New Light & Medium Duty News

[bzcat]

 

 

Judging from the article, it seems like he's using "cutaway" as shorthand for either a cutaway or chassis cab, i.e. incomplete vehicle without body rear of the B-pillar. (It also mentions things such as U-Hauls) I've seen this elsewhere in multiple press releases and from reps from Ford and GM. Also, what about replacement cutaway chassis for things such large E-450 based buses, with the higher GVW?

 

 

Ford is moving cutaway customers to F-450/550. All the major cutaway bus manufacturers are on board with the switch and in fact, there are now more F-450/550 based offering than E-450 in bus and ambulance, the two main cutaway markets. The motor home manufacturers seems to prefer Transit 350 and less excited about F-450 chassis because class 4 is generally overkill for B+ Class RV but there are plenty of F-450 based baby C class RV nonetheless.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2014 by bzcat

[RichardJensen]

What's driving adoption of the F-550 for those uses is the diesel powertrain, not the suitability of any other aspect of that vehicle. In every other respect except max GVWR which is correlated to the available powertrain, it is a worse solution than the E-450.

 

Note how many of those vehicles are modified not just with a cutaway back of the F-550, but a significant portion of the roof. That's because the F-550 cab is over two feet longer than the E-450. Even if you choose the longest wheelbase available on the F-550, you are still going to have less room behind the cab than you have with the E-450.

 

Furthermore, if Ford were genuinely interested in replacing the E-Series MDs with the F-550, they would have started offering a F-550 cutaway. They don't.

 

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/Shuttle_Bus_Brochure.pdf

Edited September 25, 2014 by RichardJensen

[7Mary3]

Two points: I think the longest cab-to-end-of-frame wheelbase Super Duty is longer than the E-450. Second, the E-450 is kind of a dead player due to a lack of a diesel option. I am seeing a few Express/Savanna cutaways with Duramax diesels, but class 5 conventional trucks seem to be the bulk of the ambulance and shuttle bus chassis these days.

[zipnzap]

And, as I said, a cab that is the SAME as the F-650 and F-750 is NOT A VAN.

 

Aren't box trucks commonly referred to as "vans"? Even the large GMC Topkick U-Hauls and Penske Internationals and Hinos are referred to as moving vans.

Also, isn't Farley's "down to one commercial van" quote wedged deep in the middle of him discussing what they're going to replace their E-Series cutaway/cab-chassis line (including the E-450's) with and plans on how? It just doesn't make sense for one single sentence in that sequence of paragraphs to just up and suddenly refer to something else (i.e.cargo vans/wagons).

 

Ford is moving cutaway customers to F-450/550. All the major cutaway bus manufacturers are on board with the switch and in fact, there are now more F-450/550 based offering than E-450 in bus and ambulance, the two main cutaway markets. The motor home manufacturers seems to prefer Transit 350 and less excited about F-450 chassis because class 4 is generally overkill for B+ Class RV but there are plenty of F-450 based baby C class RV nonetheless.

It's a possibility...

Furthermore, if Ford were genuinely interested in replacing the E-Series MDs with the F-550, they would have started offering a F-550 cutaway. They don't.

 

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/Shuttle_Bus_Brochure.pdf

To be fair, there's no E-550 either.

They were discontinued after just two years because Ford couldn't find a market for them.

Also, both the F-450 and F-550 cutaways are listed together in that shuttle bus brochure pdf. (Page 4)

[bzcat]

What's driving adoption of the F-550 for those uses is the diesel powertrain, not the suitability of any other aspect of that vehicle. In every other respect except max GVWR which is correlated to the available powertrain, it is a worse solution than the E-450.

 

Note how many of those vehicles are modified not just with a cutaway back of the F-550, but a significant portion of the roof. That's because the F-550 cab is over two feet longer than the E-450. Even if you choose the longest wheelbase available on the F-550, you are still going to have less room behind the cab than you have with the E-450.

 

Furthermore, if Ford were genuinely interested in replacing the E-Series MDs with the F-550, they would have started offering a F-550 cutaway. They don't.

