Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

$500M seems like a reasonable # to me.  (Definitely not $500K.)  There may have been a few other things in there such as some relocation costs since if they continued Sterling it would have moved to the NC and/or Mexico plants.  The plan was always to get it out of Canada.  (CAW is/was a massive PITA - even worse than UAW.)

 

In the auto industry, back when I was in Product Development, even the smallest minor freshenings cost $250M and many were near $400M.  That's just to redesign a bumper/grille/lights, some interior bits, etc.  Throw in any powertrain change and you'd get to $500-600M.  An all new program was near $1B.  That was 15 years ago, too, so I'm sure those price tags are higher now, too.  

 

As far as buying a cab and not knowing it could handle the new tech, I don't think the due diligence was done on that cab because they never planned on keeping that cab long-term, anyway.  The folks who were in charge when Sterling was purchased were okay spending that money on it, and 5-10 years later the next management team changed their minds.  They decided to put that money into other things (122SD/114SD, Western Star, etc.)

 

Plus, looking back now you could also say they spent the money to buy a competitor and shut it down.  That is not all bad.  It wiped out A LOT of competitive Ford Truck and Sterling truck dealers and that market share just went to other places, mainly FTL/WST, anyway.  So that is still a better result than say if Sterling sold to CAT and all those CAT distributors are now full-line truck dealers.  

'weasel

First I apologize for addressing my post to Ifeg- I confuse you guys  as I believe you are both ex-Ford guys-plus at my age I shouldn't be posting at 11PM?

In any case, I agree with your last paragraph which I alluded to referencing the 300 mil Daimler paid.  They in essence bought market share and managed to avoid being sued by the dealers-inspite of their failed effort to "sell" the Ford dealers a separate Actera franchise.

 

As for for Cat, talk  about a marriage made in hell?  Cat bails out of highway truck engines, then hooks up with Navistar who is getting their butt sued over their EGR fiasco.  That "marriage"lasted two years???  There are a couple of Cat triaxles running around this area- I think the owners bought them for about the price of a 550 Power Stroke.  Talk about a "fire sale"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Brings up a question:  Was Ford actively 'marketing' their heavy truck division or was Freightliner's offer unsolicited?  

 

Since Jac the Knife was complaining about the "measly" 4% profit return from Ford Heavy Truck, my assumption would land on Jac just letting it known that offers would be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However the sale went down, it was a damn short sighted mistake!

 

In the 90s most heavy truck makers relied on vendors like Eaton, Cummins, Cat, etc. for powertrains and those vendors got most of the profit on a new truck as fleet buyers could play the half dozen plus truck makers around then against each other to get the lowest price. Throw in the fact that Ford's own mid range 6 cylinder diesel was going to need a lot of work to pass the upcoming EPA regs and a good case could be made for cutting back on heavy trucks before the investment was made in what became the Sterling conventional. Once the investment was made there was no financial benefit in giving the new truck line away to Daimler. Today the big truck making business is much more profitable with only four competitors left and proprietary engines most common, and Ford would be sharing in that profitable market and the prestige of being a full line manufacturer if they hadn't given their heavy truck business away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Brings up a question:  Was Ford actively 'marketing' their heavy truck division or was Freightliner's offer unsolicited?  

I do believe Hebe, then head of F'liner  approached Ford.  Jac jumped at it.  I'll see if I can find article where I read that.  How about it "'weasel". Ifeg"...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Since Jac the Knife was complaining about the "measly" 4% profit return from Ford Heavy Truck, my assumption would land on Jac just letting it known that offers would be considered.

That could be too...in particular if Bill Ford had a "soft spot " for heavy trucks...I can hear

Jac saying.."what a surprise"!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

However the sale went down, it was a damn short sighted mistake!

 

 

 

 

Sorry to say not at all.  Getting out of heavy truck and committing KTP to the then-new Super Duty allowed Ford to stay competitive with GM and FCA in the far more profitable light truck market.  Ford should have left heavy truck sometime in the late 80's before starting on the HN80 program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

 

Sorry to say not at all.  Getting out of heavy truck and committing KTP to the then-new Super Duty allowed Ford to stay competitive with GM and FCA in the far more profitable light truck market.  Ford should have left heavy truck sometime in the late 80's before starting on the HN80 program.

 

I'm not sure getting out of heavy truck was essential to Ford's continued success in light trucks.   No doubt you could say it was a quick solution to adding production capacity but I would have to believe there were plenty of other underutilized plant options that were available.  I could see this happening say five years prior before HN-80 was approved....but like a year or so after the new truck is introduced???

 

Sounds like the "anti big truck" faction all of a sudden had a powerful new force in their camp in the form of Jac the Knife. If a mistake was made, I think Ford should have just focused on vocational business.  And I would include class 8 fleet tractors in  that "vocational" segment.  Forget about chasing the owner operator market.  Ford did very well in class 6 and 7. 

