Bob Rosadini
-
Posts
4,307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Bob Rosadini
-
-
On 4/13/2024 at 12:00 PM, 7Mary3 said:
Interesting topic, but it is ironic that Ford will probably be the LEAST likely truck manufacturer to offer the B6.7 Gas. The engine is attracting considerable interest, particularly from the manufacturers currently offering the B6.7 Diesel. Freightliner has already confirmed to their dealers, International is likely, Isuzu/Chevy a strong possibility in their class 6/7 LCF, and Mack would be silly not to in their medium duty. Good thing for Ford is they should still maintain a substantial price advantage over those potential gasoline medium truck competitors.
Commercial truck guy at local dealer just told me if you want a 650/750 PS you are looking at a year wait. Apparently profitability/demand for 250-350, and probably 450,550 leave OAP with low allocation. You would think this would now make air brakes on a gas 650/750 a top priority but probably not in their infinite wisdom.
On another note, one of biggest mulch suppliers in Mass/RI has about 10 satelite locations that are fed from main facility that processes the logs. These locations have a 750 with bodies that are probably capable of 15 yds. I went by the main facility the other day and looked like they had a bunch of new trucks in. A couple of days later I stopped at one of the satelites and one of these new trucks was there. Big heavy rubber, aluminum wheels and no V-8 or PS badge. so I went around to other side and there was the DEF tank. No reason PS badge would not have been on this truck as it would not have interferred with wrap/decals. Could these be running some test engine??
-
Hah. I replaced my wife's 65 Mustang with a new Pinto Hatchback..4 speed, dark green -nice little car. We lived in Brewster NY ( Junction of I-84 and what is now I-684.) I worked in White Plains. This was during first oil embargo-gas only odd/even days depending on plate number. So she was teaching school and would gas up cars during her lunch break. I had taken it to work one day and it was stolen right out of parking garage.. Cop said econoboxes were the hot stolen car.
One thing I remember was driving to work with it one morning and looked around me and I was one of 6 Pintos in "formation"
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
Oh yeah! That was done at the request of White Motors. When White spun off Diamond Reo in 1972 the Reo gas engines were included, that left White without a gasoline option. For a year or two White offered the GMC V-6's in some 4000 series trucks until they introduced the 'Giesel'. The 'Giesel' or 'Mustang VIII' as it was sometimes called was basically a Cummins 470 V-8 re-engineered into a gasoline engine. Lower compression pistons, spark plugs where the injectors were, a distributor and a 2bbl. Holley carburetor. I know few were made, but I never heard anything bad about the Giesel either. It was bound to be better than any of the small Cummins V-6 and V-8 diesels!
Wow-forgot about that one!
-
15 hours ago, jpd80 said:
With respect, I think California’s legislation is going to impact Cummins engine sales more than Ford.
But you are right, Ford will wait until the last moment before deciding which way to go and whatever
costs them less is they way they will swing.
Would Ford entertain converting Powerstroke to 6.7 gas turbo or expand the Godzilla range with turbo?
Or would they do nothing……
JP- Agree 100% with your first comment. That is my point- 6.7 PS Sales in 650/750 in those two states are I'm sure a fraction of the 6.7 Cummins sales in Internationals and Paccars.-so they (cummins) really have an incentive to have a gasser. Ford HAS a serviceable gasser but instead of tweaking that-and most importantly adding air brakes as an option that would make the 650/750 all that more attractive/competitive, they do nothing. Ford Pro is a one dimensional effort IMO based on the success of the Transit.
1 hour ago, Rick73 said:
The Cummins 6.7L gasoline engine is listed with power ratings from 220 to 325 HP, which is already matched by Ford 7.3L V8. I think the bigger issues are torque ratings, which Cummins list at 600 and 660 pound-feet, and durability, whether real or perceived. I am not a big fan of turbo gas engines because they don’t deliver the economy they were originally suppose to, but there is little doubt they deliver much greater torque for a given engine displacement, and also much higher power and torque at high elevations compared to naturally aspirated engines.The famous Ford 300 cubic inch inline six you mention were only good for about 150 HP in later years, so while they had great reputation, they were very underpowered by today’s standards. As a teenager I got to drive a couple in F-600 trucks and they were no comparison to the Ford V10 I owned in a motorhome, and the newer and simpler 7.3L V8 is even better. It will be interesting to see which customers the new Cummins attracts.
