Avon Lake Medium Duty

[Bob Rosadini]

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!

To your point, and I don't know if this is a unique situation, but I am aware that a Mass dealer who has 650/750's, can not sell 150-250. Supposedly conflict with nearby car dealer. Now I think back in the old days, a Ford Heavy Truck store franchise could not sell pick ups but I think they have to rethink that strategy if you expect someone to survive on class 6/7 volume alone..

 

As to your comment on Ford's ability to deal with upfitters, if they hope to get serious, I'm sure they will have to beef up their support. A look at Ford's medium website coverage for mediums vs. Frieghtliner, Hino and Navistar is an example in my mind of their half hearted participation.

 

Mr. DeLuca, time to get serious if you hope to be a player with the new Avon Lake product

[SoonerLS]

Now I think back in the old days, a Ford Heavy Truck store franchise could not sell pick ups but I think they have to rethink that strategy if you expect someone to survive on class 6/7 volume alone..

Rush Truck Centers (at least their store in OKC) says they sell F250s through F750s, though their online inventory currently only goes as low as two F350 Crew Cab flatbeds (one is a flat dump bed). They also say they sell LCFs and E-Series.

[RichardJensen]

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.

 

It would not need to be a traditional Class 6. Shoot. The Ram 3500 can be fitted out to 33,000 GCWR, and the max GVWR for Class 7 is 33k.

Edited January 6, 2014 by RichardJensen

[7Mary3]

That's what I am thinking. Not a traditional class 6.

[lfeg]

And there is a trend building in the commercial market - some fleets are dropping a class to gain some operating economy. In some applications a class 6 box truck can be replaced with a class 5 box truck. Downsizing is a fact of life today. I have also read that a decision point in the diesel vs gasoline choice is moving up to 30K to 35K miles per year as an upper limit for gasoline over diesel. So it looks like there will be a need for a medium gasoline engine with comparable perfomance to the Cummins 6.7, and for natural gas versions of it.

 

Also, it does not make much economic sense to put a replacement for class 4 and 5 cutaways on a common platform with Class 6 and 7 cab and chassis. All you end up with is expensive and heavier than necessary cutaways. Ford has done so well in the cutaway market because of the commonality with the E vans. Keeps manufacturing costs in line, and keeps parts and repair costs in line for the users. It is still my opinion that the eventual replacement for the E Series cutaways will be Transit based. Might end up being produced at Avon along with class 6 and 7 mediums, but will be a separate platform that may only share things like HVAC and such.

[theoldwizard]

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.

I, for one, do not agree with your prognostication !

Edited January 6, 2014 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

One sort of "victim" of the Alan Mullaly era is Ford's entire commercial vehicle business. There were (admittedly) "bigger fish to fry" in order to get Ford back to profitability.

Taxi and livery vehicle companies are still fuming about the death of the Panther and Ford's weak attempt to replace it with the MkT. The obvious solution, at least for the livery market, was a stretched MkS (think Volvo S80L). Many police officers are not "thrilled" with the PI Sedan (a.k.a. Taurus) because of insufficient front seat room (for officers over 6'4" and/or 300 lbs) and an insufficient "suspect" compartment.

While some taxi fleets accepted the Transit Connect, they quickly found that they could not purchase sufficient volume and deliveries are still a trickle with the new model.

Offering CNG on F150 only happened because both GM and RAM offered it first (despite the fact that this was a zero engineering cost option because all of the work had been completed for the Transit). On top of this, what most customers want is a fully engineered factory solution, something that is not going to happen any time soon.

My SWAG is that the F650/750 will change very little. Maybe a new top hat and interior, but the rest will remain the same. I still can not believe that Ford is going to continue to offer the 6.8L V10. Gasoline/LP/CNG engine are positioned to make a come back in this market (lower initial cost, lower operating costs) IF they have sufficient power. This is going to take at least an 8L engine. There are still no rumors of the 7L "big brother" of the 6.2L !!

