7Mary3

You should read it again. The Caprice earned plenty of 10's. Also note that the Caprice vehicle dynamics evaluation was later in the day than the Ford PI tests, and the track and ambient temperatures were quite a bit higher. The Ecoboost PI did very well, no doubt. The real choice for th LAUSD will probably be between the Caprice, Charger, and PI AWD Base, as I think the Ecoboost version will probably be too expensive. It will be intersting to see which one the Sheriff's go with. L.A.P.D. has bought a number of Chargers recently.

I believe that is correct that except for the Acterra, the Sterlings remained basically Ford designs. And I recall the story of the Acterra franchises resulting in a lawsuit as well. When it was introduced, I thought the HN-80's would be Ford's crowning achievement in big trucks. Here on the west coast, they seemed to have got off on a slow start sales-wise, possibly because they came out during the big Freightliner push (gauranteed buy-back program). Anyway, less than a year after introduction Ford announced the sale to Freightliner, and that probably didn't do sales any good either. My fleet stayed away from them (even after years of buying L series trucks) so I didn't get any first-hand experience with them. However, I heard a lot of negative comments about Sterlings in the years that followed, mainly about the cabs, interiors, and electrical components. One fleet guy I heard from said it was not uncommon for the whole dash to come loose! It seems most of the fleets that favored Fords went to Freightliner or International after the L series was phased out, and never looked back. Volvo and Mack. There's a topic. I see Volvo keeeping Mack primarily as a vocational line, but still doing some over-the-road business (different from Freightliner, who quickly ended any and all over-the-road models from the Ford/Sterling line). I personally rather like Volvo engines, so I don't really mind the thought of a Mack with a Volvo-based engine in it, as long as the rest of the truck (frame and axles in particular) are Mack.

Remember MAN comes with a very substantial engine business. And while we are on the subject, I believe a couple of those new International Maxforce diesels MAN designs.

Well, according to what have read Ford will not return to investment grade for some time, even if their results continue to improve. Nonetheless............. With regards to EBIT, I though GM was essentially operating tax free for a number of quarters, something about carrying losses forward.

And speaking of vocational, the latest 'Light & Medium Truck' has an article about Freightliner's push into vocational. David Hames, general manager of DTNA, says that when Sterling was around Freightliner's commitment to vocational was secondary. However, Sterling's inability to become a dominant player in vocational and the costs of meeting 2010 emissions (and I'll add the fact that the trucks had a bad reputation) 'helped' the company's decison to close down the product. Now Freightliner is introducing 3 new trucks to take the place of the discontinued Sterlings in the severe service field. Also, looks like Western Star is also moving into the premium severe service/vocational market, no doubt to compete with the 'new' Caterpllar trucks.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/05/05/ford-vs-gm-heres-who-analysts-like-better/?mod=yahoo_hs Go figure.

Ford is starting to loose ground in the fleet/commercial markets. Of course, those are usually not high margin sales so who knows what it means for the bottom line. Ford is facing a lot of new and aggressive competition in police, vans, and commercial trucks. Joe Castelli seems poised to take a lot of Ford's fleet business. Anyone know what Nissan's commercial truck plans are?

Navistar dealers? No, they can't be happy about this, just as they have never been happy about 'Blue Diamond' even given their sales numbers. Something of a cozy relationship exists between International and Cat these days. Some of those new big bore 'Maxforce' diesels are Cats without ACERT. Neat, huh? The 'core business' speach comes out whenever profits are low in a market segment. Cat knows it, remember their reason for leaving the highway engine business was to focus on their machinery 'core business'. Had nothing to do with a failed emission control strategy. You just think it did. Will this Cat truck venture play? I think it will, but I don't see it expanding outside of heavy vocational. Rumor is International is becoming a takeover target. Cat has been named as a potential buyer, but some say keep your eye on Volkswagen. A deal like that could jeapordize joint ventures.........

That is why I am scared of an F-150 with a cast magnesium chassis......

I remember those! Bad news. Compared to 1979, the 1980's were a disaster. Lightweight frame and Twin Traction Beam. 351M and 400. Ford was completely outclassed by GM and Dodge for 24 months. 1982 was better. BTW, I had a Dodge Ram D-150 back then and it was one of the best trucks I ever owned.

