Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

Well Heavy Duty Trucking ran an article last month on coming MD changes.  Unfortunately  Ford's spokesman Kevin Koester missed a huge opportunity to  hype the coming 7.3 in class 6  and 7.  Not one mention of the 7.3 in 650 and 750.  He talked about the F-600, but that was it.  Furthermore not one mention that Ford was the ONLY (at this point at least) builder to offer gas in MD conventional.  The article makes a big deal  about the resurgence of gas in MD and of course everyone else talks about their gas offerings in their trucks-all cab overs.  And I'm one of those old guys that still thinks of MD as class 6 and 7 in case someone thinks I  forgot about FCA with their hemi optioned 4500/5500.

 

I look at this with two  thoughts-either 650/750 are not long for this world, or Ford marketers truly are clueless.    The best trucking publication still going (IMO) gives everyone a platform for good exposure, and what does Ford do?  Not much -again an opinion.

 

By the way, in October Hino came close to beating Ford in class 7.  Ford  still doing well in 6-must be another big U-haul order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Unfortunately  Ford's spokesman Kevin Koester missed a huge opportunity to  hype the coming 7.3 in class 6  and 7.  Not one mention of the 7.3 in 650 and 750.  He talked about the F-600, but that was it. 

 

I'm curious how Ford's MD sales break down---how many are sales to new vs. existing customers, how many are sold via bidding process, and to what extent Ford is interested in chasing individual sales.

 

I mean, it's obvious on the retail side that Ford is going to spend millions in order to sell cars one at a time to individual households, but what's their budget to reach a guy who buys a new MD every eight years or so?

 

And, even at that, what's the most effective way of communicating with these customers? Is it via media, or is it good ol' fashioned networking?

 

I have a suspicion that Ford dealers' commercial sales reps stay in their jobs for quite a while and develop long-term relationships with their counterparts at larger businesses. If that's the case, it might be more effective to have some sales rep pay for a meal & talk up the 7.3 with a good customer than running ads in a trade magazine?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well Heavy Duty Trucking ran an article last month on coming MD changes.  Unfortunately  Ford's spokesman Kevin Koester missed a huge opportunity to  hype the coming 7.3 in class 6  and 7.  Not one mention of the 7.3 in 650 and 750.  He talked about the F-600, but that was it.  Furthermore not one mention that Ford was the ONLY (at this point at least) builder to offer gas in MD conventional.  The article makes a big deal  about the resurgence of gas in MD and of course everyone else talks about their gas offerings in their trucks-all cab overs.  And I'm one of those old guys that still thinks of MD as class 6 and 7 in case someone thinks I  forgot about FCA with their hemi optioned 4500/5500.

 

I look at this with two  thoughts-either 650/750 are not long for this world, or Ford marketers truly are clueless.    The best trucking publication still going (IMO) gives everyone a platform for good exposure, and what does Ford do?  Not much -again an opinion.

 

By the way, in October Hino came close to beating Ford in class 7.  Ford  still doing well in 6-must be another big U-haul order.

I think you’re first impression is on the money Bob, the whole point of a new F600 is to offer F650 buyers an alternative and if that works, don’t be surprised if F650 and F750 become built to order.

 

currently, sales of F350 are about half of F250, while F450 sales are tiny but then sales bounce back in F550 and then drop to half in F650 and a dribble in F750, it’s about one tenth of F650 numbers.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still a little perplexed by the F-600.  It's so close to the F-550, and obviously a reaction to the new GM/Navistar mediums.  I think if I were Ford I would have offered a higher GVW package on the F-550 as an option and pushed it as a direct competitor to the GM/Navistar 6500 series.  The F-600 kind of splits a hair between the 550 and 650.

 

I wonder if Ford will consolidate the F-450 through 650 into one platform with the next generation.  Doing that and eliminating the 750 may facilitate the changes coming to the Avon Lake plant if they are planning on keeping commercial truck production there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

I am still a little perplexed by the F-600.  It's so close to the F-550, and obviously a reaction to the new GM/Navistar mediums.  I think if I were Ford I would have offered a higher GVW package on the F-550 as an option and pushed it as a direct competitor to the GM/Navistar 6500 series.

