jpd80 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Opportunity cost and choosing which vehicle investments have the best chance of delivering good returns. Ford could spend more funding on more engine options to bring in more customers and more revenue but, would that net effort be more than not doing that and simply investing elsewhere for a better return.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 My question is, is the 6.7 PSD capable of any significant enlargement, and if so how big does an engine need to be to satisfy the requirements you fellas are talking about? I realize that it's not all about displacement but also about how robust and capable the bottom end is in handling these kinds of loads. I don't know, is there room left in that design? If not could Ford simply tack on a couple cyls and do a V10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Also building incremental volume at cost does not put you ahead of the game. It pulls down margins--and the more stuff you sell at cost, the lower your net is across your entire range: 50% volume @ 10% net, 50% at cost- average margin: 5%. 25% volume @ 10% net, 75% at cost- average margin: 2.5% Why this matters! If Ford's investment in MD trucks is generating 2.5% margin (as an example), and they are presented with a proposal to reconfigure OHAP to build, say, a minivan at a 6% margin, it's not going to be a tough call to ax the MDs. This is the crux of the argument. I believe Ford is walking a tight line with these trucks, they have to maintain a good margin and the way they are going to do it is with a standardized product that will sell to a decent sized segment of the medium duty market. Would offering tandem axles, larger vendor-supplied engines and transmissions, and other variations increase their sales? You bet, but it will also eat their margins. And if Ford can't maintain a decent margin on the 650/750, they will be replaced by a more profitable product. I think margins are the reason large passenger car/light truck manufacturers have for the most part given up on medium and heavy truck manufacturing. There will always be a light vehicle that will have a better margin than a large commercial truck. That is what happened to Ford's heavy truck operation. The only way it makes sense for a passenger car/light truck manufacturer to be fully involved in larger commercial trucks is through a subsidy or affiliate, like Toyota/Hino and Daimler/Daimler Truck. Separate books, union contracts, ect.. Ford may very well make a go at this, but it will be with a specialized and limited product line where they can earn a good ROI. As bad as Ford's relationship with Navistar became, I am starting to think of it as a lost opportunity. Ironically, a person I know that was somewhat close to the situation put the blame on a number of ex-Ford people who were calling the shots at Navistar during that time...... Edited January 12, 2016 by 7Mary3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 My question is, is the 6.7 PSD capable of any significant enlargement, ...The short answer is NO ! And personally I would be SHOCKED if Ford EVER has another V10 engine !! Of course, I still have not gotten over the fact that Ford is making a petrol engine with a CGI block ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 And speaking of Navistar, anyone seen what they are trading at these days? Not sure how close they are to Chapter 11. I wonder if GM would be crazy enough to buy them out........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Back to the "accounting 101" lessons on margin, as I have said, I am NOT talking about reinventing HN-80. I am suggesting additional sales could (or should?) be a real possibility with another power train option. And that option should NOT entail huge engineering/design costs, given the fact the Cummins/Allison combo WAS the power train of choice for the Escobedo truck. And every additional sale of a 650/750 serves to further justify the cost of setting up OHAP (thank you Richard ). By the way, I think the last monthly sales number I saw for 750 was 175 units. Oh and 7m-think Carl Icahn is worried about Navistar's future? I think the guy has recently invested big time in it-so one way or another he wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 And every additional sale of a 650/750 serves to further justify the cost of setting up OHAP But it doesn't necessarily do that. If those sales have a deleterious effect on margin, it practically builds a case for cancelling the lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 But it doesn't necessarily do that. If those sales have a deleterious effect on margin, it practically builds a case for cancelling the lineup. Why does everyone think that a sale automatically equals net profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Oh and 7m-think Carl Icahn is worried about Navistar's future? I think the guy has recently invested big time in it-so one way or another he wins. No, now Icahn is buying up Navistar debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 