I don't know how competitve weight-wise Ford's cars are at the moment, but since the majority are relatively fresh designs, I would guess they would compare well. I think the latest F-150 may be slightly heavier than a comparable GM 1500 or Ram 1500, but probably not enough to matter. The Super Duty is another story. Even with GM's new HD chassis, the Ford is still considerably heavier. And this is a problem not only from a fuel economy standpoint, but also a capacity standpoint. Often a Ford Super Duty has less payload than a comparable GM or Dodge with a similar G.V.W.. The heavier unladen weight eats payload. I for one hope the Super Duty gets a REAL refresh soon, not another bling bling grille job. The new powertrains are competitive, the rest of the truck is not.

And that philosophy is no more evident than on the 2011 Super Duty.

I counted 5 grill bars on the '47 F-1. BTW- I don't mind the 3 bar grill at all, but I wish Ford would dump the silly beltline dip in the front window opening on the trucks.

CNG as a motor fuel has kind of languished it recent years, but thanks to the more stringent (and much more expensive) diesel emssions regulations CNG is an up and comer for fleets. Many fleets are finding the economics for running diesel don't work anymore, and are actively seeking alternatives. While the volumes are not high enough for Ford to offer 'turn key' CNG fueled vehicles as of yet, the CNG prep packages are creating much interest, and there are a number of companies doing EPA and CARB certifed conversions. GM is selling 'factory' Savanna and Express CNG cargo vans at present, and does offer a CNG prep package on Silverado and Sierra trucks. A few weeks ago I looked at some CNG Silverado 2500HD's done by Landi Renzo/Baytech. The trucks looked pretty good and are generating quite a bit of interest. Landi Renzo/Baytech is also converting Ford E Series vans to CNG. Ford may well sell some CNG F-650's. Freightliner is working on a similar truck powered by an 8.0L Origin Engines CNG engine. The 8.0L Origin Engine is pretty much a ground-up CNG/LNG powerplant. Very heavy duty, cast iron block and heads, special valves and seats, oil cooled forged pistons. Yes, it is expensive to get a CNG conversion certifed in California. The cost is basically the same if it is 1 vehicle or a 1,000. CARB tests the conversions for emission regulations conformity same as they do new vehicles. It seems that CARB is actively trying to discourage Uncle Jesse from doing conversions in the trailer park, if you know what I mean!

Didn't some guy named Porsche invent this like 80 years ago? Oh, and good luck meeting side impact standards with that design.

CNG is going great guns here. All L.A.M.T.A. buses are on it, many municipal sanitation districts, almost all trucks operating within the port (trailer spotters). Weight of the cylinders is not much of an issue, most are composite/aluminum now. Size is still an issue. Yes, I remember the CNG (and LNG) Aeromaxes. Vons, L.A. Times, and out fleet tried them. Very few were built, and they were not successful. Most were only on the road a couple of years. The issues were engine/fuel system, nothing Ford did.

Speaking of hot rods, I have a buddy that built a really nice '34 3 window a few years ago. He decided to go 'all Ford' with the car, and went with a 351 Cleveland, C-6, and of course a 9" rear. When the car was done, he told me that if he had to do it all over again, he would have went with a small block Chevy. He says the car would have cost less money and gone together easier and quicker if he had gone with a 350/Turbo 350, and would run just as well. Don't worry, he isn't going to change it now that the car is done! I had suggested a 351 Windsor. BTW- I saw that some company has come out with blue anodized small block Chevy valve covers that have 'Ford' script on them, just for the hot rod crowd. Sad.......