 

 

The commercial business/medium duty will just muddle along.

[twintornados]

If Ford was to create a 7.0L or 8.0L version of the 6.2L "Boss" (Or Hurricane, if you will) motor...then they need to make the heads and exhaust manifolds out of cast iron or even CGI for durability issues that are unique to the Medium Duty lines....the weight penalty for going cast iron is not as worrisome in F-650/750, F-53 and E-350/450 cutaways as it would be for the light duty truck market.

[Bob Rosadini]

Rush Truck Centers (at least their store in OKC) says they sell F250s through F750s, though their online inventory currently only goes as low as two F350 Crew Cab flatbeds (one is a flat dump bed). They also say they sell LCFs and E-Series.

Thx-Then the case I cited is in fact unique-car dealership down the road from this truck store was long standing guy with "connections" and they would not let the truck store step on this guuys toes.

 

 

It would not need to be a traditional Class 6. Shoot. The Ram 3500 can be fitted out to 33,000 GCWR, and the max GVWR for Class 7 is 33k.

Richard-big difference between 33,000 lb GCW and 33,000 lb GVW. In GCW trailer can and does make up for any deficiency in the towing vehicle. GVW its all on the truck.

 

And there is a trend building in the commercial market - some fleets are dropping a class to gain some operating economy. In some applications a class 6 box truck can be replaced with a class 5 box truck. Downsizing is a fact of life today. I have also read that a decision point in the diesel vs gasoline choice is moving up to 30K to 35K miles per year as an upper limit for gasoline over diesel. So it looks like there will be a need for a medium gasoline engine with comparable perfomance to the Cummins 6.7, and for natural gas versions of it.

 

Also, it does not make much economic sense to put a replacement for class 4 and 5 cutaways on a common platform with Class 6 and 7 cab and chassis. All you end up with is expensive and heavier than necessary cutaways. Ford has done so well in the cutaway market because of the commonality with the E vans. Keeps manufacturing costs in line, and keeps parts and repair costs in line for the users. It is still my opinion that the eventual replacement for the E Series cutaways will be Transit based. Might end up being produced at Avon along with class 6 and 7 mediums, but will be a separate platform that may only share things like HVAC and such.

Case in point, at least here in New England a lot of municipal fleets (highway and utility) are buying 550's vs the typical heavy 6 wheel dump (35,000 GVW) that was always the norm. Willalways be a need for some heavy trucks toopen the roads but the 4 WD 19,000 pd trucks do the clean up and have no trouble with the typical 4-8" snow. State. Turnpike authorities appear to be sticking with big power-in fact here in Mass it appears most of new Mass Pike trucks are SD114 F'liner tandems. Last of the big Louisville 9000 single axles will soon be on the auction block.

 

One sort of "victim" of the Alan Mullaly era is Ford's entire commercial vehicle business. There were (admittedly) "bigger fish to fry" in order to get Ford back to profitability.

 

Taxi and livery vehicle companies are still fuming about the death of the Panther and Ford's weak attempt to replace it with the MkT. The obvious solution, at least for the livery market, was a stretched MkS (think Volvo S80L). Many police officers are not "thrilled" with the PI Sedan (a.k.a. Taurus) because of insufficient front seat room (for officers over 6'4" and/or 300 lbs) and an insufficient "suspect" compartment.

 

While some taxi fleets accepted the Transit Connect, they quickly found that they could not purchase sufficient volume and deliveries are still a trickle with the new model.

 

Offering CNG on F150 only happened because both GM and RAM offered it first (despite the fact that this was a zero engineering cost option because all of the work had been completed for the Transit). On top of this, what most customers want is a fully engineered factory solution, something that is not going to happen any time soon.