Rick- I get it on the 300's "as is" configuration. My question is how many cubes could you get out of it- I'm sure you couldn't get it to 6 L, but better yet as good as the 300 was, does the architecture lend itself to a bigger version...if in fact Ford Pro recognizes the value of class 4,5, 6,7 if they really want to hold Ford's position as the commercial leader.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
Also consider that the Ford 7.3 was not developed as a 6.7 Powerstroke replacement but as an affordable
gasoline variant that is priced considerably less. The 7.3 MD is also an extension of the Super Duty application.
By contrast, Cummins looks to be in a different situation and developing the 6.7 gasoline engine for a different
purpose, as a replacement for the diesel version. It seems to have considerably more torque than the Ford 7.3,
much closer to the rating of the diesel version (keeping mind the conservative rating system in Medium Duty)
It looks like Cummins really needs the 6.7 gas engine to be a success in a much wider market…..
Well guys it seems Cummins recognizes a need for a gasoline engine-think California/Oregon and Ford in their infinite wisdom says,,"nah, who needs that volume". How many cubes could you get oiut of a 300 six? I've seen some hyou tube videos where guys play with that engine and get big power out of it.
-
My son has a 2015 150 with 180,000 miles idles rough and also breaks up at speed. Shop he goes to says it definitely has one bad injector. I don't think he has ever done anything to clean intake valves.
Anyone have any experience with the CRC product?
-
2 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Agree cost of a 6.7L Cummins gas would likely be significantly higher than Ford’s 7.3L Godzilla, but to be fair, I think buyers would probably see a Cummins turbo gas engine as more capable for heavy towing in a 1-Ton truck. I doubt it would get same tow rating as a comparable HD diesel but Cummins is a massive engine weighing almost twice as much as 7.3L Ford, and with turbo increasing torque and power at low RPMs, it could bridge gap between present-day HD gas and diesel.Just guessing, but expect a 6.7L Cummins gas engine itself won’t be that much cheaper than a diesel, though savings in exhaust emissions equipment could be significant.
Also not fooling with regen cycles could be another attraction in particular if less power is not an issue. My concern is in any case, this is not good news for Ford.
-
9 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Bob, Stellantis already has a twin turbo 3-liter inline six that can make up to +/- 500 HP, but in my opinion it’s way too light-duty for a 1-Ton super duty RAM pickup. The 3L six may soon end up in 1/2-ton RAM, but for a super duty pickup towing a 20,000+ pound trailer, it would probably crater under constant heavy load; even if derated. 😆The 6.7L Cummins on the other hand should have far greater GCWR capabilities, and since it shares much with 6.7L Cummins diesel, it should be an easy fit in a RAM. Personally, I think diesel-like performance and durability but with gasoline as fuel would attract a lot of buyers. Just my 2 cents.
Thx Rick. did not know it was only 3 liters. Guess they are trying to compete with Ford's 2.7 EB- which by the way, I've never heard an owner complain about the power it puts out-so for sure I would have to believe the 6.7 Gas would be a natural for Ram. Only question is the 6.8/7.3 's in a Ford are a good choice based on price vs. a Power Stroke. I would think the 6.7 Cummins gas will not be as big a cost savings vs a diesel in a Ram.
-
On 4/3/2024 at 3:15 PM, Rick73 said:
Wonder if that 6.7L turbo gasoline Cummins could also end up as a RAM heavy duty pickup option?
I would doubt that, if they in fact will soon have a turbo straight six of their own. Not sure when this is supposed to be available.
-
7 hours ago, SoonerLS said:
The hydrogen tanks are, as I understand it, usually made of composites (IIRC, there are/were some fuel cell vehicles which use(d) exchangeable cells to speed up refueling), so I wouldn’t expect them to be particularly heavy. Lithium-based batteries sized for vehicles are usually quite heavy, so I’d expect a fuel cell vehicle to have a significant weight advantage.
