Avon Lake Medium Duty

[theoldwizard]

Seeing as everyone is in speculation mode, any thoughts about Ford resurrecting a LCF ?

[theoldwizard]

Seeing as everyone is in speculation mode, any thoughts about Ford resurrecting a LCF ?

[Bob Rosadini]

Seeing as everyone is in speculation mode, any thoughts about Ford resurrecting a LCF ?

I would think with all of the Transit/E Series variants on the horizon is the LCF redundant? Again I'm thinking of the last LCF-which a dealer friend of mine told me was a great little truck except for the V-6 Power Stroke fiasco. Think how great that chassis would be today with a 3.7 or an EB?

 

Now if you are thinking about a higher GVW LCF, the Cargo lives in the rest of the world. (I'm talking about the "old style" cab thst was also built at KTP for a while-not the new "big jobs") Just how big a deal to bring it here? Now I'm sure many will say.."insufficient vol. to justify cost" but just how expensive would it be to utilize that cab structure- again..."One Ford"??

 

Short answer is, A LOT !

 

I don't see the volume being high enough to cover the costs.

Well Wiz I defer to your tech knowledge but isn't the belt being tihtened in Europe too? Once again, if the basic design is durable, it would seem any "clean up effort will ultimately pay dividends all around-unlessyou are saying there is something about the inherent design of the engine that makes it impossible to meet the numbers-last thing we need is a repeat of the Navistar EGR fiasco!

[7Mary3]

It is very true that there isn't much different between a TRADITIONAL class 6 and its larger class 7/baby 8 brothers. That tactic works for companies like Navistar and Freightliner, as their products are traditional medium duty and heavy duty trucks. Lots of parts commonality and similar assembly techniques. Medium duty leveraged off the heavy duty line. I think what might be the best tactic for Ford would be a class 6 that is an extension of their class 4 and 5 trucks. Utilize as many Ford parts as possible (particularly the 6.7L Powerstroke- has Ford turned a profit on those yet?), limit vendor supplied components. Yes, it would probably not be possible to 'grow' a truck like that into class 7, but wouldn't Ford be better off going for that part of the medium duty market where they would have significant advantages over their competitors? Those advantages being an in-house engine and transmission, the ability to share many components with existing vehicles, and an assembly line optimized for high volume low cost production. Not the hand-work usually required of medium and heavy production.

 

If Ford was to build a traditional medium duty, it would indeed make sense to go into class 7 and baby 8. However, didn't Ford get out of heavy trucks in 1996 and essentially class 6 and 7 medium duty in 2003 when Blue Diamond was formed due to poor ROI? What has changed now? If Ford did return to traditional medium duty, I suspect they will make the same discovery once again. The ROI is not comparable to their other vehicle lines, and whatever capital is being expended to product medium trucks could best be spent on other types of vehicles.

[Bob Rosadini]

It is very true that there isn't much different between a TRADITIONAL class 6 and its larger class 7/baby 8 brothers. That tactic works for companies like Navistar and Freightliner, as their products are traditional medium duty and heavy duty trucks. Lots of parts commonality and similar assembly techniques. Medium duty leveraged off the heavy duty line. I think what might be the best tactic for Ford would be a class 6 that is an extension of their class 4 and 5 trucks. Utilize as many Ford parts as possible (particularly the 6.7L Powerstroke- has Ford turned a profit on those yet?), limit vendor supplied components. Yes, it would probably not be possible to 'grow' a truck like that into class 7, but wouldn't Ford be better off going for that part of the medium duty market where they would have significant advantages over their competitors? Those advantages being an in-house engine and transmission, the ability to share many components with existing vehicles, and an assembly line optimized for high volume low cost production. Not the hand-work usually required of medium and heavy production.

 

If Ford was to build a traditional medium duty, it would indeed make sense to go into class 7 and baby 8. However, didn't Ford get out of heavy trucks in 1996 and essentially class 6 and 7 medium duty in 2003 when Blue Diamond was formed due to poor ROI? What has changed now? If Ford did return to traditional medium duty, I suspect they will make the same discovery once again. The ROI is not comparable to their other vehicle lines, and whatever capital is being expended to product medium trucks could best be spent on other types of vehicles.

