Avon Lake Medium Duty

[RichardJensen]

1. Would adding the Cargo to Avon Lake be a help or hindrance to Ford North America?

 

2. Understanding that it's a Cab Over design, would a Conventional Cab or stumpy snout variant be a better choice?

 

3. Should Ford be looking at Calss 8 or just stick with the MDs for now?

 

AFAIK, there's not a lot of interest in cabover in the US right now, and w/a higher priority on fuel efficiency vs. overall length, I don't know if that's going to change any time soon.

 

Ford can probably extend the MDs into Class 8, but not the higher-end realm of OTR/long-haul Class 8 etc.

[bzcat]

 

BTW the Gazelle is BOF not uni-body like the transit

 

 

 

 

How do you conclude that based on a photo of a cab chassis version of GAZelle? I guess that means Transit is body on frame too?

 

 

The existence of rear sub-frame doesn't mean it is body on frame. The truck is still unibody.

 

GAZelle Next is based on LDV Maxus van so it is unibody.

 

GAZon Next (the medium duty one) is probably body on frame using a cab similar (although looking at it, it's not identical) to GAZelle.

 

 

The first one is GAZelle Next. The second one is GAZon Next.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2015 by bzcat

[twintornados]

As I have surmised before....Ford could make a floor pan and firewall structure that will marry the components of transit full size "A" and "B" pillars, roof structure and green house to create a medium duty cab using already existing cab componentry that will fit on current stripped chassis and E450 chassis.......the chassis themselves are rugged and can be configured to many different applications and the T-Series "medium duty" steel cab will create an economy of savings since the aluminum cabs for F-Series will not make a significant impact on the operation of a medium duty truck for their intended market targets.

[RichardJensen]

As I have surmised before....Ford could

 

yes. They *could* do that. And end up with a cab that is incredibly ill-suited to MD usage.

[Biker16]

 

How do you conclude that based on a photo of a cab chassis version of GAZelle? I guess that means Transit is body on frame too?

 

 

The existence of rear sub-frame doesn't mean it is body on frame. The truck is still unibody.

 

GAZelle Next is based on LDV Maxus van so it is unibody.

 

GAZon Next (the medium duty one) is probably body on frame using a cab similar (although looking at it, it's not identical) to GAZelle.

 

 

The first one is GAZelle Next. The second one is GAZon Next.

 

 

 

The IFS is a SLA design and the manufacturer says it has a Frame

 

[Biker16]

 

yes. They *could* do that. And end up with a cab that is incredibly ill-suited to MD usage.

 

how so?

 

Be careful you used the words "incredibly ill-suited"

 

If we have brought up many reasons why the SD cab isn't a long term solution, how can you Pronounce that an adapted T-series cab is less suited to the needs of the Medium duty segment.

 

After all you are the Expert?

 

How is the GAZelle based medium duty truck "incredibly ill-suited" for the segment it competes in? why wouldn't a T-series cab be at least as competent in the US and Global markets where Transit sales are strong?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Biker16

[Biker16]

To the Experts here.

 

why is the assembly process for the NEw medium so..... Manual?

 

They are literally pushing the truck through the plant on dollies. while the E-series is moving on an conveyor system like most modern vehicles.

 

[RichardJensen]

how can you Pronounce that an adapted T-series cab is less suited to the needs of the Medium duty segment.

 

You act like I'm the only one who sees this.

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/48185-avon-lake-medium-duty/?p=949488

[7Mary3]

Compare and contrast:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S745_L2XfXA

 

A couple of points: The M2 is currently the most popular medium duty line in N.A., and the SD models are among the most popular vocational heavy duty trucks. The volumes of these vehicles certainly justify the high degree (at least for medium/heavy truck production) of plant automation.

 

It is quite possible that Avon Lake 650/750 production is starting out on a simplified production line with minimal automation until volumes justify more advanced techniques.

[lfeg]

Yes, given the volume and variety of wheelbases of the F650/750, the use of dollies makes sense.

[Biker16]

 

You act like I'm the only one who sees this.

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/48185-avon-lake-medium-duty/?p=949488

 

You didn't answer the Question.

 

How is the T-series "incredibly ill-suited" for use in the medium segment.

 

Compare and contrast:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S745_L2XfXA

 

A couple of points: The M2 is currently the most popular medium duty line in N.A., and the SD models are among the most popular vocational heavy duty trucks. The volumes of these vehicles certainly justify the high degree (at least for medium/heavy truck production) of plant automation.

 

It is quite possible that Avon Lake 650/750 production is starting out on a simplified production line with minimal automation until volumes justify more advanced techniques.

 

To me this screams for the merger of the E-series and the Medium duty, to increase the Economies of Scale, and To make both product more viable.

 

Right now the plant is building products based on Dead architectures, the E-series is Dead and current SD is dying in 2-3 years. From the look of the factory I am assuming that SD cab are not being Assembled on site and are being shipped from KTP.

 

 

[fordmantpw]

 

You didn't answer the Question.

