Avon Lake Medium Duty

[silvrsvt]

Not a bad looking truck...considering its Russian, which can be pretty homely looking.

[RichardJensen]

Many of us have talked about the possibility of using the Transit glasshouse/cab structure in the next upgrade of 650/750.

 

It's not going to happen. KCAP has integrated stamping. They're not going to pull pieces out of KCAP and ship them to OHAP.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

It's not going to happen. KCAP has integrated stamping. They're not going to pull pieces out of KCAP and ship them to OHAP.

Please elaborate-not sure what "integrated stamping" is.

 

Assuming KTP does Super Duty cab components that go to Escobedo, I assume they will continue to do those paels but ship them to OHAP? Or are SD cabs outsourced anyway?

[RichardJensen]

Integrated stamping is where the stamping is basically designed to feed panels directly into the body shop.

 

There may be some warehousing of panels for, among other things, collision repair, but by and large the stamping plant's schedule is tightly integrated with the overall production schedule and there's no engineered means of shuttling off significant production volume for storage and rail shipment. Everything is geared to feed directly into the body shop and thence through final assembly.

 

KTP doesn't have integrated stamping, but I don't know if they shipped parts to Escobedo. I would assume that whatever they did for Blue Diamond will be done with OHAP.

 

Volumes of, I would guess, 5k/mo should be sufficient to amortize unique stamping for the cab, especially since all the other coachwork & frame will probably be Tier 1 supplied.

[Pioneer]

The KCAP stamping plant is in a separate building, unattached from the assembly plant.

 

DSP sends stampings and assembled body panels to KCAP truck side, and MAP, and they are physically attached to DTP body.

 

KCAP stamping could easily send product anywhere, as long as Ford wanted to pay for it. They have access to rail and highway.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

The Transit cab is also 3.4" narrower than the current F650/750 cab, and the SD cab seems to be quite narrow as compared to the FL cabs. Swapping it for an even narrower cab does not seem like it would make the vehicle more competitive.

 

If *any* aspect of the Transit were used, it would be the doors.

[7Mary3]

I remember the old International S-series cabs could be manufactured in different widths. The narrow versions were for medium duty and long hood heavies, the wide version for short-nose heavy conventionals that accommodated a large doghouse but still could seat 3. Of course, that cab was designed with that capability from the start.

 

I have a hunch: Avon Lake will one day produce versions of the Transit. I think the Transit and it's variations are going to sell big and generate a lot of profit, the new F-650/750 not so much. Ford will go after the low end (cost) of the medium duty market, but Freightliner and International will put considerable pressure on Ford by offering simplified spec. Mexican assembled versions of their respective mediums. The end of Blue Diamond means a lot of capacity for International to build low cost Durastar's in Escobedo. I am hearing that Ford's cost advantage of using an 'in house' powertrain could be largely negated by their competitors use of low cost labor. We will see how this plays out.

 

What is the capacity of KCAP to build Transits?

Edited September 24, 2014 by 7Mary3

[RichardJensen]

Under which circumstance?

 

Ford renders the Transit uncompetitive in every other market by making the engine bay big enough to accommodate the 6.7L V8, in order to provide 14k-22k+ GVWRs?

 

or Ford gets out of Class 4-7 entirely?

Edited September 24, 2014 by RichardJensen

[Bob Rosadini]

Integrated stamping is where the stamping is basically designed to feed panels directly into the body shop.

 

There may be some warehousing of panels for, among other things, collision repair, but by and large the stamping plant's schedule is tightly integrated with the overall production schedule and there's no engineered means of shuttling off significant production volume for storage and rail shipment. Everything is geared to feed directly into the body shop and thence through final assembly.

 

KTP doesn't have integrated stamping, but I don't know if they shipped parts to Escobedo. I would assume that whatever they did for Blue Diamond will be done with OHAP.

 

Volumes of, I would guess, 5k/mo should be sufficient to amortize unique stamping for the cab, especially since all the other coachwork & frame will probably be Tier 1 supplied.

Ok-thx-can't believe they wouldn't design it so they could conveniently divert volume but I'm sure it is a very well thought out system By the way I have learned that the origins of that GAZ medium originated when they bought out LDV who was a small British producer of vans.

[RichardJensen]

The advantage of integrated stamping is that you can reduce transportation costs, warehousing costs, and handling costs.

[7Mary3]

Under which circumstance?

 

Ford renders the Transit uncompetitive in every other market by making the engine bay big enough to accommodate the 6.7L V8, in order to provide 14k-22k+ GVWRs?

 

or Ford gets out of Class 4-7 entirely?

