New Light & Medium Duty News

[Bob Rosadini]

Another bit of news. As I read this, GM will be offering a turnkey vehicle-unlike Ford which provides vehicles with engines that are "ready for conversion". Let's hope Ford is prepared to address this-in particular in class 3-4-5. Note highlight.

 

Trailer/Body Builders / November 29, 2016

Chevrolet and GMC are partnering with Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSI) to introduce heavy-duty pickups and full-size vans powered by 6.0-liter V-8 compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)-capable engines starting in the first quarter of 2017.

Chevrolet also will offer CNG and LPG versions of its new Isuzu-sourced “Low Cab Forward” commercial truck.

The announcement follows the selection of PSI, based in Wood Dale, Illinois, as General Motors Fleet’s preferred upfitter for CNG and LPG trucks. PSI is one of North America’s largest and most experienced providers of integrated turnkey alternative-fuel powertrain solutions.

Ship-through will be offered, allowing customers to seamlessly order and take delivery from the same dealer. GM will supply vehicles equipped with the 6.0L V-8 engine with hardened valves and valve seats to PSI, which in turn will install the fuel system and other hardware and ship directly to Chevrolet and GMC dealers in all 50 states. All PSI-modified vehicles are covered by Chevrolet and GMC’s five-year/60,000-mile (whichever comes first) limited powertrain warranty.

The expanded lineup brings GM Fleet’s portfolio of alternative fuel, hybrid and EVs to more than a dozen trucks, cars and crossovers. Other recent additions include the Chevrolet Bolt EV, a Duramax 2.8-liter B20-capable Duramax diesel for the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana vans and all-new available 6.6-liter B20-capable Duramax diesel engines for the Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD.

“Expanding choice is the key to helping more commercial and government fleets reduce their fuel consumption, fuel costs and emissions using alternative fuels and EVs versus using traditional gasoline,” said Ed Peper, U.S. vice president of GM Fleet. “There are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions for fleet managers.”

GM Fleet’s partnership with PSI follows customer demand and ongoing investment by companies across the nation in CNG refueling infrastructure.

This month, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announced 55 routes that will serve as the basis for a national network of “alternative fuel” corridors spanning 35 states. Though the network is nearly 85,000 miles long, more miles will be added in the future to accommodate electric, hydrogen, propane and natural gas vehicles as additional fueling and charging stations are built.

Currently four of the top five “Green Fleets” operate CNG-powered vehicles. All of the top 25 fleets use at least two fuels.

[7Mary3]

Same PSI that supplies Navistar with their propane and gasoline 8.8L V-8's. The significance in this for fleets is that with both the current Impco and future PSI gaseous fuel upfits sales, service, warranty, and parts are all available through authorized GM dealers.

 

I will bet that the upcoming GM/Navistar medium duty conventionals will also offer CNG/LNG.

Edited December 1, 2016 by 7Mary3

[Bob Rosadini]

Same PSI that supplies Navistar with their propane and gasoline 8.8L V-8's. The significance in this for fleets is that with both the current Impco and future PSI gaseous fuel upfits sales, service, warranty, and parts are all available through authorized GM dealers.

 

I will bet that the upcoming GM/Navistar medium duty conventionals will also offer CNG/LNG.

You can bet on that.

 

So I'm a fleet manager.-and a loyal Ford guy. Am I going to issue a PO to my Chevy or Navistar dealer-and wait for my trucks to come in? Or sign a PO with my Ford dealer, then pick who I want to send the chassis to etc etc.then send them a PO, follow that etc etc.

 

Hopefully Ford will wake up

[theoldwizard]

Another bit of news. As I read this, GM will be offering a turnkey vehicle-unlike Ford which provides vehicles with engines that are "ready for conversion". Let's hope Ford is prepared to address this-in particular in class 3-4-5. Note highlight.

 

Trailer/Body Builders / November 29, 2016

Chevrolet and GMC are partnering with Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSI) to introduce heavy-duty pickups and full-size vans powered by 6.0-liter V-8 compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)-capable engines starting in the first quarter of 2017.

Chevrolet also will offer CNG and LPG versions of its new Isuzu-sourced “Low Cab Forward” commercial truck.

 

The announcement follows the selection of PSI, based in Wood Dale, Illinois, as General Motors Fleet’s preferred upfitter for CNG and LPG trucks. PSI is one of North America’s largest and most experienced providers of integrated turnkey alternative-fuel powertrain solutions.

