Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

I wasn’t referring to Pepsi specific needs so much as physical conditions that favor battery electric vehicles of various types the most.  Yeah, I don’t see a Tesla delivering gas to an Exxon station.  My opinion is that BEV are most competitive against ICE in urban traffic, and where average trips are shorter, slower, and involve a lot of traffic.  Long haul is the very opposite and where battery electric semi will be least competitive against diesel in my opinion.

 

BEVs also seem to struggle most where aerodynamic drag represents an even higher percentage of energy consumption.  Electric pickups towing large (even when light) trailers have been a disappointment due to adverse affect of drag on range at highway speeds.  For now, electric vehicles to me seem best suited for cities.  One of the best examples in my opinion are city buses due to low speeds and numerous acceleration/deceleration cycles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-600 is taking off, but the 650 and 750 sales are declining.  I wonder if it's because Ford can't get them built or increased competition from the revamped International MV and Freightliner M2.  Hino is also back in the game with their new Cummins powered mediums.  Probably a combination of both factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The F-600 is taking off, but the 650 and 750 sales are declining.  I wonder if it's because Ford can't get them built or increased competition from the revamped International MV and Freightliner M2.  Hino is also back in the game with their new Cummins powered mediums.  Probably a combination of both factors. 

I'm sure you are correct on the competition-in particular with Hino back in the mix.  Watching what goes on at Amazon, at least here in New England, all of a sudden heavy Transits (DRW) started showing up in the Prime delivery fleet.  The other day I saw a new Hino-26,000 GVW I'm sure.  Had a lift gate. 

 

Truck guy at my local Ford dealer does very well but his big bitch is availability.  Could  be a lot of supply constraints continue and KTP gets priority over OAP???

I continue to question their inability to offer air brakes on 7.3 powered 650/750.  Would be a home run IMO given price advantage they would have. 

 

Not only price advantage but a lot of guys who buy class 6/7 want air when they are pulling a tag trailer.  That I'm sure hurts Ford in many cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Held up in one lane traffic yesterday as one of areas biggest utility contractors was doing work-probably gas piping.Two newer 450/550 with Utility bodies and 3 new Pete class 7's- 6/8yd dumps sitting there. My guess same axle combos you can get in a 750, 12/21 or 10/23.  Good illustration how Ford misses an opportunity with 750. 

 

The issue I would say is the lack of an Allison and something other than a Power Stroke in a 750.  These Petes will not run a lot of miles during the day-my guess? one is holding broken asphalt/concrete that was removed,  one is holding clean excavated material that can go back in the excavation, and one might be holding bedding material for new line, and also two of them probably pulled a tag for the Backhoe and the roller- they sit there as a convenience to make sure the job goes quickly.  Perfect job for a less costly 750 vs the high cost Petes.  Should be one stop shopping when this contractor goes shopping for trucks, but Ford I guess doesn't meet that need

 

Just an opinion/guess- I never worked for a utility or utility contractor

 

How about it 7M-??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2022 at 2:56 PM, 7Mary3 said:

Funny my local Amazon distribution center seems to be replacing their Transits (had them for some years) with these oddball Promaster cutaway cube vans.  Never seen that type of Promaster before.

A Ram dealer near me has at least 30 Promaster cutaways sitting on the lot, the most I have ever seen there. They usually have 2 or 3. I would assume that they are waiting for cube bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this Ford ad from 1969.  What a good idea!  Of course today, that wouldn't happen because I'm sure the light truck marketing budget doesn't want any space given to 650/750?  "those guys have their own budget"- or some other lame excuse.

"One Ford"    Big Al...I don't think anyone remembers that.

 

 

Ford 1969 Truck ad.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 10:19 AM, Bob Rosadini said:

Held up in one lane traffic yesterday as one of areas biggest utility contractors was doing work-probably gas piping.Two newer 450/550 with Utility bodies and 3 new Pete class 7's- 6/8yd dumps sitting there. My guess same axle combos you can get in a 750, 12/21 or 10/23.  Good illustration how Ford misses an opportunity with 750. 

 

The issue I would say is the lack of an Allison and something other than a Power Stroke in a 750.  These Petes will not run a lot of miles during the day-my guess? one is holding broken asphalt/concrete that was removed,  one is holding clean excavated material that can go back in the excavation, and one might be holding bedding material for new line, and also two of them probably pulled a tag for the Backhoe and the roller- they sit there as a convenience to make sure the job goes quickly.  Perfect job for a less costly 750 vs the high cost Petes.  Should be one stop shopping when this contractor goes shopping for trucks, but Ford I guess doesn't meet that need

 

Just an opinion/guess- I never worked for a utility or utility contractor

 

How about it 7M-??

