New Light & Medium Duty News

[Bob Rosadini]

 

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.

Well Richard, I would like nothing better than to see a purpose built cab for 650/750-and "850" I'm just going along with the "max utilization" thought process that you have to wring every once you can out of existing components. And my 850 comment, that comes after the low fruit harvest that the new 650-750 brings. May never see the old 22% class 7 market share of the Louisville days but I believe Ford can get a lot of that back with a sensible vocational platform.

 

And I agree with everyone who has posted the down sides to the Lion variants. No more V-8's please! Keep it simple- And rather than spend big $$$ on Lion V configurations, spend it on doing what you have to do to clean up the Duratorque 6 cylinders from Turkey/Brazil...One Ford!

[RichardJensen]

Well Richard, I would like nothing better than to see a purpose built cab for 650/750-and "850" I'm just going along with the "max utilization" thought process that you have to wring every once you can out of existing components. And my 850 comment, that comes after the low fruit harvest that the new 650-750 brings. May never see the old 22% class 7 market share of the Louisville days but I believe Ford can get a lot of that back with a sensible vocational platform.

 

And I agree with everyone who has posted the down sides to the Lion variants. No more V-8's please! Keep it simple- And rather than spend big $$$ on Lion V configurations, spend it on doing what you have to do to clean up the Duratorque 6 cylinders from Turkey/Brazil...One Ford!

 

If you use the Transit doors--which seems reasonable, although Freightliner doesn't do this--you have a very small amount of sheet metal that needs to be amortized over a *very* long time frame (8-10 years).

 

It's not a difficult business case to make.

 

And I don't think Ford can capture market share in this segment unless they offer a cab custom tailored for this line of work.

[zipnzap]

 

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.

 

But will we be seeing that anytime soon?

The thing is, the current Medium Duties DO use the SD cab. And apparently, the same also goes for the new MD, with Ford going as far as to spend money and resources changing everything BUT the cab. Ford seems to be sticking to the new Medium Duty for the long run.

If anything, it looks like the E-Series replacement would be the one that's getting a unique cab. Unless, Ford plans to get rid of the new Medium Duty in only four years.

 

 

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.

 

Are they specifically luxury engines? The DT17/AJD (part of the Transit's Duratorq family) also sees use in Peugeots and Citroens, as well as basic Ford products like the Ford Territory SUV.

Also, the Transit, F-150, and Mustang all share engines with each other.

The E-Series van V8 saw use in the Town Car/Crown Vic, SUV's, F-150, Thunderbird, Mercury Cougar, Lincoln Continental, the Mark VIII, the Mustang and a whole bunch of others.

The E-Series van and cutaway (especially E-450 cutaway) 5.4 V8 also saw use in the F-150, the SUV's, the Mustang, and the Ford Fairmont and Falcon sedans.

The van and cutaway V10 also saw use in the Excursion.

For standard medium duty trucks, probably not. But for class 3 and lower class 4/entry-level or lower medium duty (as the E-450 currently is), I don't see why not.

The E-450 is barely medium duty.

 

 

Ford does not build SD cutaways.

 

Actually... yes.

They do.

From page 4 of that Ford shuttle bus PDF you posted earlier:

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

There's actually been tons of those things running around for the past decade.

 

 

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.

 

The Transit cutaway's GVWR currently doesn't even match the Sprinter cutaway's, meaning the majority Class C RV manufacturers will still opt for that instead for high-fuel mileage small RV's, as they can fit more onto it. Larger Class C's are still built on the E-450 and E-350. Virtually all of the van-based (non-truck) cutaway mid-sized buses and school buses are based on either the E-350/450 or the Express/Savana 3500/4500.

 

And if there was no market for the E-250 cutaway, why would there be one for the Transit 250?

 

If the E-Series replacement is getting a 350 variant, the Transit cutaway has to go.

 

 

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.

 

Well, Ford seems to think so going forward.

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1403-2016-ford-f650-f750-medium-duty-trucks-revealed/

I guess the E-450 replacement alone will be getting a unique cab.

Edited October 1, 2014 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

 

 

But will we be seeing that anytime soon?

The thing is, the current Medium Duties DO use the SD cab. And apparently, the same also goes for the new MD, with Ford going as far as to spend money and resources changing everything BUT the cab.

 

 

Those changes were a byproduct of 1) terminating the Bluediamond agreement and 2) moving production out of the BD facility.

[RichardJensen]

Unless, Ford plans to get rid of the new Medium Duty in only four years.

 

 

It's not a new Medium Duty. Ask anyone on this forum that knows anything about MDs and they'll tell you.

 

And this is not going to happen in the near term, or even the early mid-term. I wouldn't expect a new medium duty cab before 2018.

Edited October 1, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

 

From page 4 of that Ford shuttle bus PDF you posted earlier:

 

 

That's not a cutaway.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

If the E-Series replacement is getting a 350 variant, the Transit cutaway has to go.

 

 

So, your logic is that Class C RV builders need every last pound of GVWR supplied by the Sprinter?

