Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

I think you'd have to be out of your mind to put more than 10k behind a half ton anything.  Same deal at about 20k behind a F350/3500 DRW.  Any more than a trailer about 2x the weight of the truck and things start getting dicey over every bump.  Yeah yeah gooseneck/5th wheel helps, as do sway control systems, and fully integrated braking systems.  But it's always safer and a less stressful drive in a proper size truck.  Factory tow ratings on class 1-3 have gotten insane due to the spec wars on consumer pickups. 

 

If you've got a big trailer, buy the proper size truck to tow it with!

I guess what I was trying to say was,

should Ford be looking at a more fuel efficient version of F250,

would an F250 with a 5.0 V8 or EBV6 option be a better plan?

 

Looking at the  EPA ratings on the older, heavier 4WD F150s,

it would seem that the 5.0 and EB 3.5 give around 21 mpg 

versus 16 mpg for the 6.2 which aligns with the economy

achieved by 6.2/7.3 F250 when cruising with out any load.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess what I was trying to say was,

should Ford be looking at a more fuel efficient version of F250,

would an F250 with a 5.0 V8 or EBV6 option be a better plan?

 

Looking at the  EPA ratings on the older, heavier 4WD F150s,

it would seem that the 5.0 and EB 3.5 give around 21 mpg 

versus 16 mpg for the 6.2 which aligns with the economy

achieved by 6.2/7.3 F250 when cruising with out any load.

 

Going with either of those would open up the pro power on board option.  I think the power boost w/7.2kw pro power option would be popular for campers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess what I was trying to say was,

should Ford be looking at a more fuel efficient version of F250,

would an F250 with a 5.0 V8 or EBV6 option be a better plan?

 

Looking at the  EPA ratings on the older, heavier 4WD F150s,

it would seem that the 5.0 and EB 3.5 give around 21 mpg 

versus 16 mpg for the 6.2 which aligns with the economy

achieved by 6.2/7.3 F250 when cruising with out any load.

 

 

I wasn't taking issue with the point you were trying to make, just noting how ridiculous the factory tow ratings have gotten lately.

 

Yes, I agree there's room and a market for an F250 with less engine than the 6.2.  Although I see a 6 cylinder (vee or inline) version of the godzilla at about 5.0-5.5L and 300 hp as being the perfect fit.  Something with an iron block for truck duty and only 6 cylinders and OHV makes it cheap to build.  Coyote and 3.5eb are needlessly powerful and expensive for such an application.  Also, adding power boost or even the hybrid would be a nice touch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2020 at 8:00 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

When Ford was a real player in heavy trucks!   How about this shot that a friend sent me today- no clue where he got this. My guess is '66 or '67 judging by the "W"s at end of line.

Was the old Heavy truck production at the current "Louisville" plant not to be confused with KTP?

KTP Drive Away2554_n.jpg

 

That is a great picture.  Drive-away delivery probably to dealers relatively close to the plant.  Yes, I would say it's KTP.  Notice the orange F series in the 4th. row up from the bottom?  It has the backwards-facing hood scoop, probably a Caterpillar V-8 or a Super Duty gas V-8.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

Yes, I agree there's room and a market for an F250 with less engine than the 6.2.  Although I see a 6 cylinder (vee or inline) version of the godzilla at about 5.0-5.5L and 300 hp as being the perfect fit.  Something with an iron block for truck duty and only 6 cylinders and OHV makes it cheap to build.  Coyote and 3.5eb are needlessly powerful and expensive for such an application.  Also, adding power boost or even the hybrid would be a nice touch.

I agree that an inline 6 with bore and stroke of the Godzilla v8 would be a good cheap solution.  Not sure about the ohv part, though.  I would think a sohc 2 valve per cylinder would be just as cheap or cheaper.  Height shouldn’t be an issue, and if it was, just tilt it 15 degrees or so.  A single or dual turbo could be added for extra low end torque.

 

A 90 degree v6 of that displacement would require a balance shaft (extra cost) and may still have nvh issues.  An I6 would be the cheapest solution and have additional desirability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2020 at 9:54 PM, 7Mary3 said:

 

That is a great picture.  Drive-away delivery probably to dealers relatively close to the plant.  Yes, I would say it's KTP.  Notice the orange F series in the 4th. row up from the bottom?  It has the backwards-facing hood scoop, probably a Caterpillar V-8 or a Super Duty gas V-8.

7M-As for that orange F not sure about the Cat.  For sure though it would not be a Super Duty.  They were only offered in 850's and above-which along with the 800 was a different cab from the F-600, F-700 and F-750

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

7M-As for that orange F not sure about the Cat.  For sure though it would not be a Super Duty.  They were only offered in 850's and above-which along with the 800 was a different cab from the F-600, F-700 and F-750

 

391 XD maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2020 at 8:16 PM, slemke said:

I agree that an inline 6 with bore and stroke of the Godzilla v8 would be a good cheap solution.  Not sure about the ohv part, though.  I would think a sohc 2 valve per cylinder would be just as cheap or cheaper.  Height shouldn’t be an issue, and if it was, just tilt it 15 degrees or so.  A single or dual turbo could be added for extra low end torque.

