Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

Keep in mind Traton is well on the way to becoming a completely separate entity from VAG (as now Daimler Truck is from the restructured Mercedes-Benz).  I doubt any tie between Ford and VW could or would lead to any potential collaboration between Ford and Traton.  

 

Back to Bill Ford Jr.:  I seem to remember he was briefly the head of Ford's heavy truck operation early on in his career.  Regardless of what position he held, I am absolutely certain Jac Nassar could not have sold the heavy truck operation to Freightliner unless the Ford family signed off on the deal.     

 

They had to sell.  The Class 8 trucks were bleeding money like crazy towards the end and there was no real roadmap to profitability.  We even looked at a new scenario where Ford would essentially create a separate truck-only division and distribution network and that business case was marginal, at best.  (Plus there would have been big legal fights with the existing dealer network to get that done, amongst other issues.)

 

The F650/750 program was bleeding money, too, and always has.  When I was still at Ford we were an inch away from killing those trucks, too. (~2006)  The clan of medium duty truck guys, with motivation to save their own jobs, of course lobbied that if we brought the powertrain in-house they could return those trucks to profitability.   That plus the adjacency sales arguement (which was flawed logic and went against a study that we provided) is what saved the F650/750.   The medium duty guys claimed that if 650/750 went away that would hurt F250-550 sales.  I did a big study on that and what we found was people bought F650/750's because they already owned F250-550's, not the other way around, so if F650/750 went away it would have little to no impact on F250-550.

 

I was an F-150 manager but my boss was in charge of all F-Series trucks so I had first hand knowledge of what was going on the bigger trucks.  To my understanding the in-house powertrain lessened the losses but my current Ford contacts still claim they are money losers.   (But that is second-hand info now, as my old boss moved to another assignment once Blue Diamond was shut down, but one of my friends is a Finance Manager in Product Development or whatever they call it now and does have access to this info.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

Keep in mind Traton is well on the way to becoming a completely separate entity from VAG (as now Daimler Truck is from the restructured Mercedes-Benz).  I doubt any tie between Ford and VW could or would lead to any potential collaboration between Ford and Traton.  

 

Back to Bill Ford Jr.:  I seem to remember he was briefly the head of Ford's heavy truck operation early on in his career.  Regardless of what position he held, I am absolutely certain Jac Nassar could not have sold the heavy truck operation to Freightliner unless the Ford family signed off on the deal.     

 

I doubt any major sale or purchase occurs without the major Ford family member's blessings. 

 

It's not just that many are on the board and have their name of most vehicles sold under their name, but the fact that collectively, they are the largest shareholder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

They had to sell.  The Class 8 trucks were bleeding money like crazy towards the end and there was no real roadmap to profitability.  We even looked at a new scenario where Ford would essentially create a separate truck-only division and distribution network and that business case was marginal, at best.  (Plus there would have been big legal fights with the existing dealer network to get that done, amongst other issues.)

 

The F650/750 program was bleeding money, too, and always has.  When I was still at Ford we were an inch away from killing those trucks, too. (~2006)  The clan of medium duty truck guys, with motivation to save their own jobs, of course lobbied that if we brought the powertrain in-house they could return those trucks to profitability.   That plus the adjacency sales arguement (which was flawed logic and went against a study that we provided) is what saved the F650/750.   The medium duty guys claimed that if 650/750 went away that would hurt F250-550 sales.  I did a big study on that and what we found was people bought F650/750's because they already owned F250-550's, not the other way around, so if F650/750 went away it would have little to no impact on F250-550.

 

I was an F-150 manager but my boss was in charge of all F-Series trucks so I had first hand knowledge of what was going on the bigger trucks.  To my understanding the in-house powertrain lessened the losses but my current Ford contacts still claim they are money losers.   (But that is second-hand info now, as my old boss moved to another assignment once Blue Diamond was shut down, but one of my friends is a Finance Manager in Product Development or whatever they call it now and does have access to this info.)

