Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

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.

 

My understanding is Navistar leadership told the EPA they could eventually get the NoX requirement to 0.02 using Extreme EGR even though many engineers inside the company said they had no idea how to get there.  They could only get it to 0.05.  The EPA allowed Navistar to launch it at 0.05 in 2010CY/2011MY using magical emissions credits from past years that came from somewhere, and those credits were supposed to run out in 2-3 years (~2013) and Navistar was required to be at 0.02 at that time.  Of course they finally fessed up and admitted they couldn't get there.  (And even worse, even at 0.05 the engines were having major performance and fuel economy issues as we know.)

 

Daimler and Cummins were PISSED about the government letting Navistar launch at 0.05.  They were claiming BS on those emissions credits and Daimler even sued the EPA over it.  The EPA refused to share where these credits came from because Daimler felt if Navistar somehow had credits banked than shouldn't we???

 

Navistar has always been the low price leader and most customers who buy from them simply focus on up front price and nothing else.   They aren't typically brand loyal....they are price loyal.  :)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 2018, Bosch released some details on it new advanced diesel emission control system

that deliver super low emission levels that would have been thought impossible a few years ago.

Unfortunately, it cannot be retrofitted to existing diesel vehicles because the strategy is different

and requires advanced temperature control of the exhaust system to run much hotter at all times.

 

The patents on the above system is what’s stopping other diesel manufacturers from releasing their

own new era diesel technology, I think Bosch has now locked up the diesel business……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Back in 2018, Bosch released some details on it new advanced diesel emission control system

that deliver super low emission levels that would have been thought impossible a few years ago.

Unfortunately, it cannot be retrofitted to existing diesel vehicles because the strategy is different

and requires advanced temperature control of the exhaust system to run much hotter at all times.

 

The patents on the above system is what’s stopping other diesel manufacturers from releasing their

own new era diesel technology, I think Bosch has now locked up the diesel business……

 

It will be interesting to see if Cummins adopts this new Bosch technology.  I say Cummins because they are rapidly becoming the default diesel engine manufacturer, as so many OEM's no longer want to spend anything on diesel technology as it is becoming more and more apparent it is a dead-end technology.  Easier to buy engines from Cummins and let them worry about diesel emissions short-term.  Also allows the OEM's to spend more on fuel cell and BEV technology, which is where this is all eventually going.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

It will be interesting to see if Cummins adopts this new Bosch technology.  I say Cummins because they are rapidly becoming the default diesel engine manufacturer, as so many OEM's no longer want to spend anything on diesel technology as it is becoming more and more apparent it is a dead-end technology.  Easier to buy engines from Cummins and let them worry about diesel emissions short-term.  Also allows the OEM's to spend more on fuel cell and BEV technology, which is where this is all eventually going.   

 

Speaking of Cummins, whatever became of the 5.0L V8 diesel that was in Titan SD? Are they shopping that motor to other OEM's? Reading older articles, it would seem that the 5.0L V8 and (never debuted) 4.2L V6 were going to reshape the entire LD truck / SUV market by 2009....

 

https://www.motortrend.com/news/0612dp-new-cummins-v6-and-v8/

Edited by twintornados
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Speaking of Cummins, whatever became of the 5.0L V8 diesel that was in Titan SD? Are they shopping that motor to other OEM's? Reading older articles, it would seem that the 5.0L V8 and (never debuted) 4.2L V6 were going to reshape the entire LD truck / SUV market by 2009....

 

https://www.motortrend.com/news/0612dp-new-cummins-v6-and-v8/

The problem with the 5.0 V8TD is 300 hp/555 lb ft with the current crop of 3.0 V6TDs closing in on those figures,

The Titan XD failed because it was a pickup in no mans land, imagine the LR 4.4 TD in F150 or F250, there’s no need…and by extension, no need for a 4.4 to 5.0 TD.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The problem with the 5.0 V8TD is 300 hp/555 lb ft with the current crop of 3.0 V6TDs closing in on those figures,

The Titan XD failed because it was a pickup in no mans land, imagine the LR 4.4 TD in F150 or F250, there’s no need…and by extension, no need for a 4.4 to 5.0 TD.