I have been saying this for years. Ford has always been at a disadvantage in regards to industrial/marine engines if for no other reason than not having a common bell housing bolt patterns. Chevy offers all kinds of engines from a 3.0L in-line 4 cylinder to 7.4/8.0/8.1L Big Blocks and they all have the same bell housing bolt patterns. Marine out-drive and industrial manufacturers love this because it is so expensive for them to pay for tooling. Chevy is starting to develop the LS series engines for marine applications, and guess what- they bolt right up to existing out-drives. Sure, Ford went to an SAE bolt pattern for the 6.2L, but there again, Ford comes out with a new engine that has yet another bolt pattern. Another problem Ford has is the Mod/Triton and Boss engines are w-i-d-e. This causes mounting problems in a lot of applications. In short, Ford is just flat unfriendly for marine/industrial OEM's. GM not only has all those application advantages, but they also support the marine/industrial industry with many stand-alone engine management systems. Total plug-and-play EFI. Again, the OEM's love that, all the hard work has been done (and the EPA likes it too). GM also has a history of keeping 'crate' engines in production long after they are no longer used in current production vehicles. That Mercruiser 3.0L is a version of the old Chevy Nova 4 cylinder. Plenty of Big Blocks still manufactured new as well. Ford very rarely offers 'crate' engines after they are no longer current production in vehicles. Remans, yes, but not new. Origin Engines is offering some very heavy duty gaseous fueled versions of the old Big Block Chevy: http://originengines.com/ Some were thinking the big Chevy was going to be extinct after the 8.1L was dropped from the trucks. Not so. What is the latest news regarding Ford Industrial? Their website doesn't have any information on it anymore. I know Generac was using Ford engines in gensets, but I was hearing Ford was leaving the business. Anyone know for sure?

My understanding is that the issue is an EPA thing. Has to do with uniform ratings, I guess. I know that a GM 6.0L V-8 is 360 h.p. in a 2500, but it is 312 h.p. in a 3500. All because the ratings taken at a different r.p.m.. Same engine.

What you are seeing with regards to the 6.2L V-8 and 6.8L V-10 output has to do with how the engines are rated in so-called 'medium' duty trucks. The 6.2L is the same engine whether it is installed in an F-250 or an F-350 dually. The difference is the F-350 6.2L is rated at a lower r.p.m. than the lighter truck. Since the horsepower and torque peak in the 6.2L is at a rather high r.p.m., the engine appears to be derated in the heavier truck. My understanding is the 6.2L V-8 was designed to specifically replace the V-10. The V-10 is expensive to manufacture. Think about it- the engine has 10 piston/rod assembles, 30 valves/springs/followers, a balance shaft, 10 injectors, ect.. The engine is long and heavy too. I think the V-10 is still around (for the moment) for plant utilization and to help offset 6.2L demand. I think that the 6.2L (or a 6.2L derivative) will eventually replace the V-10 completely. Can a 6.7L Powerstroke or 6.2L gasser handle a beverage trailer? It all depends on GVW/GCW, but I wouldn't spec. either engine for that vocation. Just because an engine/truck is rated for a specific GVW/GCW doesn't mean it can reliably do that job for 5 or 10 years. Beverage trailers can be quite heavy, and that is stop-and-go service. Pretty rough, particularly in a big city.

Close! DTNA bought Thomas. They mainly use Freightliner chassis now. Ford didn't really have any chance to get Blue Bird's chassis business. The Vision uses a proprietary 'in house' chassis Blue Bird developed themselves, and that was the reason Blue Bird dropped the GM chassis. Also, remember that since Navistar bought Amtran, International offers a whole line of school buses. Rather doubtful they would allow 'Blue Diamond' to compete in that market. There has been talk that Blue Bird is considering offering offering a CNG Ford V-10 in the Vision chassis if it becomes available. They are also looking at the Origin CNG/LPG engine as well.

GM has some dated vehicles because many programs were delayed during the backruptcy. That having been said, Ford has one dated vehicle that I really wish would get a total revamp soon- the Super Duty. Yes, it got some new engines and an MCE here and there, but is is basically a 1999 truck and it is starting to show.

I also 'heard' that Liddel has been looking for a CEO job since he left Microsoft. Some say Ackerson's time might be up soon, and the next GM CEO has been chosen. It was not Liddel.

Good point. I don't know when the current 'Blue Diamond' contract is up.

I think the CNG option is for the 450 and 550 only. I wonder why Ford didn't design a heavy duty version of the 6.2L to power that thing. Oh, and note to Ford- it's going to be tough to be 'in it to win it', at least in class 6 and 7, if you continue to have your competitor engineer and assemble the truck for you. Perhaps you remember Navistar. They sold you a mess of junk diesels, and their CEO has vowed to run you out of medium duty. Good luck!