 

Considering the body has been around since 1999 and the drivetrain are shared (mostly), what does that leave? The frame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

They had to sell.  The Class 8 trucks were bleeding money like crazy towards the end and there was no real roadmap to profitability.  We even looked at a new scenario where Ford would essentially create a separate truck-only division and distribution network and that business case was marginal, at best.  (Plus there would have been big legal fights with the existing dealer network to get that done, amongst other issues.)

 

The F650/750 program was bleeding money, too, and always has.  When I was still at Ford we were an inch away from killing those trucks, too. (~2006)  The clan of medium duty truck guys, with motivation to save their own jobs, of course lobbied that if we brought the powertrain in-house they could return those trucks to profitability.   That plus the adjacency sales arguement (which was flawed logic and went against a study that we provided) is what saved the F650/750.   The medium duty guys claimed that if 650/750 went away that would hurt F250-550 sales.  I did a big study on that and what we found was people bought F650/750's because they already owned F250-550's, not the other way around, so if F650/750 went away it would have little to no impact on F250-550.

 

I was an F-150 manager but my boss was in charge of all F-Series trucks so I had first hand knowledge of what was going on the bigger trucks.  To my understanding the in-house powertrain lessened the losses but my current Ford contacts still claim they are money losers.   (But that is second-hand info now, as my old boss moved to another assignment once Blue Diamond was shut down, but one of my friends is a Finance Manager in Product Development or whatever they call it now and does have access to this info.)

 

I wouldn't doubt any of that.  And in addition, Ford wanted to repurpose KTP to produce the upcoming (1999) Super Duty.  Not only could KTP produce far more (something like 10X?) more Super Duty trucks than heavies, the per unit profit was also far higher.

 

It's interesting to compare Ford's heavy truck operations with that of GM's.  Of course GM Truck And Coach division was producing medium and heavy trucks since it's creation.  Most larger truck manufacturing took place in Pontiac, MI, where they had a sprawling facility of mostly old buildings that was not exactly a model of efficiency.  After experiencing solid growth through the 60's, they built a new facility in Pontiac (Pontiac East) just to produce medium duty trucks.  This helped the situation at the old Pontiac facility and enabled GM to hold on to a significant market share until the early 80's.  At that time, faced with an aging model lineup that was generating little to no profits against an increasingly profitable and growing light duty line, they decided to merge the heavy line with Volvo Truck, close the old Pontiac facility, convert Pontiac East to light duty, and move medium duty to an old plant in Janesville, WI..  The move got GM out of an unprofitable segment and substantially increased production of a profitable line, just like Ford did 8 or so years later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No surprise that the heavy trucks weren't making money in the 80s- There were about 8 makers and with the exception of International and Mack they were dependent on engine and drivetrain makers who in fact made most of the profit on a heavy truck. So no surprise that looking at the short term profitability GM and soon after Ford bailed. What they failed to see beyond the current quarter was the market consolidating down to just 4 makers each with their own engine and thus much higher profitability. Ford cowered and fled the heavy truck market, Daimler invested and developed their product and now earns profits on trucks that Ford can only dream about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

No surprise that the heavy trucks weren't making money in the 80s- There were about 8 makers and with the exception of International and Mack they were dependent on engine and drivetrain makers who in fact made most of the profit on a heavy truck. So no surprise that looking at the short term profitability GM and soon after Ford bailed. What they failed to see beyond the current quarter was the market consolidating down to just 4 makers each with their own engine and thus much higher profitability. Ford cowered and fled the heavy truck market, Daimler invested and developed their product and now earns profits on trucks that Ford can only dream about.

Well that’s interesting because Daimler’s 2020 total profit was $4.8 Billion, Truck and Bus division contributed $800 Million. Breaking out a major asset like this  also makes it easier for Daimler to consider alliances, mergers or even sell off.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

No surprise that the heavy trucks weren't making money in the 80s- There were about 8 makers and with the exception of International and Mack they were dependent on engine and drivetrain makers who in fact made most of the profit on a heavy truck. So no surprise that looking at the short term profitability GM and soon after Ford bailed. What they failed to see beyond the current quarter was the market consolidating down to just 4 makers each with their own engine and thus much higher profitability. Ford cowered and fled the heavy truck market, Daimler invested and developed their product and now earns profits on trucks that Ford can only dream about.