7M- to echo Ifeg's comment, a lot of the components are allready there- engine and cooling are the two areas not easily addressed with the current truck- and remember, I'm not suggesting they should be in all segments of 8-certainly they will NEVER compete ewith the Large Car boys-that was a mistake IMO when HN-80 was cooked up. Again its all about the numbers and there are plenty of applications in 8 and 7 that can be served without huge expenditures to get there.

 

You raise the issue of ROI. No argument. I wish ALL my stock matched the 21 buck price I paid for some of it. But we are right back to that argument-do you become a one dimensional company? I do believe Bill Jr. was quoted as saying they WANTED to be in big trucks? and as I previously have said, if ROI was the only issue would the Flex still be alive? Would Lincoln continue to exist. How much did the Ford GT cost to develop and build a run of 1000 units? And is Toyota that less focused on ROI than Ford that they can afford to enter a market from SCRATCH in the US with no following?

 

You talk about limiting vendor components? Isn't Autolite, Visteon etc yesterday's newspaper? What ISN"T a vendor component these days. They may have a Ford logo cast into them but they are still under contract.

 

And as for class 3,4 and 5, April ytd has Dodge ahead of Ford by a significant margin and April is even a greater gap in favor of "Ram". But that is a story in itself.

 

Have to admit, I think this is one of the better threads-hope I live long enough to see the answer

[7Mary3]

Good points, but Toyota never entered the medium duty market from scrath. They brought over their affiliate Hino, one of the world's largest truck manufacturers. Are Hino's built in Toyota plants? Are Freightliners built in Mercedes-Benz plants? That's the issue I see. As for vendor parts, many of the parts you are talking about are vendor supplied, but the are proprietary. They in essence 'belong' to Ford. The vendor components I am speaking of are things like a ISB Cummins engine or an Allison transmission. Ford would probably have to pay a higher per unit cost that Freightliner would because their volume is smaller. Now it gets tough to compete.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see a return to Ford being a full-line truck manufacturer. But I wonder how they could do it and make a reasonable profit. Given Ford's numbers in class 6 and 7 sales, I don't see how they can justify jumping into that market with a brand new platform.

 

Whatever happens, I think it's going to be interesting!

[lfeg]

If Ford were to "extend" their class 4 and 5 trucks to cover a "light" 6 market, they might be limiting themselves to a small incremental increase in sales. Sure, the 6.7 deisel and 6 speed auto could handle the task, but from what I see the axles and brakes would be the limiting factors. As I said before, frame rails are not a problem, as those are vendor items already, a deeper section is no problem. If they would want to focus on the non CDL side of class 6, they would still need to go with the proper capacity axles and brakes - but the axles they already use in 4 and 5 are purchased from vendors, so they should be able to use that base to get good pricing. Another question that I have is how would the market accept the 6.7 diesel? I do not know, in the market the Cummins is a known entity, not so the 6.7. But they have the 6.8 gas, and with an out the door complete CNG package, that would be a big advantage.

 

And using the pickup cab as a start for a light 6 is a good move - use the basic cab with a front clip to suit a tilt hood, that eliminates the accessability issues with the 450 and 550. And possibly raise the roof (as they did years ago on the N).

[theoldwizard]

Well Wiz I defer to your tech knowledge but isn't the belt being tihtened in Europe too? Once again, if the basic design is durable, it would seem any "clean up effort will ultimately pay dividends all around-unless you are saying there is something about the inherent design of the engine that makes it impossible to meet the numbers-last thing we need is a repeat of the Navistar EGR fiasco!

 

I guess I am. At a minimum I would expect a complete redesign of the cylinder heads and pistons. Along with that would be a redesign of the intake and exhaust manifolds. Whats left ? Block, crank and rods, and I'm sure the engineers would not leave them alone.

 

I have no idea what the volume of the Cargo is in western EU where emission standards are likely to catch up to large diesel engines, but I would assume there is no compelling reason to "clean up" that engine for eastern EU, South America, India or Africa.

[7Mary3]

Are the Turkish Fords even sold in western Europe? I wonder how the would compare to a new Volvo or Mercedes.

[Edstock]

Apparently the 9-liter diesel made by Ford Otosan is EU 5 compliant but not EU 6 compliant.

 

http://www.planet-trucks.com/truck-news/a39866/ford-otosan-new-cargo-europe

 

The Ford Otosan New cargo ranked third in the 2013 Truck of the Year contest but it still hardly know in Europe. This model made in Turkey is primarily sold on the national market and on the export market to Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and North Africa.