THx..I guess I'm thinking they would be same as a CNG tank...A flammable gas
-
Check this out...https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0072230.pdf
Looks like Ford's unique position of having the only gasoline power for class 6 and 7 is over. And unlike Ford, you can bet International, F.liner, and Paccar will offer this motor with an air compressor! Will it cost more than a 7.3 Godzilla? I'm sure. Will customers be willing to pay a premium? Im sure.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Yeah, I saw that too, but their specs only show weight for Battery Electric tractor, yet conveniently left off weight on Fuel-Cell Electric tractor specs. I don’t want to assume it’s necessarily worse (heavier), but certainly makes me curious. They could at least have added a footnote explaining why FCEV weight was not listed. Hydrogen-based energy storage doesn’t seem that promising to me so I don’t follow the technology close enough to know details like typical weight for entire system. I have personal bias against vehicles with multiple 10,000 PSI storage tanks.Thx-good catch. I did not think they were pushing a battery electric- I assumed all their efforts now were focused on hydrogen. But I would have to assume the weight of the hydrogen tank to say nothing of what is required to convert it to electricity, is not insignificant??
-
On 3/31/2024 at 6:35 PM, Rick73 said:
I believe that 29,000 pounds applies to BEV tractor, but did not see a weight for fuel cell variant. I wonder if it’s because they don’t know FCEV weight, or because it’s even higher and don’t want to release it yet?Anyway, found charging trailer interesting. If connected to grid with 480 VAC it makes a bit more sense, but 350 kW Genset option piqued my curiosity. Under what conditions would you run a Genset to charge a tractor/truck? I would assume it would be primarily for BEV tractor, and that Genset likely runs on diesel, though I missed fuel type if it was specified.
29,000 lb is from Nikola web site..had to hunt for it..like they really wanted to give it little coverage😎
-
Further thought on Nikola, given a tractor weight of 29,000 lbs and given subsidies that I am paying for to lower the price, I guess I have to view this as another "green initiative" being shoved down our throats.
My broken record speech...in due time when the free market says it makes sense. Or how about...let's solve the "climate crisis" by starting with China, India, etc who continue to crank out new coal fired power plants that generate far more pollutants than I believe we do with our entire ICE "fleet".
May well be a better alternative to electrics-a loser for sure-, but still seems like a loser when all factors are considered-or so it seems to me.
But forgive me, what am I thinking, why would we consider ALL factors?🤔
PS..After working my butt off for 44 years, and thinking my grandkids will benefit from my hard work, I now have to shell out a big number every year to satisfy such subsidies like this. I'd feel much better if my money was buying a few more 155 shells to help out the Ukrainians.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
Nikola may have started as a scam, but they are making a pretty good go of it now. Jury is still out on hydrogen, but good chance it may eventually replace diesel in long haul trucking. And if it does Nikola will be in a good position:
Trevor Milton was the guy that started it and was behind all the phony demos. He ultimately was prosecuted and is no longer involved I do believe.
-
You guys don't get it. Ford Pro is where it is at now- that is the big money maker. And while they did not reveal anything at the Work Truck Show-which is where anything big in commercial vehicles is usually announced, Mr Cannis and his team of truck professionals will be announcing new color choices for the Transit at New York.
While Ram and GM have announced new organizations similar to Ford Pro they have a lot of catching up to do if they are going to catch Ford's team.
Not sure where I saw it, but a clip of the Ford Pro line up....an array of about seven Transits, and one F-150- all white of course. Super Duty 250-750??? Nah!
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, akirby said:
Exactly.So Much Horseshit??
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Well I'm giving it time. So far it has not reset. However, I HAD "Trip 1, Trip 2." Now Trip 1 only🤔
I'll give it another week before I take it back.
Time to eat my words. It is there!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, akirby said:
I was watching John Oliver on hbo last week. Things went bad when they merged with McDonnell Douglas and the MD executives essentially took over. They’ve been cutting costs and doing massive stock buy backs ever since. Seems like a big Ponzi scheme to pump up the stock price so they can dump and run. There is no other reasonable explanation for their behavior. Even the workers said they wouldn’t fly on the planes they were building.Interesting..I forgot about McDonnel Douglas. Think of that..three giants merged into one..the good and the bad I guess associated with the "synergism" associated with mergers. Just wonder how the elimination of competition somehow waters down the desire to be the best- or the NEED to be the best to survive??
