New Light & Medium Duty News

[7Mary3]

Joe' 76 and the rest of you fire truck buffs. Saw today that Spartan Motors has purchased Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. who is Smeal? Never heard of them but according to one wire service this will put Spartan in top four of US fire service providers. Story also said that Spartan currently does 30 million a year in chassis sales to Smeal

 

Spartan Motors is also building a new assembly line for the class 6 Isuzu FTR.

[jpd80]

TwinT and JPD80. I wish guys I could share your enthusiasm for the Powerstroke/ Torqueshift combo but I'm afraid the huge gains in class 6 are largely due to the success of the V-10 as the only class 6 gasser available and as for class 7 the sales picture looks bleak. If someone has access to class 6 gas/diesel sales numbers, please share them. And whatever diesel 650s are out there, they again are 26,000 gvw.

 

But in class 7, as I've said before when you look at dealer inventories in the truck rags (Truck Buying Guide, TruckPaper etc) you won't find any 750's listed in inventory. Why is that? Not sure if I posted this thought on this site or another truck site, but in the old days, you could always find a selection of new LN-8000's, F-8000's set up with 6-8 yd. dump bodies. A popular contractor truck.

 

Today you still can find plenty of those 33,000 lb F.E.T. "cheaters"-but they are Petes, Internationals, KWs F'liners-even 238 Hino's. But no Fords

 

Wonder why?

Well Bob, from what I'm seeing, it looks like Ford is barely matching production to sales

so I suspect that's why you don't see much if any inventory.

 

As of the end of November, production of MDs stood at 14,129

While sales in the US alone was 13,417, the balance probably went to Canada and Mexico.

 

As we've said before, the lack of larger gas and diesel options limits the appeal of Ford's MDs.

They need that spark (kick in the ass) to do more and get more..

[Bob Rosadini]

.

Ford lost mucho $$$ in the Blue Diamond days...part of it was relying on outsourced engine/trans combos.

Well I don't know if they "lost" money because of Cummins/Allison sales-for sure with ANY outsourced component the opportunity for profit is diminished as your supplier has to get his share. Just like Paccar, Navistar etc "lose" that "profit" on any truck they sell with those outsourced components. But they DO get the sale.

 

But as I've said, price the truck accordingly, and IMO, Ford customers WILL pay the premium to maintain a Ford fleet. Check out the SD marketing videos pushing the 2017 SD. One of the featured industries/customers is a utility in the mid west. The fleet administrator talks all about how great these new SD's (class 3.4,5?) are but Ford marketing in a typical dumb move doesn't edit out the shots that have class 7 Navistar bucket trucks in the background. Think perhaps a Ford 750 would be a good fit in this fleet?

 

Again, all sorts of Bluediamond buckets/augurs here in New England. But no OAP trucks.

 

 

Spartan Motors is also building a new assembly line for the class 6 Isuzu FTR.

Should have commented that the Seeking Alpha release I got this info from was a press release in the UK and referred to the.."wholly owned subsidiary Spartan Motors USA Inc. So Spartan is not a US company??

 

Well Bob, from what I'm seeing, it looks like Ford is barely matching production to sales

so I suspect that's why you don't see much if any inventory.

 

As of the end of November, production of MDs stood at 14,129

While sales in the US alone was 13,417, the balance probably went to Canada and Mexico.

 

As we've said before, the lack of larger gas and diesel options limits the appeal of Ford's MDs.

They need that spark (kick in the ass) to do more and get more..

JP- To your first point-Trust me-there is plenty of inventory around here-but they are all 650's. Once the Cummins/ Allison combo was deleted-and prior to that the Cat engine options were deleted, all of a sudden the bar to entry into mediums for dealers was lowered as they no longer had to be certified to service those options. So we have all sorts of Ford car dealers who were certified to sell Power Stroke equipped 250-350 etc, now selling mediums. This of course on the one hand helps give the brand more marketing coverage, but also has to hurt the legitimate dealers who DID have qualified heavy/medium truck service people- as well as qualified sales people who know how to keep a buyer out of trouble,

 

Agree 100% with your last point. Incremental sales will help OAP's profitability. And plenty of buyers WILL I'm sure pay the premium for a power train they are familiar with and have confidence in. And I'm sure they will still save money on that Ford vs the Pete/KW/F'liner etc alternative with the same "premium" power train.