 

All true, but with a dollop of today's "turn up the heat" tech, could it produce more? Or, maybe a 5.0L turbo diesel married to a 10 speed Powerboost style hybrid transmission would be a darling in the 3/4 ton truck market. Ehh, another one of my wishful thinking type moments...diesels by and large is a dying tech...strangled by ever tightening emissions requirements and the advent of the forthcoming BEV choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

All true, but with a dollop of today's "turn up the heat" tech, could it produce more? Or, maybe a 5.0L turbo diesel married to a 10 speed Powerboost style hybrid transmission would be a darling in the 3/4 ton truck market. Ehh, another one of my wishful thinking type moments...diesels by and large is a dying tech...strangled by ever tightening emissions requirements and the advent of the forthcoming BEV choices.

Thank you for expressing that evolutionary train of thought, any amount of changes could be done to make 4.4/5.0 TDs more powerful and efficient but in the end, gasoline engines are cheaper,  more popular and easier to transition to hybrids and PHEVs, even range extended EVs.  We saw that when Ford chose to introduce the 3.5 EB and 2.7 EB over the 4.4 and 3.0 diesel, so the decision was actually made years ago allowing the hybrid 3.5 EB. (did Ford set the 3.0 Powerstroke up to fail in F150 or did it just confirm what Ford already knew?)

 

I know I strayed off the subject of the Cummins 5.0 but I think that engine is in a similar situation to the Ford developed 4.4 TD, there’s practically no call for to outside of say, a large SUV like Range Rover.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2021 at 1:10 PM, 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.)

Weasel, with all due respect I submit the following:  A) regarding Class 8,  they sold the class 8 right after they had retooled and came out with the second/final generation of L-series!  They needed to in order to keep up. The original generation was getting long in the tooth. Daimler/Mercedes, after they had already purchased Freightliner, had to get rid of this new pesky Ford Class 8 entry.  So they stole it for $300 million!   Ford isn't too bright when it comes to investing in something and then selling it.  I give you the Jaguar/Land Rover debacle!  B) I live here in Connecticut and the CT DOT, MASSDot, Eversource (electric co.), Hartford MDC (Water district) had mostly heavy Fords class 6 thru 8 for years -- no, decades -- and ALL the class 1 thru 5's in these organizations were Fords!  This goes for cars too. When these customers found out they had to look elsewhere for Class 8, they found out there was a whole new world of class 8  -- and class 1 thru 5 -- trucks out there!  Result? Slowly the loyalty shown in class 1 thru 5 dwindled.  You go by these garage facilities today and it's Ford, GM and Ram.  Ask Bob R. regarding Massachusetts DOT's makeup of Class 1 thru 5 vehicles now.  I'd say it's mostly Ford, but not ALL Ford.  I dare Ford to drop class 6 & 7, so I can prove I'm right!  Go ahead Ford, drop class 6 & 7 NOW!  They should be going into Class 8!  What's so hard about it?  By the way, I read an article a while back that GM had researched what would happen if they got rid of class 6 & 7 and their conclusion was it would negatively affect lower class sales.  And look at their lower class sales. Dwindling because even though they got back into mediums with Navistar, it's like a Mickey Mouse/half a$$ed operation.  Do you know how many firemen -- volunteer and regular -- used to buy Ford pickups for decades because there were a bunch of C-series cabover pumpers  and F-8000' tankers backed into the fire stations across the USA!!?  Now? Fuhgetaboutit!  I used to read the sales figures for trucks back in the day when I was selling auto parts for 30 years and Ford in class 8 was in the top 3, or top 2.  Class 6 & 7 I think they were number one!  That's why they became complacent and didn't keep improving.  Ford has a history of complacency. The C-series was left unchanged for 35 years!  The first generation Taurus was so good, Toyota feared it. But because it was so good, Ford let it be and never really cared much about updating it.  Lincoln?  Same thing.  They overtook Cadillac in the limo market, then let that go to heck.  But they don't spare any expense for the good ole F150!  And rightly so!  Anyway, again, I dare Ford to drop the mediums NOW, and they can watch Ram overtake them.  Ram has already devasted GM in pickups.  Let's find out what will happen, shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I totally agree.

