New Light & Medium Duty News

[SoonerLS]

The 140 stands for 1,400 N-m maximum input torque capacity. 1,400 Newton-meters converts to approximately 1,032 lb-ft of torque.

That's 1,400ft-lbs, not Nm. It was covered in a different thread.

[jpd80]

In any case, it will be interesting to see what Ford does with Torqshift G in a few year,

whether it disappears when the HD 10-speed arrives or carries on as a base transmission...

Edited November 1, 2017 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Well we have gone around on this subject before but my thoughts are;

.

.

.

As for the "investment" you talk about, what I continue to say, is a good amount of incremental volume could be had IF a better power train was offered.

It is really a "chicken and egg" problem. The only way Ford could make money in the Medium Duty arena was by using exiting Ford designed and manufactured powertrains. The allowed a good profit and a low price which they hoped would attract fleet customer.

 

With 3rd party powertrains, their profit margins would be cut and their pricing would be similar to everyone else's so there would be no incentive for fleets to switch (not that any notable fleets HAVE switched).

[theoldwizard]

In any event, I am looking forward to a 7L non-3 valve V-8 and a 10 speed Torq-Shift in the 650, I think it will be an improvement. Maybe the aluminum cab too?

Not sure what your source is, but I was really hoping for a 3V head !

 

Rumor mill is still pretty quiet on both of those items.

[RPF]

Not sure what your source is, but I was really hoping for a 3V head !

 

Rumor mill is still pretty quiet on both of those items.

 

 

I guess the question then would be why would they bother to design a 3V head for the 7X? I posted earlier in this thread the link to what the 6.2L chief engineer had to say about this topic. To summarize that now, it would be that the Mod 3V was a crutch to specifically address the valve shrouding issue that the 2V head had in the narrow mod bore without going to the expense of going to 4V DOHC on this high volume engine line. The bigger Boss bore doesn't have this issue and the 2V Boss head flows far better than the 3V mod head does. I can't imagine the 7X not having an amount of valves per cylinder that is not evenly divisible by 2, or a bore size smaller than what the 6.2L currently uses. Are there any 3V engines left in the NA market other than the Ford V10 and Mercedes V12 (which are both dead men walking at this point)? I'm somewhat hoping that they go all out and make the 7X a world-beating 4V DOHC TiVCT engine (and maybe something like this with an aluminum block will end up in a GT500 or Raptor), but a 2V VCT engine at 7+ liters using Ford's current V8 design principles will still be easily a class leading engine with power levels never seen in a gas engine in this vehicle class.

[RPF]

It is called the TS-G, but it is the tranny from the F150. Same ratios as well which are different from the 6R140.

 

 

It's basically a beefed up 6R80 with an actual dipstick instead of the little appendage on the side of the case that the -80 version gets. Feedback on other forums seem to indicate that the MY17 improvements in the engine plus the more gas-oriented gear ratios and gear spacing mean that the F250 gasser drives really well and generally better than the F350 that kept the 6R140.

 

The 10R140 appears to be a version of the 10R80, so given that maybe the diesel version will get a narrow ratio gearset more in line with it's power band while the gas engine versions can keep the current ratios that seem more in line with what would work best for their wider power band.

[7Mary3]

 

 

I guess the question then would be why would they bother to design a 3V head for the 7X? I posted earlier in this thread the link to what the 6.2L chief engineer had to say about this topic. To summarize that now, it would be that the Mod 3V was a crutch to specifically address the valve shrouding issue that the 2V head had in the narrow mod bore without going to the expense of going to 4V DOHC on this high volume engine line. The bigger Boss bore doesn't have this issue and the 2V Boss head flows far better than the 3V mod head does. I can't imagine the 7X not having an amount of valves per cylinder that is not evenly divisible by 2, or a bore size smaller than what the 6.2L currently uses. Are there any 3V engines left in the NA market other than the Ford V10 and Mercedes V12 (which are both dead men walking at this point)? I'm somewhat hoping that they go all out and make the 7X a world-beating 4V DOHC TiVCT engine (and maybe something like this with an aluminum block will end up in a GT500 or Raptor), but a 2V VCT engine at 7+ liters using Ford's current V8 design principles will still be easily a class leading engine with power levels never seen in a gas engine in this vehicle class.