 

I dunno. I think Ford's rationale for the F-600 makes a lot of sense: Form factor.

 

I think the new Chevy MDs have the same issue that the last GM MDs had: The truck is just too big, physically, for lighter duty applications.

 

From that standpoint, I think Ford's going in the opposite direction: They've beefed up a F-550, which has more of a conventional pickup cab/engine compartment/frame, so you get 22k GVWR from a pickup, basically.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Then it wouldn't really be a variant now would it....  :stirpot:

I'd be willing to call it a variant..... Same pistons, rods, valves, etc.  Crank, heads, camshaft would be different from the V8 in the same way V6 versions would be: length and firing angle.  One could make the argument that an inline block is more of a departure from a V8 than a V6 block, however my understanding of block machining lines are that bore spacing and deck height are the two major attributes, and those would be the same for V8, V6, or I6 versions. Basically an inline could be machined on one of the two planes the V8 Iine is already set up for. It would require 1.5x times the operations at each station vs a V6 running both planes at 0.75x the operations at each station.  The operation for machining the cam bores would also be a different location than a V8/V6.  So I guess the V6 would have an advantage in block machining efficiency.

 

Honestly the biggest impediment to a straight-six I can see is fitting it in the engine bay. However I gotta think the super duty bay could accommodate one if Ford wanted it to. It's not a small engine bay.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RichardJensen said:

 

I'm curious how Ford's MD sales break down---how many are sales to new vs. existing customers, how many are sold via bidding process, and to what extent Ford is interested in chasing individual sales.

 

I mean, it's obvious on the retail side that Ford is going to spend millions in order to sell cars one at a time to individual households, but what's their budget to reach a guy who buys a new MD every eight years or so?

 

And, even at that, what's the most effective way of communicating with these customers? Is it via media, or is it good ol' fashioned networking?

 

I have a suspicion that Ford dealers' commercial sales reps stay in their jobs for quite a while and develop long-term relationships with their counterparts at larger businesses. If that's the case, it might be more effective to have some sales rep pay for a meal & talk up the 7.3 with a good customer than running ads in a trade magazine?

RJ-you throw out a lot of options.  As I pay attention on a regular basis to a couple of monthly truck/equipment sales rags you are correct- many names are fixtures with one dealership or another but they do move around.  And as for Ford,  this state just lost a long time commercial truck dealership as I gather the two principals (brothers) were both faced with ongoing medical issues and did not have any kids who wanted to keep it going. On the plus side, I have noticed at least three dealerships that have recently taken on the full line and are advertising 450-750.

 

Regarding "media" it appears to me Ford is doing a much better job when it comes to their print ads versus a couple of years ago when  it seems Ford Fleet was responsible for that budget.  Or is that my imagination?

 

And the point of my post on the HDT article, this seems to be a repetitive problem with Ford.  I was of the belief that the 7.3 was really geared toward class 5,6 and 7. Yet it seems I have read more than one trade periodical where Ford has a platform presented to them to hype what a cost effective option this new engine will be for many operators in those classes and they miss the opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I am still a little perplexed by the F-600.  It's so close to the F-550, and obviously a reaction to the new GM/Navistar mediums.  I think if I were Ford I would have offered a higher GVW package on the F-550 as an option and pushed it as a direct competitor to the GM/Navistar 6500 series.  The F-600 kind of splits a hair between the 550 and 650.

 

I wonder if Ford will consolidate the F-450 through 650 into one platform with the next generation.  Doing that and eliminating the 750 may facilitate the changes coming to the Avon Lake plant if they are planning on keeping commercial truck production there.  

7M-Let's face it- the "600" IS a 550- with bigger spring ratings as well as tire/wheel packages.  And it gave Ford something to "announce" at the Work Truck show last March-to  your point of a reaction to the new GM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The whole point of a 7.3 replacing the 6.8 and the 6.2 is that one engine does the lot and fits better to boot.

