Sevensecondsuv Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I'm done. We'll just let history decide. I actually hope I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I'm done. We'll just let history decide. I actually hope I'm wrong. Well I have to say I too have my reservations about this power train working in the higher GVW ranges. However given the black mark Ford took over the 6.0/6.4 Power Stroke fiasco, I have to believe that no one would let this combo out without a very high level of confidence in the success of the combo in the higher weight range. Now as for the 6R140, one of my friends is a shop foreman for a small town DPW that runs a number of 550 dumps, PS/6R140. This combo is very popular with a lot of municipalities. He has never heard of a failure of this trans. And given the winter we had up here this year, that is saying something. Now having said that, and understanding the economics associated with an internal sourced power train, I still question why they did NOT continue to offer the Cummins/Allison combo as a continued option. Its not like they had to do any expensive engineering to keep it on the option list. We will see soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Now having said that, and understanding the economics associated with an internal sourced power train, I still question why they did NOT continue to offer the Cummins/Allison combo as a continued option. Its not like they had to do any expensive engineering to keep it on the option list. I expect that the projected upcharge for that powertrain would've slimmed potential customers down to a number so small that it would be questionable whether it would be in anyone's interests (Ford, GM or Cummins) to offer that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Because Ford cannot buy those engines and transmissions from Cummins and GM respectively? I don't believe Allison Transmission is owned by GM any longer. It was sold in 2007 when they were on the skids. I can fully understand Ford wanting to bring as much of these trucks in house. They get too keep more of the profit instead of paying the component supplier, and they have some control over the quality of the components. I sure hope these trucks work out well for Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I don't believe Allison Transmission is owned by GM any longer. It was sold in 2007 when they were on the skids. I can fully understand Ford wanting to bring as much of these trucks in house. They get too keep more of the profit instead of paying the component supplier, and they have some control over the quality of the components. I sure hope these trucks work out well for Ford. Correct on Allison. The GM sold it to Carlyle Group and it wasn't long before they started spinning off shares of it. I do believe Freightliner has some sort of controlling interest now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I expect that the projected upcharge for that powertrain would've slimmed potential customers down to a number so small that it would be questionable whether it would be in anyone's interests (Ford, GM or Cummins) to offer that option. You might be right, however IMO, would have been good insurance to have it as a fallback position in the hopefully unlikely event that the PS/Torqshift turns into a warranty issue. Should that be the case, think of the PR disaster. Just would have been good business. If the Ford powertrain does in fact hold up as promised, a year or two down the road, you kill the Cummins , Allison (and Fuller for that matter) options. I believe it was you Richard who mentioned that we have no knowledge if any of these PS/6R140 combos that may have been in fleet testing. I hope you are correct. I remember when the Ford 6.6/7.8 diesels were put in service, a good sized New England fleet had a good number running "undercover" for some time before the engine took the place of the Cat 3208. Let's hope that is the case here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 You might be right, however IMO, would have been good insurance to have it as a fallback position in the hopefully unlikely event that the PS/Torqshift turns into a warranty issue. Should that be the case, think of the PR disaster. My take is that Ford doesn't think it will be an issue. Plus, if you can limit it to 2 (Ford) engines and 1 tranny (that are already in your trucks), programming, wiring harnesses, everything, is much simpler than handling multiples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Automatic transmission durability is directly related to how well it is cooled and judicious use of the torque converter lock up clutch. When the torque converter is unlocked and there is a large difference in input speed versus output speed (i.e. the torque converter is making near maximum torque multiplication) the shearing of the fluid makes a lot of heat very quickly. Keeping that fluid cool, within its design range, is critical. As I am sure everyone knows, that selecting the final drive ratio is also key to carrying the gross load. So whose axles are they using ? Edited May 12, 2015 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) ... if you can limit it to 2 (Ford) engines and 1 tranny (that are already in your trucks), programming, wiring harnesses, everything, is much simpler than handling multiples. Few people realize the costs associated with supporting multiple combination of engine and transmission ! Ford will make their niche in this market on lower costs, both initial and operational. Edited May 12, 2015 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 My take is that Ford doesn't think it will be an issue. Plus, if you can limit it to 2 (Ford) engines and 1 tranny (that are already in your trucks), programming, wiring harnesses, everything, is much simpler than handling multiples. Simplicity issue totally understood. And remember, I am a senior citizen. I go back to the old days when every truck manufacturer published an annual data book that was in looseleaf form and was about 4" thick-with constant updates.."add pages...replace pages" Also my point-the engineering cost for the Cummins/Allison/Fullers is a sunk cost-I have to believe carrying those options over would have been a minimal expense. Instead Ford is painted into a corner. Automatic transmission durability is directly related to how well it is cooled and judicious use of the torque converter lock up clutch. When the torque converter is unlocked and there is a large difference in input speed versus output speed (i.e. the torque converter is making near maximum torque multiplication) the shearing of the fluid makes a lot of heat very quickly. Keeping that fluid cool, within its design range, is critical. As I am sure everyone knows, that selecting the final drive ratio is also key to carrying the gross load. So whose axles are they using ? Axles are Dana (Spicer) Again sounds like you are well versed in AT design. Question for you- look at the heft of an Allison that is rated for say a GVW of 35,000 or a GCW of say 60,000 and then look at the respective heft of a 6R140... I don't know the numbers-just asking. Then again I get underneath my SHO and I look at the rear differential that is handling 365 horses (or sharing 365 horses?) and I say-where did this come from? -a Kenmore washing machine?. I guess good design wins out over mass any day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Automatic transmission durability is directly related to how well it is cooled and judicious use of the torque converter lock up clutch. When the torque converter is unlocked and