 

We've got a contractor in town now rebuilding our water system and they were a loyal Ford fleet with must be a dozen or so F250s up to 450s and 550s. But when they needed a dual drive tandem to carry water tanks, etc. and a horizontal drill on a tag trailer they had to go to International and Paccar. When they're shopping for another Class 8 truck, any sharp salesperson is going to offer to include some class 4-7 trucks in the deal too, and Ford can say goodbye to their business. And if they go to Daimler, they'll probably offer some Sprinters to replace the Super Duties and a Mercedes for the boss too...

 

 

Edited by GearheadGrrrl
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I am in agreement, especially when it comes to the Volunteers in Fire and even EMS.  Not only did you find many Ford C-Series chassis engines and L-Series tankers in many a volunteer fire station, but there was also many times an E-Series Ambulance sharing the same apparatus room.  Ford had the ambulance market practically to itself.  I know a few apparatus salespeople from my days in EMS who told me they never thought they would have a hard time selling their ambulances on an E-Series.  At my own volunteer house, our last Ford ambulance was purchased in 2004, and last Ford product (Expedition) was 2010.  The last 4 Ambulances have been 1 GMC Topkick and 3 Freightliners.  Now the only way to go diesel for Ambulances is wither pickup cabs (F-Series, Ram, etc.) or mediums (International, Freightliner).  The last ambulance we purchased a couple of years ago, an F-series was heavily considered, but there were two big concerns that caused our station to go Freightliner again.  First, many at the station were concerned because of Ford's "Remove the cab to service the engine" operation.  I didn't see that as a huge concern, since that has been the policy at least as long as the 6.7 Powerstroke has been around and hasn't caused problems.  Second was the turning radius.  Freightliner has a tighter turning radius that F-Series or Ram.  For these applications, that is a HUGE deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

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.

 

But to be even remotely competitive in the higher GVW classes would require SUBSTANTIAL investment in the face of low or no return.  Just going to twin-screw tandem rear axles (with a meaningful GVW) is going to require , at minimum, a whole new vendor supplied powertrain and a new chassis.  The F-750 cab would require some drastic modification to fit the larger engine probably including a new floor/firewall and HVAC system.      

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford could go up to about 50k GVW with the existing F750 frame, 1/4" rails 10" tall are the standard in Class 8 for both single and tandem chassis- Just change the crossmembers around for the tandem assembly. The PowerStroke is already rated for 50K GCW, it doesn't know if it's pulling a trailer or 30k of dirt in a dump box on it's back. If more power is desired than a PowerStroke can provide, truck makers simply raise cabs and build longer hoods to cover the engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, anyone notice that Generac has discontinued using Ford engines in their larger generator sets?  With the demise of the 5.4L and 6.8L, I was expecting Generac to change to the 6.2L and/or 7.3L.  Instead, it looks like they are using their own new engines, a 9.0L V-8 based on the Big Block Chevy, and a new 4.5L in-line 4, basically 1/2 of their 9.0L.  Both are available naturally aspirated or turbocharged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 5:30 PM, 7Mary3 said:

 

But to be even remotely competitive in the higher GVW classes would require SUBSTANTIAL investment in the face of low or no return.  Just going to twin-screw tandem rear axles (with a meaningful GVW) is going to require , at minimum, a whole new vendor supplied powertrain and a new chassis.  The F-750 cab would require some drastic modification to fit the larger engine probably including a new floor/firewall and HVAC system.      

Well I can't quite understand why it would entail such a large investment.  Ford currently offers a frame that exceeds 3 million pounds RBM.  Frame rails  are vendor supplied components.  I tried seeing what frame specs were offered in F-liner, Paccar and International mediums on their respective websites and no luck-like its a big secret.  As for the larger engine, If the 6.7 Cummins fit in the Blue diamond 750, I would have to believe it would  fit in the current truck.  And how many cabs in the past have  been raised a bit to accommodate bigger power?-Brockway 358 became 359. Mack U raised to fit V-903, Dodge C 900 to fit 8V-71 and 7M-for sure as a GM guy you would remember Brigadier to accommodate 8V-71.  And back to the subject of power, while I would rather see an in line 6, as I've mentioned  before, there are plenty of applications where the truck is used as a "work platform"-such as a Vactor, crane, drill rig etc where the specific equipment often has its own power.  So unlike a dump or tank truck that may need the HP, not the case with those trucks-they need axles to comply with GVW as well as off road capability.  The Power Stroke would be adequate for many of those applications

On 11/4/2021 at 8:56 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:

Ford could go up to about 50k GVW with the existing F750 frame, 1/4" rails 10" tall are the standard in Class 8 for both single and tandem chassis- Just change the crossmembers around for the tandem assembly. The PowerStroke is already rated for 50K GCW, it doesn't know if it's pulling a trailer or 30k of dirt in a dump box on it's back. If more power is desired than a PowerStroke can provide, truck makers simply raise cabs and build longer hoods to cover the engines.