JP- Exactly- what did the chief engineer for the 7.3 say?..." a medium duty engine"  The 6.8 did a good job. The 6.2 did a good job in the right application.  The 7.3 is not a compromise that "will work" in a commercial application.  It is a commercial engine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, snooter said:

Not convinced the 7.3 has market justification in the upper medium duty range...also it may be too new and many like me are possibly on the sidelines to hear how it performs out in the field....

Snooter- Assuming the 7.3 is about-6-8 grand less than a Power Stroke, have no fears- it will sell.  There are plenty of operators that need a 33,000 lb GVW but don't run the mileage to pay out the premium through the fuel savings that the Power Stroke should provide. And with 330 HP (I think in 650/750 ) and about 470 lb ft of torque this engine will do the job.

You may be right about hesitancy to invest in this engine until it  gets some experience in the field  but my bet is that cost savings up front will motivate a lot of buyers-unless of course ford gets greedy on pricing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7.3L will be fine, and I doubt we will see much hesitation in it's acceptance.  I think it will be hands down better than the 6.8L in all aspects, including durability.  The 6.8L really didn't set the bar too high in heavier medium trucks and school buses......     

 

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My earlier point being that the 7.3 is a great fit for all  F250 to F600, I doubt that anyone with continually loaded trucks, be that hauling or towing would ever want a smaller gas engine .

 

I think that’s why the 6.2 will go and no one will miss it.

 

I suspect the sweet spot Ford is looking for requires the opposite of Ecoboost, increasing capacity by enough to keep it away from needing full power enrichment under expected load and gearing. I don’t think that a smaller engine could do that under load and keep up expected road speeds. Are we seeing this kind of unfolding with the GM 6.6?  
Did GM compromise the BSFC by using DI as a power adder, making the engine more fuel efficient in no load running versus fully loaded. Time will tell I guess......

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

this state just lost a long time commercial truck dealership as I gather the two principals (brothers) were both faced with ongoing medical issues and did not have any kids who wanted to keep it going.

 

Interesting. Around here they have a saying:

 

"He's a Ph.D …. Poppa had a Dealership."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I think that’s why the 6.2 will go and no one will miss it.

 

I don't see Ford making the 7.3 the base offering any time soon.  The smaller gas engine has always outsold the big one in 250/350 for every year Ford offered both for the last several decades. 5.8 always outsold the 7.5 and the 5.4 always outsold the 6.8.  I see two reasons for this: 1) a significant portion of retail 250 buyers still tend to be concerned with fuel economy and, right or wrong, believe the smaller engine will be more efficient, and 2) there's an awful lot of fleet 250/350 sold for nothing more than moving a bed full of shovels from jobsite to jobsite, plowing snow at a fixed location like a factory or power plant, or just transportation for a supervisor, none of which require really anything more than an atmo V6. 

 

So I think the 7.3 will remain optional on 250/350 for the foreseeable future. Whether the 6.2 stays as the base engine or gets replaced by a de-bored / de-stroked / de-cylinder'd godzilla, the coyote, or even a hybrid 3.3 v6 remains to be seen.

 

Also there's E Series that need engines. I don't see Ford just giving away 7.3s to van buyers that tend to really not care what's under the hood - hence the huge popularity of 4.9 and 4.2 in E-250/350s for all those decades

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

I don't see Ford making the 7.3 the base offering any time soon.  The smaller gas engine has always outsold the big one in 250/350 for every year Ford offered both for the last several decades. 5.8 always outsold the 7.5 and the 5.4 always outsold the 6.8.  I see two reasons for this: 1) a significant portion of retail 250 buyers still tend to be concerned with fuel economy and, right or wrong, believe the smaller engine will be more efficient, and 2) there's an awful lot of fleet 250/350 sold for nothing more than moving a bed full of shovels from jobsite to jobsite, plowing snow at a fixed location like a factory or power plant, or just transportation for a supervisor, none of which require really anything more than an atmo V6. 

