Bob Rosadini

Hah! Suspicions confirmed.? But you are right! I have never heard anyone with a realistic negative opinion. And as the owner of two Yanmar diesels I have to say, the Japanese do a good job when it comes to diesels. And as to vehicles in general, while most of us are loyal to Ford, face the fact, or at least speaking for my self, I was brainwashed as a kid...Anything "He" built was good! The "He" of course was Henry!

Just a thought if anything would be done, and if Ford is SERIOUS about commercial trucks, I would think a new cab structure that provides a new 650-750 cab structure that would also be utilized for the E would make sense. As GM did years ago but in reverse-they used the van cab structure for their class 6 and 7's. A cab with common components would eliminate a cab as well as offering good opportunity for better visibility in 650/750, perhaps a bit better BBC, and more room to make it more competitive with F'liner, International and the Paccars. A fraction of the dollars that will be spent on Formula 1?

Brilliant huh? Pass the Kool Aid! And the EV sales lead the percentage gain? Well when you start from "0" that is how the math works! And Ford Pro is going to be a big part of the success? It should be..but when Ford Pro is led by a guy that I think defines the business as F-150's and Transits I have my doubts.

Well in the summary page-additions deletions, it says- "650,750 tractor model availability has been suspended indefinetley"....strange wording??? Interesting thing though is the components are still there..like air/electric to rear, with TPV, "spike" gauge. One other interesting thing I never noticed before, options for installing transfer case for Meritor 4 x 4 as well as the 4 x 4 hydraulic drive system..EZ Drive.

Well I got a copy of '24 650/750 order guide. "Tractor option" deleted and while the Ford.com web site under "commercial truck specifications" lists air brakes as an option on gas 650/750, order guide lists gas as a NA.

Well if in fact this is a Ford response, better than nothing...universal to all Ford plants or a particular Plant mgrs way of doing things? Getting line employees involved is key..who knows better when a process is f'd up.

Do they at least acknowledge the message and an explanation why the suggestion can't be implemented?

No argument with any of your points...within reason. I'm just suggesting that many of the decisions to outsource I'm sure were responsible for much of Ford's horrible recall history...be it 2.7 valves or Bronco tops. Caveat Emptor! the old story.. you get what you pay for...be it in first cost or the cost of a good QC program that your suppliers must have and you must audit. Vertical integration can be followed to a fault...as can outsourcing IMO

And is not one of the benefits of vertical integration complete control of your components? From inventory to quality. Often at higher cost but that higher cost was justified by the quality you could control as well as the availability. Unfortunately the cost reductions obtained when you got into a bidding war with vendors competing for your contracts apparently were too attractive to managements that were too focused on short term results that won them high marks from the financial press. And in some cases, perhps the decision to outsource came about because management didn't have the skill or stomach to tackle difficult projects...standard excuse?..."allow us to focus on our core business"

And a lot of other things as well...when we watched the news, that is what we got...News!

Hah! don't feel bad. Probably most of the posters on this thread have similar remorse. That 2g was a big number in 69. I ordered my 66 Mustang GT my senior year and "saved" to the point of not even going for a 4 spd but lived with "3 on the floor". I replaced that in 68 with a new Torino GT "notchback"-428 CJ, C6. traded that for a new Montego in 72, and I think got like 500 bucks in trade. When I watch Mecom and BJ today I think every time I see a Torino GT fastback 428 on the block, what would that notchback be worth today? Not that 68 Torino GT values come close to a big block 68 Chevelle, but I believe a 428 notchback would have a good value just on rarity. PS I bet you wish you still had that Mach 1?

GG All valid points but some how or other, Ford has a mind set that is .."good enough to get by". In particular your comment on the tandem option. As I see it, not 44 or 46 rears that are going to be in heavy service, but say 34 or 38 ratings that are needed in some low mileage operations where axle ratings are needed say when the truck is a carrier for mounted equipment like a Vactor that is going to sit at a construction site all day while underground piping, conduit is exposed. The '24 order guide should be interesting.

Correct...all tractor options, including "air to rear" for tag trailer applications are listed in '23 order guides. Tractor packages are not new to 650/750. All this started when 7M3 posted as something he heard-and he usually has good info. Plus the info listed on Ford.com is minimal and makes no mention of tractor service....sooo, I guess we will have to wait for 2024 order guides to come out.