I used to work for one of the CNG "upfitters" before the bottom dropped out of the CNG market, so I know a bit about this market and Ford's position. I will say it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Ford will change their current position.

 

There has been a lot of "consolidation" in the upfitters. Westport was buying up the competition in the light/medium duty market including one of the biggest converters, BAF. Life was "touch and go" there for Westport light/medium duty for awhile due to lack of sales in that market space.

 

Roush is covering the LP market quite well. The biggest customers are LP distributors and Frito-Lay (every Frito-Lay truck around here has a small sticker saying it is a Roush LP conversion).

 

Except in parts of TX and OK the CNG market is DEAD ! Who is going to pay more than the prevailing cost of a gallon of regular, experience less power and shell out $10K+ for doing it ?

 

Side note: UPS has a small fleet of LNG tractors that run long distances out west. I think they went LNG because their freight hub and refueling site was in the middle of nowhere, meaning diesel would have to be trucked in. Likely there was a NG line near the hub and when smart "bean counters" did the numbers it cam up as a long term cost savings.

[Bob Rosadini]

I used to work for one of the CNG "upfitters" before the bottom dropped out of the CNG market, so I know a bit about this market and Ford's position. I will say it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Ford will change their current position.

 

There has been a lot of "consolidation" in the upfitters. Westport was buying up the competition in the light/medium duty market including one of the biggest converters, BAF. Life was "touch and go" there for Westport light/medium duty for awhile due to lack of sales in that market space.

 

Roush is covering the LP market quite well. The biggest customers are LP distributors and Frito-Lay (every Frito-Lay truck around here has a small sticker saying it is a Roush LP conversion).

 

Except in parts of TX and OK the CNG market is DEAD ! Who is going to pay more than the prevailing cost of a gallon of regular, experience less power and shell out $10K+ for doing it ?

 

Side note: UPS has a small fleet of LNG tractors that run long distances out west. I think they went LNG because their freight hub and refueling site was in the middle of nowhere, meaning diesel would have to be trucked in. Likely there was a NG line near the hub and when smart "bean counters" did the numbers it cam up as a long term cost savings.

Wiz-as always appreciate your insights. I can ad that after I retired, my old company bought over 40 Pete tractors that were LNG. Someone did a good selling job on the PR aspects and all the other "incentives" that went along with it. One thing that was clearly ignored was the weight penalty. They are all parked now awaiting disposal! We also bought a couple of trailers to haul our own LNG! Talk about a fiasco $$$.

 

In any case, I hear you on the upfront cost differential. My only point however was if in fact GM (and ultimately Navistar) make the option a direct option, for sure Ford won't have to worry.

[theoldwizard]

There has been a lot of "consolidation" in the upfitters. Westport was buying up the competition in the light/medium duty market including one of the biggest converters, BAF. Life was "touch and go" there for Westport light/medium duty for awhile due to lack of sales in that market space.

I knew there was something odd about the GM/PSI announcement !

 

• 2012 Westport announced that it has entered into an additional agreement with General Motors.
• GM decides to go with Natural Drive (? ... from a "source")
• In 2013, Westport acquired BAF.
• In 2015 Westport "merged" with Impco
• 2016, GM dumps Westport/Impco and goes with PSI

 

Knowing some "details" that few other know, Ford could EASILY do their own Bi-Fuel CNG/petrol at much lower cost than any of the upfitters. They just don't want to spend the engineering dollars to get it certified by CARB and EPA.

Edited December 1, 2016 by theoldwizard

[7Mary3]

CNG market pretty strong in California (no surprise). Have not seen a diesel transit bus or refuse truck in years. No diesels allowed to work in the Port of L.A., only picking up and dropping of containers.

 

BAF. Don't get me started.........

 

CNG numbers work for certain fleets, primarily short distance and garaged at one location.

[lfeg]

Well I hope the hell they do. Full yr. '15, Class 7 was 59m units and class 6 was 56m. Is the 750 cab in the same league as the F'liner or Navistar class 7's? Not quite-but close. In particular when you compare say to the tractor P & D market where a driver is in the truck all day it probably would not be the cab of choice-and even at that, it's not a bad alternative-in particular when price becomes a factor in the decision.