Exactly! The 3 valve head was developed to overcome valve shrouding issues on the small bore Mod engine, and provided a significant increase in performance. Application of a 3 valve head to the Boss would likely not result in as great a performance increase as the Boss does not have shrouding issues. 'Crutch' is indeed a good word here! The 3 valve V-10 is a complex engine with a high parts count that is both very long and very wide in external dimensions, and I will say now based on experience that the simple 2 valve Boss is proving to be more reliable and longer lasting than the 3 valve Mod..

[fordmantpw]

I've seen some references to it as the "6R100". I'm having a hard time believing Ford just stuck an F-150 trans in a 3/4 ton. Clearly it's not the big 140 though.

 

This smacks of the 6R60 being used behind the 3v 4.6L in 2007-2008 explorer wile all other years got the 6R80 with that engine. Predictably, the 60 wasn't enough trans and a lot of buyers got stuck with trans replacement bills on trucks that didn't even have 100,000 on them yet.

 

This seems like a good reason to fork over the extra $500 for the F350 version if one is set on buying a HD Ford pickup with the 6.2L.

 

6R100, yes, but it is a beefed up 6R80, not a lightened 6R140.

 

 

 

It's basically a beefed up 6R80 with an actual dipstick instead of the little appendage on the side of the case that the -80 version gets. Feedback on other forums seem to indicate that the MY17 improvements in the engine plus the more gas-oriented gear ratios and gear spacing mean that the F250 gasser drives really well and generally better than the F350 that kept the 6R140.

 

^^^^ This

[hwyman3]

Not sure if this was the right place to post this but looks like Ford has found another home for the 6.7 PowerStroke

 

http://www.piercemfg.com/fordpowerstroke

 

Fire apparatus manufacturer Pierce will be installing Ford PowerStrokes in fire engines

[Bob Rosadini]

It is really a "chicken and egg" problem. The only way Ford could make money in the Medium Duty arena was by using exiting Ford designed and manufactured powertrains. The allowed a good profit and a low price which they hoped would attract fleet customer.

 

With 3rd party powertrains, their profit margins would be cut and their pricing would be similar to everyone else's so there would be no incentive for fleets to switch (not that any notable fleets HAVE switched).

Always value your views but must disagree.

 

A look at 8 mos YTD sales stats in class 7 shows Ford with a market share of 3.32% F'liner at 47.5%, International at 30.13% and Paccar at 16.18% (Total 7 sales, 40,247).

 

In class 6, Ford is 31.33%, F'liner at 31.3%, International at 22.9% and Paccar at 4.04% (Total 6 sales, 43,387)

 

IMO as no one in class 7 offers a gas option other than Ford, its safe to say the leaders have something Ford does not-a better power train choice when it comes to diesel.

 

As for class 6, we all know Ford's good numbers are based on the fact the low cost gas option is the only game in town when it comes to a conventional. And Ford's sales edge has been declining all year so apparently the U-Haul halo is wearing off-although UPS appears to have bought some 650 gassers.

 

When you say Ford could not make any money with outsourced power trains, how do the other guys do it? Others have suggested Ford would have difficulty getting favorable pricing. Do you think Cummins, Allison, Eaton, Dana would not welcome some business from Ford? I have to believe they would-in particular as vertically integrated power trains seem to be in vogue one minute and out of favor the next. I would imagine this is not lost on these vendors-in particular who knows what the Chinese or Koreans have in store for us.

 

Finally I think you also have to consider economy of scale when you throw Fords class 3,4 and 5 numbers into the mix-92,000 units 8 mos YTD. Granted at this point class 6 and 7 are using the old steel cab (why??) but at some point that will probably change. doesn't this give Ford a good cost advantage from a cab perspective?

 

And as for pricing, when I look at the small operators in my area who seem to have no reservation for shelling out the bucks for a Paccar or F'liner, I think there are plenty of buyers out there who would gladly return to Ford-if they had some confidence in the product. I guess we are back to that perception issue. And a 275,000 mile warranty doesn't do much for your comfort level when say you are a fuel oil or propane dealer running 3 or 4 trucks and at 5Pm on a Friday night in the middle of a cold snap one of those trucks comes in on the hook.

