fordmantpw Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 I distinctly remember reading when it was introduced that the 6.7L has an SAE standard bolt pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 I distinctly remember reading when it was introduced that the 6.7L has an SAE standard bolt pattern. 6.2L too, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 (edited) I distinctly remember reading when it was introduced that the 6.7L has an SAE standard bolt pattern. I found this puckuptruck article from 2009 (before the launch of the 2011 SD) that had this passage:...LINK Transmission Ford is quiet for now about the Scorpion’s transmission, though we expect the Super Duty's new gearbox will be the new 6R140 heavy-duty six-speed automatic with power takeoff capability. Ford officially says the standard manual transmission is gone as of the 2011 model year. The take rate was too low to justify continuing production of the ZF-source 6-speed handshaker. The rear cover of the new engine follows an SAE 12 bolt standard that allows Ford to mate almost any HD automatic transmission to the back of the mill. I think that SAE 12 bolt reference was proven incorrect.... I wonder if the 6.7 Powerstroke they were shown was an Industrial version? those engines might have an SAE Bolt Flange to hook up to Electrical generators ... Edited May 6, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) I think that SAE 12 bolt reference was proven incorrect.... If you can believe Wikipedia, the Scorpion has the same bolt pattern as the Mods (as noted above), just like the previous Navistar/IH diesels. That makes sense, as Ford would've been far more concerned with their own supply chain than with interchanging transmissions with other manufacturers--it's a lot cheaper to go from a Navistar mill to a Ford mill if you can keep the previous transmission, especially if it can have commonalities across the F-Series range. Edited May 8, 2017 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 If you can believe Wikipedia, the Scorpion has the same bolt pattern as the Mods (as noted above), just like the previous Navistar/IH diesels. That makes sense, as Ford would've been far more concerned with their own supply chain than with interchanging transmissions with other manufacturers--it's a lot cheaper to go from a Navistar mill to a Ford mill if you can keep the previous transmission, especially if it can have commonalities across the F-Series range. Technically, the Navistar and Scorpion engines never had the same transmission (though I'm sure the 5R and 6R are VERY closely related). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 And I've also heard that the 6R140 still has a few parts that interchange with the 'ole C6. Hey - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 And I've also heard that the 6R140 still has a few parts that interchange with the 'ole C6. Hey - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 And I've also heard that the 6R140 still has a few parts that interchange with the 'ole C6. Hey - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Ahh-the good old C6. My second new car was a 68 Torino GT (notch back)-428 CJ, C6, 4:30 gears. I believe the C6 was used a lot in the B series bus chassis as well as offered in F-600-750 up to 24,000 GVW. So Ford does have some old history as far as building a heavier auto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 I know a lot of people who think the C6 was the strongest passenger car transmission ever made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Ahh-the good old C6. My second new car was a 68 Torino GT (notch back)-428 CJ, C6, 4:30 gears. I believe the C6 was used a lot in the B series bus chassis as well as offered in F-600-750 up to 24,000 GVW. So Ford does have some old history as far as building a heavier auto. I don't know how you guys did anything above 3.50 gears without o/d. Adding 10% converter slip, that thing had to run what, about 3400 rpm at 60 mph? A 7L engine turning 3400 rpm just for commuting. How many barrels/week of gasoline did that take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwyman3 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 I don't know how you guys did anything above 3.50 gears without o/d. Adding 10% converter slip, that thing had to run what, about 3400 rpm at 60 mph? A 7L engine turning 3400 rpm just for commuting. How many barrels/week of gasoline did that take? You could pass anything on the road but a gas station! Heck, my 77 Cougar XR7 with a 351M and C4 got 12mpg on a good day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) I know a lot of people who think the C6 was the strongest passenger car transmission ever made. . I know a lot of people that have claimed to have seen aliens. Whats your point? Edited May 9, 2017 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 . I know a lot of people that have claimed to have seen aliens. Whats your point? That you need to start knowing different people? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 I don't know how you guys did anything above 3.50 gears without o/d. Adding 10% converter slip, that thing had to run what, about 3400 rpm at 60 mph? A 7L engine turning 3400 rpm just for commuting. How many barrels/week of gasoline did that take? Well fortunately for me in the four years I owned it I never had a long commute. But into my second year I had the 4:30s pulled and 3:25's installed-without changing speedo gear. Instead I used my 70's miracle device the Dymo labeler to make a chart-which I had on dash x rpm= Y mph. We had a big wreck in the median of I-90 one night and I let this young guy involved in the recovery take the car to go get coffees. Well he had to reverse direction and when he went by on the eastbound side he was flying. I later said to him-"how fast were you driving that thing?" His answer- "oh probably 70-75. I think with the 4:30s it would typically get around 12 without a heavy foot. I ran it a few times in D/PS and I think my best quarter mile speed was around 96, times in low 14's. . I know a lot of people that have claimed to have seen aliens. Whats your point? Well TT I think the fact that it was widely used like I said in trucks up to 24,000 GVW says it had to be pretty tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Ahh-the good old C6. My second new car was a 68 Torino GT (notch back)-428 CJ, C6, 4:30 gears. I believe the C6 was used a lot in the B series bus chassis as well as offered in F-600-750 up to 24,000 GVW. So Ford does have some old history as far as building a heavier auto. My dad's first car was a '68 Torino GT fastback with the 390. Highland green with the reverse c-stripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 ...Well TT I think the fact that it was widely used like I said in trucks up to 24,000 GVW says it had to be pretty tough. . Never argued that point, the C6 was tough as nails, as was the Turbohydro 400 and 727 Torqueflite ....there is a reason they are not built any longer and toughness ain't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 . Never argued that point, the C6 was tough as nails, as was the Turbohydro 400 and 727 Torqueflite ....there is a reason they are not built any longer and toughness ain't it. Ok- I guess that was the only message that came through to me. Just out of curiosity, anyone aware of Turbo400 and 727 in commercial use? At what GVW? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Ok- I guess that was the only message that came through to me. Just out of curiosity, anyone aware of Turbo400 and 727 in commercial use? At what GVW? Allison marketed a version of the Turbo 400 as the AT 475 Easi-Matic for several years, I think it was good to 26,000#'s GVW. It was for gasoline engines, didn't have a 'park' position, few other minor modifications. Saw them in large motorhomes too. As for the 727, Chrysler did briefly make a 4 speed version with an extra low gear for medium duty trucks. Never seen one in person. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 I don't know how you guys did anything above 3.50 gears without o/d. Adding 10% converter slip, that thing had to run what, about 3400 rpm at 60 mph? A 7L engine turning 3400 rpm just for commuting. How many barrels/week of gasoline did that take? I had a 72 Gran Torino Sport with a 429 and a C-6 with 3.89 gears. 60 mph was at 3000 rpm. I don't want to brag, but I could squeeze 9-10 mpg out of that thing. My V-10 SD has 4.30 gears that I swapped from 3.73's. I actually gained mpg in city driving and towing; where as I only lost .5 mpg on empty highway. What I have learned is; throttle position is just as important as rpm when it comes to fuel mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 https://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/f-650-f-750-production-line-shut-2018/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 A bit more on the propane front. Our county transit agency recently opened the new propane fueling facility, so the propane powered small buses are starting to hit the road. Based on current fuel costs, the diesel units are said to cost $64 per day in fuel , while propane units are at $40 per day. For a fleet of 80 buses, that is significant, and that is not factoring in maintenance costs and initial purchase costs. I am pretty sure other transit agencies will be looking into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 https://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/f-650-f-750-production-line-shut-2018/ Not sure where the guy that wrote this gets his info. While things are not the best for Ford, I don't think things are as bad as this this guy suggests. Class 3-5, 6, and 7 are all up 3 mos. YTD vs 2016. Looking at 2016 March YTD , VS. 2017 March YTD Cl. 6-Ford 34.19% vs. 32.86% Fliner 30.36% vs. 31.39% Nav 21.7% vs. 23.74% Hino 11.11% vs. 9.31% KW 2.34% vs 2.48% Pete 0.29% vs.0.26% Cl. 7- " 3.57% vs. 3.16% " 52.3% vs. 51.96% " 22.63% vs. 24.55% " 3.91% vs. 3.48% " 7.33% vs. 6.88% " 10.2 vs. 9.97% Looks like Ford is still the leader in class 6, although F'liner, Navistar, KW all have better 2017 numbers. As for class 7 Ford is now last with Navistar the big gainer. No doubt, perhaps Ford has picked all the low hanging fruit in class 6 thanks to say U-haul and F'liner is gaining ground. As for class 7, the downward spiral continues. I still say, at 33,000 lbs the 750 lacks the powertrains that most class 7 buyers are interested in. Let's hope the 2018's offer something beyond the current powertrains- be it the "7.0"-whatever that is, as well as another diesel -trans option for class 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Ford should either get serious about class 7 or just get out altogether and focus on class 6. The sad part is, Ford could dominate in class 7 if they wanted to, it just seems like they are not really serious about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I just saw a Terra Star Red Bull truck this morning up close. The cab was very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I just saw a Terra Star Red Bull truck this morning up close. The cab was very nice. . Nobody disagrees....I just feel that Ford can do it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.