 

In any case, for plenty of vocational markets, it certainly is viable as it is, if it had a better power train choice. And to those who insist it would be too expensive with say a Cummins/Allison power train, I say how did the utilities that I see running around here with Bluediamond 750's justify that combo in prior years?

 

IMO it is low hanging fruit that is being ignored. I don't think Ford is that dumb to ignore a market that is larger than class 6 and which is a market Ford should be viable in.

 

The problem as I see it, is that someone pitched the OAP trucks as being competitive in class 7 with the in house power train. Guess what-the sales results are showing the truck is NOT competitive with that in house combo. And while you are at it, add a tandem axle. Again, we are not talking about a 46,000 lb rear that someone is going to add a tag to, but rather say a 34-40 where weight laws dictate that a 23,000 lb single axle just won't cut it.

 

Time to move on and get some economies of scale out of the decision to bring the trucks to Ohio.

Maybe not a full tandem, but a tandem with a dead axle in front of a pusher, and/or a factory installed tag axle option. In the "baby 8" zone, this might be a way to offer a little less expense and a bit better fuel economy - what with the upcoming tightening GHG regs on medium and heavy trucks. Target the small and mid size fleets.

[lfeg]

You can bet on that.

 

So I'm a fleet manager.-and a loyal Ford guy. Am I going to issue a PO to my Chevy or Navistar dealer-and wait for my trucks to come in? Or sign a PO with my Ford dealer, then pick who I want to send the chassis to etc etc.then send them a PO, follow that etc etc.

 

Hopefully Ford will wake up

This is the reason the local transit agency is going with GM for cutaway based buses purchased for delivery in '17 - a turnkey propane installation with factory warranty and support. They were 100% Ford until the E Series dropped diesel, then went to GM. As diesel initial cost and maintenance cost has gone up, they decided all new purchases would be propane and went out for bids. Only GM offered a turnkey solution, and after having dealt with upfitters for CNG large buses, they wanted no more of that due to the constant " don't call me, call them" hassle. (by the way, in testing a few propane units, both operating and maintenance costs are substantially lower, enough that they can run a few more buses on the same budget)

[theoldwizard]

So I'm a fleet manager ...

But that is the whole point ! Why would any fleet manager be interested in CNG for Medium Duty applications ? It MUST be outside influences !

 

It took my a long time to understand Frito-Lay using LP and my answer is purely speculation. Besides the obvious "green" benefit (not that I have seen them advertising it) but The cost of LP fuel may be less than gasoline when it is purchased in very large quantities, LP companies have a fall off in demand during warmer months. If a customer has storage space for 4-6 months worth of fuel, their tanks could be filled during the "off season" at a lower price.

[theoldwizard]

CNG market pretty strong in California (no surprise).

It does ME !

 

Have not seen a diesel transit bus or refuse truck in years. No diesels allowed to work in the Port of L.A., only picking up and dropping of containers.

.

.

.

CNG numbers work for certain fleets, primarily short distance and garaged at one location.

Your last statement hits the nail squarely on the head, and there are many fleets like this, but I still find it hard it believe there is enough justification. If you are operating in a restricted area (Port of L.A.) where they CAN restrict things, it does make sense.

 

I wish I had kept the reference, but, IIRC, Waste Managements decision to go CNG was based on the idea that each truck would have an assigned parking spot. Each parking spot would have a high pressure, low volume NG connection. At the end of the day, each driver would hook up the hose and walk away. The rest of the fill process was down remotely. Supposedly, the cost savings of not doing a liquid fuel refill (moving trucks, etc) was enormous once the infrastructure was in place.

 

Again, I have no reference, so that may just be BS !

 

Internally, Ford barely acknowledges Medium Duty even exists. it is NOT a "career building" area of the company. MAYBE someone will wake up and see the F750 sales dying off and finally ask, "Why ?" I am not holding my breath,

Internally, Ford barely acknowledges even exists. it is NOT a "career building" area of the company. MAYBE someone will wake up

Edited December 2, 2016 by theoldwizard

[Bob Rosadini]

But that is the whole point ! Why would any fleet manager be interested in CNG for Medium Duty applications ? It MUST be outside influences !

 

It took my a long time to understand Frito-Lay using LP and my answer is purely speculation. Besides the obvious "green" benefit (not that I have seen them advertising it) but The cost of LP fuel may be less than gasoline when it is purchased in very large quantities, LP companies have a fall off in demand during warmer months. If a customer has storage space for 4-6 months worth of fuel, their tanks could be filled during the "off season" at a lower price.

