Avon Lake Medium Duty

[7Mary3]

This is what it looks like to me: Moving the mediums to Avon Lake will only happen if and when the E-Series fades away completely. The move was a 'bone' thrown to the UAW, a committment to keep the plant open after the decision was made not to build the Transit in Ohio. This is a good thing for Avon Lake employees, they will build the remaining E-Series models or mediums, either way the plant does stay open through this contract. It sounds to me like Fields thinks the Transit may not replace the E Series overnight, and I think that will prove to be true. And if that is true, the 650 and 750 will stay 'Blue Diamond' indefinately.

This would explain:

No 'Avon Lake' 650 and 750 prototypes spotted yet, or evidence such a truck is under development.

No evidence that Avon Lake is being retooled.

No word from Navistar that Blue Diamond is coming to an end.

 

Considering Navistar's financial troubles, the situation could become even more interesting. Could you imagine what would happen to Blue Diamond should Navistar be taken over by a Ford competitor?

 

I think the mediums will stay Blue Diamond and the E Series will remain in production for at least the duration of the current UAW contract.

[RichardJensen]

Avon Lake won't close under the current contract, and I expect that Ford's flans with the E-Series cutaway/cab/chassis will be firmed up after some Transit numbers start coming in.

 

The Transit cannot replace 100% of the E-Series range, so the big question is when/how the balance of the E-Series business merges with the medium duty program.

[theoldwizard]

The Transit cannot replace 100% of the E-Series range, so the big question is when/how the balance of the E-Series business merges with the medium duty program.

While I agree with the first half of this statement. I disagree with the second.

 

"Merging" the E350-450 with F550-750 ? Highly unlikely ! As unlikely as Ford coming up with another LCF, which they could really use to help round out their medium duty offering.

 

I am curious on how Farley thinks that Transit can pick up (no pun intended) the E350-450 business. I am impatiently waiting the official specs on the US Transit.

Edited December 21, 2012 by theoldwizard

[lfeg]

I do not see the E Series cutaways merging with the F650/F750. Two different markets, two completely different sets of capabilities. Sort of like merging the MKT and the CMax.

 

And I do not see the E Series going much beyond '15 - because as volume goes down and the facility fixed costs stay the same, unit costs will go up and Ford will have the same issue as they did with the CV. The E Series cutaways are really a low cost platform for box trucks/delivery vans that are mostly under 12,500 lb GVW. The reason for the low cost was the sharing of components with the vans. As the E vans go away or shrink in volume the cost basis for the cutaways goes up. And forget about adapting the F650/F750 chassis for a cutaway - using a platform designed for 24,000 to 30,000+ GVWs in a sub 15,000 GVW application will put costs so high the competition (especially internal competition from Transit cutaways) will make it a loosing proposition.

[mnm]

I work where almost all the econoline stampings are made.......and right now the plan is to keep making all econoline stampings into early/mid 2014. When at that point, only the cutaway stampings and assemblys continue. Of course thing could change, but those are the plans I have heard thus far.

[Bob Rosadini]

While I agree with the first half of this statement. I disagree with the second.

 

"Merging" the E350-450 with F550-750 ? Highly unlikely ! As unlikely as Ford coming up with another LCF, which they could really use to help round out their medium duty offering.

 

I am curious on how Farley thinks that Transit can pick up (no pun intended) the E350-450 business. I am impatiently waiting the official specs on the US Transit.

I do believe the only thing wrong with the LCF was the nightmare V-6 Power Stroke. Wonder what that would be like with the 5 cyl. T-6 diesel???

[RichardJensen]

"Merging" the E350-450 with F550-750 ? Highly unlikely !

I've said it before, am saying it again.

 

It will be the Isuzu/GM TopKick, done right.

 

They won't use E-Series OR F-650/750 cab structure.

Edited December 21, 2012 by RichardJensen

[7Mary3]

I've said it before, am saying it again.

 

It will be the Isuzu/GM TopKick, done right.

 

They won't use E-Series OR F-650/750 cab structure.