 

My SWAG is that the F650/750 will change very little. Maybe a new top hat and interior, but the rest will remain the same. I still can not believe that Ford is going to continue to offer the 6.8L V10. Gasoline/LP/CNG engine are positioned to make a come back in this market (lower initial cost, lower operating costs) IF they have sufficient power. This is going to take at least an 8L engine. There are still no rumors of the 7L "big brother" of the 6.2L !!

 

 

The commercial business/medium duty will just muddle along.

Wiz-hope they wake up because IMO, the commercial business has always been a strong business for Ford-and to echo Joe 76's constant point-is there a splash over in passenger sales because a guy liked his work vehicle? Not huge but a factor I'm sure. Brand loyalty is built I think in many ways. I saw a Honda ad over the weekend that basically appealed to a young buyers recollection of the favorite Hondas he/she grew up with. On the same point, with the recent bad weather here in NoEast, the cable news network that covers the region had a power outage tally screen that it would periodically update. On the screen a head on shot of one of the utility cos. 750's-Blue Oval on every update!

 

As for the new 650/750, I still say it will be an all new cab with a Transit glass house. Plenty of headroom, visibility etc. Make the most of every component.

[RichardJensen]

Complaining about the PI is ridiculous.

 

What should Ford have done? Made a PI vehicle out of the Fusion? Kept unprofitable STAP running in order to maintain a dominant slice of a small market?

 

And regarding officers over 300lbs/6-4" complaining about tight fit in the Taurus. Well, fellows, welcome to the real world.

[RichardJensen]

Might end up being produced at Avon along with class 6 and 7 mediums, but will be a separate platform that may only share things like HVAC and such.

 

As for the new 650/750, I still say it will be an all new cab with a Transit glass house. Plenty of headroom, visibility etc. Make the most of every component.

 

 

There's minimal savings in this scheme

Edited January 6, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Richard-big difference between 33,000 lb GCW and 33,000 lb GVW. In GCW trailer can and does make up for any deficiency in the towing vehicle. GVW its all on the truck.

 

Understood. However, the powertrain is already equal to the load, and the difference is the suspension, axles, and frame which are, IIRC, generally purchased from suppliers and not engineered in house.

[SoonerLS]

to echo Joe 76's constant point-is there a splash over in passenger sales because a guy liked his work vehicle?

I don't know, but I have an uncle who swore he'd never own a Ford truck because his work trucks were all Fords (he's a now-retired lineman for the electric company). My late grandfather (his father-in-law) had driven both Ford and GM trucks at work, but only owned Ford trucks--and he said it was silly to base the truck buying decision on experiences with work trucks...

[7Mary3]

To the oldwizard- The thing is I really don't see Ford building the next generation F-650 on the current platform. The current platform is an International DuraStar, and after all that has happened between Ford and Navistar I doubt International will be selling Ford rolling chassis to build their F-650 on. If that is the case, why end Blue Diamond?

[lfeg]

That is why I really wonder about the future of the F650/F750. Buying a chassis and putting your cab on it is not the most cost effective thing to do. But developing a new chassis is not easy or cheap. A class 6 or 7 frame is pretty simple -channel stampings tied together with enough crossmembers to handle the loading, and mounting points. The challenge is integrating the drivetrain, brakes, and suspension on that frame. Then tying everything together with a bus that handles all electrical and data. And on top of that, hit the fuel economy and emissions targets (yes, they exist all the way through class 8) get SmaryWay certification (do I hear the huhs on that one) and so on.

 

The world of mediums and heavies is changing. Rapidly. Check this out - http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fleet-management/article/story/2013/12/8-things-to-expect-on-tomorrow-s-trucks/page/1.aspx

 

Does Ford have the desire to be in the thick of it? Will the next F650 just be a cab from the F550 on a class 6 chassis? who knows.

[lfeg]

And on state/municipal fleets, back in August I had a chance to get up close and personal with a new International tandem plow/spreader/liquid deicer truck. Ohio bought quite a few, and those things are impressive. The frame from the cab forward was a heavy as from the cab back to support the front and wing plows. And the electrohydraulic controls for all of the functions were impressive. A very heavy spec truck.