Big 10-4 (as they used to say) on the "outside influences".I mentioned the 40 Petes at my old company-not a decision made by anyone with a handle on trucking economics. Someone on high liked the "green theme" as well as some perceived tax advantages.

 

Maybe not a full tandem, but a tandem with a dead axle in front of a pusher, and/or a factory installed tag axle option. In the "baby 8" zone, this might be a way to offer a little less expense and a bit better fuel economy - what with the upcoming tightening GHG regs on medium and heavy trucks. Target the small and mid size fleets.

Well there is nothing right now from keeping anyone from buying a 750 with a 23 rear and the heaviest frame option and putting a dead axle on it. "Paver special" is a term used around here for such a combo as traction is never an issue in the paving business. Its all about first cost and maximizing payload.

 

In fact, the "6 x 2" option (vs 6 x 4) is starting to make some headroads here in US while in Europe it is very popular now.

 

But for sure many vocational applications need the traction a live tandem offers so again, IMO easily done with current 750 IF it had a more attractive engine/trans option. Sure, the PS/ Torqueshift might satisfy some, but my guess is when getting into a gvw north of 35,000 lbs, that will not be the case with most buyers-in particular as far as the transmission goes. You can make the 6.7 work with a low axle ratio but I think the transmission will be the weak point.

[jpd80]

Year to date Medium Duty sales are up 58% to 13,417 sales

compared to 2015 with 8,444. So something is working....

Edited December 3, 2016 by jpd80

[lfeg]

Bob, I was thinking of the beverage hauler market. I see many tandem beverage tractors, and as they are never off the pavement a 6x2 would offer operating economies. Also P&D in industrial areas and delivery to stores from distribution centers. A friend worked for years in fleet maintenance for a grocery distribution center business, and for weight reasons they ran tandems, but as they were never off pavement the traction was never an issue. Between tire wear and the extra losses in a power divider and second differential there are savings.

[Bob Rosadini]

Year to date Medium Duty sales are up 58% to 13,417 sales

compared to 2015 with 8,444. So something is working....

correct-and its all class 6. And I would bet that the bulk of those class 6 sales are gas. Keep in mind, in a conventional class 6, if you want gas, Ford is the only game in town. As many on this thread have said, what we need is a bigger gas option for class 7.

 

Bob, I was thinking of the beverage hauler market. I see many tandem beverage tractors, and as they are never off the pavement a 6x2 would offer operating economies. Also P&D in industrial areas and delivery to stores from distribution centers. A friend worked for years in fleet maintenance for a grocery distribution center business, and for weight reasons they ran tandems, but as they were never off pavement the traction was never an issue. Between tire wear and the extra losses in a power divider and second differential there are savings.

Ifeg. Agree 100% on your point on the advantages of a dead axle. I think the biggest reason for avoiding them-at least in snow country-is the winter traction issue. Yes, you can lift the axle in snow conditions to transfer weight to the live axle but picture yourself in the middle of a snow storm and most delivery locations aren't plowed out yet-and you are pulling a tandem trailer-even with the axle raised you are what? 3" off the pavement? So now while you've transfered weight to the driver, the dead axle is now hung up in snow. Very early in my career, my company had bought a good number of single axle B-61s. Then there was another change in weight laws so someone decided we would convert them to tandems by adding the Page & Page system which was a dead axle with a large belt drive that ran off the dual spacer that in essence became a pulley. It was not long before these Macks were history.

 

But back to you point on beverage business, latest Ford ad I've seen features a 650/750 pulling a beverage box-like the typical drop frame with roll up side doors. In my area, the two big dogs (Coke and Pepsi) seem to do the convenience store, fast food trade with single axle tractors and single axle drop frames. Pepsi still runs a fleet of the old GMC class 7's, while Coke runs F'liners and Internationals. When it comes to the big box supermarkets, both seem to use five axles and conventional boxes as these are usually "back door" dock deliveries.

[7Mary3]

I have yet to see any F-750 tractors except in Ford promotional material.

[Bob Rosadini]

I have yet to see any F-750 tractors except in Ford promotional material.

Hey- go easy on them-at least they are doing an ad that makes sense-and I don't think they even referred to it as a vehicle for "towing"!

 

Don't think we will see ABF placing a big order for 750 P & D service!