 

If the new 650/750 is not profitable, I could see Avon Lake building Transit derivatives only. It's pretty much a given that the Transit platform will eventually replace all E series models, including the cut-aways. As for a class 6/7 using a Transit cab, probably not, as you pointed out. Too many compromises. Maybe Ford could make a dedicated class 6/7 cab using Transit doors and a few other components, but I think that would be the extent of it. Not 'platform sharing' by any stretch.

 

Ford once again builds class 6 and 7 trucks in house, but as soon as another product comes along that has better margins, it's bye-bye medium duty. And I think there's a possibility the Transit may be that vehicle. A lot depends on the competition, if Freightliner and International put a lot of pressure on Ford and it effects the margins on the new 650/750's. KCAP's capacity is a factor too, if the Transit becomes as popular as I think it might.

 

Ford would have a strong commercial line with KTP built 450/550 Super Duties, KCAP built Transit vans, and OAP built Transit derivatives going to class 5 (T-500?, didn't Ford trademark that recently?).

Edited September 24, 2014 by 7Mary3

[RichardJensen]

 

It's pretty much a given that the Transit platform will eventually replace all E series models, including the cut-aways

 

Really?

 

What is Ford going to do?

 

1) Rate the EB V6 for Class 5 loads?

 

or

 

2) Redo the Transit cab so that it can house a very large V8 engine, thus making it uncompetitive in every market outside North America?

[RichardJensen]

Oh, and you're aware that Transits are unibody right?

[Edstock]

2) Redo the Transit cab so that it can house a very large V8 engine, thus making it uncompetitive in every market outside North America?

 

Sic Transit Gloria.

[zipnzap]

 

Really?

 

What is Ford going to do?

 

1) Rate the EB V6 for Class 5 loads?

 

or

 

2) Redo the Transit cab so that it can house a very large V8 engine, thus making it uncompetitive in every market outside North America?

 

Just a question.

 

NA Transits are built in North America only, right? Why would what happens with it it in NA affect whatever happens with it in other markets?

 

Already, there's no low-roof Transit for the new model outside of North America. Those have been replaced by the Transit Custom outside NA.

Edited September 25, 2014 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

Two things:

 

First of all, the reason for consolidating the Transit was to reduce the per unit costs of developing new Transits. Split off ~40% of global Transit volume by making the NA model unique and you've gotten rid of the whole point of consolidating the light duty vans in the first place.

 

Secondly, the light duty Transits do not need to accommodate large V8s, so you stand to sacrifice considerable advantages in packaging if you build all the NA Transits with an engine bay that accommodates the larger V8s.

 

And if your idea is that you use a Transit cab and a custom front end for a V8, well, you're just proposing a suboptimal version of the current F650/750 which are SD cabs with custom front ends, and the F650/750 are not competitive.

[zipnzap]

Two things:

 

First of all, the reason for consolidating the Transit was to reduce the per unit costs of developing new Transits. Split off ~40% of global Transit volume by making the NA model unique and you've gotten rid of the whole point of consolidating the light duty vans in the first place.

 

Secondly, the light duty Transits do not need to accommodate large V8s, so you stand to sacrifice considerable advantages in packaging if you build all the NA Transits with an engine bay that accommodates the larger V8s.

 

And if your idea is that you use a Transit cab and a custom front end for a V8, well, you're just proposing a suboptimal version of the current F650/750 which are SD cabs with custom front ends, and the F650/750 are not competitive.

 

The North American Transit already utilizes unique sheetmetal compared to global version, the primary example being the low-roof models. Again, the low-roofs don't exist outiside of NA.

In addition to unique roof design, they also use near completely different A-pillars, doors and windows from the rest of the Transit models. The low-roofs are even different from the cab-chassis/cutaway versions:

[jpd80]

Above T350, it's just not worth stretching the envelope - working with Ford's SD trucks makes much more sense.

And if you're looking at sharing body work, that would tend to be more of a derivative item to be shared with

next closest relatives from the HD trucks, not the LD trucks and Vans.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

The North American Transit already utilizes unique sheetmetal

 

You're not talking about unique sheetmetal. You're talking about an entirely different cab and front end. Do you not see the difference?

 

Additionally, the low-roof model will likely be a 'late add' for ROW Transit, as the outgoing Transit had a low roof and the cab/chassis and cutaway Transits in ROW all have the 'low-roof' form factor.

 

http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/all-new-transit/single-cab-chassis

 

And in a final note, I think you should carefully review your claim that the ROW Transit has different doors, A pillars and windows.

Edited September 25, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

US Spec Transit:

 

ROW Spec Transit

Edited September 25, 2014 by RichardJensen

[7Mary3]

Yes, Ford did trademark 'T-550' specifically for van and cutaway van chassis land vehicles. They must have something up their sleeves. Interesting thing about the trademark is Ford originally applied for it back in 2008 but abandoned it in early 2012. Ford has since filed for it again and it is currently active.

