Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

Just now, Bob Rosadini said:

 Hah-to say nothing about how well Trumps meeting goes tomorrow with Erdogan?

Others have posted that the certification is a very expensive process.  

It is, basically everything has to be redone, nothing is acceptable as a copy paste from euro certification and nor should it be either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

FTFY!

 

Sorry, that irritates me, especially from the Ram fanboys who can't even spell the name of the engine they've got under the hood!

Edited by fordmantpw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest HDT sales chart show YTD Class 7, Hino 1635, Ford 2093.   YTD Class 6 Hino 5686, Ford 17053!   But is that a mistake?  Because next in Class 6 is International with 16704 and Freightliner with 15695!  Huh??!!  Bluebird will be offering electric Vision school buses with Cummins all electric drive.  IMO, this should have been Ford powered but Ford wasn't ready apparently.  How it will hurt their Ford/Roush propane sales for the Vision line remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Tow Times magazine, some interesting data: The percentage of companies that have at least one of these brands in light duty category is as follows: Ford 63%, Ram/Dodge 39%, GM (Chev/GMC) 45%, Hino 13%, Isuzu 4%.    In medium duty: Intern'l 42%, Freight 35%, Ford 27%, Paccar 36% (with Pete and KW each at 18%). Hino and GM are far behind.  In class 8, Paccar again with each brand about 40% is a whopping 80%! Freight 25%, Intern'l 20%, Mack/Volvo 15%.  Also, Ford Otosan has signed an agreement with European truck and trailer giant Tip Trailer Services for aftersales services in Western Europe, where they currently don't exist.  I'm not sure I understand that. 

Edited by Joe771476
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

According to Tow Times magazine, some interesting data: The percentage of companies that have at least one of these brands in light duty category is as follows: Ford 63%, Ram/Dodge 39%, GM (Chev/GMC) 45%, Hino 13%, Isuzu 4%.    In medium duty: Intern'l 42%, Freight 35%, Ford 27%, Paccar 36% (with Pete and KW each at 18%). Hino and GM are far behind.  In class 8, Paccar again with each brand about 40% is a whopping 80%! Freight 25%, Intern'l 20%, Mack/Volvo 15%.  Also, Ford Otosan has signed an agreement with European truck and trailer giant Tip Trailer Services for aftersales services in Western Europe, where they currently don't exist.  I'm not sure I understand that. 

 

Well, they are selling them as far west as Poland. A truck sold to a Polish shipping company is still going to travel to Spain or whatever and may need servicing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

According to Tow Times magazine, some interesting data: The percentage of companies that have at least one of these brands in light duty category is as follows: Ford 63%, Ram/Dodge 39%, GM (Chev/GMC) 45%, Hino 13%, Isuzu 4%.    In medium duty: Intern'l 42%, Freight 35%, Ford 27%, Paccar 36% (with Pete and KW each at 18%). Hino and GM are far behind.  In class 8, Paccar again with each brand about 40% is a whopping 80%! Freight 25%, Intern'l 20%, Mack/Volvo 15%.  Also, Ford Otosan has signed an agreement with European truck and trailer giant Tip Trailer Services for aftersales services in Western Europe, where they currently don't exist.  I'm not sure I understand that. 

Joe,  Not  arguing with  Tow Times stats, but around here, I would say Hino is doing a very good job in class  6 and 7 when it comes to roll backs.   There is a Jerr Dan dealer one town over from me and his  yard was full of Hino's a month ago.  Also quite  a few Paccars and starting to see more 650's.  I'm just waiting for the  7.3's to start coming down the line at OAP.  I think these are going to be big sellers.  Class 4 and 5 -Super Duty is king!  Waiting for the Chevy/International JV's to start showing up.

 

As for your comment on  Tip servicing Ford F-Max tractors in western Europe, sounds like the quickest way for Ford Otosan to be able they have the service issue "covered.".

Although I  have to say, would I be comfortable having some guy who is  totally comfortable troubleshooting a trailer electrical issue working on a  new technology diesel fuel  system?  I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well with the Romeo plant closing, I suspect ford would retool the 6.2V8 block machining line to make higher volumes of the 7.3 family!

Ford could easily create a 6.6 V8 utilizing the 7.3 stroke of 101mm and a bore of 102mm.

Another benefit is a savings per unit of about $135 going from SOC to push rod!

 

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, edselford said:

Well with the Romeo plant closing, I suspect ford would retool the 6.2V8 block machining line to make higher volumes of the 7.3 family!

Ford could easily create a 6.6 V8 utilizing the 7.3 stroke of 101mm and a bore of 102mm.

Another benefit is a savings per unit of about $135 going from SOC to push rod!

 

edselford

 

I heard that the 7.3L shares bore centers with the 6.2L.  If that is true, shared tooling between the 2 engine families might be the explanation why.  I agree that a smaller version of the 7.3L would make a good 6.2L replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I heard that the 7.3L shares bore centers with the 6.2L.  If that is true, shared tooling between the 2 engine families might be the explanation why.  I agree that a smaller version of the 7.3L would make a good 6.2L replacement.

Nope, it’s a little wider 117mm (4.63”)

 the deck height is higher too

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A V6 variant of the 7.3 with no bore or stroke changes would yield a engine size of just under 5.5 liters in size but the question would lead to if the architecture could handle the vibrations a V6 has that would call for a counter balance shaft to cancel out. Cost savings of dropping down to a V6 could be lost when attenuating the issues that would crop up as a result of lopping off 2 cylinders.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason Ford is ending the 6.2 is because it knows that most buyers will  want the 7.3. So depending on customer needs, I’d say the the 6.2 is now seen as a little small In terms of engine capacity to keep its place, even GM has stepped up to 6.6 litres as a minimum in the 2500s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Nope, it’s a little wider 117mm (4.63”)

 the deck height is higher too

 

Where did you find this information?  I initially heard bore spacing was 117mm, but more reliable information says it is actually 115mm.  Also, I have not seen any information on deck height.  I have seen a cut-away 7.3L in person, but unfortunately didn't have anything to measure it with at the time.  I will say a casual observation seems to indicate there is not much room for growth in the 7.3L (the crank throws and counterweights come close to crankcase sides, cylinder bores are close) but at 7.3L, there isn't much need to go larger.  Smaller is another story altogether!    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, twintornados said:

A V6 variant of the 7.3 with no bore or stroke changes would yield a engine size of just under 5.5 liters in size but the question would lead to if the architecture could handle the vibrations a V6 has that would call for a counter balance shaft to cancel out. Cost savings of dropping down to a V6 could be lost when attenuating the issues that would crop up as a result of lopping off 2 cylinders.

 

Just put those six cylinders in a row. Problem solved!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

Where did you find this information?  I initially heard bore spacing was 117mm, but more reliable information says it is actually 115mm.  Also, I have not seen any information on deck height.  I have seen a cut-away 7.3L in person, but unfortunately didn't have anything to measure it with at the time.  I will say a casual observation seems to indicate there is not much room for growth in the 7.3L (the crank throws and counterweights come close to crankcase sides, cylinder bores are close) but at 7.3L, there isn't much need to go larger.  Smaller is another story altogether!    

Bore is 4.22” 

Stroke is 3.976”

Hot Rod spoke to Blaine Ramsey who is Ford’s supervisor of large gas and diesel development. They recon this was Brian Wolfe”s baby and apparently, he’s an avid drag racer.

 

Once Ford gets rid of the 6.2, the new base price is roughly $2,000 higher. Fits their MO perfectly.

Edited by jpd80
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...