Avon Lake Medium Duty

[Biker16]

 

Why use a bastard configuration when you've got the sales volume to justify a tailored solution?

 

Maybe Ford should use the Focus as the basis for the next Mustang. "It's not perfect but it allows FORd to hold on the its lead in personal coupe segment"

 

Really.

 

You are grasping at strawmen.

[Biker16]

 

That's a straw man argument, if ever I saw one.

 

You never answered the question, you are just attempting to change the subject.

[RichardJensen]

 

You never answered the question, you are just attempting to change the subject.

 

I am perfectly content to answer questions on topic. Once.

 

I cannot be held responsible for your rhetorical mistakes and your refusal to read my posts.

[bzcat]

I'm not sure I understand the arguments why Ford should use Transit cab for medium duty truck. This thread is 51 pages long and I still haven't read why this is a good idea beside "someone else did it once and Ford should copy it".

 

Ford sold 9,627 F-650/750 last year and 103k E-series. Let's say 30k is E-450... that's 40k volume for medium duty trucks, plus whatever F-450/550 contributes to the table with diesel because E-450 is not available with diesel engine. If Ford is really working on a new medium duty, then between E-450, F450/550, F-650, and F-750, you are looking at more than enough volume to justify a unique cab that is best suited for the application.

[RichardJensen]

 

You are grasping at strawmen.

 

No. That is what we call an "analogy".

 

You see, an analogy is where you take a situation that draws your point into sharper relief and substitute it within a line of reasoning in order to draw attention to either the strengths or the flaws of that line of reasoning.

Edited August 20, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Let's say 30k is E-450.

 

FYI Ford's sold almost 30k E450s YTD.

 

I'm thinking that Ford can sell upwards of 80k MDs with a common E450/F650/F750 cab.

[RichardJensen]

Also, I believe the proper turn of phrase is "grasping at straws"

[Biker16]

 

No. No it doesn't.

 

The question is whether Ford should design a new cab that uniquely supports their MD offerings or whether they should adapt the Transit cab.

 

The Problem as many here have mentioned is class 5-7 cabs are not a good fit for the 3-4 market the E-series is popular in.

 

Ford would be wise to focus on the 3-4 market and offer an acceptable product for the 5-7 market.

[Biker16]

I would think that with a revised floorpan that is created for a Medium Duty applications along with the attachment points for the Transit Full Size cab components, i.e.; rear wall, "A" and "B" pillars, greenhouse, doors and roof and a MD specfic fiberglass front tilt hood and fenders.... fitment should not present a problem.

 

I agree.

 

thanks.

 

the Transit's Adaptability is its greatest strength, it can meet the needs of the E-series cutaway buyer and add alot to the current medium duty market place.

 

Riught now there are 3 different Floorpan variations for the Transit. FWD, RWD, CC, cutaway. adding one to mate to a frame should be possible.

 

A custom MD cab gives Ford the ability to cover the full MD spectrum with offerings that are directly on target with FL & Navistar.

 

Arguing that the MD cab configuration used by FL & Navistar would somehow be 'inappropriate' for Class 3 is bizarre. Under what circumstance is it 'inappropriate' to reduce the forward blind spot of a large vehicle?

 

 

 

 

 

Henceforth you are forbidden to use visibility as a reason in the topic, until you explain how visibility is better in the transit than the E-series and worse than the E-series.

 

 

 

I am perfectly content to answer questions on topic. Once.

 

I cannot be held responsible for your rhetorical mistakes and your refusal to read my posts.

 

 

When will you defend your flawed argument. instead of hiding behind this Straw man buil$hit.

 

 

No. That is what we call an "analogy".

 

You see, an analogy is where you take a situation that draws your point into sharper relief and substitute it within a line of reasoning in order to draw attention to either the strengths or the flaws of that line of reasoning.

 

You are not making any sense.

 

you are simply trying to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

until you explain how visibility is better in the transit than the E-series

 

What makes this a classic straw man argument is that I am not arguing in favor of retaining the E-series cab, the SD cab or the Transit cab.