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, ice-capades said:
I've wondered about the same thing often lately with issues continuing almost daily now along with more and more evidence about the poor manufacturing oversight within Boeing. As an engineer with 30 years' experience at Boeing, including as CEO, one can only imagine what Alam Mulally thinks of the current situation while the current CEO, focused on profits, remains in his position. Boeing is in serious trouble.
Not to get off thread but if I read correctly the move to assemble air frames-not sure if the right term-how about fuselage?- to Spirit in SC was a cost saving move. Think of the cost of shipping these to Witchita??? And it was still cheaper? Ok so you can assume labor rates was a big difference?
Also what other "economies" were associated with that move??
No such thing as a free lunch!
-
1
-
-
On 3/14/2024 at 10:56 AM, Bob Rosadini said:
Well AKI figured new vehicle..I'm not touching it. So finally took it to dealer.
This off invoice:
A Concern
Customer states trip will reset itself, screen will go black and will lose radio presets often but not every day Please check and advise.
Correction
Updated IPC,PCM, ACM and GWM. and test drove. Screen is working properly
Something tells me nothing will change. Only positive is I had an Escape for a day no charge, a '21 I looked under hood to see if it was a Briggs and Stratton there and find a 3 banger! But on rural roads it was fine and was reading 28 mpg
Well I'm giving it time. So far it has not reset. However, I HAD "Trip 1, Trip 2." Now Trip 1 only🤔
I'll give it another week before I take it back.
-
8 minutes ago, rmc523 said:
It's crazy, because Ford quality seemed pretty good under Mulally (after he got it under control) and then it went off the rails after he left.
Wonder what Al thinks of the current mess at Boeing🤔
-
3
-
-
On 2/8/2024 at 10:42 AM, akirby said:
Not sure but I’d try pulling the negative battery cable for a few minutes.
Well AKI figured new vehicle..I'm not touching it. So finally took it to dealer.
This off invoice:
A Concern
Customer states trip will reset itself, screen will go black and will lose radio presets often but not every day Please check and advise.
Correction
Updated IPC,PCM, ACM and GWM. and test drove. Screen is working properly
Something tells me nothing will change. Only positive is I had an Escape for a day no charge, a '21 I looked under hood to see if it was a Briggs and Stratton there and find a 3 banger! But on rural roads it was fine and was reading 28 mpg
-
On 3/1/2024 at 2:47 AM, jpd80 said:
Internally, there’s a strong competition going on between traditional project development
of BEVs versus a more start up oriented Tesla style clean sheet approach.
Love it or hate it, I think the smaller more efficient development teams are going to win out
over Ford’s internal desire to keep reusing already developed modules and systems.
What Ford needs is a watershed moment where it throws out 75% of the crap it thinks
is needed to develop vehicles and just goes with a more minimalist approach that
isnt clogged up by Ford’s big book of rules aka the book says you can’t do it that way…
The biggest thing holding back Ford is its slavish devotion to multi-level bureaucracy.
Bingo. I had a boss and one of his favorite sayings was..."Paralysis through analysis." My view has always been.."staff disease". On my favorite subject of heavy trucks, a good example is Ford's ongoing delay of offering air brakes on a 750 equipped with the 7.3 Godzilla. This option has been delayed ever since the 7.3 came out as an alternative the the $10k+ premium for the Power Stroke. I've been led to believe they didn't have the money to engineer this option in. If you offer air on a 750 with a 33,000lb. rating, should not take a lot of effort to put that compressor on a 7.3. Unless too many clueless people are involved in the approval process.
One long time retired Ford poster has said "commercial trucks" was a dead end career wise. Well now we are led to believe Ford Pro is the new cash cow. Most likely however the decision makers in that organization are an in-house product of the bureaucracy many here have referred to.
Cummins 6.7 Gas
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
I am aware that like sheep, this state is following Calif. But does a state have to follow all provisions? Plus wouldn't a dealer know that it is not a matter of availability and a wait of a year but rather it is well known that a PS will not be available in CA and Oregon in 25, wouldn't that be common knowledge here?
Again my biggest question is why the continued BS given as reasons for unavailability of air brakes??
The utilities around here all run heavy single axles-be they dump trucks towing a tandem tag axle usually carrying a Deere or Cat loader/backhoe or a heavy bucket/polecat towing a big cable reel- I would assume those have cable trailers have air brakes? I would assume 7M you have similar needs??