No argument-  And as for axles, again vendor supplied -the rear axles in 750 are by Dana.  Dana offers tandems as low as 34,000 lbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

In other news, anyone notice that Generac has discontinued using Ford engines in their larger generator sets?  With the demise of the 5.4L and 6.8L, I was expecting Generac to change to the 6.2L and/or 7.3L.  Instead, it looks like they are using their own new engines, a 9.0L V-8 based on the Big Block Chevy, and a new 4.5L in-line 4, basically 1/2 of their 9.0L.  Both are available naturally aspirated or turbocharged.

7m-just curious as to how  you got this  info.  I  went to Generac web site and it appears to  me the only way you get any info out of them is to  give  them your contact info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well I can't quite understand why it would entail such a large investment.  Ford currently offers a frame that exceeds 3 million pounds RBM.  Frame rails  are vendor supplied components.  I tried seeing what frame specs were offered in F-liner, Paccar and International mediums on their respective websites and no luck-like its a big secret.  As for the larger engine, If the 6.7 Cummins fit in the Blue diamond 750, I would have to believe it would  fit in the current truck.  And how many cabs in the past have  been raised a bit to accommodate bigger power?-Brockway 358 became 359. Mack U raised to fit V-903, Dodge C 900 to fit 8V-71 and 7M-for sure as a GM guy you would remember Brigadier to accommodate 8V-71.  And back to the subject of power, while I would rather see an in line 6, as I've mentioned  before, there are plenty of applications where the truck is used as a "work platform"-such as a Vactor, crane, drill rig etc where the specific equipment often has its own power.  So unlike a dump or tank truck that may need the HP, not the case with those trucks-they need axles to comply with GVW as well as off road capability.  The Power Stroke would be adequate for many of those applications

No argument-  And as for axles, again vendor supplied -the rear axles in 750 are by Dana.  Dana offers tandems as low as 34,000 lbs.

 

Couple things:

 

1) Ford's frame is only rated for 50,000#.....not suitable for most tandem axle configurations.  With Freightliner, I have a choice of about TEN frames to use on an M2, then even more options when you add an inner rail to the main frame rail.  Possibilites are endless.

  

2) The B6.7 is not suitable for most tandem axle configurations, either.  Most of those Baby 8's these days have 9L power. 

 

That's just two of many more factors that go into making a class 8 truck, a baby one or real one.  But again, you guys need to stop wondering about all of that, anyway.  Ford doesn't have a way to support those Baby 8 trucks on the parts & service side so even if they could build one, they have very few dealers ready to handle it.  Most of the current dealer network selling F600-F750 are not good at doing so, and adding more product into the medium/heavy duty truck space is just not possible for Ford right now given that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, iamweasel said:

 

Couple things:

 

1) Ford's frame is only rated for 50,000#.....not suitable for most tandem axle configurations.  With Freightliner, I have a choice of about TEN frames to use on an M2, then even more options when you add an inner rail to the main frame rail.  Possibilites are endless.

  

2) The B6.7 is not suitable for most tandem axle configurations, either.  Most of those Baby 8's these days have 9L power. 

 

That's just two of many more factors that go into making a class 8 truck, a baby one or real one.  But again, you guys need to stop wondering about all of that, anyway.  Ford doesn't have a way to support those Baby 8 trucks on the parts & service side so even if they could build one, they have very few dealers ready to handle it.  Most of the current dealer network selling F600-F750 are not good at doing so, and adding more product into the medium/heavy duty truck space is just not possible for Ford right now given that.

IW

Point of info. 

1.

