New Light & Medium Duty News

[351cid]

Is that the 2V or 3V engine?

[twintornados]

Is that the 2V or 3V engine?

3V design

[hwyman3]

GM making fun of Ford's Aluminum? Like when GM made fun of the "Man" step?

Edited February 20, 2015 by hwyman3

[theoldwizard]

... he says at a 10 grand saving over the Cummins, together with the gasoline-diesel price differential, no DEF tank, l it is an easy sell if high annual mileage is not a factor. Claims power wise it will hold its own with the 240HP Cummins

The first half of his statement I agree 100% with ! The second half, is the salesman in him talking !

[fordmantpw]

The first half of his statement I agree 100% with ! The second half, is the salesman in him talking !

 

Depends on what it is used for. If high annual mileage is not a factor, then chances are, it doesn't see a lot of time on the highway. In town and limited highway use, the power of the gasser will be more than sufficient.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Depends on what it is used for. If high annual mileage is not a factor, then chances are, it doesn't see a lot of time on the highway. In town and limited highway use, the power of the gasser will be more than sufficient.

Agree, but OlWiz is not questioning if it is sufficient but if it is comparable to a 240 HP Cummins. Maybe the "salesman talking", I've never driven either so I can't say. Spec wise, the V-10 is 362 HP and 457 ft.lbs vs 240 HP and 560 ft. lbs. So on paper, torque rules in getting a load moving I do believe.

 

Going back to my "youth and the old days", I remember hanging out in my uncles heavy truck shop-populated by Ford guys- and the talk about Ford's new Super Duty V-8's. "Trim the ass off a 220 Cummins" was a phrase I remember. the big SD was 534 ci at 277 HP and I think around 480 ft.lbs. A 220 Cummins was 743 CI, 220 HP and I think around 600+ ft lbs. What they didn't say of course was the Cummins would go by the Ford while the Ford had stopped to refuel!

On a personal note, my wife had an Explorer with a 4.6 2V. I replaced it with the last of the BOF's, a 2010 with a 4.6 3V. Talk about night and day! If the 3V can have that impact on a 4.6 I would have to believe the 3V V-10 is equally impressive.

 

Again, I don't question diesel torque numbers. The question is to the average "non-trucker", will the V-10 deliver acceptable performance with the owner enjoying either smaller monthly payments or more cash in his bank account.

[fordmantpw]

Agree, but OlWiz is not questioning if it is sufficient but if it is comparable to a 240 HP Cummins. Maybe the "salesman talking", I've never driven either so I can't say. Spec wise, the V-10 is 362 HP and 457 ft.lbs vs 240 HP and 560 ft. lbs. So on paper, torque rules in getting a load moving I do believe.

 

Going back to my "youth and the old days", I remember hanging out in my uncles heavy truck shop-populated by Ford guys- and the talk about Ford's new Super Duty V-8's. "Trim the ass off a 220 Cummins" was a phrase I remember. the big SD was 534 ci at 277 HP and I think around 480 ft.lbs. A 220 Cummins was 743 CI, 220 HP and I think around 600+ ft lbs. What they didn't say of course was the Cummins would go by the Ford while the Ford had stopped to refuel!

On a personal note, my wife had an Explorer with a 4.6 2V. I replaced it with the last of the BOF's, a 2010 with a 4.6 3V. Talk about night and day! If the 3V can have that impact on a 4.6 I would have to believe the 3V V-10 is equally impressive.

 

Again, I don't question diesel torque numbers. The question is to the average "non-trucker", will the V-10 deliver acceptable performance with the owner enjoying either smaller monthly payments or more cash in his bank account.

 

OK, so sufficient is not the same as comparable.

 

The fact that the big turbo doesn't have to spool up may actually make the 2 comparable for around town driving. Plus, if the gearing is taken into account, for short-runs, the gasser may actually be better.

 

But, I haven't driven either of them either, so I can't say for sure.

[351cid]

 

OK, so sufficient is not the same as comparable.

 

The fact that the big turbo doesn't have to spool up may actually make the 2 comparable for around town driving. Plus, if the gearing is taken into account, for short-runs, the gasser may actually be better.

 

But, I haven't driven either of them either, so I can't say for sure.

Rear gears make a big difference.

 

My F-250 has the 2V V-10. I've done some mods so I'm going to say torque is about 440 lb ft (425 factory rating). My buddy has an Excursion with 7.3L (505 lb ft). He has 3.73 gears and I have 4.30 gears. I can stay with him pulling loads in every way except fuel mileage.

