Bob Rosadini
-
Posts
4,320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Bob Rosadini
-
-
Well I've been trying to find out what my 5.0, 3.31 axle equipped truck can't tow. And as I do not have a computer science degree, if it is in my "E" owners manual, I can't find it. I hear a 5.0 powered 150 is good for 14,000 lbs....but with a 3.31 rear???
-
4 hours ago, Joe771476 said:
Actually I'd like to see a tandem since Freightliner went out of their way to get CT to buy them because Ford doesn't make them.......yet! Teach Freightliner a hard lesson!
Joe..putting a tandem on a current 750 with no other changes would be like asking a fat gal to run a marathon. As I've said many times I think there is a market for a low priced tandem but not with current engine trans- in particular the trans.
-
2 hours ago, tbone said:
Totally agree. I’m a big fan of the STX grill. I would consider swapping it to a higher end model if I had one. It looks the cleanest IMO.
T bone..glad I'm not the only one! wonder what it takes to get a "gray market" 150!
-
1
-
-
Truck King site has posted a towing comparison between a 6.8 powered F-250 and a 5.0 powered 150. Nicely done comparison but thing that really hit home was the 150 was a nicely equipped XLT BUT it had the STX grill. Unfortunately that grill treatment is NOT offered in the US on an XLT 150. Only reason I bought an STX was I think the grill treatment is the best vs all the "busy" grill treatments that come with 150's above XL Level.
Ford should really think about offering that "truck like" grill in US on XLT versions.
-
By the way, a lot of news this past week about building EV inventories. Also I saw some stats about a survey that showed like under 20% of buyers would be interested in buying an EV..even with the glowing tales of their performance, as well as the good they are doing to solve the climate crisis.
-
21 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Roff makes some excellent points. The main issue for me is that BEVs do not exist in a vacuum, so promoting or mandating them comes at a real cost. Incentives, as an example, are funded by tax payers, and that money affects other programs, or services, or adds to inflation, etc. As they say, there is no free lunch. And it doesn’t stop with $7,500 incentives. Additional funds will be required to generate electricity and charge vehicles.
Unintended consequences like drivers keeping old ICE vehicles longer is a reality. It is for me. And if BEV vehicles are larger and heavier, it will also promote keeping older larger ICE instead of the smaller ones which are more fuel efficient. When auto makers have to fund BEV from ICE profits, it will likely make ICE more expensive. When an empty ICE cargo van can easily exceed over $60K, it’s difficult for me to not partly blame BEVs for much of price increase. In my opinion manufacturers are being forced to become greedy with ICE in order to fund BEV investments.
As I've said many times ...at a measured pace. but with the regime we have in Washington, it is an issue that draws our attention from everything else that is "fugged up".
Everytime you read an article about the benefits of electrification, does it ever mention the obstacles we face to do this at such an accelerated pace? Be it raw material, be it power generation, be it disposal of batteries at end of life etc. John Kerry is off to China again..but he has the balls to say he will not push China on their very distant compliance dates-while they crank out new coal fired power plants and we close ours..
As for Rick's last point that I "emboldened", Farley makes no bones about it...ICE is paying for the EV push..be it in inflated ICE pricing or decontented ICE's for the same price.
-
14 hours ago, Joe771476 said:
Thanks Bob for that, but haven't I seen instances where Ford has made a small number of class 8's? How hard would it be?
The 750 can go as high as 37,000 lb GVW which is a class 8 but I don't think it is reported as such. Just as in the old days of the GM mediums. You could get a Chevy or GMC that exceeded 33,000 lbs but when HDT was publishing monthly stats, they never reported any GM class 8 sales if my memory is correct.
-
9 hours ago, rperez817 said:
Yes way. Toyota RAV4 is the best seller in Connecticut and Honda CR-V the best seller in New Jersey for retail sales overall. Don't know about the top selling pickup trucks or commercial vehicles in those states.
I thought we were talking trucks??
-
23 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
Back to the 650/750, I really think now Ford should stick to the configurations they have, I doubt a tandem axle or Cummins option would get them any meaningful increase in sales. However, something that might be able to help sales of these trucks would be adding the Allison 2500 and 3000 series transmissions to the option list. Ford would be able to offer a lot more P.T.O. configurations with Allison transmissions. The 6.7L Powerstroke is fine and very comparable overall to the Cummins ISB, and Ford would likely have a hard time getting engines from Cummins anyway.