 

The city I live in also bought some new International trucks for plow/spreader service. The guys at the maintence garage like them because they hold up better, especially the frames and cabs. They had some Sterlings, and after a few seasons the front part of the frames were more weld than original frame. These really get beat up in the weather we are having. They use the Internationals on the main roads. and to open things up. For cleanup and side streets they have 3/4 ton pickups and one ton dumps (a mix of F350 and GMC 3500 dumps and GMC 2500HD pickups, almost all gasoline engines).

[theoldwizard]

Does Ford have the desire to be in the thick of it?

That is my point ! They certainly are NOT showing much interest !!

 

 

A couple of years ago they were approached about getting into the "mini" fire pumper business. Built on a class 5 chassis, the company just need some assistance merging their controls with the "high idle" controls of the diesel EFI. Some fairly simple software. Ford was not willing to put any effort into it.

[bzcat]

I don't profess to be an expert in the truck business so please forgive me if I'm being ignorant...

 

What is the breakdown between conventional and cabover in the medium duty market? I ask this because here in SoCal, Isuzu is far and away the most common medium duty. I don't see that many International Durastar or Ford F-650 or Freightliner whatever it is called.

 

If Ford is contemplating replacing the F-650, I assume it will be another conventional and not a cabover? I actually see more Blue Diamond cabover than F-650 on a regular basis.

[7Mary3]

Nationwide, cabovers are not very popular, except for class 4/5 trucks like the Isuzu in some metropolitan areas and specialized class 8 vocational trucks like refuse haulers and roll-offs.

[twintornados]

Can Ford produce a chassis that can accept a conventional cab AND a low forward cab and make it work under the "One Ford" mantra? World-wide, Ford's Cab over CARGO line is selling well...but the elusive North American marketplace is tough...I personally think that CARGO will work well in the NA marketplace.

[Bob Rosadini]

Well there is no doubt we haven't seen much action in class 6/7. Disappointing in particular as we are some five years down the road from the expiration of the non-compete with Daimler. Granted the business climate has not been the best but hopefully there is some light at the end of that tunnel.

 

Now I get as frustrated as anyone when I look at the half assed marketing efforts of late in commercial trucks. My pet peeve, look at Ford's commercial truck website-an embaressment is the best word I can use to describe it. If a potential buyer looked at Ford's website vs say Navistar's. F'liners or Hino's for example and he was undecided, he would get no positive vibes about Ford's commitment to his business based on that site. But while It looks like I'm in the minority, I do think things are looking up. Those test mules we saw a couple of month ago indicates that they are working on something new. The significant upturn in class 6/7 sales says something too. I recognize that the biggest reason for that gain is probably related to the gasoline option but it is significant. And if you read the HDT article on future developments (see Ifeg's link) HDT (as do many others), acknowledges gasoline is making a comback-with the annual mileage breakpoint now up to 35,000. Now while some think the 6.8 V-10 is too small-be it as a gas engine or a LNG/CNG/LPG conversion, if you can get 6.8L out of a 5.4 V-8, what about a 7.8L V-10 out of the 6.2 V-8? Or a bored/stroked 6.2 with an Ecoboost treatment? Ford should have the ability to take the lead in gas engines.

 

Likewise, if we can go back to the "One Ford" theory, as TwinT points out, the Cargo is doing well in other parts of the world and appears that significant upgrades have been made to that line. I've referenced this before noting some of the You Tube links. Talk about a truck getting some experience in rough environments! So its not like there is a total lack of current heavy truck experience within Ford. Now many of you think there is no future for a cab over such as Cargo in this country, but I wouldn't bet on it. Having spent 40+ (ugh) years with physical distribution a key part of my livelihood, I remember the days when a 40' box was "linehaul" or warehouse to warehouse and the customer delivery was accomplished by straight jobs or max 27' trailers. Today? I'm at a traffic light and I look over at a gas station that just happens to have a Dunkin Donuts franchise in it and this place is getting a Dunkin delivery. F'Liner Cascadia and 45'+ (might have been a 53) box minimizing customer access to the place. Think there is not a place for a compact tilt cab? And before anyone talks about bridge formulas and weight advantages of a conventional, many of these distribution operations "cube out" before they "weigh out".