there is a large difference in input speed versus output speed (i.e. the torque converter is making near maximum torque multiplication) the shearing of the fluid makes a lot of heat very quickly. Keeping that fluid cool, within its design range, is critical. So the more forward gear ratios there are in a gearbox, the greater the chance of staying above the converter's stall speed and avoiding heat build up in the gearbox. More efficient torque multiplication through additional gear ratios versus oil shearing and heat. A super low first would be advantageous for low speed up hill climbing with maximum load on board Edited May 12, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Simplicity issue totally understood. And remember, I am a senior citizen. I go back to the old days when every truck manufacturer published an annual data book that was in looseleaf form and was about 4" thick-with constant updates.."add pages...replace pages" Back when there were no electronics in vehicles and no computer control over engine or tranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 You might be right, however IMO, would have been good insurance to have it as a fallback position I believe it was you Richard who mentioned that we have no knowledge if any of these PS/6R140 combos that may have been in fleet testing. I hope you are correct. I remember when the Ford 6.6/7.8 diesels were put in service, a good sized New England fleet had a good number running "undercover" for some time before the engine took the place of the Cat 3208. Let's hope that is the case here. I'm guessing that the fallback position is dropping the MD line. And given that Ford started putting the 6R in the 650 when they started selling V-10 powered models, I expect they could easily slip a 6R onto the back of a 6.7 powered 750 and evaluate accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Back when there were no electronics in vehicles and no computer control over engine or tranny. Understood- my point was in the "old days" the option list was incredible-to a fault. You would have fleet mgrs who had a thing about hose clamps made by XYZ-and that is what they would want. I would say into the 90's the builders started to put an end to that sort of customization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I'm guessing that the fallback position is dropping the MD line. And given that Ford started putting the 6R in the 650 when they started selling V-10 powered models, I expect they could easily slip a 6R onto the back of a 6.7 powered 750 and evaluate accordingly. Very valid point on the V-10 powered 650. Friend of mine has sold a good number of them-but not at 33,000 gvw never mind 37,000 and not with almost 800 lb ft of torque. I'm sure you are right on the fact that there were a lot of 6.7 750's running around with 6R's. I hope! As for dropping the MD as a fallback option, talk about a cop out. If that is/was truly the plan someone should have their ass handed to them IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The 6R140 will probably be fine for the truck's intended use. I don't see much in the way of tractor applications for this truck beyond beverage, and I doubt many would seriously consider this truck for any 'baby 8' applications. The whole point of the truck seems to be selling on price, which I think will preclude expansion of the option list, particularly drivetrains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 As for dropping the MD as a fallback option, talk about a cop out. If that is/was truly the plan someone should have their ass handed to them IMO. Nope. Like I said earlier: You don't do something like this with an expectation of failure. Ford burned the ships. This either works or it doesn't. Just like the in-house designed 6.7L, just like the aluminum F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Understood- my point was in the "old days" the option list was incredible-to a fault. You would have fleet mgrs who had a thing about hose clamps made by XYZ-and that is what they would want. I would say into the 90's the builders started to put an end to that sort of customization. They could really specify certain hose clamps? Seriously? That's just crazy! As for dropping the MD as a fallback option, talk about a cop out. If that is/was truly the plan someone should have their ass handed to them IMO. I don't think so. Ford's take is "If we can't do it alone and make enough money, then it isn't worth while to do it. We have better places to spend our money if we aren't going to make a decent profit on this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And think about how much of a risk Ford took with the 6.7L. You're talking about a much more important sector of Ford's business (Class 2 & 3 trucks), with much higher volumes, and a designed-from-scratch V8. If that thing blew up less than a decade after the 6.0 fiasco, you tell me what the consequences would have been to Ford's 2/3 business...... Edited May 12, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Fleet buyers that operates other Class 7 or 8 trucks may be interested in Allison or Cummins for maintenance commonality but that may not be all that relevant for fleet buyers that mainly operates Class 3/4/5 trucks, which are overwhelmingly Ford/GM/FCA/Izusu/Hino/Freightliner proprietary drivetrain. So Ford may be tipping its hand on what kind of customers it intends to target with a proprietary only drivetrain options on the Medium duty. I'm not saying it is good or bad strategy to ignore demands of existing Class 7 or 8 operators; but if the idea is to up-sell existing Ford Class 3-5 fleet customers who might otherwise go with Freightliner for Class 6, Allison or Cummins may not be that relevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) I think you also have to take a realistic look at the likelihood of Ford convincing an operator of, say, a largely Freightliner Class 8 fleet, to purchase a Ford product instead of a Freightliner one in Class 6/7. Edited May 12, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I think that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Okay- you guys have worn me down-I'll go back to counting my shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And who knows? This isn't a proper Class 8 package, so Ford might down the line upgrade to 3rd party engine/transmission vendors for higher GVWR/GCWR ratings if they see demand there. Right now, this seems to be playing conservatively for a section of the market Ford knows well. Edited May 12, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGolden Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I don't understand all of the love for Allison..... Back when we still had GM's in our fleet, they were crap. We ran them just like all the others, near max gvw (3500 SRW) and they never made it the life of the truck which for us is near 200,000. All had oiling/bearing issues. The Fords and even a 2009 Dodge were very good. Our 2006 international 2600, 33,000 gvw, with a 260hp d466, 6 speed Allison has been fixed twice, both bearing failures, with only 130,000 miles. The garage assured the boss that our problems are not unique. These issues led us to buy our F750 in a manual. A local hot shot hauler has 3 of his 4 trucks now 6.7, F550 combo's. His switch was due to trans issues in the GM. These are in some ridiculous GCVW's for this class truck. I understand this is new territory for Ford but I have as much, or more confidence in them vs the competition. I just don't see Allison as the "benchmark" anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.