 

If Ford were to introduce a T-550 cutaway chassis to replace the E-450, why would it have to use the 6.7L Powerstroke? I think such a large and powerful engine would probably not be the optimum choice for a cutaway van chassis based on the Transit anyway.

 

Unitized construction? Sure, I knew that.

[zipnzap]

 

You're not talking about unique sheetmetal. You're talking about an entirely different cab and front end. Do you not see the difference?

 

Additionally, the low-roof model will likely be a 'late add' for ROW Transit, as the outgoing Transit had a low roof and the cab/chassis and cutaway Transits in ROW all have the 'low-roof' form factor.

 

http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/all-new-transit/single-cab-chassis

 

There won't be any low-roof or short wheelbase Transit van outside of North America past 2014. It's been replaced by the Transit Custom.

The reason a low-roof Transit exists in the first place is because the Transit Custom is not being sold here.

And in a final note, I think you should carefully review your claim that the ROW Transit has different doors, A pillars and windows.

US Spec Transit:

 

ROW Spec Transit

 

Again, I'm talking about the low-roofs.

 

Compare the pictures I posted of the low-roof Transit van (with the rounded A-pillar, plus doors and windows to match) and the cab chassis (i.e. a version of the new Transit that is actually sold outside of NA). They're both supposed to be the same roof heights, yet the cab chassis has a boxier, Sprinter-style A-pillar. It's basically what a low-roof global Transit is supposed to have looked like had they still been making them.

Edited September 25, 2014 by zipnzap

[lfeg]

What is there that would keep Ford from just walking away from the extra heavy cutaway market? If volumes and profits wane that will happen. And I see a trend away from cutaways happening anyway, and the high roof versions of the Transit will just accelerate that. Who here knows Ford's ultimate plan for Transit variants? Anyone?

 

Putting an extra heavy cutaway on the chassis of an F650 is making a product in search of a market, a low cab forward model would make much more sense, as a market already exists. And what is the difference between the E350 and the E450 - E450 has longer wheelbase, heftier springs, and larger gas tank. And NO F450 offers the 6.7 diesel, just 5.4 and 6.8 gas engines, so why would a Transit variant that would replace the E450 need to offer the 6.7?

 

I do not know what Ford's plans are, but I suspect that the E cutaways will go away, replaced by Transit variants, just as the Panther cars went away to be replaced by Taurus and platform mates.

[theoldwizard]

I have a hunch: Avon Lake will one day produce versions of the Transit. I think the Transit and it's variations are going to sell big and generate a lot of profit, ...

a reasonable assumption, but it will take a few years before demand out strips production at Kansas City.

[RichardJensen]

 

There won't be any low-roof or short wheelbase Transit van outside of North America past 2014. It's been replaced by the Transit Custom.

The reason a low-roof Transit exists in the first place is because the Transit Custom is not being sold here.

 

Again, I'm talking about the low-roofs.

 

Compare the pictures I posted of the low-roof Transit van (with the rounded A-pillar, plus doors and windows to match) and the cab chassis (i.e. a version of the new Transit that is actually sold outside of NA). They're both supposed to be the same roof heights, yet the cab chassis has a boxier, Sprinter-style A-pillar. It's basically what a low-roof global Transit is supposed to have looked like had they still been making them.

 

 

The Transit Custom is the FWD Transit. They have been making FWD Transits for quite some time now. This is the first occasion in which they have used different branding and a different front fascia for the Custom. NOT the first time that Ford has offered a smaller FWD Transit.

 

Ford sold BOTH FWD AND RWD low roof SWB Transits on the previous generation:

http://www.ford.co.uk/CommercialVehicles/Transit/Bodystyles-and-capacity

"Choice of FWD (low floor), RWD or AWD"

 

 

You will notice that Ford's UK website does not have the new Tourneo models listed. Are you going to take this as evidence that Ford is not going to sell window van variants of the new Transit? Do you notice how few total Transit models are listed, including very few heavy duty options. Are you going to tell me that Ford is not going to sell ANY of these variants because they are not CURRENTLY selling them?

 

I'm not going to compare the pictures you posted because one of them has been heavily photoshopped and even if it hadn't I can't see what you're talking about. Why don't you look at the pics I posted--neither of which appear to show this 'thicker Sprinter style A-Pillar.'

 

And even if the A pillar WERE different, you're saying that because the NA Transit has a different A pillar, that it would be economical to make the entire cab different in order to accommodate larger engines.

Edited September 25, 2014 by RichardJensen