7Mary3

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!

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.