 

'Requiring' me to defend the visibility of one over the other is essentially requiring me to play along with your straw man argument.

 

A de novo cab can provide better visibility across the board--in line with Ford's competitors, as has been pointed out by at least one other person here.

 

If you sit in a Freightliner M2 (and this goes for the Navistar's as well), the seating position is more upright and the top of the dash is well below the driver's line of sight. An added benefit of the taller cab is that you can actually use an air-suspended seat

Edited August 20, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

The Problem as many here have mentioned is class 5-7 cabs are not a good fit for the 3-4 market

 

Actually, the "many" consists of you. I don't know that anyone else has made that argument specifically about CABS.

Edited August 20, 2015 by RichardJensen

[zipnzap]

 

It makes it a Class 4 truck, which directly answers the assertion that neither International nor Freightliner manufacture Class 4 trucks.

 

A search for "Freightliner" and "class 4" turns up absolutely nothing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=freightliner+%22class+4%22&rlz=1C1OPRA_enUS556US556&oq=freightliner+%22class+4%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.46651j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Freightliner doesn't list minimum GVW for the M2:

https://www.freightlinertrucks.com/content/media/assets/M2_Line_Brochure.pdf

Yet, the "base" version goes up to 60,000 lbs., and both the M2 106V and M2 112 go up to 80,000.

I seriously doubt they were built with Class 4 in mind.

And apparently, for Navistar, "Class 4" means they can go literally one pound below the legal limit (and offer absolutely nothing below that) and qualify themselves as a product for the total Class 4 market.

Outside of the Class 5 -1 TerraStar, none the of prominent medium duty truck manufacturers are offering a conventional Class 4 truck. Nothing from Mack, either.

BTW, I'm curious. How is the "Class 4" TerraStar market compared to that of the E-450?

Also, again, Hino had both a honest-to-goodness Class 4 and Class 5 version of their Hino 600.

They stopped building them.

Why?

 

No. No it doesn't.

 

The question is whether Ford should design a new cab that uniquely supports their MD offerings or whether they should adapt the Transit cab.

 

The question is, which would be cheaper?

What would Ford think saves them the most money?

Currently, what we have are the Class 6/7 F-650/750 and the Class 3/4 E-350/450.

As of right now, Ford has indicated zero plans of introducing a Class 5 product outside of the F-550.

 

 

The Problem as many here have mentioned is class 5-7 cabs are not a good fit for the 3-4 market the E-series is popular in.

 

Ford would be wise to focus on the 3-4 market and offer an acceptable product for the 5-7 market.

 

 

 

Actually, the "many" consists of you. I don't know that anyone else has made that argument specifically about CABS.

 

Multiple people have said something similar:

 

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.

 

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.

 

You really don't think something that's perfectly suited to Class 6 and 7 wouldn't be too big for Class 3?

Edited August 21, 2015 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

 

 

A search for "Freightliner" and "class 4" turns up absolutely nothing

 

 

Minimum GAWRs: 6k + 10k = 16k. Class 4 QED.

https://www.freightlinertrucks.com/content/media/assets/M2_Line_Brochure.pdf(p. 6)

[RichardJensen]

 

Multiple people have said something similar:

 

You've got a quote from 2010 and a quote that doesn't mention issues with cabs at all.

Edited August 21, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Bob Rosadini]

Wow- this thread certainly has a new life.

 

As for any comparisons to a F'liner medium or an International 4400 or the Paccar class 6/7 twins I think that Ford by offering "any color as long as its black"-i.e. 6.7 Power Stroke/V-10/ Torqueshift trans is clearly defining the market they are after- and its not a 200 truck order for YRC or ABF or Old Dominion for city tractors were a driver spends 10 hrs a shift pounding the streets.

 

Rather it will be the small operator who needs a class 6/7 delivery truck or say an operator such as a tree service company where the truck gets the crew to the job site and then they spend the day up in the bucket trimming trees and feeding the chipper box. I would like to think that the days of the LN-8000 city tractor were with us again, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen-at least with this truck.