 

What's ironic with all of this is the Express Pass to #1 market share in the truck business was literally 8 miles away from Ford's headquarters:  Detroit Diesel.

 

Unfortunately for everyone else, Daimler swooped in and bought it from Roger Penske and the rest is history.  Detroit Diesel is the primary reason Daimler's market share is now over 40%.  The new Cascadia/Western Star cabs are wonderful, but the efficiency of the Detroit Powertrain is unmatched.  (Daimler also deserves some credit for putting money into Detroit and developing the DT12 transmission as well as the Detroit Axles for North America.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Well that’s interesting because Daimler’s 2020 total profit was $4.8 Billion, Truck and Bus division contributed $800 Million. Breaking out a major asset like this  also makes it easier for Daimler to consider alliances, mergers or even sell off.

 

 

Mercedes already does with RNMA and Geely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Well that’s interesting because Daimler’s 2020 total profit was $4.8 Billion, Truck and Bus division contributed $800 Million. Breaking out a major asset like this  also makes it easier for Daimler to consider alliances, mergers or even sell off.

 

 

What's really interesting is how much of Daimler Truck's profits come from Freightliner/Western Star in North America compared to Mercedes Truck everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So  help me out  guys.  What does a "spin off" really accomplish?  Other than to take responsibility for success or failure off the shoulders of the parent?? They remain with an ownership stake, and depending on the percentage of the stake, that still gives then a degree of control-correct?

 

Oh and 'weasel....a lot of inside info, thanks for that-kinda of  takes we "civilians" out of the discussion☹️.  Is your old boss who was in charge of total F series still connected with trucks?   And if 250-550 ownership was a motivation  to purchase 650-750, would that hold true for a "baby 8"-specifically a tandem derived from 650/750.  Kind of like the "old days" when FT-800, FT-8000, 900 was a low cost alternative to a LNT/LT???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

So  help me out  guys.  What does a "spin off" really accomplish?  Other than to take responsibility for success or failure off the shoulders of the parent?? They remain with an ownership stake, and depending on the percentage of the stake, that still gives then a degree of control-correct?

 

Oh and 'weasel....a lot of inside info, thanks for that-kinda of  takes we "civilians" out of the discussion☹️.  Is your old boss who was in charge of total F series still connected with trucks?   And if 250-550 ownership was a motivation  to purchase 650-750, would that hold true for a "baby 8"-specifically a tandem derived from 650/750.  Kind of like the "old days" when FT-800, FT-8000, 900 was a low cost alternative to a LNT/LT???

 

My old boss retired from Ford about 5 years ago.  As time has gone on I have lost many inside sources but I still have a few close friends there.  :)

 

I suppose Ford could get some Baby 8 sales, but unless they are willing to commit to a wide range of options/buildable combinations you won't have much success there.  The baby 8 market is fairly small, and it's filled with all kinds of configurations so it's hard for someone to make a one-size-fits-all chassis for that type of market, IMO.  

 

With Freightliner you can offer the following trucks as a baby 8:

  • M2's with DD8's, B6.7's or L9's
  • 108SD's with DD8's or L9's
  • 114SD's with L9's
  • 4700/47X's with L9's

And within each of those you have all kinds of options for transmissions (manuals, Detroit or Eaton automateds, and Allison automatics) as well as all kinds of axle/wheelbase options, for starters.  

 

Baby 8 is truly a go big or go home type of market.  I think the variety needed there is just too big for Ford to handle, especially with the aforementioned dealer issues to handle it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that Ford can't see that adding some simple low investment options to the heavier F series would bring in a lot of new customers. For example, a DOT legal sleeper bunk in the extended and crew cab trucks would win over a lot of the hotshot operators, same thing in the Transit for the expeditors.  And if the F650/750 are capable of 50,000 GCW, adding lift axle and full screw tandems to the lineup should be easy and would bring in a bunch of new customers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

My old boss retired from Ford about 5 years ago.  As time has gone on I have lost many inside sources but I still have a few close friends there.  :)

 

I suppose Ford could get some Baby 8 sales, but unless they are willing to commit to a wide range of options/buildable combinations you won't have much success there.  The baby 8 market is fairly small, and it's filled with all kinds of configurations so it's hard for someone to make a one-size-fits-all chassis for that type of market, IMO.  