 

What was the difference say between a class 7 LN-8000 and a class 8 LN -9000?....typically a big bore engine versus a Cummins 8.3 (the Brazilians were long gone-by  then)-and 12/21 axle combo vs. a 12/23--otherwise could have been same frame, same cab, different radiator....  but it was all fit in the same wrapper!

 

But I'm a die hard "civilian" and defer to the Ford annuitants on this site who were there. Oh and by the way, the "junk yard" that is in my neighboring town that Jac paid big money for so he .."could analyze part failures"..he was quoted as saying that..is back in the hands of the family that sold it to Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2022 at 9:51 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

I do believe Hebe, then head of F'liner  approached Ford.  Jac jumped at it.  I'll see if I can find article where I read that.  How about it "'weasel". Ifeg"...?

Hello Bob, I spent many years on the supplier side at many Ford facilities, not direct.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhSIDu4_Zw

 

Tesla Semi Truck  presentation, man, the way that thing went up the hill with 82,000 lbs and passed the diesel truck, this is the future….

 

Basically uses Tesla S motor drives in a tri-motor set up that can vary the power used on flat and hills /launch.


 

 

 

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

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhSIDu4_Zw

 

Tesla Semi Truck  presentation, man, the way that thing went up the hill with 82,000 lbs and passed the diesel truck, this is the future….

 

Basically uses Tesla S motor drives in a tri-motor set up that can vary the power used on flat and hills /launch.


 

 

 


Pretty amazing they can get 500 miles at 81k lbs, we can't get much over 100 with Lightning pulling a heavy trailer. Next gen mega charger with liquid cooled charging and they're going to use it for cybertruck. Tesla continues to extend their lead. What ever happened to the liquid cooled charging system Ford was working on?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:


Pretty amazing they can get 500 miles at 81k lbs, we can't get much over 100 with Lightning pulling a heavy trailer. Next gen mega charger with liquid cooled charging and they're going to use it for cybertruck. Tesla continues to extend their lead. What ever happened to the liquid cooled charging system Ford was working on?

Massive batteries with 800 volt charging at 1 Megawatt  -350 miles of charging in half an hour.

the cabin is amazing, you can stand up in it, change overalls and drive in a central position

so no RHD-LHD. This will be big in places like Europe and China let alone North America.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

What ever happened to the liquid cooled charging system Ford was working on?

 

Good question Captainp4. Ford and Purdue University announced a research project involving liquid to vapor cooling for charging cables about 1 year ago, but I haven't been able to find any updates on that particular technology since then. Ford and Purdue Patent Charging Station Cable for Research That Could Lead to Recharging EVs as Quickly as Gas Station Fill-Ups | Ford Media Center

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a flaw in the Tesla Semi and it has to do with the things Tesla is not saying, the important details that freight companies need to know. John Cardogan is an Aussie automotive engineer who is calling BS on the Semi. He raised an interesting point, if the Tesla Semi is 5 tonnes heavier, that directly affects tha amount of freight carried.

An example,
If a freight company has 40 trucks with 80 drivers and is moving 100% of the freight needed, the Tesla fleet will need to have around 46 trucks and 92 drivers to move the same amount of freight that competitors with diesel trucks can do…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBODCJKn6vQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TUfTwWdHM

 

I would love to know the perspective of fleet owners regarding the pluses and minuses of an electric fleet vs the current diesel fleets, is ther a better way to do this, maybe by hybrids and smaller diesels and battery combination ?

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, on most Interstates the weight limit is 80K pounds and a typical ICE tractor is 18-20K and a the most common trailer, a 53' van is around 15K pounds. That gives us an MT weight of around 34K and a payload of 46K for a generic 5 axle combination. I'm hearing estimates of around 32K for the TSLA tractor's weight, 12-14K more than an ICE tractor resulting in a loss of around 30% of payload, which is a deal killer for many truckers. 

 

But most tractor-trailer combinations fill up their trailers well before they get overweight, in fact I saw a study that showed the average 5 Axle tractor-trailer combination operating at around 44K pounds! Hook a TSLA in place of an ICE tractor and that average weight rises to around 57K pounds, putting a lot of extra wear on tires and requiring a lot more energy in whatever form to move that bloated TSLA. It gets worse- The ICE tractor could use a smaller engine to save more weight at light real world weights, and lift 2 of the combination's 5 axles to further conserve tires and energy. After figuring in these and all the TSLA tractor's failings, an ICE tractor running on biofuels or hydrogen is better for the environment and trucking!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2022 at 1:35 PM, jpd80 said:

There’s a flaw in the Tesla Semi and it has to do with the things Tesla is not saying, the important details that freight companies need to know. John Cardogan is an Aussie automotive engineer who is calling BS on the Semi. He raised an interesting point, if the Tesla Semi is 5 tonnes heavier, that directly affects tha amount of freight carried.