 

And speaking of the LN series and reading 7M3's posts about the inadequacies of the 650/750 cab in terms of height, room, visibility-certainly true-when compared to the competition (and for that matter the Louisville, does anyone (Old guys that is) remember the International ads when the Louisville was really kicking Harvester's butt in P & D service. Harvester ran ads for a time in the fleet mags comparing their 1600-1800 Loadstars to the Louisville as a superior choice because the driver .."didn't have to climb as much in a shift getting into the cab" and the doors were smaller so ..."he wasn't banging into things in tight quarters when he opened them". Talk about desperation.

 

In any case I too have to believe with the advent of an aluminum 250-550, you would think the "new" 650/750 will have a short life and a new cab utilizing Transit components with a higher seating position just might be in order. And as many have pointed out, E 450 cut away sales are solid- and does anyone remember the E 550? I beam front axle and it sold well while it was offered- might see that come back again. Decent GVW, maneuverability, and low cab height which can be an advantage in certain applications.

 

Oh-Ifeg, Ol'Wiz-check out the marketing boys press release on 650750 production- they proudly still announce a.."tractor option for towing". Ever wonder why Boeing in their PR ads for say the 777 doesn't say..''great airplane for Flying"!

 

Ford Media people-when you refer to a "tractor" it is understood what it does- save your ink!

[RichardJensen]

E 450 cut away sales are solid

 

E450's EOL.

 

So you've got these two products that are both on borrowed time: F650/750 & E450.

 

Why would you use a bastard solution to replace two bastard solutions? How does that improve the product range? You've got marginally better cabs and a 6.7L diesel in a Class 3/4. How's that going to do anything other than tread water?

 

Wouldn't you rather 'get it right'? Especially since you have the possibility of moving 70-80k units?

 

Or--why not go all-in and replace the commercial chassis F-Series as well? Or at least reduce that market to service bodies, so you don't have people chopping up your Class 4/5 range to make stuff like this:

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by RichardJensen

[7Mary3]

I remember the Loadstar! Reliable, but awkward. Pretty miserable to drive, narrow 2 man cab, steering wheel in your lap. Side opening hood made servicing real fun. The S Series which replaced the Loadstar in 1977 was a revolution. Great truck. Remember the old ads for it? "If the truck is an S, the answer is yes!".

[zipnzap]

 

Minimum GAWRs: 6k + 10k = 16k. Class 4 QED.

https://www.freightlinertrucks.com/content/media/assets/M2_Line_Brochure.pdf(p. 6)

 

So, in other words, another Class 5 - 0.1 that qualifies as "Class 4" simply for regulatory purposes?

So, if the E-450 had been only 16,000 lbs. and up instead of its current 14,000 lb. - 14,500 lb. range, that would've have made it perfectly suitable for everything that it's currently used for?

Compared to their Class 5 and up markets, where is the market for the "Class 4" TerraStar and M2 vs. that of the E-450 and Express/Savana 4500, or even the F-450 and Ram 4500?

The E-450, Express/Savana 4500, and the F-450 are the vehicles that dominate the Class 4 segment.

And lo and behold, (mostly thanks to the Super Duty) it's Ford that leads the medium duty segment. Not Freightliner, nor Navistar, nor anyone else:

http://pdfsr.com/pdf/2014-12-atd-truck-beat.pdf-1

https://www.nada.org/atdtruckbeat/

 

 

You've got a quote from 2010...

 

Unless they've changed their mind since then, that doesn't change what they said. In fact, although not van-based, 7Mary3 suggested going with this solution just recently:

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.

 

And given the above data, 7Mary3 may be 100% right. lfeg suggests the same thing.

 

 

...and a quote that doesn't mention issues with cabs at all.

 

What else would he be talking about? No one has been arguing to use whatever replaces the E-350/450 100% to fully replace the F-650/750 or vice versa.

When he says "merging" he's the referencing the argument regarding cab architecture and shared components as everyone else has been discussing.

 

 

E450's EOL.

 

So you've got these two products that are both on borrowed time: F650/750 & E450.