 

And, by the way, what is your point with all these posts?

 

My point is that Ford is transitioning, in the mid-long term, to a single medium duty cab that will run from Class 3 to Class 7/"Baby 8".

 

Your point is what, exactly? That I'm wrong, and that Ford is going to continue to build pretty much the same stuff that they're building right now despite the manifest shortcomings of the E-Series cab?

Edited October 1, 2014 by RichardJensen

[Joe771476]

Reiterating what Richard said, you can't call a vehicle a cutaway unless it was originally designed as a van. There is no Super Duty van. Also, we're forgetting something. The L-series/HN80 was sold in medium duty right alongside the F-series, right? So if Ford decides to go back full tilt into Class 8, they may again come up with a new cab/chassis, but they'll be no reason why they can't have two lines of Class 6 thru 8, will there? They did before!

[CurtisH]

. . . . . The E-Series van and cutaway (especially E-450 cutaway) 5.4 V8 also saw use in the F-150, the SUV's, the Mustang, and the Ford Fairmont and Falcon sedans. . . . . . .

 

I'm nitpicking, but the Mustang never used a 5.4 2V engine. The only 5.4 ever used in the Mustang was the 4V.

Edited October 1, 2014 by CurtisH

[7Mary3]

Am I getting this right? The 650/750 will continue to use the current SD cab even after the 'new' 250-550 come out in a year or so?

[lfeg]

Probably, as the volume of the F650/750 is very small percentagewise versus F250/350/450/550. And that gets me wondering - what about F450/550 cab and chassis? Would it make sense to keep them with the legacy cab along with the F650/750? And when the next downturn comes, will the F650/750 be termed a distraction from core products as Mercury was? In the current Ford universe the F650/750 are a minute piece of the pie (and marketing wise they sure are treated as such). The F150 is the franchise, and the F250/350 are the strong supporting player. The F450/550 piggyback on the F250/350, so they make sense.

[Bob Rosadini]

OR- the 250/350 utilizes the 150 aluminum cab. Perhaps even 450. 550 on up moves to Avon Lake and becomes lower end of mediums/baby 8's . Let's face it, 19,500 is lower end of class 6 right? So this also becomes a production balancing issue. KTP loses 550 but I'm sure that is a relatively small percentage of KTP production.

 

And on the positive side, go back to the days when GM was building 4500/5500's. Compare one of those with a 550. the rating numbers were the same but in a side by side comparison you would never know it. The GM's looked like a medium chassis- the 550? a 350 with a 550 badge and a higher plate rating.

 

Assuming that did happen, economies of scale in 250/350/450 production utilizing 150 cab and the added 550 volume at OAP makes the entire medium question that much more viable.

[twintornados]

 

 

....go back to the days when GM was building 4500/5500's. Compare one of those with a 550. the rating numbers were the same but in a side by side comparison you would never know it. The GM's looked like a medium chassis- the 550? a 350 with a 550 badge and a higher plate rating.

Weren't those the Topkick models? Didn't they use a version of the GM corporate Van for their cab? With that said, I still contend that Ford could do the same with Transit cabs with a floor pan to attach to the hardpoints of the 650/750 chassis (and even E450/550) and the pan-points for the exterior sheet metal of Transit medium roof van. Door pillar and frames, rear bulkhead, roof and windshield framework would attach to the redesigned cowl and floorpan of medium chassis...I contend that it could be done for a minimal cost since you would be sharing the sheet metal of approx. 80-90% of the existing Transit medium roof cab.

 

Only question is, would the existing Transit cab be wide enough?

Edited October 2, 2014 by twintornados

[theoldwizard]

IMHO (since that is all the data we have here), I think when the E-Series finally fades away. there will be no direct replacement for the E350/450. You take the Transit or move to the F-Series (450/550). Ford has already lost the lions share of the ambulance market and RV manufacturers will likely be jumping of the Transit as soon as they can get their hands on them.

 

Ford's real issue is what to do about a gasoline engine for Class 4-7 to replace the ancient V10 ! Don't say EcoBoost. That is a very cost sensitive market and they are not likely to pay for a "premium" engine. A CNG conversion to an EcoBoost would likely more difficult.

[RichardJensen]

Ford's real issue is what to do about a gasoline engine for Class 4-7 to replace the ancient V10

 

If Ford gets out of the MD van market, no worries about Class 6 & 7 as Ford will be out of that as well.

[lfeg]

I could see the F450 pickup (as Ford says, a beefed up F350) staying with F250/350 at KTP and F450/550 cab and chassis using a different cab structure where ever they are assembled. For class 4 and 5 the competition from dedicated truckmakers do use taller and/or wider cabs. Ford and Ram (both big players in class 4 and significant in class 5) are wedded to pickup cabs so far. Mediums are a smaller market than pickups, but the numbers in classes 4,5,&6 do add up.

[SoonerLS]

OR- the 250/350 utilizes the 150 aluminum cab. Perhaps even 450.

But if you're going to have a unique floorpan and firewall (to accommodate the PSD), what's the point of sharing a cab?

