New Light & Medium Duty News

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Another possible minor difference between current E-450 and the one in Ford Authority picture is that the overall width at rear axle seems a little narrower, though it’s difficult to tell from a picture taken at an angle since it can be an optical illusion.  However, since tires are 10 mm narrower each, it makes sense overall width could be significantly narrower; even if same track width is maintained. 

 

Ford Specs show E-450 rear track is 2.3 inches wider than that of E-350, and on picture the rear wheels do not extend out beyond what appears to be a relatively narrow body (by comparison to cab).   For some applications this could be a plus.
 

 

I think that’s just a dummy tray with weight for testing purposes.

[Rick73]

I can’t tell from pictures for certain but flat bed on test rig is likely no more than 8 feet wide.  Comparing to present E-450 (picture below though at different angle), rear wheels don’t seem to extend out as much.  Again, could be optical illusion.

 

What I’m more curious about is whether Ford will offer the same 17.5-inch commercial tires, which have much higher load rating, on Single Rear Wheel E-350 and upgrade GVWR above the present 10,050 pounds?  SRW E-350 appear to be built on same frame and with suspension that could be easily upgraded beyond present 10,050 pounds.  Present SRW rear axle load appears limited by tires at just above 6,000 pounds, but couldn’t that change at minimal cost?

 

I ask because many new electric trucks in this weight class and beyond are being designed with SRW which makes sense to me.  SRW F-350 are also available with higher GVWR, so why not do the same with E-350?

 

[jpd80]

Seriously, that narrow tray is  probably a fixture that Ford made to approximate a standard weight for testing only,

it doesn’t have to be full width  so probably why it looks strange to observers. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Seriously, that narrow tray is  probably a fixture that Ford made to approximate a standard weight for testing only,

it doesn’t have to be full width  so probably why it looks strange to observers. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Tray width has nothing to do with anything; other than to serve as a visual comparison (like a straight edge ruler) between cab and tray, and then tray and rear axle width.   If tray confuses point I previously made, please ignore it and just compare axle to cab width directly.  My point is that vehicle overall width under 8 feet would be an improvement.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Even with 11" or 275mm. wide tires most of the big trucks are only 96" wide across the duals, on an E series the width across the duals is probably around 90".

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Even with 11" or 275mm. wide tires most of the big trucks are only 96" wide across the duals, on an E series the width across the duals is probably around 90".

 

E-Series Overall Width is not what one would expect, in part because E-Series frame at rear axle is much wider than larger trucks.  

 

E-350 SRW — 82.4 inches

 

E-350 DRW — 94.7 inches

 

E-450 DRW — 97.0 inches

[GearheadGrrrl]

Here's a link to specs from Ford's website: https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-series-cutaway/models/e450-cutaway-drw/?intcmp=vhp-models-detail

 

While Ford is using a damn near 78" track rear axle with the standard and looks like only available 225mm. wide tires, maximum rear axle assembly width is a hair under 96" across the tires. That's good for stability, problem is that Ford is pushing the 80" wide Econoline platform to it's limits so the front track is only a bit under 70". As you've pointed out, the E-Series van ancestry shows in the wide frame, a good thing in a van but unacceptable in a medium truck where bodybuilders expect a standard 34" wide frame.

[7Mary3]

Cut-away's usually are used for specialty bodies like ambulance, van, mini-bus, RV ect. where the standard 34" truck frame width isn't critical.  The GM cut-away's have 42" wide frame, I think that's a bit narrower than Ford but still 'non-standard'.  Cut-away's are not medium duty trucks. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Problem is when people try to make medium duty trucks out of Econolines- They barely have the payload to handle a heavy body or vocational equipment. Three decades ago I was a consultant on a legislative review of a company that converted Econoline cutaways into paratransit busses, they put on a huge body so they'd have several wheelchair rider positions but just one heavy wheelchair rider and a heavy driver would overload them. As part of the investigation I asked several Ford heavy truck dealers if the Econoline cutaway chassis was capable of such loads and they all told me a heavier rated chassis was needed. The contract was pulled and the state leased then bought Econoline cutaways that were properly specced with a body that didn't overwhelmed the chassis and they were excellent paratransit vehicles.

 

But the stupid speccing never ends- Decade later I was directing trucks at a huge Post Office loading dock when a yellow Econoline cutaway with a box body came in. We unloaded over 10k pounds off that truck which was rated and licensed for a bit under 10k pounds. One of the big rental companies had bought hundreds if not thousands of these and Ford derated their GVW so the drivers were exempt from logbook requirements- The driver freely admitted he'd driven 1200 miles with no rest! 

 

Ford would be wise not to repeat these mistakes and not give in to customer's dumb demands to build them a light truck for heavy loads, lest Ford expose itself to billions in liability suits...

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Here's a link to specs from Ford's website: https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-series-cutaway/models/e450-cutaway-drw/?intcmp=vhp-models-detail

 

While Ford is using a damn near 78" track rear axle with the standard and looks like only available 225mm. wide tires, maximum rear axle assembly width is a hair under 96" across the tires. That's good for stability, problem is that Ford is pushing the 80" wide Econoline platform to it's limits so the front track is only a bit under 70". As you've pointed out, the E-Series van ancestry shows in the wide frame, a good thing in a van but unacceptable in a medium truck where bodybuilders expect a standard 34" wide frame.