 

Why would you use a bastard solution to replace two bastard solutions? How does that improve the product range? You've got marginally better cabs and a 6.7L diesel in a Class 3/4. How's that going to do anything other than tread water?

 

Wouldn't you rather 'get it right'? Especially since you have the possibility of moving 70-80k units?

 

Or--why not go all-in and replace the commercial chassis F-Series as well? Or at least reduce that market to service bodies, so you don't have people chopping up your Class 4/5 range to make stuff like this:

 

 

Aside from being old, what makes the E-450 a "bastard solution"?

Again, both it and the Express/Savana 4500 are the dominant players in their niche.

The F-650/750, yes. But that term doesn't really apply to the E-450, outside of its age and being an orphan platform.

Using one cab to cover everything from the E-350 to the F-750 wouldn't be as just as much of a "bastard solution"?

 

As lfeg said:

 

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.

 

Also, given the above data, the Super Duty probably shouldn't even be touched, outside of the updates it's already receiving.

[J-150]

 

Straw man. Again.

 

Can you fit a modern MD diesel powertrain into either an E450 or a Transit?

6.0 and 6.4 will fit, so yes.

 

Ford just doesn't one off the shelf that fits.

[theoldwizard]

... I think that Ford by offering "any color as long as its black"-i.e. 6.7 Power Stroke/V-10/ Torqueshift trans is clearly defining the market they are after- and its not a 200 truck order for YRC or ABF or Old Dominion for city tractors were a driver spends 10 hrs a shift pounding the streets.

I don't know what the term "city tractor really means. To me, it brings up images of soft drink/beer delivrry trucks, or any truck that can use a single axle tractor with a trailer shorter than 40' and restricted to the weight the tractor can pull. Why that would rule out 200 truck order from those carriers, I don;t understand.

 

Oh-Ifeg, Ol'Wiz-check out the marketing boys press release on 650/750 production- they proudly still announce a.."tractor option for towing".

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but it may be because many people think of Medium Duties are relagated to box trucks and medium sized dumps.

[lfeg]

As to MD diesel powertrains, there are 4 cyl engines in that range. The Japanese truckbuilders use them. And in the past, GM used them also - I know an operator who still has a GMC 7000 Series dump in action that has a 4-53T powering it. It would be an interesting study to get the drawings for the engine compartment of the Transit and see if the Isuzu 5.2 liter 4 cyl diesel would fit in. <<Flameproof suit on>>> Add proper rear frame platform and axles - E450 replacement.

[Biker16]

 

 

 

That Vehicle only exists because the E-series isn't available with a Diesel.

 

For shuttle bus use the Super duty is a horrible solution, the driver sits well below the passenger load floor. so if a Fare or any interaction between the driver and a passenger, the driver is Sitting about 18 inches lower.

 

 

It simply isn't an good solution for the shuttle bus or even the RV segment.

 

The Freightliner Soltuion is too big, with the load floor about 10 inches higher than on an E-series.

 

 

BTW this is Transit Cutaway bus notice the postion of the Drive to the passenger area.

 

[Biker16]

Also, I believe the proper turn of phrase is "grasping at straws"

 

[Biker16]

I wanted to share how awesome the Visiblity is in the Transit

 

 

look how awesome that is.

[RichardJensen]

Aside from being old, what makes the E-450 a "bastard solution"?

 

 

You can't put any modern Ford engine in it. You can't put the 3V V10 in it, you can't put the 6.7L PSD in it. It requires a compromised powertrain that grows more and more compromised with every passing year.

 

--

 

And no, I don't see a common cab for Class 3-7 as a 'bastard solution'. Given that the frame will be considerably shorter than Class 6, yeah, it'll look a little odd, but you're not going to have functional drawbacks. It's not as though you're going to compromise the functionality of a Class 3 by putting a MD cab on it. But if you put a Transit cab on a Class 7, you're creating functional drawbacks that would be fine if Ford were satisfied with nothing more than seven or eight hundred units a month pushed down a line at Avon Lake, but I don't think they are.