 

With Freightliner you can offer the following trucks as a baby 8:

  • M2's with DD8's, B6.7's or L9's
  • 108SD's with DD8's or L9's
  • 114SD's with L9's
  • 4700/47X's with L9's

And within each of those you have all kinds of options for transmissions (manuals, Detroit or Eaton automateds, and Allison automatics) as well as all kinds of axle/wheelbase options, for starters.  

 

Baby 8 is truly a go big or go home type of market.  I think the variety needed there is just too big for Ford to handle, especially with the aforementioned dealer issues to handle it.  

Back to  your comment on "the Captain's" sale of DD, was that ever an industry rumor before the shoe dropped?  Ford ever have an inkling that was in the works??  If I had to bet I would say Penske was a lot more involved behind the scenes with a lot of Ford's competitiors-in particular people at Freightliner. and if I had to bet they started the conversation with him.  That was during the Fields regime?-or was it AM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Back to  your comment on "the Captain's" sale of DD, was that ever an industry rumor before the shoe dropped?  Ford ever have an inkling that was in the works??  If I had to bet I would say Penske was a lot more involved behind the scenes with a lot of Ford's competitiors-in particular people at Freightliner. and if I had to bet they started the conversation with him.  That was during the Fields regime?-or was it AM?

 

Honestly I never heard much chatter about Ford and Detroit Diesel either way.  Penske and GM both shared ownership of Detroit so not sure if they would entertain a sale to Ford, even if Ford wanted it.    When I started at Ford (early 90's) it seemed Ford was already looking for a way to get out of heavy trucks.  (Penske/GM sold Detroit to Daimler in 2000.)

 

Detroit Diesel - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 11:22 PM, iamweasel said:

 

Honestly I never heard much chatter about Ford and Detroit Diesel either way.  Penske and GM both shared ownership of Detroit so not sure if they would entertain a sale to Ford, even if Ford wanted it.    When I started at Ford (early 90's) it seemed Ford was already looking for a way to get out of heavy trucks.  (Penske/GM sold Detroit to Daimler in 2000.)

 

Detroit Diesel - Wikipedia

"I"...Re your comment on early 90 rumors, I  would have to believe that the decision to spend all that money on HN-80 was made during that time frame-given truck came out in 96??  And Poling was guy at top then?? (When HN-80 was approved?)   One of the things that really bothered me (as a stockholder as well as Ford truck diehard) was the truck was on the market two  years and they give the business away?  Once again I guess Jac the Knife carried that vote given his "most profitable wins out" mind set versus any thought about a broad product slate.

As for your  comment on "Baby 8-go big or go home",  no argument as you worked there-me?  I'm  a "civilian" but I always thought that a market existed for low cost tandems-either because they were low annual mileage vehicles and/or they were in an application where the chassis was more of a "platform" for like a boom. bucket, Vactor etc.

 

Back to Detroits, one of the best "bang for the buck" Fords I ever bought were some LN-9000 tractors, 6-71, 238's, RT-910 Road Rangers.  They typically pulled short  pups and replaced mostly 9000 Whites-which were nice trucks but they were powered by V-185 Cummins V-8s that were a disaster.  Drivers loved those Fords!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like a Monday morning quarterback......  I believe the 'mistake' of the HN80 program was not selling it to Freightliner shortly after introduction.  The mistake was not cancelling the program entirely before any real money was spent on it.  The Louisville might have been getting a bit dated by the early 90's, but remember it's major competitor, the Mack R, was 5 years older and still selling well.  No question KTP was nowhere near it's full profitability potential building heavy trucks and retooling it for Super Duty production was absolutely the right move.  What Ford should have done was not bother with HM80 and continue with the old Louisville at KTP until retooling for the Super Duty in 1998.  Whatever they got from Freightliner for the HN80 was probably less that what they spent on the program.  