Various errors and or inconsistencies in those specifications make data questionable.  For example, if E-350 and E-450 use same size tires and wheels, with same offset, how can rear track be 2.3 inches wider on E-450 and the overall width be the same?  It can’t.  Overall width on SRW E-350 must also be wrong.

 

Data below seems more accurate; at least appears more consistent.  I’m certain E-450 is wider than E-350 by a couple of inches because when looking at a motorhome model that was built on both E-350 and E-450, it was obvious that rear tires extended out beyond body a significant amount.  That’s what made me look into this to start with.

 

I was curious in part because I had seen reports that certain roads in US limit overall vehicle width to 96 inches.  I’m not even sure wider 97 inches at rear tires would qualify, or that anyone would notice or care enough to enforce restrictions even if it did.  Most modern full-size motorhomes are wider than 96 inches anyway.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Over 96" width on a straight truck is iffy, the Federal Surface Traffic Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 increased the allowed width for big trucks from 96" to 102" on the "National Highway System" and routes to access shippers, receivers, and truck service points. However, a lot of state and local governments maintain that RVs, lighter trucks, etc. are still governed by their 96" width limits. Thus most truck makers have kept their trucks within the 96" width limit.

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Over 96" width on a straight truck is iffy, the Federal Surface Traffic Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 increased the allowed width for big trucks from 96" to 102" on the "National Highway System" and routes to access shippers, receivers, and truck service points. However, a lot of state and local governments maintain that RVs, lighter trucks, etc. are still governed by their 96" width limits. Thus most truck makers have kept their trucks within the 96" width limit.

Question...I thought width was width at any point-ex mirrors.  so if you wanted a 102" stake body on a chassis with 96" axles you could...??????

[GearheadGrrrl]

I've seen a few 102" wide bodies on straight trucks, but most seem to be sticking to 96" to be assured of being legal and a lot of times they can't use the extra width anyway. In the RVs some are going 102" wide but a lot are still 96", and most of the 5th wheel trailers aren't longer than 45' as some states argue that STAA doesn't allow longer RVs.

[Joe771476]

On 2/19/2023 at 2:59 PM, zipnzap said:

 

Mercedes doesn't report their numbers.

 

IICR, first they merged their Metris numbers and Sprinter numbers together.

 

Then they stopped reporting them altogether.

Yeah, because they were embarrassed!!

[Rick73]

Did not Mercedes drop 3.0L V6 diesel in Sprinter and replace with 2.0L I4 diesel?  If this started in 2023 Model Year as reported, it may have affected some potential buyers.  Even if new engine is as powerful as previous, a 2.0L diesel may not sound adequate for a large 11,000-pound box on wheels.  High cost of diesel fuel probably hasn’t helped much either.  IMO Sprinters need a larger-displacement fuel-efficient gas engine option.

[Bob Rosadini]

Speaking of dropping things, Ford  Authority today says that the flex fuel option will  no longer be available.

Sounds like part of the further plan to "save Ford" right out of business.?

Yes I know, I don't have all the facts and I'm sure the stock answer will  be .."the option had little volume, therefore...."

 

But as I see it, it was  engineered in to the truck so the issue is... it was a PITA from a scheduling issue?

[GearheadGrrrl]

Sorry Ford, I don't care to be embezzled by the oil companies!

 

My daily driver for the past 6 years has been a 40+MPG VW Golf TDI, fortunately Ford delivered my new Flex Fuel Transit Connect last spring when diesel was $5+ a gallon and E85 half that. The Transit Connect gets 25 MPG on E85, so it actually cost a bit less to fuel than the TDI and thus became my daily driver last summer, it's resting in the garage now that diesels gone down and the TDI has winter tires. Flex Fuel capability is a good hedge against oil company greed!

[bzcat]

Flex fuel got a CAFE bonus that ended after 2019 model year so no one is making new flex fuel vehicle anymore. We just have hold over from cars that were engineered from the time when the CAFE bonus was in effect. 

 

 

[7Mary3]

3 hours ago, bzcat said:

Flex fuel got a CAFE bonus that ended after 2019 model year so no one is making new flex fuel vehicle anymore. We just have hold over from cars that were engineered from the time when the CAFE bonus was in effect. 

 

 

 

GM spent the money to offer an E85 Flex Fuel option on their 6.6L gas engine last year.  Probably for fleets. 

[7Mary3]

The NTEA show is next week.  Have not heard anything out of Ford about new announcements, but I hear Isuzu and Cummins are going to have something big to talk about. 

[7Mary3]

Speaking of ethanol:

 

https://www.clearflame.com/

[GearheadGrrrl]

Talked to the Clearflame folks last summer, they've succeeded in getting a Class 8 Diesel engine to run on ethanol.

[Bob Rosadini]

On 3/2/2023 at 7:39 PM, 7Mary3 said:

The NTEA show is next week.  Have not heard anything out of Ford about new announcements, but I hear Isuzu and Cummins are going to have something big to talk about. 

7m...."nothing new beyond what was released in Oct".

Looks like they do have one of the bigger exhibits based on floor plan.  I'm sure it will b e all about "connectivity"

[Rick73]

30 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

7m...."nothing new beyond what was released in Oct".

Looks like they do have one of the bigger exhibits based on floor plan.  I'm sure it will b e all about "connectivity"

Any chance they will have the revised E-Series at show?

[Bob Rosadini]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Any chance they will have the revised E-Series at show?

'R",  Don't think so