[jpd80]

correct-and its all class 6. And I would bet that the bulk of those class 6 sales are gas. Keep in mind, in a conventional class 6, if you want gas, Ford is the only game in town. As many on this thread have said, what we need is a bigger gas option for class 7.

Thanks Bob, great to know what the score is with those sales, Ford looks to be

doing the minimum, using the V10 as a cheap and simple way to increase ROI.

 

Do you think diesel is less important to Ford in F650 & F750, should they just

present great gasoline (and CNG? ) engines and stick to that part of the segment?

Is there any sales purchase with the 6.7 Powerstroke or a larger diesel? (I-6 from Cargo?)

Edited December 3, 2016 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

Thanks Bob, great to know what the score is with those sales, Ford looks to be

doing the minimum, using the V10 as a cheap and simple way to increase ROI.

 

Do you think diesel is less important to Ford in F650 & F750, should they just

present great gasoline (and CNG? ) engines and stick to that part of the segment?

Is there any sales purchase with the 6.7 Powerstroke or a larger diesel? (I-6 from Cargo?)

No doubt the V-10 is doing a good job in capturing sales. But will Navistar soon be offering some competition in class 6 and 7 with another gas option?

 

As for diesel, while gas is an attractive alternative to the operator who does not run the annual mileage to offset the higher first cost, there are plenty of operators who can make the economic case for diesel-and /or need the power it provides if they are always operating at the max.

 

I hear you on the Cargo I-6 option. Like you many of us say,,"One Ford?". Some very knowledgeable posters say those Duratorque sixes need some mods to make it with our EPA rules but I can't believe it would not be a payout.

[7Mary3]

Remember that using the 6.7L in the 650/750 builds volume for that engine. I think the percentage of diesels in class 3-5 has been falling in recent years, so selling Powerstrokes in class 6/7 is important. As for the 6.7L Powerstroke, it is a competitive and comparable engine to the Cummins 6.7L, so I am not sure an additional diesel option is necessary, particularly considering Ford is content with good class 6 sales and a few class 7. I have said it before and I will say it again, the current 650/750 platform isn't competitive in higher weight classes, so why bother with a larger diesel?

[jpd80]

Remember that using the 6.7L in the 650/750 builds volume for that engine. I think the percentage of diesels in class 3-5 has been falling in recent years, so selling Powerstrokes in class 6/7 is important. As for the 6.7L Powerstroke, it is a competitive and comparable engine to the Cummins 6.7L, so I am not sure an additional diesel option is necessary, particularly considering Ford is content with good class 6 sales and a few class 7. I have said it before and I will say it again, the current 650/750 platform isn't competitive in higher weight classes, so why bother with a larger diesel?

From what I've observed, F250 is the most popular of the SDs, the F350 sells at about half that rate

and then 450 and 550 follow a similar reduction.

 

F250 is about 50/50 gas- diesel sales mix where F350 is about 25/75 mix to diesel and then 450

and 550 are pretty much exclusively diesel..... so in a good month, Ford sells about 14K diesels

 

A good month = 72K

F150 = 48K.......no diesel

F250 = 12K.....~6K diesel

F350 = 6K.......~4.5K diesel

F450 = 3K.......~3K diesel

F550 = 1K.......~1K diesel

 

I never realized the impact of those economics until I sat down and factored in just how many sales Ford made of diesel

and gas in SD, I think they need to so something about the 6.2's scales of economy, around 7,500 engines a month

could be expanded if Ford could rework the design to include the larger capacity required for the Medium Duty's

replacement, a 7.0 or more could be added to the F450 and up for more sales everywhere...

 

I'm hoping my logic is on the same page as that discussed here many times before.

 

The large I-6s from the Class 8 Cargo are brilliant engines that just need the next evolution

to US EPA, that would also help any future Euro/global emissions mandates too.

They make perfect sense if Ford wanted to add some balls to class 6 and 7.

Edited December 4, 2016 by jpd80

[Joe771476]

National Ford Club mag had this article: Not sure if someone already posted this. Another article says Roush is now installing propane conversions for F750's.. Meanwhile class 8 sales have been plunging two months in a row.