 

I am not claiming that my gasser will out pull the diesel. I am saying I'm not embarrased either. Doing the numbers; I actually put down a little more torque at peak, but diesels have a flatter torque curve. The difference also occurs in the gassers extended rpm range.

[fordmantpw]

Rear gears make a big difference.

 

My F-250 has the 2V V-10. I've done some mods so I'm going to say torque is about 440 lb ft (425 factory rating). My buddy has an Excursion with 7.3L (505 lb ft). He has 3.73 gears and I have 4.30 gears. I can stay with him pulling loads in every way except fuel mileage.

 

I am not claiming that my gasser will out pull the diesel. I am saying I'm not embarrased either. Doing the numbers; I actually put down a little more torque at peak, but diesels have a flatter torque curve. The difference also occurs in the gassers extended rpm range.

 

If your buddy had a 6.4L, you'd probably about match him in fuel economy. Of course, I don't think you could hang with a 6.4L.

[351cid]

 

If your buddy had a 6.4L, you'd probably about match him in fuel economy. Of course, I don't think you could hang with a 6.4L.

That extra 145 lb ft would work me over....unless I.....

[theoldwizard]

Rear gears make a big difference.

 

My F-250 has the 2V V-10. I've done some mods so I'm going to say torque is about 440 lb ft (425 factory rating). My buddy has an Excursion with 7.3L (505 lb ft). He has 3.73 gears and I have 4.30 gears. I can stay with him pulling loads in every way except fuel mileage.

 

I am not claiming that my gasser will out pull the diesel. I am saying I'm not embarrased either. Doing the numbers; I actually put down a little more torque at peak, but diesels have a flatter torque curve. The difference also occurs in the gassers extended rpm range.

Fleet owner look at only a few things when buy trucks.

• Will it carry MY load ?
• Fuel costs
• Scheduled maintenance costs
• Non-scheduled maintenance cost (which is a shot in the dark on a new truck/engine/transmission)

Gasser are a big win on fuel and scheduled maintenance costs.

[lfeg]

Correct on what the fleet owners consider. Another one, especially if the fleet does it's own maintenance and repairs is " are my mechanics familiar with it and will they need special tools?".

[RichardJensen]

Back to that road grader discussion awhile back:

 

Plows are out and the city's equipment appears to include several new-looking John Deere 772 GP & Ds

[Bob Rosadini]

Back to that road grader discussion awhile back:

 

Plows are out and the city's equipment appears to include several new-looking John Deere 772 GP & Ds

Nice! I do believe a new 772 Deere is probably around 350 grand! You are lucky these are not on your town's new capital budget!

[RichardJensen]

This city's budget & fiscal planners are among the most competent I've come across.

 

Of course, it doesn't hurt to be a major retail center, given that the majority of the revenue comes from sales tax.

 

Also, if they picked those up at ~$350k per, I saw over a million dollars worth today, along with the city's dump trucks (that are at least used year round).

Edited February 26, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Bob Rosadini]

Some good news:

 

Heavy Duty Trucking / March 3, 2015

 

Ford's redesigned 2016 F-650 and F-750 trucks will offer a lower noise level than outgoing models mostly due to the redesigned turbo diesel engine, Ford announced on the eve of NTEA's Work Truck Show.

 

The 2016-MY medium-duty trucks are powered by a Ford 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 that's 25 percent quieter in the cabin, according to Ford. When idling, the engine is as much as 45 percent quieter in the cabin and 35 percent quieter in front of the grille.

 

"While the truck is able to work harder, we also made life inside the cab easier," said John Ruppert, general manager of Ford Commercial Vehicle Sales and Marketing. "Lowering in-cab and exterior noise levels improves driver comfort and minimizes disturbances while idling at work sites."

 

When traveling at 60 mph, the level of engine noise in the cabin drops to 68 decibels from 74 decibels compared to the prior model, according to Ford. Idling levels have fallen to 48 decibels from 63 decibels.

 

Ford achieved the quieter cabin through a engine engineering. Specific design upgrades were made to the fuel injectors to optimize the combustion process, which features a two-stage combustion event instead of a single-injection event to avoid harsh, sudden and loud combustion. A starter or pilot fuel injector in the engine begins the compression process before the main injection. The result is smoother combustion with less diesel clatter and a reduction of intrusive engine sound both inside and outside the truck, according to Ford.

 

At idle, two pilot injection events make the firing process even smoother to aid in quietness. The "ticking" of the high-speed injectors is masked by specially designed covers on the engine.

 

Mounting the engine’s turbocharger inside the engine block valley also brings improvements in overall noise, vibration and harshness.