 

The handwriting is on the wall. Ford just doesn't want to read it IMO

[RichardJensen]

Ford customers WILL pay the premium to maintain a Ford fleet.

 

What would be the point of maintaining a "Ford fleet" if it involves buying Fords that have Cummins/Allison powertrains? Where's the efficiency there?

 

And regarding Ford's disregard of the Class 7/8 segment, you're aware that Ford also does not sell a minivan, right?

 

A smart business with finite resources prioritizes for the best profit opportunities. Ford has determined--and I see no reason to doubt them--that offering a 3rd party powertrain combo is not the most profitable use of their resources.

 

And before you respond by pointing out that you can't imagine why it would be difficult for Ford to implement a Cummins/Allison combo, bear in mind that you don't have all the facts at your disposal.

[hwyman3]

Joe' 76 and the rest of you fire truck buffs. Saw today that Spartan Motors has purchased Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. who is Smeal? Never heard of them but according to one wire service this will put Spartan in top four of US fire service providers. Story also said that Spartan currently does 30 million a year in chassis sales to Smeal

 

 

Smeal, I believe, has been around for a long time. Not sure what year they were founded. They don't sell much in my area (Mid-Atlantic) with the exception of a handful of Tankers, through their US Tanker brand.

 

Spartan is seeing the writing on the wall. As I said earlier, fewer of the apparatus manufacturers are building on chassis that they did not produce. Spartan was hit hard when Rosenbauer decided to manufacture it's own chassis. Prior to that, I believe Rosy was close to have of Spartan's chassis business. Couple of reasons I see fewer rigs built on a chassis not from the apparatus manufacturer, first being NFPA. With NFPA requirements today, it's much easier to just build a chassis from the ground up to be a fire engine. Second, many of the specs put out by major cities are requiring sole source manufacturers. Most of the buyers don't want to get in the middle of the finger pointing for warranty claims. "Oh it's a chassis problem, you have to talk to that chassis' manufacturer." About the only rigs I see anymore built on a commercial chassis is tankers, usually Kenworth or Peterbilt. I have seen a couple Internationals, but not many.

 

I wonder how long Spartan will continue to supply chassis to the smaller apparatus builders. The biggest thing Spartan is getting in the Smeal purchase is Ladder Tower Co. This is the old LTI that was one of the big names in arial apparatus that was owned by American La France, until that company finally closed for what will probably be the final time.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

 

Smeal, I believe, has been around for a long time. Not sure what year they were founded. They don't sell much in my area (Mid-Atlantic) with the exception of a handful of Tankers, through their US Tanker brand.

 

Spartan is seeing the writing on the wall. As I said earlier, fewer of the apparatus manufacturers are building on chassis that they did not produce. Spartan was hit hard when Rosenbauer decided to manufacture it's own chassis. Prior to that, I believe Rosy was close to have of Spartan's chassis business. Couple of reasons I see fewer rigs built on a chassis not from the apparatus manufacturer, first being NFPA. With NFPA requirements today, it's much easier to just build a chassis from the ground up to be a fire engine. Second, many of the specs put out by major cities are requiring sole source manufacturers. Most of the buyers don't want to get in the middle of the finger pointing for warranty claims. "Oh it's a chassis problem, you have to talk to that chassis' manufacturer." About the only rigs I see anymore built on a commercial chassis is tankers, usually Kenworth or Peterbilt. I have seen a couple Internationals, but not many.

 

I wonder how long Spartan will continue to supply chassis to the smaller apparatus builders. The biggest thing Spartan is getting in the Smeal purchase is Ladder Tower Co. This is the old LTI that was one of the big names in arial apparatus that was owned by American La France, until that company finally closed for what will probably be the final time.