 

Ford's F-650/F-750 Sales Increase 59% - News - Work Truck

[Bob Rosadini]

Remember that using the 6.7L in the 650/750 builds volume for that engine. I think the percentage of diesels in class 3-5 has been falling in recent years, so selling Powerstrokes in class 6/7 is important. As for the 6.7L Powerstroke, it is a competitive and comparable engine to the Cummins 6.7L, so I am not sure an additional diesel option is necessary, particularly considering Ford is content with good class 6 sales and a few class 7. I have said it before and I will say it again, the current 650/750 platform isn't competitive in higher weight classes, so why bother with a larger diesel?

7M I must disagree with your last sentence. Like I said-we won't see ABF placing a big order for a bunch of P & D tractors but then again my comments are focused on getting incremental volume for 750-and to a lesser extent 650.. No argument the existing cab is NOT on the same level as say the F'liners or Paccar class 7s. But just how bad is it? And compare price?

 

Do people complain that a 550 is a horrible environment? I don't think so. And to those who insist everything is great because the numbers for "mediums" are up, that does NOT apply to 750-that is in a downward spiral and I'm convinced the lack of an alternative to the Power Stroke/ Duratorque is a key reason. I'm not saying the PS/DT is NOT a decent combo-but to many, the Power Stroke history remains a cloud and/or they just have a dim view of V-8s

 

Now I know I date myself but remember the old F-750, F-800, F-8000's of the late seventies? Alligator hoods and I would bet a lot less friendly environment than a current 750 cab. And there were plenty of fleets who bought those as a cost effective alternative to the Louisville.

 

And to those who continue to raise the thought that any other non-Ford combo will be "too expensive"- I continue to say-they weren't too expensive during the Blue diamond days were they? Putting the 6.7 Cummins/Allison combo back should be a piece of cake.

 

From what I've observed, F250 is the most popular of the SDs, the F350 sells at about half that rate

and then 450 and 550 follow a similar reduction.

 

F250 is about 50/50 gas- diesel sales mix where F350 is about 25/75 mix to diesel and then 450

and 550 are pretty much exclusively diesel..... so in a good month, Ford sells about 14K diesels

 

A good month = 72K

F150 = 48K.......no diesel

F250 = 12K.....~6K diesel

F350 = 6K.......~4.5K diesel

F450 = 3K.......~3K diesel

F550 = 1K.......~1K diesel

 

I never realized the impact of those economics until I sat down and factored in just how many sales Ford made of diesel

and gas in SD, I think they need to so something about the 6.2's scales of economy, around 7,500 engines a month

could be expanded if Ford could rework the design to include the larger capacity required for the Medium Duty's

replacement, a 7.0 or more could be added to the F450 and up for more sales everywhere...

 

I'm hoping my logic is on the same page as that discussed here many times before.

 

The large I-6s from the Class 8 Cargo are brilliant engines that just need the next evolution

to US EPA, that would also help any future Euro/global emissions mandates too.

They make perfect sense if Ford wanted to add some balls to class 6 and 7.

JPD- The big 13 L is Euro 6. Are you aware of what the 7.3 and 9 L are? Others have suggested they would need I believe at least new heads?

[jpd80]

And to those who continue to raise the thought that any other non-Ford combo will be "too expensive"- I continue to say-they weren't too expensive during the Blue diamond days were they? Putting the 6.7 Cummins/Allison combo back should be a piece of cake.

 

JPD- The big 13 L is Euro 6. Are you aware of what the 7.3 and 9 L are? Others have suggested they would need I believe at least new heads?

Ecortorque is actually different generations.

Generation 1 was introduced in 2003 as a 7.3 liter and basically anchored to Euro 1,2,3

Generation 2 was brought in from Fiat in 2012 as a stop gap measure, The 9 liter was a

more up to date engine to meet the increasing need for more power and better emissions.

Generation 3 was released early 2016 as a 13 liter in two power configurations (420/460 PS)

it's a completely different new engine with OHC valve gear....

 

Not sure what would be required to get the earlier 7.3 up to scratch with Euro 6 or US EPA but clearly,

in heavy trucks buying in an outside engine that fits the desired truck size performance is not beyond Ford.

I think the production line for the older Gen 1 engines was scratched in 2012 when Ford changes FIAT 9 liter.

Now that Frd has settled on the 13 liter in two power levels, don't think they are looking at any other engines

for their vocational truck range, when youre up around 41-44 tonne gross weight, you gotta have enough capacity.

Edited December 5, 2016 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Hey- go easy on them-at least they are doing an ad that makes sense ...

Unlike the ad showing a 4 door tractor hauling a beverage trailer !