 

How is the T-series "incredibly ill-suited" for use in the medium segment.

 

If you would read and pay attention, he has answered that question several times.

[Biker16]

 

If you would read and pay attention, he has answered that question several times.

 

No he didn't

[Biker16]

The disadvantages of F-Series visibility aren't in the cab, they're in the snout of the truck, a problem which is even more pronounced w/the MDs. E-Series visibility is superb--but you can't fit a modern MD diesel into that engine bay.

 

If Ford opted to unify its MD/HD cabs, I don't know? 100k? I really don't know how many conventional trucks/tractors Ford sells overseas. And I don't know that it's a cost savings for Ford to either ship stampings to their ROW MD/HD facilities, or ship stampings from there to the US.

 

Richard I never understood how you seem to have this notion that the the engine bay on a body on frame vehicle is finite.

 

You mistakenly believed that the F-150's cab could not be used on the Super duty because of the engine bay, but low and behold, they found a way to do it.

 

You simply move the engine bay ahead of the cab, that's what having a separate Cab and frame is for.

 

I cannot foresee that any "new" cab can meet the needs of the 48,000 or so E-series Cutaway. That market is "incredibly ill-suited" by the medium duty Cab offered by Freightliner, I cannot forsee a dedicated Ford medium duty cab doing any better.

 

If the majority of your Volume is in Class 3 and 4 but you are limited by the lack of an available Diesel. why not focus your energy on fitting the powerstroke in your Class 3-4, and making an incrementally competitive Class 5-7 product from that product.

 

ford's focus should be on replacing the E-series not on the medium duty which may explain thier action thus far.

[RichardJensen]

This does not look like cab that is "ill-suited" for Class 4/5:

 

[zipnzap]

Is even trying to tackle both the E-350/E-450 market and true Medium Duty market with too similar a product a good idea?

I remember 7Mary3 wrote this a while back:

 

I read that too. I think Navistar will miss the mark with the class 4 and 5 TerraStar. It seems to make the same mistake as the GM 4500/5500. That is a truck with too heavy an unladen weight for it's GVW, resulting in a small payload. And, like the GM's, the cab is too big and ungainly for class 4 and 5, though it is perfect for 6 and up. It is interesting to note that GM is rumored to be going back into class 4 and 5 with a truck similar to the 1991-2002 3500HD cab and chassis, or 450/550 Super Duty, which will use a pickup cab. No comment about the 6.4L ex-Powerstroke diesel, but I'll bet all the bugs will be miraculosly worked out of it if it's under the hood of an International.

Though I don't think the TerraStar will take many sales away from the 450/550 Super Duty, Dodge's run on class 4 and 5 has to be distressing for Ford. The margin seems to be widening. Of course Ford beats Dodge overall in class 3, 4, and 5 truck sales, and the sales to the private sector are far more profitable than commercial fleet sales.

Freightliner will not be a pushover for International, and I hear they will soon have a line of LPG powered delivery vans and medium duty trucks for those shying away from diesel. PACCAR mediums are the premium end of the medium duty market, and are priced accordingly.

And speaking of GM, there are rumors they are close to forming a partnership with another truck manufacturer for a reentry into medium duty. I assume this means class 6, 7, and 8. There are a lot of GM medium duty dealers still in business and they will be looking for products to sell when the economy picks up again.

You think anyone at Ford is aware of International's intensions? Having your product manufactured by a competitor that is vowing to take sales from you is not what I would call a good business postion to be in.

Stary tuned........

[RichardJensen]

Some of the issues with the Terrastar are unrelated to the use of a common cab (for instance, they have an 80,000 psi frame, which seems like overkill for any class 4 use).

[zipnzap]

This does not look like cab that is "ill-suited" for Class 4/5:

 

 

Some of the issues with the Terrastar are unrelated to the use of a common cab (for instance, they have an 80,000 psi frame, which seems like overkill for any class 4 use).

 

Thing is, neither International nor Freightliner sell a Class 4 vehicle.

TerraStar starts at 16,000 lbs GVW. As of right now, there's no Class 4 TerraStar, or any Class 4 International truck for that matter. Nor is there any Class 4 M2.

Even Hino previously offered both a Class 4 (Hino 145 and Hino 165) and a Class 5 (Hino 185) variant of their Hino 600. But, lo and behold, both of them ended up discontinued for whatever reason.

I'm really not sure why a Class 5 has to be tied into the E-350/450 replacement to begin with. The last time Ford tried to sell an E-550, it completely bombed.

If Ford really wants to introduce any sort of Class 5 other than the F-550, they would most likely just tie that into whatever they're doing with the F-650/750 and use it to add volume to that.

BTW, I'm not really sure what's wrong with the Transit's visibility.

It has a much, much larger windshield than the current E350/450, and both of them are slanted at similar angles. Transit also has a taller cab.

 

[7Mary3]

It's going to be interesting to see which way GM and Navistar go for their upcoming class 4/5 truck, they could use either the International TerraStar/DuraStar cab or the Silverado cab. FWIW, I say the best solution is a full size pickup cab for class 4/5, and a heavy duty cab for 6 and larger.

