GearheadGrrrl

Ford had Tesla beat on service long ago- Nearest TSLA store is 180 miles away and they charge $100 minimum for labor and $1/mile both ways, add the sales tax and it costs $500 for the simplest TSLA service here. Ford has three EV certified dealers within 50 miles... No way would I buy a Tesla here!

Actually more of a waste to not fully develop a model and it's variants to maximize it's appeal to diverse customers once the investment has been made in the F650/750. For example, tandem drive axles have probably already been engineered and with the PS V8 good for at least 50K GCW, the same engine should be able to provide a 50K GVW which is enough for many government buyers, landscapers, and small contractors. Look what Daimler has done with the Business Class- Their options list is a small book so customers can design the exact truck for their needs. Some of this stuff is just stupid simple- Like a rear seat delete option for customers who need protected space for electronic gear, protective clothing, etc.. And if Ford can offer factory built 4x4s at modest extra cost up through the F600, why can't they factory build F650/750s 4x4s too at a price thousands of dollars less aftermarket conversions?

If the F750 tractor were a new model and a tractor version had to be developed, that might be true. But the F750 tractor has been around for years and the development costs were long ago paid for... So F750 tractors should be just as profitable as the rest of the F series heavies.

VW Group didn't become one of the world's largest auto and truck makers by stealing market share, after WW2 the allies shopped VW around the US and UK automakers and there were no takers. Daimler didn't steal half the big truck market, dumb Ford management in the 90s damn near gave it to them and GM gave Volvo a similar gift. And did Toyota steal market share to challenge Ford and GM for the North American sales crown? No, while we dumped Vega and Pinto on the market they carefully adapted their cars to our needs, to the point of developing a product that was almost unique to North America. Meanwhile, our "Big 2" have all but abandoned the market for not just small cars but cars, period and expect the world to learn to love our massive trucks and SUVs...

Drove a Canadian spec LT9000 like that for a couple weeks- Plenty of torque from the 400HP Cat 3406 and even with 16K and 44K axles it rode good.

Used to be that Ford's hybrids were slow sellers, the market has changed and now hybrids sell fastest in many models like Escape. In the Maverick the problem is compounded by the hybrid being the lowest priced offering...

Detroit's attempts at competing with the imports were pretty clumsy- Falcon, Corvair, and Valiant were all bigger cars that didn't really compete with the Beetle and most of the imports. Detroit's 2nd attempt with the Pinto and Vega wasn't much smarter- Pinto was halfway competent but a GM exec admitted he was glad he wasn't poor and had to drive a Vega. Had a Mk.1 Cortina GT and it was a decent car- Fast as an MGB but with a back seat and decent trunk. After two decades of feeling there way around the small car market Ford finally wised up and gave us the Escort "world car" and quit wasting their money on different cars for every market.

Here in the "rust belt" the newer aluminum cab would be a competitive advantage. The Freightliner M2 and Paccar conventional have aluminum cabs and that's one of the reasons they've been taking sales from Ford and International.

Heck, most of the 30 year old Econoline is still in production and the C Series hung around for over 30 years... The "Legacy" F650/750 is just gettin' goin'!(LOL)

E85 has 30% less energy content than gasoline, but much higher octane which the Transit Connect's engine with it's 12:1 compression can take advantage of. My Transit Connect is EPA rated for 28 MPG highway and I'm getting 25 MPG on E85.

E85 is attractive, my daily drivers are a VW Golf TDI that gets around 45 MPG and a Ford Transit Connect that gets 25 MPG on E85. Since diesel prices went up E85 has been around half the price of diesel so both cost about the same to run, a similar sized car to the VW Golf running on E85 like the flex fuel Focus or Audis A4 E85 capable turbocharged hot rod would be even cheaper to run.

"Full size" Transit is too big to share a platform with Ranger/Bronco and it's unit body vs. BOF too. Transits come in four sizes, maybe they're talking about the Transit Custom (between big Transit and Transit Connect) which already has an EV variant and could be jacked into a Bronco or hacked into a Ranger. But more likely Ford will have changed their mind again by then anyway...