 

I think it would be quite possible make a medium duty cab out of some Transit body stampings. That's not really 'platform sharing' in the strict sense, but it certainly is component sharing. Going back to my comments about the Freightliner M2, the difference in the driving experience between the M2 and a comparably equipped F-650 can best be descriped as 'stark'. The cab is a big part of that. And actually, the Topkick that used the cab based on the full size GM van was not a bad driving truck. The interior parts were pretty cheap, but the 7.8L Isuzu diesel was the best medium duty diesel available at the time.

 

But, at the end of the day, how much can Ford afford to spend on engineering a new platform for a vehicle that sells less than 10,000 units/year in a very competitive and price sensitive market?

[RichardJensen]

Well, for starters, you'd be piggybacking the E-350/450 volume on top of that, and that's what? Another 30k a year or so? 40k for that sheetmetal, and who knows what for each frame that would be bolted under it.

 

Secondly, I would expect unique sheetmetal and interior electronics/HVAC ducting from either the Transit or the SD (would lean toward the SD, since the engine bay would have to accommodate the 6.7L PSD, which could allow them to share the firewall)

[Bob Rosadini]

Well, for starters, you'd be piggybacking the E-350/450 volume on top of that, and that's what? Another 30k a year or so? 40k for that sheetmetal, and who knows what for each frame that would be bolted under it.

 

Secondly, I would expect unique sheetmetal and interior electronics/HVAC ducting from either the Transit or the SD (would lean toward the SD, since the engine bay would have to accommodate the 6.7L PSD, which could allow them to share the firewall)

 

IMO-if Ford stays in class 6,7, they will have to keep the vocational class 8 market in mind. From the "economy of scale" perspective you can't ignore the numbers of "baby 8's" that the truck could cover.

 

Regional distribution will be the future of class 8 as intermodal rail gets the bulk of long haul freight. And you don't need 500 HP and a 1600 sq. inch radiator to do that. As such the new truck will have to be able to accomdate a 10-13 liter engine. Yes, good economics to build some with the Ford 6.7 but that will be the lower end of the market. Remember the old Power stroke was an option when 650/750 came out in 2000. That option did not last long. Granted the new Power Stroke is another animal-we hope-but it carries the stigma of being a light duty engine-and a lot of baggage to boot.

 

Lkewise, a 10-13 liter engine makes for example construction and refuse another market to be served. Bottom line is they will have to shoot for as broad a market as they can.

[RichardJensen]

It is, frankly, impossible for me to imagine how the 6.7 could carry baggage with any right thinking person. It has nothing in common with the 6.0/6.4 other than the trademark. Block's different, turbos are different, injection system's different. Heck, they run the exhaust out through the valley.

 

I would expected that and the Cummins, not necessarily verging into the 'Baby 8', as you'd have a hard time serving the E-Series markets (ambulance, delivery van, bus) and the Class 8 market with a common body.

[twintornados]

It is, frankly, impossible for me to imagine how the 6.7 could carry baggage with any right thinking person. It has nothing in common with the 6.0/6.4 other than the trademark. Block's different, turbos are different, injection system's different. Heck, they run the exhaust out through the valley.

 

I would expected that and the Cummins, not necessarily verging into the 'Baby 8', as you'd have a hard time serving the E-Series markets (ambulance, delivery van, bus) and the Class 8 market with a common body.

I still left wondering if/can Ford develop a head design for 6.7L Scorpion motor with a "conventional flow" design and no turbos...tune for low end torque and durability in the 500K range and you would have a winner in medium duty applications.

[Edstock]

Then there's Ford Otosan in Turkey, where they make a 7.3 liter I-6, and a 9 liter as well.

 

http://www.ford.com.tr/agir-ticari-araclar/ford-cargo/ecotorq

 

http://www.ford.com.tr/agir-ticari-araclar/ford-cargo

 

Those are links to the Ford of Turkey company site, copy into the translation service of your choice. Neat looking tractor on the second link.

