7Mary3

Got a question, specifically about the 6R140 Torqshift, but applicable to the other Ford 6 speeds. The question is why don't they have a 1:1 ratio in them anymore? I figure it must have something to do with the use of the Lapelletier geartrain, because the GM 6L80 and 6L90 also use that design, and they don't have a 1:1 either. I always liked the idea of a 1:1 for towing, because I assumed it was stronger. I know that the Lapelletier is a less complex design than the old 4 speed automatics that used Simpson geartrains.

Sometimes the C series cab was called the 'Budd cab'. Budd made a lots of truck cabs for many manufacturers, including some GMC's. Ford designed the C series cab and paid for the tooling. The Mack N series cab only used some Ford C series cab outer panels, the floor was completely different. The N used Mack diesels, and had a doghouse to clear a large 6 cylinder diesel. Naturally the chassis was different too. The Mack N was a heavy truck, most of the Ford C's were medium duty.

MKT Town Car? That dog won't hunt. Dodge would have a better shot at the livery busines with a dolled up Journey.

As Bob said, rust was a major issue. Though the basic cab looked like a C series, the floor was completely different and was very prone to rusting. There was a long discussion about the H on the ATHS forum a few years ago, and you should have heard the old timers going on about the H. Repeated crossmember cracking, the cab roofs would split where the sleeper was attached, poor heater, hard to get in and out of. But, it was obvious the H was a 'quick and dirty' attempt, and the good thing was that it was profitable enough for Ford to continue in that market. And, it was a neat looking truck. BTW- the W cab came in steel or aluminum. Most of the few survivors have aluminum cabs. The steel cabs on the W also liked to rust!

Yeah, I remember the H series. A raised up C series cab on a diesel N series chassis. Commonly referred to by drivers at the time as a 'Two Story Falcon', and that was not a complement! In the running for the worst class 8 tractor ever built, it did look neat and Ford learned a lot from them. The W series, which replaced the H, was a far better truck.

I think GM has done a good job of getting Cadillac back to what it once was. They still have a ways to go, and GM's financial troubles have certainly delayed Cadillac's progress, but I see life. In my neighborhood, I see more and more new Cadillacs. I see no new Lincolns other than Town Cars in livery service. I see people cross shopping Cadillac with Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes. My Cadillac dealer is doing well. My Lincoln dealer is doing well too now that he sells Subaru's. Lincoln is laying low, I'll give you that. Flat on their back. Someone please check to see if Lincoln is still breathing. You really think Cadillac is the one suffering from a lack of vision?

And Lincoln will counter with a vinyl roof option for the MKS. Or maybe it was the MKT? Not sure.......

Don't see that happening. Volvo Truck AB never had anything to do with Ford in the past, and they seem to have no desire to go into medium duty (though Mack was active in mediums years back with help from Renault). There were rumors that GM talked with Volvo Truck AB about mediums. It might have made some sense because many GM medium dealers also sell Volvo heavy trucks, from back in the days of WhiteGMC.

Some of the comments I get from the drivers are poor turning radius, poor front visibility (even with a sloping hood, you can't see nearly as close to your front bumper as you can in the Freightliner), excessive vibration and noise, air suspension seats useless because cab roof is too low (note to Ford- GM used to offer a raised roof option just for air seats on the 'pickup cab' 1990-2002 Topkick) instrument cluster poorly laid out (air gauge behind the steering wheel spoke if the driver is short) and of course no power. Some of the comments I get from the mechanics are poor engine accessibility (they always say that, many newer mediums are tough to service these days) have to remove step to access batteries, lots of electrical issues (3 fuse boxes, and 1 of them is near the rear axle?) cheap interior parts and seats, service literature/data is not as good as it should be, and difficulty getting parts (basically they say the parts countermen have trouble identifying the correct part, and sometimes it takes quite a while to get parts that have to be ordered). I would say downtime is higher on the Fords than Freightliner and International. I don't have enough GM mediums to conclusively compare downtime to the Ford mediums. Yes, I think using a van based cab as GM did would probably improve some of the 650 and 750 shortcomings. But, I would hate to see Ford make the same mistake GM did and use a large cab on the 450 and 550.

A picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/spied/10q4/2012_lincoln_mkt_hearse-future_cars/gallery

Good, at least a glimmer of hope. I hope that 650 and 750 sales improve to the point that Ford does something with these trucks, hopefully on their own or at least with another partner. The current 650 and 750 are uncompetitive, and I think they sell on price only. Since the medium market is very price-sensitive, it isn't as bad a situation as you might think. Nonetheless, the 650 and 750 suffer in comparison to other medium duty trucks. We just took delivery of a new M2 Freightliner, and the drivers really like it. Once I asked one of our drivers what he thought of our F-750's, and he said "Ford has no business building a truck that big". Of course, we know Ford didn't build it, but it still says 'Ford' on the grille.

The story I am hearing is the Ecoboost/AWD PI is priced out of the market. Many departments still biased against FWD, but some say the Police Explorer will be a surprise big seller. Highway Patrol type departments looking for traditional type partol units said to be eyeing the Caprice.

No, I think you are pretty much right on. And that was the problem with the GM 4500, since it was built out of medium duty components, it's unladen weight was pretty high. Which gave it a lower payload than the Ford. And, it was an expensive truck. From what I understand, GM's idea now is to let the current 3500HD compete with the Ford 450 and 550. The chassis and front suspension used in the 2011 3500HD cab and chassis is competitive with the Ford 450 and 550, about all GM needs to do is offer the Dana 110 rear axle as an option. The new medium is rumored to be a class 6-7 truck.

I have seen a lot of them on the road in just the last few weeks. They do sort of 'blend in' though. I like the Ecotec engines. We'll see about the whole car.

Wrong! It's actually worse. And things get tighter in 2015.

And yet Mulally was passed over for CEO. As for Ackerson, let's see if he is still there in 3 years. Or 1 for that matter. Many on Wall Street see Ford's debt as a bigger issue than GM's pension liabilities. Not saying I agree with that, but since pension funding is tied to a large degree to the stock market, GM's pensions could be a non-issue should the market recover. That is a big if.......

Still too early to say how GM will turn out. I got a feeling the management team is still in flux, and I really would not at all be surprised if Ackerson is gone within 3 years. For the short term, as long as Ackerson listens to Mark Ruess on product, GM will be OK. Ackerson gets a kick out of making bold statements, and he isn't stupid. I have always enjoyed Delorenzo's column. But correct me if I am wrong, he predicted a whole lot of 'not good' when Mulally showed up at Ford. Mulally is not a 'car guy'. We all know how that turned out. GMC needs to stay if for no other reason that it gives Cadillac and Buick dealers a line of trucks. It doesn't cost much to bring this line of slightly different Chevy clones to market.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/01/general-motors-to-re-enter-medium-duty-truck-segment/ Can't say it comes as too much of a surprise. Good news for Ford medium duty customers, as I doubt Ford will leave the market if GM is in it.

This type of advertising goes over big with a certain demographic. Fact of the matter is the 6.7L Powerstroke needs to be PERFECT. Ford has lost a tremendous amount of credibility with commercial users over the 6.0L and 6.4L. I think the problems with previous Powerstrokes are the main reason for Dodge outselling Ford in class 4 and 5 recently.

I think a lot of fleet customers are going with Dodge/Cummins in class 4/5 because they own Freightliner (and Ford) medium trucks with the same engine.

Wasn't Iaccoca pushing for a 2000 lbs. $2000 car or something like that?

My guess is they are getting enough orders for the PPV they don't need to market a civilian version.

Valid point. I am no Iaccoca fan, but he does admit his culpability in the matter, and he acknowledges that management should be held to a higher moral standard. I am sure that Ford was not the only auto manufacturer to ever have to make a decision on cost over safety. Did Ford knowingly make a dangerous car? No. Could Ford have made the Pinto safer? Yes. Would it have been reasonable for Ford to do so? That's the real question. And it becomes a difficult question to answer if the Pinto was 'as safe' as the average contemporary compact car. BTW- I enjoyed reading Lacey's book. I think it clearly shows who the real hero of the Ford Motor Company was, HF II. It sure wasn't grandpa.

Iaccoca told it like it was. The Pinto was no more dangerous than any similarly sized RWD subcompact available at that time. When GM went through those lawsuits over the side-saddle fuel tanks on 70's-early 80's pickups, I was amazed how similar the situation was to the Pinto.

They should have kept Mercury and axed Lincoln.