Thx for the education. And for sure I hear you on the NFPA as well as the pissing contests that ensue when problems arise and everyone starts covering their butts with finger pointing. Not a firefighter but should I say I have an interest in fire trucks? In particular Ford C-models! Probably the most popular commercial chassis ever? One of my old uncles in Conn. took a volunteer department to paid status with 534 Ford Cs

 

also it was always my understanding that when the days of riding on the back step were gone, together with the need for seats that accomodated SCBA, those two "nails" really sealed the commercial option-with perhaps the exception as you say, the tanker market-or brush trucks?

 

As for Rosy, can't say that I ever really heard of them until Joe'76 started posting stuff on them. Well lo and behold my tax dollars will soon be going to them as my town has one on order that is getting close to delivery. A 4 WD pumper at that. As a "call" department, and with a lot of long gravel common drives in town, I hope these guys don't get a false sense of security. Normal winter? no problem-two years ago? about 140" of snow. 4 wd is great-as long as the wheels can make contact with the ground!

[Bob Rosadini]

 

What would be the point of maintaining a "Ford fleet" if it involves buying Fords that have Cummins/Allison powertrains? Where's the efficiency there?

Well I suppose first and foremost the dealer relationship?.. The commonality of certain cab components? lighting/lenses/bulbs? Seating? Mirrors? Often its the "nickel dime stuff" that creates problems

 

And regarding Ford's disregard of the Class 7/8 segment, you're aware that Ford also does not sell a minivan, right?

 

And your point? Class 8? Don't plow that ground-I'm looking for something that will keep Ford from taking last place in class 7. Same cab? Same frames? Same axles? same wheel equipment? Yes-same inventory that would go into a 750 that obviously no one wants at 33,000 or 37,000 lb GVW with existing power trains.

 

A smart business with finite resources prioritizes for the best profit opportunities. Ford has determined--and I see no reason to doubt them--that offering a 3rd party powertrain combo is not the most profitable use of their resources.

 

Ah I see-so Ford knows all? No need for discussion here? Guess what-I disagree. Having bought many Ford trucks, Having been flown on a Ford plane to KTP, Having the KTP plant manager visit me in my office I think I understand the corporate mindset. Think there are truck people -make that people who know class 6,7 and 8 trucks calling the shots today at Ford? I don't think so- here today, gone tomorrow. As one of our frequent (and knowledgeable Ford annuitant) posters has frequently pointed out, not a part of the company that gets a lot of attention. And I would have to say, back when I was dealing with them, they WERE in the big truck business, and there were career truck people involved

 

And before you respond by pointing out that you can't imagine why it would be difficult for Ford to implement a Cummins/Allison combo, bear in mind that you don't have all the facts at your disposal.

 

Been around trucks and heavy equipment all my life. Still own and operate a class 8 truck. My circle of associates consists of similar people. I say putting another power train in a 750 is a piece of cake.

In any case good to see your post- I miss your caustic style

[hwyman3]

Thx for the education. And for sure I hear you on the NFPA as well as the pissing contests that ensue when problems arise and everyone starts covering their butts with finger pointing. Not a firefighter but should I say I have an interest in fire trucks? In particular Ford C-models! Probably the most popular commercial chassis ever? One of my old uncles in Conn. took a volunteer department to paid status with 534 Ford Cs

 

also it was always my understanding that when the days of riding on the back step were gone, together with the need for seats that accomodated SCBA, those two "nails" really sealed the commercial option-with perhaps the exception as you say, the tanker market-or brush trucks?

 

As for Rosy, can't say that I ever really heard of them until Joe'76 started posting stuff on them. Well lo and behold my tax dollars will soon be going to them as my town has one on order that is getting close to delivery. A 4 WD pumper at that. As a "call" department, and with a lot of long gravel common drives in town, I hope these guys don't get a false sense of security. Normal winter? no problem-two years ago? about 140" of snow. 4 wd is great-as long as the wheels can make contact with the ground!