No, now Icahn is buying up Navistar debt. Which--if he's dumping stock and buying debt--is pretty much a bet on chapter 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Which--if he's dumping stock and buying debt--is pretty much a bet on chapter 11. Yes, but it does not seem that he has dumped any shares yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 So what if International gets bought by GM? Will the International brand live on? Or will they call the trucks Chevrolets and GMC's? The International brand itself is an icon. When Daimler bought Freightliner because they couldn't sell their ugly Mercedes trucks, at least they were smart enough to keep the Freight brand. And these guys like T Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn just destroy these companies to their own ends. It's called capitalistic greed. On another note, isn't Ford getting about 55K to 65K for a medium duty cab/chassis? You mean they can't put 2 rails, some crossmembers, an in-house drivetrain and a cab together and make money? Come on! They're stamping those things out like coke bottles! Aren't the doors virtually the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) GM doesn't need to be in Class 8 truck business so I don't see them buy Navistar. But if they did, I'm sure they will keep the International brand, at least in US and Canada. Daimler kept the Freightliner brand because they didn't want to use Mercedes brand in the US, which is associated with luxury cars, not utility trucks like it is in the rest of the world. It was a move to protect the Mercedes brand and franchise value. It also helped that Freightliner is in itself a pretty strong brand. For sure they didn't really value Western Star or Sterling or Orion. Edited January 15, 2016 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Yes, but it does not seem that he has dumped any shares yet. Correct-to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 But it doesn't necessarily do that. If those sales have a deleterious effect on margin, it practically builds a case for cancelling the lineup. As I noted, the power train I'm talking about was engineered for the Escobedo truck. If you really think it would take a large amount of cash to stuff that Cummins/Allison combo into a 750, I happen to disagree. And if you think that such an expenditure would seal the fate of 650/750, Ford for sure had no business even bringing the production to Ohio. And again I truly hope the Power Stroke /Torqueshift combo does a GREAT job of garnering class 7 sales. But I'm afraid at this point there is a great deal of skepticism that the combo WILL in fact provide longevity in the higher GVW range. Yes Ford has put a good warranty on the package. Unfortunately many buyers can't afford the luxury of taking their truck out of service while its repaired-or unfortunately, battling with "customer service" to get the claim honored. Why does everyone think that a sale automatically equals net profit? For sure it does not. But if you have an opportunity to cover an additional market, for NOT a lot of money, and you don't take advantage of it, in my opinion it is a mistake. It amazes me that Toyota can jump into the class 6/7 market from scratch, with a lot of conviction, this Arkane (sp?) outfit can do a complete startup in class 6/7 with a cobbled together truck using a Chinese cab with NO components that they make, and the mighty Ford Motor Company who was once a dominant player in class 6 and 7 can't succeed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 It amazes me that Toyota can jump into the class 6/7 market from scratch, with a lot of conviction, this Arkane (sp?) outfit can do a complete startup in class 6/7 with a cobbled together truck using a Chinese cab with NO components that they make, and the mighty Ford Motor Company who was once a dominant player in class 6 and 7 can't succeed? Ya gotta wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 If you really think it would take a large amount of cash to stuff that Cummins/Allison combo into a 750, I happen to disagree. It's not a question of engineering, it's a question of the likely thousands of dollars of additional per unit costs that go towards fattening the Cummins and Allison bottom lines, instead of Ford's. Essentially, this is where I'm at: Ford used to sell Cummins & Allison options in their trucks. They don't anymore. They know more about this business than you or I do, and their counter-conventional-wisdom actions elsewhere have generally paid off (e.g. putting the 6.8L in the 650). I trust that they did the right analysis here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Simple, Ford is going after a particular segment of the class 6/7 medium duty market where not offering a Cummins/Allison powertrain will not be much of a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) A little bored tonight so here's my new conspiracy theory: Caterpillar has broken up with Navistar. Eventually they'll want to drop Navi's 13L for its CT trucks, and they still haven't