No argument...I would rather be in your shoes selling F'liners? Binders? what ever than 750's. I never said it was a better truck. And I and many others have questioned when we might see a new purpose built cab that could be reworked and utilized for medium F's as well as the E series. But that apparently is not in the cards as many have pointed out..Ford is happy to get what they can out of the current cab. My point was from a current plant utilization perspective, any unit you push out the door at OAP (assuming priced correctly) improves profitability. And while some may say the cab is "too small", is it too small for the thousands of 450/550's in service? Is it smaller than a 70's F-750 with its alligator hood that many LTL carriers in that era used as a cost effective P & D tractor instead of paying the premium for an LN?? I guess I wish Ford had a mind set that asked....What can we do to make our product more attractive to more people. The 7.3 is an example, now that it offers an air brake will be attractive given its price differential over a PS. And no one else offers a gasoline conventional cab.. that is at least today. PS The Rhino distributor in my area (returnable Propane 20lb) uses single axle side loaders with Cascadias-Ryder must have really sharpened their pencil to get some single axles out of inventory.

"S" You may be right but I believe the reason for sticking the turbo in the "V" was to reduce turbo lag..there is still plenty of piping and a gallon of diesel has higher BTU content than gasoline.. not sure if in the combustion process that is a factor that translates into more heat all around the engine but I think too much heat from the 7.3 is BS. Regardless I guess a moot point because you now CAN get air brakes with a 7.3...Mission accomplished.?

Well as for a "conclusion" .........I guess I would say glad they finally figured out a way to overcome the underhood temps that I was told was the reason the 7.3 was not offered with air brakes. Apparently the required compressor plumbing could not stand up to the 7.3's operating temps????..Like the 6.7 doesn't produce a lot of underhood heat? So good news as the 7.3's lower cost will be attractive to a lot of buyers that can't justify the 6.7 premium. As for the tractor package, if in fact that is no longer offered, IMO a short sighted move-or evidence again that the planners don't really understand the class 6 and 7 market. As I said, air brakes will be a popular choice for many and in particular those that pull tag trailers. The "tractor package" was also beneficial in that it provided everything needed to supply "air to the rear" to facilitate setting up the truck to pull tag trailers. Absent the package, just another PITA associated with buying a Ford vs a Binder or a F-liner. Last point about trailers, the 750 PS/Torqueshift would be a good choice for the beverage industry when they use single axle side loader trailers. But case in point about being clueless, Ford had sales literature that featured a crew cab 750 tractor in "Allied"orange hooked up to an orange box. Reasonable combination right?. Then they turn around and use that same orange crew cab in literature that shows it hooked to a BLUE single axle side loader beverage trailer.! Clueless, but other than that choice of tractor, it does show that someone in marketing must have recognized beverage is a viable market...they just never signed off on the add copy I guess.

Hope they don't do a "monkey see, monkey do" and delete the super cab. I know many say .."what is wrong with crew cab?" I just like the convenience of ability to carry the grandkids every now and then..but mostly use the space as an alternative to a tool box in the bed.

Figured you old big truck guys needed a good shot from the KTP era. Guy who sent me this said 125 LT-9000s were headed to Canada

sounds like a dream job ?

Boss 429! wow- do you remember the sticker...two on Mecom over weekend..one went for 475G and I think the other went for 485!! If only you knew?

thx guys- I usually don't pay attention to the trans chatter- Remember, I'm of the C-6 era? On another point 7M had referenced he thought tractor option was gone. Looks like that was a correct call as I saw no reference to that -unless a typical oversite on whoever puts the "filtered" abbreviated specs they post on Ford website. If true however, as I had mentioned, frequent use for a class 7 is to pull a tag trailer...with air brakes. the tractor option provided a nice pod that attached to dash with parking brake and tractor protection valves as well as air gauge and a "spike'" to apply just trailer brakes. Without that option, another PITA addition a buyer will have to go through. And I think "air/electric to frame end" in the past was a stand alone option as well making it easier for the buyer/body supplier. As for 7m's comment that he has never seen a 650/750 tractor in any case- I think I saw one on the road! But another missed opportunity. Most of the beverage big guys-Coke and Pepsi at least here in Northeast use class 7 tractors with side loader single axle beverage trailers. The 750 PS/Torque shift could handle that service -a diminishing load and closest thing to P & D service when all the carriers in the old days used Fords, GMs and Internationals in that service. Probably head of Ford Pro said..."tractors?-Ford sold that ag business a long time ago-don't need that"?

Missed that reference...where is it?

Great. about time on the air brake availability with 7.3.

ok guys- I thought he was the one that posted all the '23's

7m-good info. good news on air brake option for 7.3. Having grown up in the "general contractor " world, these guys typically own class 6/7 trucks as a tool in the furtherance of their business-which is building...they might need a load of backfill, or gravel or mason sand or they might have to hook the tag trailer up to move a skid steer, TLB etc. Saving $10 g with a 7.3 in a 33,000 lb 750 WITH air to the rear to safely pull a 10 ton tag is a requirement. I wonder if the decision to not offer 10 spd with 7.3 is a supply constraint. How about it Ice Capades...any chance we will see '24 order guides soon?