 

Perception, Perception

[7Mary3]

Not sure if this was the right place to post this but looks like Ford has found another home for the 6.7 PowerStroke

 

http://www.piercemfg.com/fordpowerstroke

 

Fire apparatus manufacturer Pierce will be installing Ford PowerStrokes in fire engines

 

That's interesting! Particularly because commercial chassis apparatus is pretty much obsolete anymore, except for brush trucks, ect..

[twintornados]

Not sure if this was the right place to post this but looks like Ford has found another home for the 6.7 PowerStroke

 

http://www.piercemfg.com/fordpowerstroke

 

Fire apparatus manufacturer Pierce will be installing Ford PowerStrokes in fire engines

.

Now that would be a cool low cab forward Class 6/7 medium duty truck...

 

 

[theoldwizard]

I guess the question then would be why would they bother to design a 3V head for the 7X? I posted earlier in this thread the link to what the 6.2L chief engineer had to say about this topic. To summarize that now, it would be that the Mod 3V was a crutch to specifically address the valve shrouding issue that the 2V head had in the narrow mod bore without going to the expense of going to 4V DOHC on this high volume engine line. The bigger Boss bore doesn't have this issue and the 2V Boss head flows far better than the 3V mod head does. I can't imagine the 7X not having an amount of valves per cylinder that is not evenly divisible by 2, or a bore size smaller than what the 6.2L currently uses. Are there any 3V engines left in the NA market other than the Ford V10 and Mercedes V12 (which are both dead men walking at this point)? I'm somewhat hoping that they go all out and make the 7X a world-beating 4V DOHC TiVCT engine (and maybe something like this with an aluminum block will end up in a GT500 or Raptor), but a 2V VCT engine at 7+ liters using Ford's current V8 design principles will still be easily a class leading engine with power levels never seen in a gas engine in this vehicle class.

You may be right ! My thought process was that a 3V head should eliminate the second spark plug and get some better low RPM flow with runner tuning.

 

I can not imagine a 4V engine ! The cost would be astronomical !! Although, an aluminum block, DOHC 4V 7X in a Raptor would be AWESOME !

[theoldwizard]

Always value your views but must disagree.

 

A look at 8 mos YTD sales stats in class 7 shows Ford with a market share of 3.32% F'liner at 47.5%, International at 30.13% and Paccar at 16.18% (Total 7 sales, 40,247).

 

In class 6, Ford is 31.33%, F'liner at 31.3%, International at 22.9% and Paccar at 4.04% (Total 6 sales, 43,387)

And those number kind of prove my point. More below

 

When you say Ford could not make any money with outsourced power trains, how do the other guys do it? Others have suggested Ford would have difficulty getting favorable pricing.

It is not the "favorable pricing" from other engine/transmission suppliers that is an issue, it is the lower profit margin. The bean counters approved the F650/750 because they saw decent $$$ usin exiting Ford powertrains.

 

And as for pricing, when I look at the small operators in my area who seem to have no reservation for shelling out the bucks for a Paccar or F'liner, I think there are plenty of buyers out there who would gladly return to Ford-if they had some confidence in the product.

 

Maybe, but what Ford really wants is the FLEET BUYERS ! It is so much easier to sell 100 F650 then 5 or 10 F750. If they can continue more conquest sales in that niche, then they really don't care about Class 7.

 

We have to wait until they come out with the new gasser and see if they can squeeze much more out of the existing Powerstroke without spending a lot of dollars. They need to either spend some serious money on the engine (not likely) OR (as you suggest) start buying aftermarket. Time will tell.

 

The 10R140 could be a game changer but I don't see them mating it to anyone else's engine. (Non matching RFOB/bellhousing and electronic controls.)

Edited November 2, 2017 by theoldwizard

[hwyman3]

.

Now that would be a cool low cab forward Class 6/7 medium duty truck...

 

 

 

It would look cool, but Pierce generally tends to be among the higher priced manufacturers in the fire apparatus arena. Granted, this particular chassis, the Sabre, is a more entry level chassis.

[hwyman3]

 

That's interesting! Particularly because commercial chassis apparatus is pretty much obsolete anymore, except for brush trucks, ect..

 

Yep, Brush trucks, tankers, etc. Years ago, you could find Rescues on KW and Petes, but lately, most of even the Rescues in this area have been custom chassis.

