premium segment was where the profit was (don't believe me? ask Peterbilt and Kenworth). Ford did try to get into that market with some dolled up L's and the CL-9000 (what a POS that one was) but they were not too successful. There really isn't any money in selling vehicles to large fleets, particularly municipalities. And that was about the only market Ford had for their class 8 line.

No, it is worse. The WHOLE CAB has to come off for major repairs, not just the front sheetmetal.

Actually, the class 7 and 8 truck manufacturers are moving away from offering multiple engines of different makes.

Why didn't Ford sell their heavy truck line to Volvo? Simple, Volvo didn't want it! Freightliner wanted Ford's heavy truck division because Freightliner was weak in the vocational end of the market (construction, trash hauling, municipal). With Ford, Freightliner figured they could 'buy' their way into those markets. Was it a good idea? To a point. Sterling, as it is now called, has yet to sell as many trucks as Ford was in class 8, but they remain strong in the vocational market. Some say the Sterling is built better than the Fords were. As for Volvo building diesels for Ford light trucks, I don't think it is very likely. My guess is that the next Powerstroke will be an in-house design.

Ford sold their heavy truck division because it wasn't profitable, even after the redesigned HM80 Louisville/Aeromax trucks were introduced in 1996. Ford had a reputation for building a low cost-low quality fleet truck, and the majority of their heavy truck sales were low bid sales to fleets. The line was dropped when Ford figured out that if the Louisville plant was converted to light duty trucks and SUV's, Ford could make as much profit on one F-350 as they did on 3 heavy trucks. I think selling the heavy duty line to Freightliner was one of the few smart things that Jac Nasser did.

Whether or not it is ugly depends on your personal taste, but I really dislike the fact that Ford went to a hood mounted grille like Dodge. The slightest tap on a Dodge grille often results in a buckled hood. Pretty much impossible to straighten out, usually you have to replace it. Also, if whoever is working on it is not careful, it is easy to bend up the fins on the A/C condenser and intercooler.