[lfeg]

I am still thinking that for a class 4/5 truck a pickup cab with perhaps a different front clip. And my preference for that front clip would be tilt style - as that would make service access much easier. It would also allow for different front end styling (say to differentiate the GM/Navistar supposed twins).

 

And on the E350/450, forget merging them into the F650/750. The E350/450 are a dead end. They could easily be replaced by variants of the Transit. Remember, the E series was extended first by offering the E350 cutaway with DRW with some beefing up of the frame. Then came the E450 cutaway that added heavier axles. The same can be done with the Transit. For the low (relative) volumes of the E450 a Transit with a properly designed aft of cab "frame platform" is very doable. Merging the E350/450 into the F650/750 would result in something ill suited for the tasks served by them separately.

[RichardJensen]

 

I'm not really sure what's wrong with the Transit's visibility.

 

 

It's fine--as long as it's not looking over a MD-grade diesel engine on a MD frame.

[RichardJensen]

They could easily be replaced by variants of the Transit.

 

If they could be 'easily replaced' by Transit variants, then why weren't they? If they could be 'easily' replaced, then why is there no firmly fixed EOL for the E450?

 

Also, if truck cabs were suitable replacements for the E450, then why is Ford still building E450s? You are aware that the F550 cab is almost two feet longer than the E450 cab, right?

[zipnzap]

 

It's fine--as long as it's not looking over a MD-grade diesel engine on a MD frame.

 

But for an E-350/450 replacement, it's pretty decent, no?

 

 

If they could be 'easily replaced' by Transit variants, then why weren't they? If they could be 'easily' replaced, then why is there no firmly fixed EOL for the E450?

 

Upfitters.

 

Coachmakers and bodybuilders (RV makers, bus manufacturers, etc.) would have had to completely and abruptly change their tooling to accommodate the new completely new bodies. Both are being sold side-by-side while giving them a chance to ween off the E-Series, while also allowing some time for Ford to properly address both E-350 and E-450.

 

Plus, Europe and the rest of the world doesn't need a Transit 450 (or a Sprinter 4500, or a Ducato 450 [though, the Iveco Daily exists]), hence, it wasn't a priority (and would most likely have added more issues to an already heavily-delayed [and currently backlogged and bottlenecked] launch).

 

EDIT:

 

They say as much here:

Within a few years, Ford marketing chief Jim Farley said he expects ambulance companies and other commercial customers to switch to the new Kansas City-built Transit van line. That would mean less work for the company's Ohio Assembly Plant in Avon Lake, a facility that had been set to continue producing cutaways -- half-built vehicles that other companies turned into service vehicles such as U-Haul trucks.

"There will be a transition period away from (Econoline)," Farley said at an event in Detroit to show off the Transit, a van set to go on sale late next year. "The cutaway business is extremely important, and we want to maintain customer choice while we go through that process. But eventually, we want to be down to one commercial van."

He added that he has no idea how long that transition will take. If commercial customers embrace the European-designed Transit, it may only take a year or two. If customers continue ordering large numbers of E-Series cutaways (another name for the Econoline), the Avon Lake plant will continue building them for several years.

 

 

Ford executive Jim Farley says Transit van will eventually replace Econoline for ambulances, other commercial vehicles

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/ford_executive_jim_farley_says.html

Edited August 20, 2015 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

 

 

But for an E-350/450 replacement, it's pretty decent, no?

 

 

No.

 

The E-450 is a medium duty vehicle.

 

And did you notice that Farley said *nothing* about building some hybrid Transit with a medium duty engine and a medium duty frame?

 

This isn't about companies buying the E-450 for uses that can be met by the Transit.

[Biker16]

This does not look like cab that is "ill-suited" for Class 4/5:

 

 

I said 3-4 not 4-5 there is a difference

 

Some of the issues with the Terrastar are unrelated to the use of a common cab (for instance, they have an 80,000 psi frame, which seems like overkill for any class 4 use).

 

RIchard its not like they couldn't use a less robust frame if they wanted to. look at the evolution of the frame on the RAM, as the cabalibity grows they make the frame stronger.

 

again this is the advatages of having a separate body from the frame.

 

It's fine--as long as it's not looking over a MD-grade diesel engine on a MD frame.

 

This no longer makes sense.

 

if the cowl of the transit, is 20+ inches forward from the firewall already and sits 6-10 inches higher than a pickup cab how could a 4 foot long hood that slopes away from the Cowl obstruct visibility?

 

have you ever sat in a transit?

 

 

If they could be 'easily replaced' by Transit variants, then why weren't they? If they could be 'easily' replaced, then why is there no firmly fixed EOL for the E450?

 

I don't know, maybe because the Transit is a new product

 

Also, if truck cabs were suitable replacements for the E450, then why is Ford still building E450s? You are aware that the F550 cab is almost two feet longer than the E450 cab, right?

 

I agree the F-series cab cannot replace the E-series cab.