 

A 90 degree v6 of that displacement would require a balance shaft (extra cost) and may still have nvh issues.  An I6 would be the cheapest solution and have additional desirability.

 

 

An all-new straight 6 would be prohibitively expensive.  You are talking about a whole new tooling line, very limited parts interchangeability with existing engines, and limited applications (more like none) in other vehicles.  Not to mention all new accessory drives/brackets/lines/hoses/air induction system for the vehicle.  Not cheap at all.  Oh yeah, different engine configuration may require crash testing.  And of course emissions certification.    Smaller displacement version of the 7.3L would be the least expensive route, if there is even a demand for a smaller engine.  Assuming the 6.2L goes away......  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

An all-new straight 6 would be prohibitively expensive.  You are talking about a whole new tooling line, very limited parts interchangeability with existing engines, and limited applications (more like none) in other vehicles.  Not to mention all new accessory drives/brackets/lines/hoses/air induction system for the vehicle.  Not cheap at all.  Oh yeah, different engine configuration may require crash testing.  And of course emissions certification.    Smaller displacement version of the 7.3L would be the least expensive route, if there is even a demand for a smaller engine.  Assuming the 6.2L goes away......  

As you just said, a second new engine can be a real finger trap for investment, engines that doesn’t sell all that many in F250 and F350  need enough numbers elsewhere to justify their reason for development.

 

I guess that’s why Ford chose the 7.3, enough capacity for efficient towing (and hauling in E Series) but then just supply in different power levels instead of second engine. I still wonder about reusing the 6.2 machinery at Windsor but maybe turn that engine into say, a lower deck height 5.8 pushrod Godzilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 1:26 AM, 7Mary3 said:

Assuming the 6.2L goes away......  

 

On 12/1/2020 at 8:05 AM, jpd80 said:

As you just said, a second new engine can be a real finger trap for investment, engines that doesn’t sell all that many in F250 and F350  need enough numbers elsewhere to justify their reason for development.

 

Everyone keeps glossing over the simple truth.  Big investments are only done after careful cost analysis !

 

The 6.2L was sort of a misfire.  I don't think Ford had committed going back into Medium Duty while it was still on the drawing boards.  If not that, then someone did a very poor heat analysis early on in the design.

 

I can guarantee you, the new 6.8L will cost less to build than the outgoing 6.2L !  Plus, I expect to see it in all trucks (except Ranger and Transit) up to F600 and E450 offer it.

 

On 12/1/2020 at 8:05 AM, jpd80 said:

 I still wonder about reusing the 6.2 machinery at Windsor but maybe turn that engine into say, a lower deck height 5.8 pushrod Godzilla.

 

Highly unlikely.  Nostalgia does not sell in the commercial market place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.8 is not that kind of engine......it is HP Specials only.

From what we’ve been told, the 6.8 is going into, ” derivatives of F150 and Mustang “

that is code for F150 Raptor and Shelby Mustang”

 

Big investment is a relative term, a low cost pushrod 7.3 V8 that can go into all 
Super Duty, Stripped Chassis, Medium Duty and E Series, replace 6.2 and 6.8 V10

is absolutely justified. 
 

Ford already provides the 7.3 in three different power levels, that was done in preference 

to developing another smaller engine, that was another cost saving measure.

 

And yes, I took a trip down memory lane with a wishful 5.8, leaving others to

draw out the 351 historical reference., that’s one for the sentimental among us......

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The 6.8 is not that kind of engine......it is HP Specials only.

From what we’ve been told, the 6.8 is going into, ” derivatives of F150 and Mustang “

that is code for F150 Raptor and Shelby Mustang”

 

That's the story I have heard.  The 7.3L will probably be the only gasoline engine for everything larger than an F-150.  I wonder if the 6.8L will eventually replace the Coyote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

That's the story I have heard.  The 7.3L will probably be the only gasoline engine for everything larger than an F-150.  I wonder if the 6.8L will eventually replace the Coyote.  

Correct,  the UNIFOR rep, Jerry Dias gave us the tip on the 6.8

at a press conference Q & A on the UNIFOR contract details.

 

More precisely, I think the 6.8 V8 as a HP engine is the replacement for the S/C 5.2.

It will save Ford a lot of complexity in those applications that is just not required.