 

I think not having an Allison transmission is a bigger issue than the 6.7L Powerstroke is.  The only problem I see with the Powerstroke is all the garbage plastic parts on the OUTSIDE of the engine, like the fuel filter, intercooler piping, dozens of coolant line fittings and elbows.  The basic engine is pretty robust.  The TorqShift 6R140 is basically a good transmission but is very limited on PTO options.  It is the equivalent of the Allison 2000 series, not the stronger and more versitle 3000 'World' transmission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I think not having an Allison transmission is a bigger issue than the 6.7L Powerstroke is.  The only problem I see with the Powerstroke is all the garbage plastic parts on the OUTSIDE of the engine, like the fuel filter, intercooler piping, dozens of coolant line fittings and elbows.  The basic engine is pretty robust.  The TorqShift 6R140 is basically a good transmission but is very limited on PTO options.  It is the equivalent of the Allison 2000 series, not the stronger and more versitle 3000 'World' transmission. 

 

In our area, A LOT of customers require Cummins so they match the rest of their fleet.  That's a pretty big deal to many, especially large fleets and municipalities who do not want to train their technicians on several different engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

This will be about 'it' for diesel:

 

https://www.truckinginfo.com/10189246/epa-publishes-stringent-truck-emissions-regulations

 

You can see why so many truck manufacturers gave up on proprietary diesel engines and handed everything to Cummins.  The future is electric and hydrogen fuel cell.

 

Right now, on the DTNA side we are being told heavy duty truck prices may go up $20,000-$30,000 from 2026MY to 2027MY when these regulations go into effect.  Medium-duty may be less but it will be big based on what Cummins is telling them.  (At that point, DTNA will cease producing the DD5/DD8 as they have shifted to spend medium duty engine development money on more electric/fuel cell R&D.  We will still have Detroit heavy duty engines for 2027MY.)

 

If that holds true, and they can't find a better solution to minimize the cost hit and all the additional sensors/wiring needed, DTNA believers there will be a huge "2007-like" pre-buy in the market in 24CY/25CY.   (Like what we saw in 2006CY/2007CY.)  Between that, and their demand expectations for the next couple years, they are warning us we may not come off allocation anytime soon.  We'll see....

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

3 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

In our area, A LOT of customers require Cummins so they match the rest of their fleet.  That's a pretty big deal to many, especially large fleets and municipalities who do not want to train their technicians on several different engines.

 

The Cummins is a certainly factor for many fleets, but at least for us the Powertroke isn't a 'make or break' deal.  Not having an Allison is because many of our units run multiple PTO's.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

Right now, on the DTNA side we are being told heavy duty truck prices may go up $20,000-$30,000 from 2026MY to 2027MY when these regulations go into effect.  Medium-duty may be less but it will be big based on what Cummins is telling them.  (At that point, DTNA will cease producing the DD5/DD8 as they have shifted to spend medium duty engine development money on more electric/fuel cell R&D.  We will still have Detroit heavy duty engines for 2027MY.)

 

If that holds true, and they can't find a better solution to minimize the cost hit and all the additional sensors/wiring needed, DTNA believers there will be a huge "2007-like" pre-buy in the market in 24CY/25CY.   (Like what we saw in 2006CY/2007CY.)  Between that, and their demand expectations for the next couple years, they are warning us we may not come off allocation anytime soon.  We'll see....

 

No question it will be expensive.  I am hearing talk of dual SCR's, very sophisticated NOX controls, and some sort of AFM/cylinder deactivation will be mandatory.  I think there will be a pre-buy, but some of the increased regulation proponents are already saying it's all good, no evidence of a pre-buy yet!

 

Hearing rumblings that California (and possibly the other states adhearing to CARB regulations) are looking at banning non-CARB diesels from operating in California.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

No question it will be expensive.  I am hearing talk of dual SCR's, very sophisticated NOX controls, and some sort of AFM/cylinder deactivation will be mandatory.  I think there will be a pre-buy, but some of the increased regulation proponents are already saying it's all good, no evidence of a pre-buy yet!

 

Hearing rumblings that California (and possibly the other states adhearing to CARB regulations) are looking at banning non-CARB diesels from operating in California.    

 

Hearing the same re:  Cali.  It's one of the reasons my company (who is based in CA) went on an aggressive buying spree to get into other markets to lessen their dependence on CA.   The running joke is they need us non-CA regions to keep growing so we can carry the load in the future......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

No question it will be expensive.  I am hearing talk of dual SCR's, very sophisticated NOX controls, and some sort of AFM/cylinder deactivation will be mandatory.  I think there will be a pre-buy, but some of the increased regulation proponents are already saying it's all good, no evidence of a pre-buy yet!

 

Hearing rumblings that California (and possibly the other states adhearing to CARB regulations) are looking at banning non-CARB diesels from operating in California.    

 

 

Do you ever see diesel becoming so expensive (both equipment and fuel) that some would be replaced with heavy duty truck-specific gasoline engines?  Doesn’t Cummins already have a couple of Spark Ignition heavy engines designed primarily for propane, which seems one step closer to gasoline?