 

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/Shuttle_Bus_Brochure.pdf

 

There are a few reasons to move over to F-450/550, diesel availability being one of them. Max GVWR is also a major reason - cutaway bus manufactures can now offer class 4 and class 5 bus with the same design. But this is also why RV manufacturers are not moving to F-450/550 enmass... they can continue with gasoline and class 4 GVWR is plenty for them.

 

The extra length on a F-450/550 cutaway bus is a problem but as far as interim solution goes, it's ok. Ford will eventually replace E-450 chassis and I'm pretty much in agreement with you on what they are likely to do.

[RichardJensen]

 

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on what they are likely to do.

 

Oh, well, then..... I thought you were positing F-550 as the only replacement for the E-450...

Edited September 25, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Two points: I think the longest cab-to-end-of-frame wheelbase Super Duty is longer than the E-450. Second, the E-450 is kind of a dead player due to a lack of a diesel option. I am seeing a few Express/Savanna cutaways with Duramax diesels, but class 5 conventional trucks seem to be the bulk of the ambulance and shuttle bus chassis these days.

 

I think we're all in agreement that the E-450 is a 'deadman walking'.

 

However, I don't think that Ford is going to either abandon the segment when the E-450 winds down, nor do I think they're going to come up with some bastardized Transit variant.

 

I think there's volume & profit to be had with a unified MD cab that runs from Classes 3-7, with snout & frames varying by GVWR.

[zipnzap]

 

I think we're all in agreement that the E-450 is a 'deadman walking'.

 

However, I don't think that Ford is going to either abandon the segment when the E-450 winds down, nor do I think they're going to come up with some bastardized Transit variant.

 

I think there's volume & profit to be had with a unified MD cab that runs from Classes 3-7, with snout & frames varying by GVWR.

 

As of right now, the Transit 350 cutaway's max GVW is not even competitive with the Sprinter 350 cutaway's max GVW (11,030 lbs.), which is itself 1,470 lbs. shy of the E-350 cutaway's max GVW. In fact, the same also goes for the Sprinter van (also 11,030 lbs.) and the Transit van. We'll see if Ford actually raises the Transit cutaway's max GVWR past Sprinter levels and matches it at current E-350 cutaway levels (same way they raised the E-350 cutaway's max GVWR from 11,500 to 12,500 for 2007).

 

If whatever is replacing the E-Series cutaway/cab chassis has a 350/Class 3 variant, then there's simply no reason for the Transit cutaway/cab chassis to exist. Definitely not past 250/Class 2.

Edited September 26, 2014 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

I'm fairly sure that the dually version of the previous Transit was rated to 14,000lbs

[zipnzap]

I'm fairly sure that the dually version of the previous Transit was rated to 14,000lbs

 

Actually, I doubt it was.

But either way, that's E-450 territory, not E-350.

It remains to be seen whether Ford pulls what GM did with their G-series for a 450 variant.

[RichardJensen]

They're not going to do that because the 6.7L Is huge and the exhaust pipes exit through the valley of the V.

 

The GM solution that you pointed out (from about 30 years ago) was to accommodate a larger V8 instead of a smaller V8, not a Diesel V8 instead of a 3.5L V6.

 

And the previous dually Transit was rated to 13,860 GCWR.

[jpd80]

Previous Euro transit touched Gross Trailer mass at 6,500 Kg which is 14,300 lbs but only in one or two configurations...LINK

[RichardJensen]

Yep. I misremembered the GCWR as the GVWR.

 

Of course all this does is show that, if anything the Transit is even less suited than I thought to replacing the full E-Series range.

Edited September 28, 2014 by RichardJensen

[zipnzap]

They're not going to do that because the 6.7L Is huge and the exhaust pipes exit through the valley of the V.

 

The GM solution that you pointed out (from about 30 years ago) was to accommodate a larger V8 instead of a smaller V8, not a Diesel V8 instead of a 3.5L V6.

 

And the previous dually Transit was rated to 13,860 GCWR.