 

 

Rosy has been a major player in Europe for years, they bought a couple of smaller manufacturers here in the US to expand here. Around here, Pierce is the big one, however Rosy is making inroads. Some houses that were all Pierce have been buying Rosy.

 

I, too, miss the old Ford C-Series chassis Engines. It was one of the most popular choices for a chassis around here. The other was the old Mack CF. While it would be good to see Ford bring back a modern C-Series, I'm not sure there is enough demand to warrant the expense. For example, for years, pretty much your only choice for an Ambulance was a Ford E-Series cutaway with a box on the back. Even when Ford dragged EMS into Diesel kicking and screaming back in 1988, pretty much they were E-Series chassis. Fast forward to today, The PowerStroke since the 6.4 wouldn't fit in the E-Series, so when International finally stopped building the 6.0, Ford would only provide Gas engined E-Series. Since Chevrolet was the only ones putting a diesel in the van cutaway, they inherited what was left of the van based Ambulance market. Many departments went to either International or Frieghtliner, but those that didn't want something that big (and personally, they are too big) went Chevrolet. Now, Chevy has stopped building the cutaway with the Duramax. Even though they had a captive market, it wasn't enough to justify the expense. Same thing with the GM Mediums of the 2000s. Those chassis were very popular in this area for Ambulances. That wasn't enough demand for GM's Mediums to survive the bankruptcy. Basically your choices for an Ambulance chassis anymore is F-Series, Ram, International or Freightliner. I have only seen a handful of F-650s used for Ambulances.

[RichardJensen]

In any case good to see your post- I miss your caustic style

Thanks.

 

Hope you know I don't mean anything personal by it!! You're a good guy. At least as far as I know

 

Anyway, I guess what it generally boils down to for me is that Ford has facts that aren't at our disposal, and they're not predisposed to leave easy money on the table.

 

Yeah class 7/8 is not a priority for them, but by that same token, why would they go to the hassle of keeping Class 6/7 product, relocating production to OHAP, and evaluating the market to the extent of offering a 250,000 mile warranty, without fully exploring the Cummins/Allison option?

 

I mean a big decision like that, I guess I assume they had just about every feasible option on the table from dropping the whole program to going all-in with entries right up into Class 8 OTR (well, maybe not that far). That's what big orgs do.

 

Now maybe someone somewhere along the line with an ax to grind skewed the Cummins/Allison numbers, but it's also a fact that other mfrs are kind of moving away from 3rd party powertrains so maybe--generally speaking--they know something we don't?

 

Shoot. There's the report that Cummins has been having difficulty meeting emissions for Class 2-3, with tightening regs in 4-8, maybe there's concern about the cost of running Cummins engines in the mid term?

 

I'm just throwing stuff out there. I assume there was a definite reason why Cummins/Allison was ruled out and Ford is generally well enough run that I also assume it was a valid one.

[jpd80]

An then there's this from Truck info:-

LINK

Low gasoline prices continue to boost the popularity of gasoline engines. Ram Truck sales, which go to Class 5,

have swung toward gasoline, says Dave Sowers, head of Ram Commercial Trucks. “We were 90% diesel until

we introduced the 6.4L commercial-grade Hemi engine, and now we’ve been able to increase the gas engine

mix up to about a third. It has cylinder deactivation to four cylinders, called MDS, for multiple displacement system,

which increases fuel efficiency under light load and PTO running.”

 

It’s similar at Ford, which also competes in all classes, including 6 and 7. “The gas engine has been a huge

success for us from towing companies to landscaping and tree care,” says Kevin Koester, medium-duty truck

and Super Duty fleet marketing manager. “There is a lot of interest in a powertrain that removes the upfront cost

of a diesel and helps keep maintenance down. Let’s face it, diesel emissions equipment needs to be maintained

and has an impact on the duty cycle of a vehicle.”

 

Which kind of backs up everything Bob has been saying about Ford in class 6 but with that,

has Ford hit on a niche that wants to avoid both the up front and on-going maintenance costs

associated with diesels and cut to the chase of earning a buck with a lower cost base.