 

I remember hearing rumors around the time HN80 was introduced that the program was late and way over budget.  If true, I wonder it that had anything to do with Ford selling it off so quickly.  Cut your loses and run?   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

"I"...Re your comment on early 90 rumors, I  would have to believe that the decision to spend all that money on HN-80 was made during that time frame-given truck came out in 96??  And Poling was guy at top then?? (When HN-80 was approved?)   One of the things that really bothered me (as a stockholder as well as Ford truck diehard) was the truck was on the market two  years and they give the business away?  Once again I guess Jac the Knife carried that vote given his "most profitable wins out" mind set versus any thought about a broad product slate.

As for your  comment on "Baby 8-go big or go home",  no argument as you worked there-me?  I'm  a "civilian" but I always thought that a market existed for low cost tandems-either because they were low annual mileage vehicles and/or they were in an application where the chassis was more of a "platform" for like a boom. bucket, Vactor etc.

 

Back to Detroits, one of the best "bang for the buck" Fords I ever bought were some LN-9000 tractors, 6-71, 238's, RT-910 Road Rangers.  They typically pulled short  pups and replaced mostly 9000 Whites-which were nice trucks but they were powered by V-185 Cummins V-8s that were a disaster.  Drivers loved those Fords!

 

Well I started in '93 and the HN-80 program would have gotten kickstarted in 90/91, most likely.  It's very possible it started with an approved business plan but then 6 years later when the truck was actually being produced it yielded actuals far worse than expected.  That would not surprise me, especially with some of the loose cannons in the truck division when it came to forecasting/accounting.  They knew trucks, but lets just say they were not detail oriented as a group and always overpromised/under-delivered.  That clan was all talk......So once the actuals start coming in, and they were dramatically worse, then the knee-jerk "oh crap lets dump this division" came in.   But looking back, yes, they should have dumped it before spending a nickel on HN-80.  It went from bad to worse.

 

My point on the Baby 8 is the only way to do it and recoup your investment is to have the ability to build a large number of buildable combinations so your volume is high enough.  If there was one spec that was 60% of that market you could build that one configuration and not worry about anything else (like Hino does in Class 6) but baby 8 is not like that.  You need to build a wide variety of trucks in that segment and each is low volume.  Companies like Freightliner can do it because they minimize investment for baby 8's by re-using parts/cabs from the class 6-7 trucks below it and the class-8 above it.  Ford can't do that with no heavy class 8 trucks in their lineup.

 

Plus, as I've said before, Ford knows they can barely compete in class 6-7 with their current dealer network, so it really makes no sense to build anything class 8 given they can't support it, anyway.  This fact is HUGE.  It seems simple to say "hey, just slap another axle on there and make it a tandem" but in reality a baby 8 will use a different chassis entirely.  Heavier frames, larger axles front and rear, different suspension/chassis parts, etc.  The current dealer network has nowhere in their Parts Departments to store these additional parts they would need.  That's just one of the many issues keeping Ford away from Class 8.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Saw that.  A conversion is better than nothing to get started, but it looks like GM is jumping into that space with an all new medium duty that will be available as a BEV or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.  No word if it's a collaboration with Navistar or Isuzu or an 'in house' GM design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

Say, didn't some of those Ford 'loose cannons' end up at Navistar?  That didn't go so well either, but NAV's CEO made some bad guesses and the EPA gave them a deluxe screwing too, which didn't help.

 

I'm not sure where some of those guys ended up.  The ones I knew stayed with the company and just worked on Medium Duty.  

 

As far as Navistar and EPA goes, Navistar deserved even more of a royal screwing than they got.  They should have been shut down or, at minimum, told to buy all non-compliant engines and lemons back.  Several of my current customers sued Navistar over their engines....and won or got hefty settlements or alternative arrangements made. Navistar knew darn well what they were doing, and that is the reason Cummins walked away from them because they told Navistar their "technology" doesn't work, yet Navistar continued down the Extreme EGR path anyway.  If they reversed course and went to SCR they would have been 2 years late to market and would not have any trucks to sell in 2011/2012MY, so they decided to try and cheat the system with their own flawed engines, instead.