The P-Cutaway/P Hi-Cube was basically the G-Series cab stapled onto the Chevy Step Van chassis. All of the P-Cutaway's engines were also offered in the normal G-Series van and cutaway, so I doubt the mod was made due to engine choices. (BTW, since the G-Series seems to have had an even smaller engine compartment than the Transit, does anyone have some info on how it's firewall compared to that of the Transit's?)

Also, 7Mary3 brought up a good point. The E-450's are doing just fine with 420 lb. ft. Why is it imperative that the future whatever-it-is use the 6.7 Powerstroke? Does the E-450 need more than 420 lb. ft. for what it does? What's preventing Ford from digging in the parts bin and pulling out the 470 lb. ft. 3.6 V8 for better packaging, weight and fuel mileage purposes, and which is already based on one of the Transit's Euro engines and has probably already paid for itself by this point?

Also, again, if the E-Series cutaway replacement recieves a 350/Class 3 variant, then there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Transit cutaway to exist. Point blank.

Every truck model in the current Ford commercial line-up, from the vans, to the Super Duties, to the 350 Heavy Duties, targets mutliple classes. I'd rather the E-Series cutaway stays, but if there's a replacement, would it really be feasible to develop a whole model that is aimed only one class (450)?

Edited September 28, 2014 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

The E-450s are *not* doing just fine with 420 ft. lbs--they have both lower GCWR and GVWR than the previous PS models, and as bzcat pointed out, there are a number of applications (fire and rescue, ambulance, transport) that are using F550s instead.

 

And it's not like the 6.8L V10 would easily fit in the Transit engine bay either.

 

And your thinking is that Ford should have a unique engine (470 ft-lb 3.8L V8???????? WHAT?) in order to save money?

 

 

Finally, why is there "no reason" for the Transit cutaway if there's an E-Series class 3? The F150 & Super Duty overlap Class 2, and the SD and E-Series overlap through much of their range.

 

 

---

 

Ultimately, what this all boils down to is this:

 

Your proposal for Ford's medium duty van range is, apparently to use a cut up version of a unitized cab bolted onto a frame of some sort with, I guess, a 3.8L V8 diesel that is not legal for US sale. You have no proposal for GVWR that I've seen.

 

My proposal--one which Ford's actions to date seem to square with--is that Ford is going to replace the E-Series cab/chassis and cutaway range with a new cab and a new chassis. The cab will be shared with the F-650 & F-750 which are assembled at the same facility. The engine bay & fenders will be fiberglass and will vary between the E-Series & the F-650 & F-750. Powertrains will be shared, and GVWR will be more or less continuous with the outgoing E-series cab/chassis, cutaway and medium duty F-Series.

Edited September 28, 2014 by RichardJensen

[zipnzap]

The E-450s are *not* doing just fine with 420 ft. lbs--they have both lower GCWR and GVWR than the previous PS models, and as bzcat pointed out, there are a number of applications (fire and rescue, ambulance, transport) that are using F550s instead.

 

They stopped using the E-Series because there was no diesel, not because of lower GVW and GCWR.

The E-350 and E-450's GVWR actually INCREASED during the 2008 refresh and stayed that way even after the E-Series lost the Powerstroke shortly after.

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/non-html/2008/whatsnew2008.pdf

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/eseries-cutaway/specifications/payload/

The current E-350/450 doesn't have GVW/GCWR lower than any of the previous models.

And it's not like the 6.8L V10 would easily fit in the Transit engine bay either.

 

And your thinking is that Ford should have a unique engine (470 ft-lb 3.8L V8???????? WHAT?) in order to save money?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17#3.6_TDV8

Either that or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_4.4_Turbo_Diesel

A whole 516 lb. ft., yet still small enough to provide better packaging, better fuel economy, and save overall weight.

Either those, or the 440 lb. ft. 3.0 V6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17#3.0D.2FTDV6.2FHDi

The NA Transit is already using a unique engine that's currently not found in any other NA Ford product whatsoever (3.2 I-5 diesel). On that note, the 3.0 would have made for a much better engine choice in the Transit range than the larger, less powerful 3.2 I-5. In fact, since the 6.4 and 6.7 didn't fit, any of the listed 3 may have made for decent options for the current E-Series.

And would potentially developing a whole model that only targets one class be more cost effective than bringing over an engine?