An example,
If a freight company has 40 trucks with 80 drivers and is moving 100% of the freight needed, the Tesla fleet will need to have around 46 trucks and 92 drivers to move the same amount of freight that competitors with diesel trucks can do…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBODCJKn6vQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TUfTwWdHM

 

I would love to know the perspective of fleet owners regarding the pluses and minuses of an electric fleet vs the current diesel fleets, is ther a better way to do this, maybe by hybrids and smaller diesels and battery combination ?

 

This is the reason why Tesla semi will mostly be used in short haul operation where you are not loading to the max legal GVWR. Most of the fleet operators that have signed up for the Tesla semi will be using it replace class 5/6 medium duty tractor or box trucks. Let say your dispatch capacity if 60,000 lbs per diesel truck short haul (same day return to depot)... you can do that with Tesla semi which will dispatch at 80,000 lbs and make it back with perhaps 20% of the charge remaining. Obviously, you will not be able to dispatch 80,000 lbs Tesla semi to do the same job as a 80,000 lbs class 8 diesel semi. 

 

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

This is the reason why Tesla semi will mostly be used in short haul operation where you are not loading the trailer up to the max GVWR. Most of the fleet operators that have signed up for the Tesla semi will be using it replace class 5/6 medium duty tractor or box trucks. 

That is the easiest fleet groups to attract but could also apply to fast freight in mountainous areas where the speed and braking of the Tesla Semi would shine. Still wonder about key specifications being held back, they’re definitely selling the sizzle….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

This is the reason why Tesla semi will mostly be used in short haul operation where you are not loading to the max legal GVWR. Most of the fleet operators that have signed up for the Tesla semi will be using it replace class 5/6 medium duty tractor or box trucks. Let say your dispatch capacity if 60,000 lbs per diesel truck short haul (same day return to depot)... you can do that with Tesla semi which will dispatch at 80,000 lbs and make it back with perhaps 20% of the charge remaining. Obviously, you will not be able to dispatch 80,000 lbs Tesla semi to do the same job as a 80,000 lbs class 8 diesel semi. 

 

BZCAT, Teamstergrrl

Guys, Not sure where you got your info, but I don't think a lot of operators who "cube out" before they "weigh out" are in the target group.  For sure Pepsico is NOT one of those.  I do believe most of the major beverage producers..note producers, need vehicles that can maximize weight.  In the old days production/bottling/canning facilities were numerous  and localized.  Not so today.  Production is done in fewer and larger facilities that feed the finished product distribution sites.  And for sure I can't imagine the new Tesla class 8 tractor will be replacing single axle class 6 tractors.

 

As I see it, at this  point I view this as more "Green Hype" that corporate types like to  display.  As the Aussie that JPD referenced, it is  BS when you do the hard math.  I have wondered about battery weight-shocker if it is 5 tons heavier.   Then add up grid charging issues and it will be a long time before battery powered class 8's make real sense. 

 

Not arguing about the benefits associated with eliminating transmissions, differentials, cooling systems, or converting a "north/south" driveline to a simple direct "east/west" driveline.  Just saying.."In due time".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Not arguing about the benefits associated with eliminating transmissions, differentials, cooling systems, or converting a "north/south" driveline to a simple direct "east/west" driveline.  Just saying.."In due time".

 

 

Ironically, one of the better fits for a Tesla Semi may be to deliver tankers of fuel to gas stations in large cities.  Average speed is lower, lower drag due to tanker shape, lots of traffic with start-stop, long range is not as critical so could utilize smaller battery option which cost and weighs less, etc. 

 

The same or similar may apply hauling groceries from distribution centers to neighborhood stores. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

 

Ironically, one of the better fits for a Tesla Semi may be to deliver tankers of fuel to gas stations in large cities.  Average speed is lower, lower drag due to tanker shape, lots of traffic with start-stop, long range is not as critical so could utilize smaller battery option which cost and weighs less, etc. 

 

The same or similar may apply hauling groceries from distribution centers to neighborhood stores. 

 

Actually Rick, tankers are the least likely market IMO for the Tesla. Point I made in previous post regarding Pepsico.  I would have to believe, the bulk of their 5 axle traffic is full load-either packaged drinks or tankers transporting the "syrup/sugar" that ends up as soda.  As Pepsico owns Frito Lay, perhaps that is where the hundred Teslas  that they have purchased will end  up as that is "cube out"  freight rather than "weighout" freight so the Teslas would be a better fit there....and by the way, if I had to bet, I would say the bulk of Frito Lays tractors in the old days were built at KTP. A heavy Louisville was not that big an issue.?

As for petroleum for sure not a good fit for any heavy tractor.  In round numbers, every 6lbs of tractor weight is one gallon less of gas.  And as for tankers, their frontal area is minimal vs. a van freight so there is no fuel saving associated with drag there.

  • 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...