 

So I think the 7.3 will remain optional on 250/350 for the foreseeable future. Whether the 6.2 stays as the base engine or gets replaced by a de-bored / de-stroked / de-cylinder'd godzilla, the coyote, or even a hybrid 3.3 v6 remains to be seen.

 

Also there's E Series that need engines. I don't see Ford just giving away 7.3s to van buyers that tend to really not care what's under the hood - hence the huge popularity of 4.9 and 4.2 in E-250/350s for all those decades

Ford has already announced that the 6.2 is ending in the next few years, the 7.3’s slender design was chosen to fit into as many existing commercial vehicles as possible, it makes sense that both the6.2 and 6.8 give way to a the new 7.3.

 

The big bet Ford is making is that most current 6.2 actually want the bigger 7.3, their research has been telling them that’s what most gas owners have been wanting. 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Ford has already announced that the 6.2 is ending in the next few years, the 7.3’s slender design was chosen to fit into as many existing commercial vehicles as possible, it makes sense that both the6.2 and 6.8 give way to a the new 7.3.

 

The 7.3 block almost certainly supports lower displacements, so I would expect the 6.2L to be replaced with a similar displacement derived from the 7.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RichardJensen said:

 

The 7.3 block almost certainly supports lower displacements, so I would expect the 6.2L to be replaced with a similar displacement derived from the 7.3

Of course a smaller engine is possible but the unfolding story is whether the 7.3 is so good that all the 6.2 buyers convert. Maybe that’s where  Ford is letting buyers decide the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that I mean that if sales of the 6.2 remain strong then yes, a replacement on the 7.3’s architecture is an option but if F250 and F350 buyers go with the 7.3, then maybe that smaller engine is not needed.

 

As I said earlier, the smaller 6.2 may not have enough capacity to remain efficient under loaded conditions, maybe owners need time to compare the 6.2 to the  7.3,

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

By that I mean that if sales of the 6.2 remain strong then yes, a replacement on the 7.3’s architecture is an option but if F250 and F350 buyers go with the 7.3, then maybe that smaller engine is not needed.

 

As I said earlier, the smaller 6.2 may not have enough capacity to remain efficient under loaded conditions, maybe owners need time to compare the 6.2 to the  7.3,

 

I tend to think they'll offer a smaller displacement engine for a very simple reason:

 

The incremental cost of building a smaller displacement engine will be more than made up for by the premium that they'll charge to upgrade to the 7.3.

 

Having a smaller engine gives them a means of raising the ATP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RichardJensen said:

 

The 7.3 block almost certainly supports lower displacements, so I would expect the 6.2L to be replaced with a similar displacement derived from the 7.3

 

This.  The 6.2L is an orphan, a one engine family.  Even though I expect the 6.2L is fully amortized, it would probably make sense to replace it with a smaller displacement version of the 7.3L.  Something around 5.8L perhaps.....

 

As for the GM 6.6L gas engine, it is a heavy duty large version of the existing Gen. V family, developed at minimal cost.  Direct injection was likely chosen as future emissions/efficiency/GHG regulations will eventually mandate it.  Kind of a mystery to me why Ford didn't have DI on the 7.3L at introduction, but it's clear the engine has DI capability engineered into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

This.  The 6.2L is an orphan, a one engine family.  Even though I expect the 6.2L is fully amortized, it would probably make sense to replace it with a smaller displacement version of the 7.3L.  Something around 5.8L perhaps.....

 

As for the GM 6.6L gas engine, it is a heavy duty large version of the existing Gen. V family, developed at minimal cost.  Direct injection was likely chosen as future emissions/efficiency/GHG regulations will eventually mandate it.  Kind of a mystery to me why Ford didn't have DI on the 7.3L at introduction, but it's clear the engine has DI capability engineered into it.

The answer is that their intended audience wanted the.most basic simple engineering.

 

Developed at minimal cost basically sums up Gm strategy, I have a hunch that what they did is probably not the best path but we’ll see, I’m sure there will be plenty of head to dead comparisons coming.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...