[Bob Rosadini]

Richard J- You and I know the 6.7 is a Ford built engine as opposed to a Navistar product. Trust me-many people have no clue and would not touch another "Ford" V-8 diesel. Perhaps baggage is too strong a term, but is it a valid concern in today's market? IMO, yes. As a practical matter, ever wonder why they don't offer it in 650/750 today? And don't say supply.

 

And Edstock I've mentioned that 9 liter Duratorque before-certainly would be a good candidate and when youn look at some of the videos floating around of the Turk Cargo in a four axle dump application with what I would guess would be a 15+yd. body, you are talking one high GVW, I do believe 7m3 however has commented its a dirty engine. You would think in this day and age they would be designing for all markets but that is a consideration- I do believe many years ago US emmission regs were the final nail in the Ford 7.8 that led to its replacement with the 8.3 Cummins.

[RichardJensen]

As a practical matter, ever wonder why they don't offer it in 650/750 today? And don't say supply.

I would guess that the Blue Diamond paperwork does not make the 6.7L a favorable option for Ford.

[Bob Rosadini]

I would guess that the Blue Diamond paperwork does not make the 6.7L a favorable option for Ford.

Might be a reasonable assumption if the original engine choices, (Cat, Cummins and Navistar sourced Power Stroke) were defined in agreement. My guess however would be a conservative position that said....."let's see how it does in lesser applications before we roll the dice and put it in a class 6 or 7"

[RichardJensen]

I disagree. Either the engine compartment won't accommodate the 6.7, and Ford can't be bothered to re-engineer it, or Navistar would charge Ford a fortune to re-engineer it, or Navistar has the right of refusal on any engine and won't permit the 6.7, or Navistar has the right to use any engine and Ford doesn't want them to have access to the 6.7 for their products.

 

As poisonous as that relationship is, on an obviously lame-duck platform, I would hesitate to read too much into any decision regarding powertrains, especially regarding the withholding of powertrains.

[twintornados]

I disagree. Either the engine compartment won't accommodate the 6.7, and Ford can't be bothered to re-engineer it, or Navistar would charge Ford a fortune to re-engineer it, or Navistar has the right of refusal on any engine and won't permit the 6.7, or Navistar has the right to use any engine and Ford doesn't want them to have access to the 6.7 for their products.

 

As poisonous as that relationship is, on an obviously lame-duck platform, I would hesitate to read too much into any decision regarding powertrains, especially regarding the withholding of powertrains.

I think you may be right Richard, I see a new chassis design coming out of Avon Lake that will use either a version of T-Series cab with a tilt forward option, or an E-Series cab with a unique nose ala Topkick.

[theoldwizard]

I think you may be right Richard, I see a new chassis design coming out of Avon Lake that will use either a version of T-Series cab with a tilt forward option, or an E-Series cab with a unique nose ala Topkick.

Any redesign of the Medium Duty line has to include some better powertrain choices if it wants to succeed !

Edited December 26, 2012 by theoldwizard

[Bob Rosadini]

Any redesign of the Medium Duty line has to include some better powertrain choices if it wants to succeed !

Amen-seems like we all hav pretty much covered the bases here:

-will likely share some Transit cab components-glass house, doors-or even some Cargo engineered cab parts-making a conventional out of a tilt cab is an old trick

-must be able to cover potential class 8 market needs-not long haul "large car" market with aero high rise sleepers but voctional short haul tractor market as well as heavy straight truck applications-construction,refuse.

-must have at least 10 liter engine option and hopefully upwards to 13 liter.

[twintornados]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ford-otosan-invests-in-truck-production.aspx?pageID=238&nid=29307

 

Wondering if this investment will integrate with operations at their US medium truck production site @ Avon Lake

[lfeg]

I doubt it.

As to engines, yes - 10 to 13 liter range in diesel and natural gas versions will pretty much be the standard requirements in the next 3 to 7 years. In the "non CDL" GVWs there can be some smaller, lower power engines in the 7 to 9 liter range so those can be at a lower price point. But natural gas capability still must be an option.