 

I know Diesel engines last longer, but the primary reason they were used was because of fuel efficiency if I recall reading correctly.  With diesel cost being so high, I’m curious if large-displacement gasoline truck engines could make a partial comeback.  Before supercharging/turbocharging  of Diesel engines was common, I believe they were no more powerful than gasoline.  As I understand it the main advantage for diesel was lower fuel costs.  That may not hold true much longer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

 

Do you ever see diesel becoming so expensive (both equipment and fuel) that some would be replaced with heavy duty truck-specific gasoline engines?  Doesn’t Cummins already have a couple of Spark Ignition heavy engines designed primarily for propane, which seems one step closer to gasoline?

 

I know Diesel engines last longer, but the primary reason they were used was because of fuel efficiency if I recall reading correctly.  With diesel cost being so high, I’m curious if large-displacement gasoline truck engines could make a partial comeback.  Before supercharging/turbocharging  of Diesel engines was common, I believe they were no more powerful than gasoline.  As I understand it the main advantage for diesel was lower fuel costs.  That may not hold true much longer.

 

E85 is attractive, my daily drivers are a VW Golf TDI that gets around 45 MPG and a Ford Transit Connect that gets 25 MPG on E85. Since diesel prices went up E85 has been around half the price of diesel so both cost about the same to run, a similar sized car to the VW Golf running on E85 like the flex fuel Focus or Audis A4 E85 capable turbocharged hot rod would be even cheaper to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

E85 is attractive, my daily drivers are a VW Golf TDI that gets around 45 MPG and a Ford Transit Connect that gets 25 MPG on E85. Since diesel prices went up E85 has been around half the price of diesel so both cost about the same to run, a similar sized car to the VW Golf running on E85 like the flex fuel Focus or Audis A4 E85 capable turbocharged hot rod would be even cheaper to run.


You lose 25% fuel economy with E85 which usually doesn’t cover the price difference with regular fuel,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:


You lose 25% fuel economy with E85 which usually doesn’t cover the price difference with regular fuel,

 

I am not loosing that much, more like 15%.  However in my area the price difference is substantial, E85 at $2.79 vs. 87 unleaded at $4.59/gal..  Depends on where you live and maybe a bit on what/how you drive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I am not loosing that much, more like 15%.  However in my area the price difference is substantial, E85 at $2.79 vs. 87 unleaded at $4.59/gal..  Depends on where you live and maybe a bit on what/how you drive.  


E85 prices do vary based on corn access.  That’s a pretty significant price difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I know Diesel engines last longer, but the primary reason they were used was because of fuel efficiency if I recall reading correctly.  With diesel cost being so high, I’m curious if large-displacement gasoline truck engines could make a partial comeback.  Before supercharging/turbocharging  of Diesel engines was common, I believe they were no more powerful than gasoline.  As I understand it the main advantage for diesel was lower fuel costs.  That may not hold true much longer.

 

Diesel is losing many of its advantages-part of the reason why diesels lasted so long was they where overbuilt for compression ignition and ran at low RPMs. Now with all the turbocharging and emissions equipment required to make them run cleaner, they really don't have much, if any advantage in light duty applications due to them costing so much more to operate.

Just look at the powerstroke issues over the years-the 6.0L and 6.4L engines where disasters, even though the old 7.3L was almost bulletproof. The in house Ford design seems be an improvement over the 6.0/6.4L design thankfully. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, twintornados said:

Ford needs to revisit this bad boy....

 

Amazing engine for its time, though better suited for aviation.  Use of aluminum and DOHC was interesting for such a large engine but not surprising considering intended use and required high power to weight.

 

When asking about the possibility of future gasoline-fueled semi, I was thinking more about the history of Ford Super Duty engines like the 534 cubic inch V8 that was used in large Ford trucks; at least through 1960s.  Specs for 1967 Ford trucks below show that gasoline engines supported high GCW ratings equal to or higher than diesel.  Today Class 8 have twice as much power compared to the 60s, and I have no idea what a modern gasoline engine for a semi would look like, but question that if diesel fuel remains around 50% higher per gallon, why wouldn’t economics favor gasoline over diesel?  Added payload could help some also.

 

https://www.xr793.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1967-F-T-Series-Ford-Trucks-CN.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

When asking about the possibility of future gasoline-fueled semi, I was thinking more about the history of Ford Super Duty engines like the 534 cubic inch V8 that was used in large Ford trucks; at least through 1960s.  Specs for 1967 Ford trucks below show that gasoline engines supported high GCW ratings equal to or higher than diesel.  Today Class 8 have twice as much power compared to the 60s, and I have no idea what a modern gasoline engine for a semi would look like, but question that if diesel fuel remains around 50% higher per gallon, why wouldn’t economics favor gasoline over diesel?  Added payload could help some also.

 

Using Tanks as an example for gas mileage...a M48 with a gas engine with 200 gallons of gas only had a range of 70 miles, where as a M48A5 with a diesel engine with a 300 gallon tank had a range of 310 miles!

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...