 

So again, I say the case can be made that Ford CAN be a player once again. Sure you can make the case about maximizing profits in just a few segments but my hope is Ford doesn't fall for that trap. There comes a time where cycles can catch up to you and it pays to be a diverse player. Ever wonder how John Deere can sell an 18 HP lawn mower as well as a 300 HP 4WD tractor or 3 axle articulated off road truck? Think one segment is more profitable than the other? I'm sure in any given year, there is always a better contributor.

[7Mary3]

Well, if Ford wants to be taken seriously in class 6 and 7, they need a MUCH better product then they have now.

[lfeg]

Can Ford produce a chassis that can accept a conventional cab AND a low forward cab and make it work under the "One Ford" mantra? World-wide, Ford's Cab over CARGO line is selling well...but the elusive North American marketplace is tough...I personally think that CARGO will work well in the NA marketplace.

 

I do not think that a common frame for conventional and LCF is the best solution. You will have two compromised trucks. Keep in mind that the frame is a relatively easy part. Different frame rails and cross members from back of cab to front bumper are not that hard or expensive, and allow the specific diferences in cab, engine, and front axle mounting points. Also remember that a forward cab (high or low) loads the front end heavier. The savings of commonization will be in subsystems such as electrical/data bus, HVAC, instrumentation, and coordination of drivetrain and suspension components.

[Bob Rosadini]

Well, if Ford wants to be taken seriously in class 6 and 7, they need a MUCH better product then they have now.

No argument there. It's 14 years old!

 

 

I do not think that a common frame for conventional and LCF is the best solution. You will have two compromised trucks. Keep in mind that the frame is a relatively easy part. Different frame rails and cross members from back of cab to front bumper are not that hard or expensive, and allow the specific diferences in cab, engine, and front axle mounting points. Also remember that a forward cab (high or low) loads the front end heavier. The savings of commonization will be in subsystems such as electrical/data bus, HVAC, instrumentation, and coordination of drivetrain and suspension components.

Agree on difficulty of making a complete chassis universal for conventional/LCF/hightilt applications. But crossmembers I believe can be common as well as a lot of the associated hardware-hangers etc. And ad to your list much of the cab structure-like glass area, doors etc. Been done before. As I look at it, we look at 650/750 and say-"What? there is no engineering here-they've stretched out a 14 year old truck that uses Navistar's chassis". I say unless "One Ford" is a PR buzzword,there is plenty of expertise/experience still in the system.

[theoldwizard]

Now while some think the 6.8 V-10 is too small-be it as a gas engine or a LNG/CNG/LPG conversion, if you can get 6.8L out of a 5.4 V-8, what about a 7.8L V-10 out of the 6.2 V-8? Or a bored/stroked 6.2 with an Ecoboost treatment?

I don't know where the 6.2L is machined and built, but I doubt the machining lines have the capability to machine a V10 block or 5 cylinder head.

 

Forget EcoBoost in commercial. Too expensive. Vocational buyers (accountants) are very cost conscience.

 

Many, MANY years ago I had a conversation with an engineer working on the second (or was it third?) "resurrection" of the hurricane/BOSS. Management had finally capitulated and was willing to accept SOHC over pushrods, but they were were holding firm for only 2 valves per cylinder. Hence the gigantic valves and less than optimal spark plug placement that led to 2 plugs per cylinder. That person said that airflow could be increased by going to 3 valve per cylinder and not incur the costs of 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC.

 

I wonder if that idea is still kicking around ?!!