 

One of my customers, who has 100 trucks and are complete morons when it comes to accounting, bought 50 lemons from Navistar in 2012/2013 and the settlement was just finished 2 years ago.  What was the settlement?  Given this company completely mismanages cash and has no financial sense whatsoever, they typically buy trucks from those who can magically arrange financing for them.  So the settlement with Navistar was they would drop their lawsuit if Navistar sold them 50 trucks over a 2 year period, at discounted price AND agree to finance every one of them with a 5 year FMV/walkaway lease.  Navistar agreed and case closed.....LOL....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, twintornados said:

Well that is good news-in particular if  Penske  is involved.  That is surprising as I thought one way or another Penske has some sort of relationship with Hino-or so I've been told. I believe it involves the distribution aspect?

 

I wonder about a payload of 8500 lbs!   With a gvw of 20,000 on the low  end-I'm guessing- and a GVW of 26,000 on the high end, that says to  me there is a lot of weight in that electric drive train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well that is good news-in particular if  Penske  is involved.  That is surprising as I thought one way or another Penske has some sort of relationship with Hino-or so I've been told. I believe it involves the distribution aspect?

 

I wonder about a payload of 8500 lbs!   With a gvw of 20,000 on the low  end-I'm guessing- and a GVW of 26,000 on the high end, that says to  me there is a lot of weight in that electric drive train.

 

I believe Roger Penske or Penske Corp has some ownership interest in Hino.  (10% or something like that.)  However, that was before Daimler agreed to let Penske buy some Freightliner/Western Star truck dealerships.  (Premier Truck Group.)  Daimler may have insisted he divest the Hino stake as they typically don't allow new dealers to come into the family unless they are 100% with Daimler. 

 

As far as payload with electric trucks you are correct in stating that is a big issue.  The Feds do allow electric trucks to gross 82,000# in most states (as opposed to 80,000# max) but I'm honestly not sure how that would work on a non-CDL truck.  (Do they let them gross 28K???)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iamweasel said:

As far as Navistar and EPA goes, Navistar deserved even more of a royal screwing than they got.  They should have been shut down or, at minimum, told to buy all non-compliant engines and lemons back.  Several of my current customers sued Navistar over their engines....and won or got hefty settlements or alternative arrangements made. Navistar knew darn well what they were doing, and that is the reason Cummins walked away from them because they told Navistar their "technology" doesn't work, yet Navistar continued down the Extreme EGR path anyway.  If they reversed course and went to SCR they would have been 2 years late to market and would not have any trucks to sell in 2011/2012MY, so they decided to try and cheat the system with their own flawed engines, instead.

 

 

I completely agree, but a 'dirty' secret was early on the EPA wasn't happy with the urea/SCR method of NOX reduction and was encouraging Navistar to go the 'Advanced EGR' route, along with Caterpillar.  The EPA thought urea/SCR would be too easy to defeat to the point they were thinking the only way the would allow it would be with a concentric diesel fuel/urea pump nozzle that would only dispense diesel if you took the urea along with it.  The urea tank would be WITHIN the diesel fuel tank.  Sure, that would work...  Anyway, Ustain was supposedly somehow under the impression the EPA would cut Navistar some slack if their EGR system showed promise even if it didn't meet the NOX standard off the bat, because that's what the EPA really wanted.  Something about future emissions credits?  Problem was the MaxxForce 'advanced  EGR' either met the standard with poor economy and reliability or failed to meet the standard with marginal economy and poor reliability.  Cat bailed out of on-highway when ACCERT failed, everyone else adopted urea/SCR, and Navistar stuck with MaxxForce until it almost killed them.  The EPA was mad because 'advanced EGR' never worked, Navistar's BOD fired Ustain for sticking with it too long, and a bunch of GMer's lead by Troy Clarke showed up and picked up the pieces.  Navistar pissed off so many customers during those years it amazes me they have been able to put it all behind them, even 12 or so years later.

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...