 

The trucks will be available this summer.

• Like This

[7Mary3]

I certainly should hope so! Those rattle-trap 'Blue Diamond' Fords are about the noisiest medium duty money can buy.

 

We have 3 6.7L Powerstroke powered F-550's in the fleet. Have not had any issues with them at all, but I would say they really are not the most cost effective class 5 available. The purchase price of the trucks was quite high, and the fuel economy is not that great. We recently purchased a 550 with the V-10 and are in the process of ordering some NPR's with gas engines. It will be interesting to see which gets the job done for less.

 

The real comparison will be between a new 6.7L F-650 and a Cummins powered Freightliner M2 or Durastar. My guess is the Ford will win on purchase price, but beyond that ???

[packardbob]

I certainly should hope so! Those rattle-trap 'Blue Diamond' Fords are about the noisiest medium duty money can buy.

 

We have 3 6.7L Powerstroke powered F-550's in the fleet. Have not had any issues with them at all, but I would say they really are not the most cost effective class 5 available. The purchase price of the trucks was quite high, and the fuel economy is not that great. We recently purchased a 550 with the V-10 and are in the process of ordering some NPR's with gas engines. It will be interesting to see which gets the job done for less.

 

The real comparison will be between a new 6.7L F-650 and a Cummins powered Freightliner M2 or Durastar. My guess is the Ford will win on purchase price, but beyond that ???

I thought Freightshaker was going to be using only in house Detroit Diesels from here on out and that the Cummins was an option on International trucks just until they got their emission woes figured out.

[Bob Rosadini]

Well check this out........

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/03/03/ford-tonka-dump-truck/24336863/

 

I have to say, perhaps its just me but my guess is the marketers at Navistar, Hino, Paccar and F'liner are getting a laugh out of this. How to dump on your own product. Back in my "youth" when I was making purchasing decisions, nothing would piss me off more than having one of my "associates" who disagreed with my decision referring to a big Ford as a " Tonka".

 

What are these guys thinking? Or am I out of touch? Nothing wrong with asssociating your "big truck" with a toy?

[7Mary3]

Detroit Diesel is indeed developing a line of mid-range diesels for the M2. As for International, I am not so sure they are going to be making many of their own diesels much longer (call it a hunch). For the time being, most of their mediums are Cummins powered.

 

New 650 and 750 being referred to as a Tonka truck? Sorry, I think they nailed it!

 

BTW- catch the statement about the 650 and 750 NOT using aluminum cabs?

Edited March 5, 2015 by 7Mary3

[Bob Rosadini]

My bad-forgot to mention the piece about 650/750 NOT getting the aluminum cab So with the earlier comments about aluminum cabs on SD 250-350, and no reference to 450, 550, I guess this confirms the steel cab will continue for use in 450, 550, 650, 750.

[7Mary3]

I think that is the real significance in the article. As we were discussing, the no reason the current Super Duty steel cab can't continue to be used on the F-450-up trucks. Being that the vast majority of these vehicles are low bid fleet sales, the added expense of an aluminum cab may not be justifiable.

[Bob Rosadini]

I think that is the real significance in the article. As we were discussing, the no reason the current Super Duty steel cab can't continue to be used on the F-450-up trucks. Being that the vast majority of these vehicles are low bid fleet sales, the added expense of an aluminum cab may not be justifiable.

Agree-when I first raised the question, I did so as 450-550 were excluded in the AL mention. That said to me they were to be aligned with 650/750. then of course my thought that Avon Lake would have some new sort of common cab parts for mediums including some sort of heavy Transit that would take the place of E-450 (and even the departed short lived E-550). If that were the case next thought was 450-550 would move to Avon Lake to further support that plants production economics. I believe I was also not the only one who thought there would be some new unique medium cab (including class 4 and5) (RJ?)

 

As we now know, with added investment at KTP for sure not the case. I think?

[RichardJensen]

I'm going to guess that the cab portion of *this* F650/750 is going to continue to be made up from old SD stampings produced by the same stamping plant that also does SD stampings for collision repair.

 

The next 650/750 will get the new medium duty cab

 

And all the products built at KTP will get the same material in the cab: aluminum.

[7Mary3]

I am thinking the 450 and 550 will stay with the current steel cab, and they are built at KTP. At least for now.

 

FWIW, I have heard absolutely nothing about the next generation 650/750, and I doubt anything is seriously under development at present. I think the medium duty truck program is a 'wait and see'. If successful, sure a successor will be developed. But that remains to be seen......

Edited March 6, 2015 by 7Mary3