 

 

The Ford Otosan New Cargo is equipped with a 7.3 liter and 260hp Ford Duratorq motorization. It is also available in Euro 5 version with a 9 liter 320 or 360hp engine. This model is also equipped with a 16 gear ZF16 S109 gearbox. The lack of Euro 6 motorization may deter the Ford Otosan New Cargo from being exported in Europe.

[twintornados]

They should build this at Avon Lake for NA and export....

 

 

 

[lfeg]

They should build this at Avon Lake for NA and export....

 

 

 

 

There is not much of a market for a cabover tractor in the US given the liberal length restrictions. And with the difficulty in finding CDL drivers in parts of the country, trucking outfits like to keep their drivers happy, and drivers seem to prefer a long nose over a cabover. And where would it be exported to? there is already excess capacity in the Eurozone, and costwise, assembly in the US would require a price that would be non competative compared to production in Turkey for Africa and Asia.

 

Something that uses as many common stampings, glass, and interior parts as possible for the cab and targets a growing or underserved segment of the market is what is needed.

[lfeg]

Apparently the 9-liter diesel made by Ford Otosan is EU 5 compliant but not EU 6 compliant.

 

http://www.planet-trucks.com/truck-news/a39866/ford-otosan-new-cargo-europe

 

The Ford Otosan New cargo ranked third in the 2013 Truck of the Year contest but it still hardly know in Europe. This model made in Turkey is primarily sold on the national market and on the export market to Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and North Africa.

 

 

The Ford Otosan New Cargo is equipped with a 7.3 liter and 260hp Ford Duratorq motorization. It is also available in Euro 5 version with a 9 liter 320 or 360hp engine. This model is also equipped with a 16 gear ZF16 S109 gearbox. The lack of Euro 6 motorization may deter the Ford Otosan New Cargo from being exported in Europe.

 

 

Yes, emissions is the issue in many places. In looking at some technical publications lately, the exhaust aftertreatment systems needed to comply with Euro6, current US standards, and near term future standards take up almost as much space as the engine itself. One Perkins engine that integrates the Euro6 aftertreatment package with the engine (it is mounted on top of the engine) looks like a double high engine. I do not see how it would fit in a truck or bus, or even construction equipment.

[theoldwizard]

There is not much of a market for a cabover tractor in the US given the liberal length restrictions. And with the difficulty in finding CDL drivers in parts of the country, trucking outfits like to keep their drivers happy, and drivers seem to prefer a long nose over a cabover.

 

I have been thinking that all along !

[7Mary3]

The great cabover debate...... There is only 1 market for class 8 cabovers in North Americal, and that's refuse. Period. You have 3 very competent players in that field, the Autocar (actually a modernized White Expeditor of yore), the Mack MC, and the new International. I see no room for the Turkish Ford there, cab's too high even if the could get it past the EPA. Besides, how much 'Ford' is really in that thing anyway? Seems to me to be a home grown regional Turkish design made for the mid-east and Russia, that's it. No doubt a great truck for that part of the world.

 

Anyway, I think LCF cabovers do have their place! In class 4-5-6 city delivery. I know people that have given up on the domestic class 4 and 5 trucks and switched over to Isuzu, Hino, and/or Fuso cabovers. None of them would ever consider going back, either. And that's what gets me, I keep hearing how much cheaper it is to operate say an NPR compared to a Ram 4500. I can really see these types of trucks replacing the domestic class 4 and 5 trucks in the future. Maybe not 100%, but a substantial percentage.

 

So yes oldwizard, how about a LCF?

Edited July 3, 2013 by 7Mary3

[lfeg]

The key to a successful LCF is a drivetrain that will give lower cost of operation than the current F 350/450/550 with the same payload and cube capabilities. Fuel economy is a big part of that, but maintenance costs are a factor. I know of several landscaping firms that have replaced their Ford and Chevy 1 and 1 1/2 ton dumps with the NPR, and with the better manuverability on top of fuel savings, will probably not go back.

 

If Ford does eventually offer a LCF, they need a competitive drivetrain first. A one ton Transit cab and chassis might be a partial step.

[Bob Rosadini]

The key to a successful LCF is a drivetrain that will give lower cost of operation than the current F 350/450/550 with the same payload and cube capabilities. Fuel economy is a big part of that, but maintenance costs are a factor. I know of several landscaping firms that have replaced their Ford and Chevy 1 and 1 1/2 ton dumps with the NPR, and with the better manuverability on top of fuel savings, will probably not go back.