Did air brakes for the 7.3L gas engine make it to the option list yet? I see very few new 650's and 750's with the 7.3L.
7M,
Agree 100% on the trans issue. Like I said previously, the Power Stroke may be a turn off for some buyers but not to the degree that the transmission is. As for a tandem, I can't see that as a high cost item to add. There are plenty of applications where a tandem serves as a platform with some sort of processing unit such as a Vactor, crane hydro seeder, etc. Chassis gets the unit to job site where it then sits for better part of day while auxiliary power unit powers the equipment. Remember "back in the day, Ford offered tandems down to a T-700. I think it was a 28,000 lb set up
Oh and my dealer source says 24 order guide should be out in next 7-10 days
-
Looking at figures Antaus just posted looks like the 22% gain in medium trucks is all 650/750 as the OAP production of 550/600 is all reported under Super Duty sales.
-
2 hours ago, akirby said:
Interesting how Ram carries Utah-small market-probably a very aggressive Ram dealer???. Also I'm sure if Chev/GMC were combined I'm sure there would be far fewer Blue states.
-
5 hours ago, Joe771476 said:
Anyway, I've asked before, butcan a normally spec'd F750 as a typical State DOT dump truck be outfitted with a sander and plow?
Joe,
Well based on'23 order guide you can get a 750 with 14,000 lb front axle and a 26,000 rear, which everything else being proper should give you a 40,000 GVW. but even with those axles max GVW you can get is 37,000. But as a practical matter, IMO I don 't think the 6.7 Power Stroke is up to that service and the Torque Shift trans even less so.
The 550 with that power train is very popular around here with DPW's as they are "nimble" and good for cleaning up intersections and handling typical nuisance 4" snow falls but I can't see the 750 in a "conga line" on an interstate.
-
3 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Agree on it being cheaper to keep whatever design is existing, though that approach may have adverse long-term consequences if the product falls behind competition. Not suggesting older Cyclone V6 has, but at some point everything needs some upgrading or replacement. Trend from various manufacturers has been replacement of V6 with I-6 when I-4 wasn’t enough displacement.Anyway, I think the new Mustang I-4 geometry would lend itself well to Atkinson cycle because of the very long stroke-to-bore ratio which exceeds 1.2. By comparison, the 3.3L is close to square, so if pushing compression ratio up to 13:1 or even higher in the name of lower fuel consumption (BSFC), then a Mustang-engine-based I-6 should have an advantage.
Also, an inline-6 only has two cams instead of the V6’s 4, so camshaft drive should be simpler, lower-cost, and may have less inherent friction.
I doubt it will happen, but if Ford have excess engineering, they should get rid of poor performers and assign some top talent to design a dual-clutch hybrid transmission for RWD heavier SUV and pickups. I know there were issues with dual-clutch transmissions in the past, but a transmission dedicated solely for hybrid applications could succeed if done right. Hyundai seems to be achieving great fuel economy with hybrid DCT. Overall I’m just saying it’s too early to give up completely on non-BEV engineering.
For sure..that is my fear.
-
2
-
-
Well guys, thx very much for all the responses. I was kind of surprised this important topic had not come up sooner.
Some quick thoughts....
-Ric 73 Your view on India/China is the best support for the old saying..." Statistics 101-How to lie with numbers"?. Kind of like death by a thousand slices.
- Two more sayings I always subscribed to- "work expands with time allocated", and "if you leave an office -cube vacant, someone will think of a way to occupy it.
-And for sure on the engineering manpower, and in support of Al M's "One Ford", it looks like that has been followed with the new Ranger development but for sure it seems a lot of dollars are spent world wide working on other projects in which more effort could probably be made if rule no. 1 could be "make it work world wide. At least it looks like the guys at Ford Otosan who I read were allegedly in charge of worldwide heavy truck engineering- has worked to some degree as the instrument panels , Steering wheel/controls In the heavy F-Max look like they came off of a 150.
Keep the thoughts coming as I'm as usual getting an education.
-
So any opinions on the latest round of manpower cuts? It has been publicized that Ford has far more engineers than the competition. Yet Ford has the worst recall history I do believe of anyone. Is that a function of poor engineering? Poor outsourcing decisions? If so no doubt that the functional guys making the big bucks should be held accountable for that.
Then I keep reading about the need for the ICE side of the business -which IS profitable -to continue to fund the EV side? How is the ICE side expected to continue funding the EV side if investment is not made to keep it profitable?? Is GM/Stellantis sitting on their hands in terms of ICE improvements???