 

And Bob, I see the "baby 8" market for "final leg" or "first leg" intermodal / containerized as a segment where natural gas capacity is a natural. Always starting or finishing a trip at a terminal, and always back at the barn at the end of the shift.

[lfeg]

I disagree. Either the engine compartment won't accommodate the 6.7, and Ford can't be bothered to re-engineer it, or Navistar would charge Ford a fortune to re-engineer it, or Navistar has the right of refusal on any engine and won't permit the 6.7, or Navistar has the right to use any engine and Ford doesn't want them to have access to the 6.7 for their products.

 

As poisonous as that relationship is, on an obviously lame-duck platform, I would hesitate to read too much into any decision regarding powertrains, especially regarding the withholding of powertrains.

 

I do not see the 6.7 diesel as a good candidate for class 6/7 mediums. It is a fairly high strung diesel that is great for 3/4 and one ton pickups and the applications for the F450/F550. But in many class 6/7 applications (even the "non CDL'specials) a duty cycle that is at or near max continuous rating is not out of the ordinary. Power ratings in the market the 6.7 serves are not continuous, but closer to peak. I would be interested to see the continuous ratings for the 6.7. Continuous operation at peak ratings is one of the surest ways to kill an engine and run up operating costs.

[Bob Rosadini]

Any redesign of the Medium Duty line has to include some better powertrain choices if it wants to succeed !

 

For sure-if it doesn't forget about any entry into class 89-even lower end.

http://www.hurriyetd...D=238&nid=29307

 

Wondering if this investment will integrate with operations at their US medium truck production site @ Avon Lake

 

Again, if you truly believe in "One Ford" these trucks look like they operate in some pretty tough environments-you would think durability has to be a key attribute of these things-think of countries in which they operate and the service facilities-few and far between.

I doubt it.

As to engines, yes - 10 to 13 liter range in diesel and natural gas versions will pretty much be the standard requirements in the next 3 to 7 years. In the "non CDL" GVWs there can be some smaller, lower power engines in the 7 to 9 liter range so those can be at a lower price point. But natural gas capability still must be an option.

 

And Bob, I see the "baby 8" market for "final leg" or "first leg" intermodal / containerized as a segment where natural gas capacity is a natural. Always starting or finishing a trip at a terminal, and always back at the barn at the end of the shift.

For sure-the infrastructure issue regarding fueling-as well as size/weight of an LNG fuel tank makes this a natural application.

I do not see the 6.7 diesel as a good candidate for class 6/7 mediums. It is a fairly high strung diesel that is great for 3/4 and one ton pickups and the applications for the F450/F550. But in many class 6/7 applications (even the "non CDL'specials) a duty cycle that is at or near max continuous rating is not out of the ordinary. Power ratings in the market the 6.7 serves are not continuous, but closer to peak. I would be interested to see the continuous ratings for the 6.7. Continuous operation at peak ratings is one of the surest ways to kill an engine and run up operating costs.

Misapplication of high horsepower light dutyengines was alwaysin my book the kiss of death. I remember when Ford started using the 3208 in C series-except they were called "Ford V-636 " or something like that. You No-East guys will remember Red Star Express. I remember talking to a Red Star driver one day who was bragging about the ability of this engine to "fly with 40,000 lbs on"-I thought -"yeah but for how long?"

[7Mary3]

......Misapplication of high horsepower light dutyengines was alwaysin my book the kiss of death.  I remember when Ford started using the 3208 in C series-except they were called  "Ford V-636 " or something like that. You No-East guys will remember Red Star Express.  I remember talking to a Red Star driver one day who was bragging about the ability of this engine to "fly with 40,000 lbs on"-I thought -"yeah but for how long?"

 

Oh yeah, that road to nowhere is littered with a lot of diesels that had good power on paper but were not robust enough for heavy duty service. The Cat 3208, Detroit 8.2T, International DV-550 and 9.0L, the GMC Toroflows, Cummins 555.