said where the 15L engine they announced last summer is coming from, but Cat still doesn't want to get back into the on-highway engine building game itself. Ford meanwhile would like a nameplate that can hang on the side of the 750 that looks as good as "CUMMINS" does. So Cat and Ford are doing a deal where Ford builds Cat's on-highway engines (in Mexico, Turkey, wherever) and gets to put the Cat badge on the medium duty diesel trucks. Edited January 15, 2016 by Moosetang 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 A little bored tonight so here's my new conspiracy theory: Caterpillar has broken up with Navistar. Eventually they'll want to drop Navi's 13L for its CT trucks, and they still haven't said where the 15L engine they announced last summer is coming from, but Cat still doesn't want to get back into the on-highway engine building game itself. Ford meanwhile would like a nameplate that can hang on the side of the 750 that looks as good as "CUMMINS" does. So Cat and Ford are doing a deal where Ford builds Cat's on-highway engines (in Mexico, Turkey, wherever) and gets to put the Cat badge on the medium duty diesel trucks. ....or, Cat gets to put "Power Stroke" on the doors of Caterpillar trucks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The short answer is NO !And personally I would be SHOCKED if Ford EVER has another V10 engine !! Of course, I still have not gotten over the fact that Ford is making a petrol engine with a CGI block ! Okay, I don't doubt you at all but I'd like to hear why. Also I thought the V10 gasser has been a good engine for Ford. You're saying a V10 Powerstroke wouldn't rock the medium truck world? Seems like most of the engineering is already done. I sort of remember Detroit Diesel creating very successful engines by adding and subtracting cylinders in their "71" and "92" series. In a medium truck I don't think any drastic changes would have to be made to the "vee" angle of the block. Maybe a balance shaft maybe not. I'm thinking a 90 degree V10 could be acceptable in this range of truck and it would probably be a helluva motor to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Why ? Simply because the 6.8L V10 never really delivered on its promise of "lower cost and better performance" that was promised to upper management when it was conceived. Think about it. 2 extra pistons, ring sets, connecting rods, etc etc, plus unique heads, cams and crank. Simply weight those extra components and compare them to the weight of a large displacement V8. Second, friction is against you. Addition crank, connecting rod and cam bearing "rob" power. Worse, is the sliding friction of the extra pistons. A 3 valve 6.2L and a 7.0L are still a possibility, although I don't think that is enough for the Medium Duty market. Personally, I would like to see electric turbocharging. Boost at low RPM will wake up any engine. Edited January 15, 2016 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 No offense but Detroit Diesel proved that theory wrong to a certain extent. Now I'm sure you forgot more about engine engineering than I'll ever know but I just keep thinking about simple math. If you add two cylinders to an engine to reach a given displacement instead of simply upsizing everything what happens. You are adding more valve curtain area and more main webbing and more bearing surface for a given displacement. I'm talking diesel here but this applies to gas as well. Remember big twelves used to be a common thing in truck gas engines back in the day. Seagrave used a modified Pierce-Arrow V12 in their fire trucks. GMC even mated to big gas V6's together to power their big iron. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Ford to do a V10 based on the 6.7 Powerstroke and a V10 3-valver based on the 6.2 Raptor. In fact I'd be surprised if there aren't prototypes running around right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Given similar bore/stroke and bearing dimensions as you increase cylinder count you increase parasitic losses. No way around that. Sure, in the past there were V12s in some trucks, but as fuel efficiency has become more important cylinder counts have gone down. That is why the straight 6 is dominant in class 6 and up. And the 2 cycle Detroits are an interesting design - I have seen everything from a 2-71 to a 12V71, and have heard of 1-71s and 16V71s in industrial service. But again, when it came to emissions and efficiency even Detroit Diesel recognized that to meet market requirements the straight 6 was what they went with for the 60 Series. That is why in the later days of the 2 stroke they replaced the 8V71 and 12V71 with the 6V92 - even with larger displacement cylinders they reduced parasitic losses, and just as important to the bottom line total parts count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 ....or, Cat gets to put "Power Stroke" on the doors of Caterpillar trucks... The market Cat is going for is heavy vocational. The powerstroke is a non starter in that market. 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.