In yesterday's WSJ, Farley is quoted as saying last month that....."the cost of making an EV might not be equal to that of internal combustion vehicles until after 2030". Now I recognize parity in costs is not the same as profitability, but that says the buying public will have to be willing to pay the premium for a comparable vehicle.
Then again with Ford about to sit down with the UAW nothing like sowing a little fear.
To repeat my favorite thought-- EVs yes, but in due time when all the factors make the numbers work. And who knows, in a year and a half, perhaps everything we do-and Europe for that matter, will not be driven by the climate change panic. Perhaps even China and India will clean up their act in terms of their disproportionate contributions to the climate problem
Thoughts??
-
10 hours ago, SoonerLS said:
Yeah, you can get a Forscan app for your iPhone or Android so you can use it to pull codes, get readouts from sensors, etc, but to do the programming, you need the Windows version.
Stay tuned!
-
1
-
-
On 6/22/2023 at 10:28 AM, Bob Rosadini said:
The CH was introduced in 88. I never thought the cab was constrained..at least for vocational use-for that matter I never thought the R was constrained. Now could it be constrained for an OO "hotshot" who has his wife and dog with him?..maybe. And I have never sat in an MD much less driven one, but for its intended vocational use, just how much seat space do you need? G'head says it utilizes CH doors. so the rest of the cab is unique to the MD? Given its likely volume, I am surprised Mack would not have used the cab.structure as well.
Price wise, 33,000 gvw, same 6.7, Allison or Eaton trans, I'W, how do the FL, MV's stack up? I'm assuming the Paccar twins are at the highest end of the cost structure and of course a F-750 would be the very lowest priced.
But again, what do I know as the owner of a B-61X. I've always wondered...what was Mack thinking when they introduced the "aerodynamic B" in '53 while still offering the spacious "L" with its big square windshields, and roomy, high seating position cab. A decision I'm sure driven by marketing types who put "change" before functionality.?
Further to my comment on Mack's long ago decision to replace the spacious "L" cab with the "aero" B model . Note attached picture of a B-73 restoration that a friend of mine is just completing.
-
3
-
-
On 6/17/2023 at 9:12 AM, SoonerLS said:
It's not particularly difficult to do the computer part; you'll just need the FORScan software and an adapter for your laptop. There's a tutorial in the first post of this thread at F150 Forum:
https://www.f150forum.com/f129/forscan-14th-gen-f150s-481816/
The FORScan software is free, but I think you now need an Extended License to do programming. I bought a Lifetime License back in '21, but it looks like they only offer a Free 2-Month Trial License and a $12 1-Year license now.
FWIW, FORScan is super useful for troubleshooting and diagnosing these modern electronic monsters. It can show you the outputs of the vehicle's sensors in real time, so, if you understand what you're looking at, you can see what's wrong. Unfortunately, it can only show you the data, it can't understand it for you.
For the OBD interface, I use the OBDLink MX+ because it's Bluetooth and will pair with both my laptop and iPhone, but at $140, that might be more than some want to pay. The ODBLink EX is the same basic adapter, but with a USB interface instead of Bluetooth and a $60 price tag.
FORScan site:
https://www.forscan.org/home.html
OBDLink MX+
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07JFRFJG6
OBDLink EX
https://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-EX-FORScan-OBD-Adapter/dp/B081VQVD3F
Sooner,
Thx- I did some checking on Forscan and you need Windows. When I retired that was the end of my PC days as we always had Apples for my kids, wife and then myself.
I've been busy with another project o one of my kids will hve to help me out.
-
On 6/24/2023 at 5:34 PM, Captainp4 said:
What year is it? There's usually a harness tucked up under the dash on the older ones you just plug in to.
22..built Oct 22
-
6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
Interesting. We were buying Fords in the Blue Diamond days, but our upfit required @$5000 worth of modifications to the Ford, while the Freightliner could be ordered to require no modifications. Good by Ford. Since Freightliner offers the ISL/G (now the L9N) that locked them in. Won't look at another medium duty, and we will just order and wait if there are availability issues.
You have to think...you are selling a vocational truck. How could they be that stupid regarding the upfitter issue.