Finally, why is there "no reason" for the Transit cutaway if there's an E-Series class 3? The F150 & Super Duty overlap Class 2, and the SD and E-Series overlap through much of their range.

 

The Super Duties and E-Series cutaways co-exist on the virtue of one being a van-based cutaway while the other is truck-based. For example, truck-based ambulances are Type I, where cutaway van-based ambulances are referred to as Type II. They're built for different applications. Second-unit body manufacturers build different products on both.

 

What the hell are manufacturers and upfitters going to do with a Transit 350 if there's another class 3 cutaway van with a higher GVWR?

The Transit 250 is absolutely useless. The E-250 cutaway was dumped for a reason.

 

Ultimately, what this all boils down to is this:

 

Your proposal for Ford's medium duty van range is, apparently to use a cut up version of a unitized cab bolted onto a frame of some sort with, I guess, a 3.8L V8 diesel that is not legal for US sale. You have no proposal for GVWR that I've seen.

 

My proposal--one which Ford's actions to date seem to square with--is that Ford is going to replace the E-Series cab/chassis and cutaway range with a new cab and a new chassis. The cab will be shared with the F-650 & F-750 which are assembled at the same facility. The engine bay & fenders will be fiberglass and will vary between the E-Series & the F-650 & F-750. Powertrains will be shared, and GVWR will be more or less continuous with the outgoing E-series cab/chassis, cutaway and medium duty F-Series.

Current Medium Duty:

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/2015/2015F650_750_techspecs.pdf

Head Room - 41.3 in.

Shoulder Room - 68.0

Hip Room - 67.4

Leg Room - 40.7

Frame to Top of Cab - 56.6

E-Series cutaway:

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/eseries-cutaway/specifications/interior/

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/eseries-cutaway/specifications/exterior/

Head Room (in.) - 42

Shoulder room (in.) - 68.1

Hip Room (in.) - 65.6

Leg Room (in.) - 40

Top of Frame to Top of Cab (in.) - 54.4

Transit cutaway:

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/transitchassis/specifications/interior/

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/transitchassis/specifications/exterior/

Head Room - 44.9

Shoulder Room - 67.9

Hip Room - 67.5

Leg Room - 41.3

Top of Frame to Top of Cab - 61.2

And unlike the F-650/750, the E-Series has a large interior doghouse.

The F-650/750's cab works for the F-650/750 because it has a large medium duty truck nose. The same reason the Super Duties can take the 6.7 without any issue, also due to their extended pickup-like nose. Other than a transmission hump, there's no interior space or engine cooling issues because of said large nose.

The Medium Duties use the Super Duty cab, don't they? Has that changed?

What's the difference between using "the Medium Duty cab" vs. using the Super Duty Cab?

Aren't the Super Duties what you get when you use a less tall nose on the Medium Duty cab? How would this vehicle provide enough space and adequate cooling while using a shorter horizontal nose than the Super Duty nose?

With the E-Series redesign for 2008, Ford was still unable to fit the 6.7 after they gave it a larger, modified nose. For whatever reason, the 6.7 wasn't designed for tight packaging.

Using the F-650's cab, with what's supposed to be a much smaller nose, will the 6.7, in it's current form, still fit in this vehicle's engine bay and provide adequate cooling, while still providing good visibility (including both side and front visibility, as well as visibility over the hood, plus decent line of sight to the side mirrors), good step-in height, good interior cab space and interior cab height, and be low enough to the ground for Class-C RV and bus applications, as welll as other cutaway van-specific apps, also with easy access to the engine for easy repairs and maintenance?

Edited October 1, 2014 by zipnzap

[Bob Rosadini]

Well not to get into this pissing contest on E vs Transit, taking advantage of zipnzaps research, it does appear the Transit cutaway cab dimensions ARE in fact superior to current 650/750 with exception of shoulder room and that is only a tenth off.

 

Most importantly the Transit has a 3.6" headroom advantage, which to me is one of the most critical dimensions in a heavy truck chassis given visibility issues and air ride seat options. Leg room is also better by 6/10ths.