 

If Ford does eventually offer a LCF, they need a competitive drivetrain first. A one ton Transit cab and chassis might be a partial step.

Agree on the popularity of NPR -although the sales numbers are not huge. Seems however that once someone gets one of those inline diesels, they don't go back-not sure if the attraction is the engine or the maneuverability of the LCF design. I just hope this 5 cylinder diesel proves to be a reliable fuel efficient design.

 

7m3- As for your comment on cab overs, no doubt there is no market for a High tilt at this point and LCF rules in the heavy waste business for rear loaders. As for roll-offs, conventionals still rule-at least here in No'east. Mack Granite I would say rules. However, regarding the OAL issue, as the diesel treatment issue gets tougher might that space in back of the cab all of a sudden provide another reason for a cab over design as the emissions treatment systems eat into effective BBC dimensions???. There is only so much you can stuff under a tilt hood opr hang under a frame.

[twintornados]

I would love to see a Transit cab on a class 5,6, or 7 chassis....that would definitely attract some of the LCF sales.....

[RichardJensen]

I expect a Transit Cab/Chassis here in the near mid (2-3yrs) as part of a wind-down of the E-series in the lighter duty van market.

 

My question is whether a Transit Cab/chassis can be rigged with a high enough GVWR. AFAIK, 14k is the max GVWR for the Transit family, and that's on the LWB.

 

Anyone have better info?

[twintornados]

I expect a Transit Cab/Chassis here in the near mid (2-3yrs) as part of a wind-down of the E-series in the lighter duty van market.

 

My question is whether a Transit Cab/chassis can be rigged with a high enough GVWR. AFAIK, 14k is the max GVWR for the Transit family, and that's on the LWB.

 

Anyone have better info?

My question would be, can a Transit Styled Cab be configured to sit on a Medium duty frame? I know Transit FS is a unitized chassis, but the cab components can be made and fitted to a F- 650/750 frame?

[twintornados]

Anything new from Avon Lake and its medium duty truck status??

[7Mary3]

Nothing. There were those spy photos of some cobbled up F-650's a couple of months ago, but those could have been used for engine/drivetrain testing. Hard to say what they were. I still question if Ford is really going to develop an exclusive platform for a vehicle line that they might sell 10,000 units/year. I hope they do, but I don't see a strong business case for it.

[Joe771476]

I think Ford knows what I've been saying for years: With customers who require class 1 thru 5 and also class 6 & 7, they MUST keep the mediums to keep the lower class customers, or they could lose them. If Ford drops mediums and all of a sudden Ram goes into mediums, Ford will be all done. Ram already outsells Ford from class 3 thru 7. How don't know how they do it, but they do!

[RichardJensen]

I still question if Ford is really going to develop an exclusive platform for a vehicle line that they might sell 10,000 units/year. I hope they do, but I don't see a strong business case for it.

 

Bearing in mind that Ford seems likely to move the E-Series cab/chassis, chassis and cutaway lines to this new product, I think you're looking at considerably more than 10,000 units per year.

[7Mary3]

My thinking is while a class 6-7 medium duty may share some body componentry with the E series or Transit, it will likely be a different platform if Ford choses to build a traditional class 6-7 truck. An E series cutaway and a class 5 stripped chassis would likely be a common platform, and could probably share a lot with the class 5 Super Duty. Speculation on my part, but I don't see how a traditional class 6 could share a platform with a class 5. A 6 would be more aligned with a class 7 or even an 8, and that is why I see a significant advantage for companies like Freightliner and International in class 6.

 

As for Ford needing to remain in class 6 to insure class 4 and 5 sales, I really don't see that. Ram is a perfect example, they offer no class 6 or larger truck, yet outsell Ford in class 4 and 5. I can speak from my own experiences in large fleets. It was true at one time being a full line truck manufacturer carried with it an advantage for fleet customers, but not so much anymore. None of my regular Ford dealers will sell or service an F-650, I have to go to a dedicated Ford medium dealer. So on my end of the business, now there isn't any advantage to having Ford light and medium trucks vs. GM light trucks and Freightliner mediums as an example. Further, since my heavy trucks are Freightliners, I have to deal with the local Freightliner dealer anyway.......

 

I won't get into how much easier it is for my upfitters to deal with Freightliner than it is to deal with Ford on mediums!

Edited January 5, 2014 by 7Mary3