The S/C 5.2 is gloriously wonderful but I think Ford sees an opportunity to give

HP buyers an engine that many thought Ford would never entertain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 1:26 AM, 7Mary3 said:

 

An all-new straight 6 would be prohibitively expensive.  You are talking about a whole new tooling line, very limited parts interchangeability with existing engines, and limited applications (more like none) in other vehicles.  Not to mention all new accessory drives/brackets/lines/hoses/air induction system for the vehicle.  Not cheap at all.  Oh yeah, different engine configuration may require crash testing.  And of course emissions certification.    Smaller displacement version of the 7.3L would be the least expensive route, if there is even a demand for a smaller engine.  Assuming the 6.2L goes away......  

Agreed that all new would be expensive.  But, a 5.5l I6 could share bore, stroke, bore spacing and many parts with the 7.3L.  It would be less expensive to build than a smaller displacement version of the 7.3, but have higher up front costs and be cheaper than all new.  Volume would be key to whether it is feasible.  As you stated, it would be a limited application.  It will likely just be the 7.3L as the gas option.

 

Accessories will likely all be electric as they  are on Mercedes “new” I6 (it shares parts with the I4 instead of the v6 sharing parts with the v8) for updated engines.  There is still significant life left in internal combustion engines.  Electrification of accessories will be part of the efficiency gains needed to keep them viable.  California was supposed to be all electric how many years ago?  And weren’t we supposed to have run out of oil by now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2020 at 11:18 PM, slemke said:

Accessories will likely all be electric as they  are on Mercedes (M256) “new” I6 ...

 

As you said, this engine came out a couple of years ago, but it has some very unique technology !

  • 48v integrated starter/alternator
  • Electric turbo charger plus exhaust driven turbo
  • 48v lithium ion battery

Capture.jpg

Edited by theoldwizard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2020 at 11:33 AM, Bob Rosadini said:

Good news JP-and again, big question is how many of those class 6 sales were F-600's and how many were 7.3's.  ??

With regards to October sales, it’s looking like around 600 F600 sales.

It takes a bit of cross matching of data and November sales are down a lot, hope to have more next week....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

Glad to see Ford is keeping up.  I hope they are in heavy truck electric tech as well.

 

(11) Platooning Technology Reviews | Ford Otosan | AVL - YouTube

Well this  I think is  the first time I've  seen any reference to  AVL in the FordOtosan releases.  Also  notice the  AVL guy references "Otosan"- not "Ford Otosan".   I'm beginning to  think "Ford" is as  silent a partner as  you can get.  

 

Have  we ever seen any evidence of this "heavy truck world engineering  center" that Ford Otosan is billed to be, influence anything done here-like at KTP or OAP.  Looking at the interior shots of these "Ford" cabovers I see a lot of controls that look very familiar-as in F-150 but that is about it.

 

Then again if Mike Parkhurst were still alive he would be saying..."SOS, typical Ford,  pick  up truck components in a heavy duty truck".  To anyone younger than 60, Mike Parkhurst WAS Overdrive magazine.  Somewhere I have the edition in which he first  covered the Louisville when it was introduced.

 

But hopefully we will see some influence of the AVL/Otosan relationship in what comes out of OAP in 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen anything suggesting that Ford-Otosan's medium/heavy truck technology is being shared with Dearborn.  I wouldn't expect there to be much anyway, Otocan's products are not really applicable to North America, and given Ford's domestic medium/heavy sales volumes it would be cost prohibitive to try to EPA/CARB certify Otosan's diesels for use in the larger Super Duty trucks.  Probably wouldn't fit regardless.  The way the world medium/heavy truck market is going, I suspect Otosan's truck operations will soon partner with one of the large multi-national truck manufacturers. 

 

Overdrive magazine, that's going back!  As I remember, they didn't like Ford heavy trucks much,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2020 at 12:19 PM, 7Mary3 said:

I have never seen anything suggesting that Ford-Otosan's medium/heavy truck technology is being shared with Dearborn.  I wouldn't expect there to be much anyway, Otocan's products are not really applicable to North America, and given Ford's domestic medium/heavy sales volumes it would be cost prohibitive to try to EPA/CARB certify Otosan's diesels for use in the larger Super Duty trucks.  Probably wouldn't fit regardless.  The way the world medium/heavy truck market is going, I suspect Otosan's truck operations will soon partner with one of the large multi-national truck manufacturers. 

 

Overdrive magazine, that's going back!  As I remember, they didn't like Ford heavy trucks much,  

Like I said-have you ever seen any evidence?  .  But I have seen statements reflecting the fact that they were responsible for ..Ford's world wide heavy truck engineering.  Now with Brazil gone that is an empty statement for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Like I said-have you ever seen any evidence?  .  But I have seen statements reflecting the fact that they were responsible for ..Ford's world wide heavy truck engineering.  Now with Brazil gone that is an empty statement for sure.

Then again, the mirror control switch looks very familiar to the one in current domestic Fords.?

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...