 

I do believe Richard you dismissed the Transit glasshouse/cab structure as an unsuitable option for use on 650/750 as it was SMALLER than current SD cab. (yu may have posted that on Avon Lake thread.

 

Looks to me if these numbers are correct, the Transit cab structure is NOT that far out an idea.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I'm still somewhat baffled by Ford's decision not to use the 4.4L Diesel in the new Transit. If they went to the trouble of going through a redesign of the engine compartment for the 3.7L V6 gasser, and speculatively the EB 3.5L, why not include the option for the 4.4L diesel? I realize that expanding the options list increases development costs and unit build costs, but this isn't an extremely high build rate line we're talking about either. The engine is developed and in serial production in North America. You can't tell me that some of the outfitters or end customers wouldn't welcome its substantial increase in available power. The only drawback I can see is that it isn't the king of efficiency and diesel fuel isn't cheap.

[fordmantpw]

I'm still somewhat baffled by Ford's decision not to use the 4.4L Diesel in the new Transit. If they went to the trouble of going through a redesign of the engine compartment for the 3.7L V6 gasser, and speculatively the EB 3.5L, why not include the option for the 4.4L diesel? I realize that expanding the options list increases development costs and unit build costs, but this isn't an extremely high build rate line we're talking about either. The engine is developed and in serial production in North America. You can't tell me that some of the outfitters or end customers wouldn't welcome its substantial increase in available power. The only drawback I can see is that it isn't the king of efficiency and diesel fuel isn't cheap.

 

Few reasons I can see:

 

• The 4.4L is an expensive engine with CGI and other goodies
• It's big compared to the other engines in the Transit.
• Buyers are opting for the diesel for longevity and fuel economy reasons. For the capabilities of the Transit, the 3.2L has enough HP/torque, so it is the desired option for fuel economy.

[RichardJensen]

the Transit cab structure is NOT that far out an idea.

 

Except, of course, that the firewall is incompatible with the PS Diesel and the floorpan has integrated frame rails, and the whole mess is tightly integrated with the front subframe because, again, the Transit cab is unitized.

 

The 650-750-E-Series replacement have enough volume and enough unique circumstances to justify a unique cab.

[RichardJensen]

The F-650/750's cab works for the F-650/750 because it has a large medium duty truck nose.

 

 

Sigh.

 

Using the SD cab for medium duty trucks is as misguided as using the Transit cab.

 

I have *never* suggested that Ford KEEP the current 650/750 cab. In fact, I have loudly and consistently advocated a UNIQUE CAB.

[RichardJensen]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17#3.6_TDV8

Either that or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_4.4_Turbo_Diesel

A whole 516 lb. ft., yet still small enough to provide better packaging, better fuel economy, and save overall weight.

Either those, or the 440 lb. ft. 3.0 V6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17#3.0D.2FTDV6.2FHDi

 

These are expensive engines engineered for luxury sedans and they have NEVER been federalized. Suggesting that they would be suitable for a medium duty truck is comparable to suggesting that a Ferrari V8 would make a good truck engine.

[RichardJensen]

The Super Duties and E-Series cutaways co-exist

 

 

Ford does not build SD cutaways.

[RichardJensen]

 

What the hell are manufacturers and upfitters going to do with a Transit 350 if there's another class 3 cutaway van with a higher GVWR?

 

For those who need a lower GVWR, the Transit is likely a more economical option, and for certain uses (RVs, for instance) it is probably a more accommodating one as well.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

They stopped using the E-Series because there was no diesel, not because of lower GVW and GCWR.

The E-350 and E-450's GVWR actually INCREASED during the 2008 refresh and stayed that way even after the E-Series lost the Powerstroke shortly after.

 

Thanks for doing research on that. I stand corrected.

 

However, the rest of your post is either strawman argumentation (the SD cab is *NOT* a good solution for Class 6/7), or based on flawed reasoning (luxury diesels are viable options for heavy duty usage), or simply does not address the facts in this case: The Transit cab is unitized. It is not designed to be dropped onto any old frame one happens to find, with any old engine stuck out front.

Edited October 1, 2014 by RichardJensen