[Joe771476]

Frankly as trivial as it may be, I hope we don't see Transit sheet metal taking the place of the current SD style medium duty cab. These Transits and Sprinters etc. have basically flat slab sided styling which really have no character except for the grilles. It's taken me a long time to get used to the GM van cabs they used for mediums briefly. Boy are they ugly!

[7Mary3]

Who cares what it looks like? I can tell you from extensive experience a large cab is a big advantage on class 6 and larger trucks. My drivers much prefer a Freightliner M2 cab over an F-650. The International and GM cabs were preferred as well. However, GM found out (and International is learning) that a large medium duty cab is a disadvantage in a class 4-5 truck.

 

The Topkick/Kodiak cab was kind of a unique piece that used doors, windshield, dash, and trim from a van but other than that was specific to the medium duty trucks.

Edited October 2, 2014 by 7Mary3

[twintornados]

...Ford's real issue is what to do about a gasoline engine for Class 4-7 to replace the ancient V10 ! Don't say EcoBoost. That is a very cost sensitive market and they are not likely to pay for a "premium" engine. A CNG conversion to an EcoBoost would likely more difficult.

I would think an updated version of the 6.2L BOSS motor should do quite well to replace it....variable valve phasing on both intake and exhaust with possibly direct gas injection...

[Bob Rosadini]

Weren't those the Topkick models? Didn't they use a version of the GM corporate Van for their cab? With that said, I still contend that Ford could do the same with Transit cabs with a floor pan to attach to the hardpoints of the 650/750 chassis (and even E450/550) and the pan-points for the exterior sheet metal of Transit medium roof van. Door pillar and frames, rear bulkhead, roof and windshield framework would attach to the redesigned cowl and floorpan of medium chassis...I contend that it could be done for a minimal cost since you would be sharing the sheet metal of approx. 80-90% of the existing Transit medium roof cab.

 

Only question is, would the existing Transit cab be wide enough?

Correct on the GM products. Plenty of other opinions however in this thread that says commonality of Transit cab is NOT an easily workable issue

 

But if you're going to have a unique floorpan and firewall (to accommodate the PSD), what's the point of sharing a cab?

I can't believe it would be that dificult to modify an F-150 cab with respect to modifying floorpan and firewall accomodate the PStroke. Also, perhaps there is some plumbing revisions that could take place with respect to the Power Stroke that would make it a better fit in the 150. Again-think of the economics if one cab could work for 150 and SD. The second cab would then be the "universal cab" for all mediums/heavies.

 

Frankly as trivial as it may be, I hope we don't see Transit sheet metal taking the place of the current SD style medium duty cab. These Transits and Sprinters etc. have basically flat slab sided styling which really have no character except for the grilles. It's taken me a long time to get used to the GM van cabs they used for mediums briefly. Boy are they ugly!

Joe- I would have to say the GM van itself was ugly-thus use it in a medium application and you have an ugly cab in both applications. Look at those pictures of the new Russian offering I recently posted- IMO, not bad looking. In any case I think the drop down side glass is a good safety feature.-nothing like visibility-assuming you have a high enough seating position.

 

I would think an updated version of the 6.2L BOSS motor should do quite well to replace it....variable valve phasing on both intake and exhaust with possibly direct gas injection...

Haven't we had posts that have suggested the 6.2 has issues if you attempt to increase displacement???

[theoldwizard]

I just came across this. It's from a couple years ago:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/ford_executive_jim_farley_says.html

 

So how does this affect whatever the E-Series cutaway replacement is?

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

THERE WILL BE NO "DIRECT" REPLACEMENT FOR THE E350/450 CHASSIS CAB/CUTAWAY !

[lfeg]

Gas (and CNG, LNG, & LP) engine for a medium that would cover classes 5, 6, & 7 would need a displacement well beyond what a 6.2 block could handle. In the medium world conservative engine stresses and ratings are preferred, high strung engines are not really considered. A gas engine in the 8 to 10 liter range (8 is good for class 5 and light 6, 10 for heavy 6 and 7). I do not see Ford developing such a low volume engine on their own, but perhaps with a partner. Remember the Detroit 8.2? Ford was the first big user back around 1980.

[7Mary3]

Oh yeah, the 8.2 Fuel Pincher Squeezer. As I remember it was designed for Ford, Ford wanted a mid-range diesel for the F and C series that was smaller than the 3208 Caterpillar. GM had it in their medium conventionals by the end of 1980. It was a pretty good little engine as long as it was less than 160 h.p., the turbo'ed versions above that were prone to head gasket failure. Had an open-deck block, a little dubious for a diesel engine. There were really easy on fuel.

[7Mary3]

No direct E-series cutaway replacement? O.K., I believe that, particularly in light of the fact that the cutaway market seems to be in decline anyway. But if so, that leads us to another question: Will Avon Lake only produce the 650/750 line? I can't see enough volume in those trucks for a dedicated plant, my guess is 8-12,000 units/year. Maybe with a lot of sales work and some aggressive pricing to fleets maybe eventually 20,000?