[7Mary3]

If I were in charge of Ford's medium duty program, specifically the 650 and 750, I would be working on a @5L diesel for the F-650. I think a smaller more efficient diesel will be necessary to keep the F-650 competitive, and if Ford could utilize an in-house engine (Lion?) it's quite possible Ford could not only have the lowest priced diesel class 6 on the market, but one with the lowest operating costs as well. I think those efforts would generate a lot more revenue for Ford than spending money on class 7, where they have significant disadvantages compared to International and Freightliner. Ford's priority should be holding on to class 6 (where they are strong) before moving on class 7.

 

I have my eye on the new Isuzu FTR, I think it will deliver very low operating costs given it's fuel economy and Isuzu's history for reliability. I have not seen what it will sell for, but if it has good resale (as Isuzu's typically do) that could negate a higher purchase price. It will also be interesting to see how Freightliner does with the new Detroit Diesel 5L in the M2.

 

And speaking of the Freightliner M2, my local school district has purchased Freightliner S2G propane delivery trucks. Not too much of a surprise seeing they have purchased a number of Thomas C2 propane buses over the last couple of years. One of the district's transportation contractors has some Blue Bird propane buses, which I assume use the Roush V-10.

[twintornados]

....I have my eye on the new Isuzu FTR, I think it will deliver very low operating costs given it's fuel economy and Isuzu's history for reliability.

.

I feel E-Series can compete with isuzu FTR as long as the cut-a-way portion of the cab can be capped similar to what we see in U-Haul inventories... return of E-550 and push to E-650 (Maybe put E-Series cab on Medium Duty frame) can handily best FTR in cost of ownership areas.

 

I realize I am "spitballing" on this one....FTR is class 6 all the way...but, c'mon, really, E-Series could be just the answer to the COE juggernaut....

Edited November 7, 2017 by twintornados

[7Mary3]

.

I feel E-Series can compete with isuzu FTR as long as the cut-a-way portion of the cab can be capped similar to what we see in U-Haul inventories... return of E-550 and push to E-650 (Maybe put E-Series cab on Medium Duty frame) can handily best FTR in cost of ownership areas.

 

I realize I am "spitballing" on this one....FTR is class 6 all the way...but, c'mon, really, E-Series could be just the answer to the COE juggernaut....

 

I could see an E series competitor to the NPR if it offered a small diesel.

[bzcat]

 

I could see an E series competitor to the NPR if it offered a small diesel.

 

They seem to be aimed at really different end of the markets though... The only thing they have in common is they are both class 3 (E-350, NPR) or class 4 (E-450, NPR-HD). When was the last time you saw a NPR shuttle bus or ambulance, or a E-450 dump truck or garbage truck? They overlap a bit in box truck but I don't really think a diesel E-series is really going to challenge NPR or NQR (class 5) in the part of the market that Isuzu dominates; just like a gas NRP hasn't really made a dent in E-350/450 dominance in the part of the market Ford dominate.

 

Isuzu does have a pretty impressive suite of trucks now FTR is back. They've effectively blocked Daimler (Fuso) and Toyota (Hino) from entering the upper end of the cab forward market.

 

Class 3 NPR

Class 4 NPR-HD

Class 4 heavy NPR-XD

Class 5 NQR

Class 5 heavy NRR

Class 6 FTR

Edited November 8, 2017 by bzcat

[twintornados]

The Isuzu NPR and NPR-HD both have a 6.0L V8 for power....looks like Isuzu is using a GM sourced Vortec.... E-Series has the 6.2L

[7Mary3]

The Isuzu NPR and NPR-HD both have a 6.0L V8 for power....looks like Isuzu is using a GM sourced Vortec.... E-Series has the 6.2L

 

They offer both 3.0L and 5.2L diesels as well.

[twintornados]

 

They offer both 3.0L and 5.2L diesels as well.

.

That is not on the Isuzu NPR website...6.0L gas engine only..

[7Mary3]

.

That is not on the Isuzu NPR website...6.0L gas engine only..

Yeah they are:

 

https://www.isuzucv.com/en/nseries/diesel_trucks

[Bob Rosadini]

Hino likewise has a 4 cyl diesel in class 4 and 5 cab overs and I do believe will soon have a class 6 cab over