-
8 hours ago, iamweasel said:
Prior to Covid, usually the pricing on Class 7 mediums (when quoting the same specs) from what I saw was:
- Ford = The Cheapest
- Hino = $1-2K more than Ford
- International = $2-3K more than Ford
- Freightliner = $5K more than Ford
- Paccar = Anywhere between $3K to $7K more than Ford
Paccar is the most erratic on pricing. When they want a deal they are not afraid to go low on the price, especially with mediums. Remains to be seen where Mack ends up as we've only quoted against them a couple times and deals these days are still about availability more so than price.
As far as cab room, keep in mind - just like with Rangers and F-150/F-250's growing in size - people have just gotten accustomed to larger cabs so now when they sit in an old design (Ford / Mack / PACCAR) it's more noticeable. Drivers want space in their cab for their tools, lunchboxes, coolers, work helmets, jackets/vests, and so on.
My favorite selling tactic against Ford / Mack / PACCAR and their small cabs is to ask the driver if they screen their drivers' size prior to hire. They look at me funny and I tell them you can't hire heavy set drivers with those smaller cabs so that limits the driver pool you can hire from even further. (Heavy set drivers won't fit in some of those cabs and/or will complain constantly if you do put them in one.) Buy our truck and you don't have to worry about it. This tactic works quite well.
Thx, What is surprising to me is the number of Paccars..Petes in particular that are in the house to house fuel market up here in NE 33,000, 2700 gal tks. A market ford owned in the old days with LN-8000, and even C-8000's . A big Ford market and I can count the number of F-750s I've seen in that market-and those were old Cautilan 750s (Cat or Cummins) as well as a few Bluediamonds-no Ohio trucks. I think part of the Pete thing is they are candy when it comes to attracting help.
My town DPW has been all International for big sixwheelers and Ford 550's for the small trucks. Just got a new F'liner.
-
10 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
The Mack cab was designed in the late 70s to do the same job the R did so well- Day cab freight and vocational assignments with just a driver and the occasional helper on board. Put a 2 passenger right seat in or some equipment between the seats and the old Mack shows it's pre-STAA roots. But for all it's age and the fact it shares it's doors with the MH cabover, the old Mack cab actually has slightly better aerodynamics than Volvo's current conventional!
The CH was introduced in 88. I never thought the cab was constrained..at least for vocational use-for that matter I never thought the R was constrained. Now could it be constrained for an OO "hotshot" who has his wife and dog with him?..maybe. And I have never sat in an MD much less driven one, but for its intended vocational use, just how much seat space do you need? G'head says it utilizes CH doors. so the rest of the cab is unique to the MD? Given its likely volume, I am surprised Mack would not have used the cab.structure as well.
Price wise, 33,000 gvw, same 6.7, Allison or Eaton trans, I'W, how do the FL, MV's stack up? I'm assuming the Paccar twins are at the highest end of the cost structure and of course a F-750 would be the very lowest priced.
But again, what do I know as the owner of a B-61X. I've always wondered...what was Mack thinking when they introduced the "aerodynamic B" in '53 while still offering the spacious "L" with its big square windshields, and roomy, high seating position cab. A decision I'm sure driven by marketing types who put "change" before functionality.?
-
On 6/19/2023 at 10:01 PM, 7Mary3 said:
You can get a Cummins/Allison powertrain in Chevy 6500 and 7500 LCF's. These are Chevy-badged Isuzu FTR/FVR's built by the Shyft Group in Charlotte MI,, No idea if GM (and Isuzu) is looking to replace the Cummins with the 6.6L Duramax in those trucks.
The DMAX plants that produce the 6.6L Duramax is owned 60% by GM and 40% by Isuzu.
7M..thx i was just thinking about the JV 45-6500 conventionals. Forgot about the Cabovers. IMO they would be going backward to replace Cummins with a Duramax.
Ford should be so smart!
-
Guys...Reference this....if GM was considering using the same approach Ford has with their mediums by using more homegrown powertrains, and they needed the production capacity to support it. ..
Isn't GM already using nothing but homegrown power trains?? No Cummins, No Cat...as opposed to Ford that DID offer Cummins and Cat and Allison and now there IS no choice. Which as we all recognize is the result of Ford's commitment to avoid purchasing anything that deprives them of the profit margin from internal production
Or is the thought here that GM could make more money if their vehicle volume was higher to move more Duramax engines....as they are so profitable. By the way, how is that Isuzu/GM pie split up?
'22 F-150 Super Cab Tow Rating
in F150 & Raptor Forum
Posted
Joey,
Thx very much, as I read it, I'm good for 9400lbs.