The standard 650 frame is 50,000 PSI-strangely the low pro 650 is 80,000

The standard 750 frame is 80,000, with 120,000 as an option

 

2. I won't argue that 6.7 is optimal.  As I said in some applications as I described it would work-as would a Power Stroke-and a 7.3 gas for that matter.

 

3. As for  your last point, I would say Ford has added many commercial dealers at least here in New England that are carrying 650/750.  There are also 3 dealers that were Ford heavy in the old days and today one is Ford/International, one is Pete/Ford, And one is Mack/Ford/Volvo

 

By the way-what is the max RBM you can build on a single axle  M2 rated at 33,000 GVW??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Ford even bother with developing a new conventional medium or heavy truck when 500 mile range, depot to depot BEV trucks are almost here. Trucks that will probably change the industry in ways we can only begin to imagine, all the industry standard equipment becomes virtually obsolete almost overnight while servicing costs of powertrain, suspension and brakes become a thing of the past.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

IW

Point of info. 

1.

The standard 650 frame is 50,000 PSI-strangely the low pro 650 is 80,000

The standard 750 frame is 80,000, with 120,000 as an option

 

2. I won't argue that 6.7 is optimal.  As I said in some applications as I described it would work-as would a Power Stroke-and a 7.3 gas for that matter.

 

3. As for  your last point, I would say Ford has added many commercial dealers at least here in New England that are carrying 650/750.  There are also 3 dealers that were Ford heavy in the old days and today one is Ford/International, one is Pete/Ford, And one is Mack/Ford/Volvo

 

By the way-what is the max RBM you can build on a single axle  M2 rated at 33,000 GVW??

 

FTL can do close to 4M RBM if they want to on a 33K chassis.  (You don't do that very often, but it's possible.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Why would Ford even bother with developing a new conventional medium or heavy truck when 500 mile range, depot to depot BEV trucks are almost here. Trucks that will probably change the industry in ways we can only begin to imagine, all the industry standard equipment becomes virtually obsolete almost overnight while servicing costs of powertrain, suspension and brakes become a thing of the past.

Well given the Biden administrations desire to kill the US oil industry and my tax dollars that are being poured into the EV subsidies you may be right.

That 500 mile range is a given? I didn't think they were that far along-at least with any sort of realistic payload figures. 

And of course I'm sure we are covered with an adequate supply of electricity as well as the means to deliver it.?

 

Drifting off topic but I  had to laugh yesterday when I saw a Bloomberg News reporter ask Energy Secretary Granholm what she was going to do about high energy prices and she gave a Kamala like cackle  with words to effect like.."you have to be kidding-haven't you heard of OPEC".

 

Yeah Granholm I'm sure he has and you revealed yourself to be a true hack..  And Im sure he knows  that it took Sleepy Joe about 9 months to take us from being an exporter of petroleum to begging Opec to increase production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well given the Biden administrations desire to kill the US oil industry and my tax dollars that are being poured into the EV subsidies you may be right.

That 500 mile range is a given? I didn't think they were that far along-at least with any sort of realistic payload figures. 

And of course I'm sure we are covered with an adequate supply of electricity as well as the means to deliver it.?

 

Drifting off topic but I  had to laugh yesterday when I saw a Bloomberg News reporter ask Energy Secretary Granholm what she was going to do about high energy prices and she gave a Kamala like cackle  with words to effect like.."you have to be kidding-haven't you heard of OPEC".

 

Yeah Granholm I'm sure he has and you revealed yourself to be a true hack..  And Im sure he knows  that it took Sleepy Joe about 9 months to take us from being an exporter of petroleum to begging Opec to increase production.

I’m not saying that bigger  BEV trucks are in bound in the next year but they’re close enough for all the major players to think about where they put their money, do they look at BEV right away or Gen set hybrids? Which direction do they move customers to give real and meaningful savings?

If you can offer fleet owners savings they can see with the added benefit of reduced emissions, I’m willing to bet that many would be interested provided that they can see the benefits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's a 15% difference so if you consider that close, than ok.  :)

 

Either way, Ford spending a bunch of money on the already cash-poor F600-750 trucks to add frames, new engines, new transmissions, new axles and all the other supporting parts into the mix just isn't smart.  (Especially with the limited staff they have in HQ to handle commercial trucks and a dealer network not equipped to handle it.)

  • Like 1
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...