Good points, on most Interstates the weight limit is 80K pounds and a typical ICE tractor is 18-20K and a the most common trailer, a 53' van is around 15K pounds. That gives us an MT weight of around 34K and a payload of 46K for a generic 5 axle combination. I'm hearing estimates of around 32K for the TSLA tractor's weight, 12-14K more than an ICE tractor resulting in a loss of around 30% of payload, which is a deal killer for many truckers. But most tractor-trailer combinations fill up their trailers well before they get overweight, in fact I saw a study that showed the average 5 Axle tractor-trailer combination operating at around 44K pounds! Hook a TSLA in place of an ICE tractor and that average weight rises to around 57K pounds, putting a lot of extra wear on tires and requiring a lot more energy in whatever form to move that bloated TSLA. It gets worse- The ICE tractor could use a smaller engine to save more weight at light real world weights, and lift 2 of the combination's 5 axles to further conserve tires and energy. After figuring in these and all the TSLA tractor's failings, an ICE tractor running on biofuels or hydrogen is better for the environment and trucking!

Fleet buyer will look at that and demand that 2 of the 3 motors be deleted so they can haul more weight!

I have to admit to being pretty impressed with some of the Ford Pro tools, to the point that I think Ford should offer them to other manufacturers in segments where Ford doesn't compete like trucks bigger than the F750, etc. And while us old hands who learned on trucks with manual transmissions, no cameras, and no ABS probably don't need Ford Pro's tools, we were all newbies once and the newbies today could sure use Ford Pro's help!

A lot off the old car guys have what the AAers call "euphoric recall" when praising half century old cars. Truth is, the 60s big block Mustangs were so nose heavy that they couldn't put their power to the ground anyway, as for the small blocks even the GT350 was slower than today's Ecoboost powered Mustang. In SCCA Autocross racing even the newer Fox body Mustangs were no faster than the Corvairs until the SCCA allowed wider tires so they could get some traction. And don't get me started on what ill handling pigs 55-57 Chevies were and how badly the C2 Corvettes steered when they weren't trying to take off...

However the sale went down, it was a damn short sighted mistake! In the 90s most heavy truck makers relied on vendors like Eaton, Cummins, Cat, etc. for powertrains and those vendors got most of the profit on a new truck as fleet buyers could play the half dozen plus truck makers around then against each other to get the lowest price. Throw in the fact that Ford's own mid range 6 cylinder diesel was going to need a lot of work to pass the upcoming EPA regs and a good case could be made for cutting back on heavy trucks before the investment was made in what became the Sterling conventional. Once the investment was made there was no financial benefit in giving the new truck line away to Daimler. Today the big truck making business is much more profitable with only four competitors left and proprietary engines most common, and Ford would be sharing in that profitable market and the prestige of being a full line manufacturer if they hadn't given their heavy truck business away.

Drivers never had it so good- For $30K you can get a new EcoBeast Mustang that will run high 13 second quarter miles like a 60s big block Mustang, and unlike the 60s big block it'll turn instead of plow and stop again and again with no drama. Gets mid 20s MPG too...

I prefer cabovers myself, but the long wheel base on a cabover is pretty much another trucking fetish like boxy axle forward long hood KWs and Pete conventionals. Unless you need a long wheelbase to get legal under Bridge Formula or are using that extra frame length to carry more cargo or equipment like a generator, etc.. with a long wheelbase you're braking the wind twice and the MPG totally goes to hell!

I suspect Daimler's decision was largely driven by the need to reduce the number of cabs they had to update for the new emissions and other regulations- At the time they were building the new Western Star, maybe still the old Western Star, retiring the original Freightliner, the "Century Class" et all, Cascadia, M2, and Sterling conventional cabs. Even for the market leader whose selling 100K units a year in North America that's too many cabs!

IIRC the LTL was a bit too successful at first as it sold way better than Ford expected. But ultimately the entire owner operator new truck market collapsed and even KW and Pete now mostly rely on fleet orders to turn a profit.

If that's 1st gen TC there's probably a recall on that, check with Ford or a dealer.

Fiesta is still popular in SCCA racing, hopefully Ford Performance will continue to support these racers.

Probably 2", ordered my Transit Connect with factory towing package and it came with 2" even though it's only rated for 2000 pounds.

The new 6.8... Why? An engine less than 10% smaller than the 7.3 isn't worth the bother!