 

I wonder how far those roots go, what sort of market penetration is possible in class 6,

has Ford maxed out demand or is there more room to grow gasoline sales...

[theoldwizard]

Yeah class 7/8 is not a priority for them, but by that same token, why would they go to the hassle of keeping Class 6/7 product, relocating production to OHAP, and evaluating the market to the extent of offering a 250,000 mile warranty, without fully exploring the Cummins/Allison option?

 

This has been answered repeatedly. Simply put, F650/750 with a Ford Powertrain is a (very ?) profitable product. Minimal engineering cost and minimal tooling costs. Plus it fulfilled a promise made to the UAW.

[jpd80]

This has been answered repeatedly. Simply put, F650/750 with a Ford Powertrain is a (very ?) profitable product. Minimal engineering cost and minimal tooling costs. Plus it fulfilled a promise made to the UAW.

Another example of Ford playing in the shallow end of the pool where everything is nice and safe?

 

I'm intrigued with the notion that an even bigger gasoline / CNG engine that could be more low hanging fruit,

I wonder how or if Ford has really considered that option, or does that possibility still elude them?

Edited December 21, 2016 by jpd80

[twintornados]

I know I have beat this drum many many times, but if Ford re-designs the head for an Ecotorq for stricter emissions compliance for other markets, would would be the harm, or added cost, of sliding that redesigned 9.0L Ecotorq with an Eaton trans (would 6L140 be able to hold up behind that motor?) into an F750?

Ford already uses Eaton in their Turkish truck lines.

 

I personally think that while 6.7L Powerstroke is fine in F650, but it is a stretch to put it in F750 without an increase in size.

Edited December 21, 2016 by twintornados

[RichardJensen]

This has been answered repeatedly. Simply put, F650/750 with a Ford Powertrain is a (very ?) profitable product. Minimal engineering cost and minimal tooling costs. Plus it fulfilled a promise made to the UAW.

 

Right! If Cummins/Allison projected to be more profitable, as profitable, or significantly net profitable based on incremental volume, I expect they would've done it. They knew what that powertrain cost, they know what it costs to build these things, etc.

[jpd80]

I know I have beat this drum many many times, but if Ford re-designs the head for an Ecotorq for stricter emissions compliance for other markets, would would be the harm, or added cost, of sliding that redesigned 9.0L Ecotorq with an Eaton trans (would 6L140 be able to hold up behind that motor?) into an F750?

 

Ford already uses Eaton in their Turkish truck lines.

 

I personally think that while 6.7L Powerstroke is fine in F650, but it is a stretch to put it in F750 without an increase in size.

The 9 liter Ecotorq doesn't exist any more, that second gen engine was a buy in from Fiat,

a get through until Ford developed its own Gen 3 13 liter I-6 in the current Cargo.

Ford was forced to go up in size due to the GVM and expectations in Class 8 trucks

 

The 13 liter in a 7 class would be a bit over kill but most certainly allow the F750 to move up in GVM.

Edited December 21, 2016 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

Thx guys- all good responses to my "rant". Agree first and foremost the 650/750 move to OAP was a bargaining chip with UAW. And I'm sure the sailing orders were..."do it as economically as possible". And for sure the in house power train does have huge economic benefits. But the class 7 sales are in the trash can and again, the lack of an alternative to the Power Stroke/Torqueshift-or gas limited to the V-10- has to be the reason IMO.

To use JPD's phrase-additional power trains will bring about low hanging fruit sales.

 

and don't forget the impact of the VW buyin of Navistar. Not sure what VW/Scania has for mid range power, but as Navistar took the step of offering midrange Cummins power over their own engines last year to appeal to a broader market, they won't hesitate to add whatever VW brings to the table. I would think it won't be long before Cummins is knocking on Ford's door instead of the other way around.

[RichardJensen]

I would think it won't be long before Cummins is knocking on Ford's door instead of the other way around.

 

Exactly! If the parameters change, then reconsider the decision!

[7Mary3]

I don't see any reason why Ford would consider the Cummins 6.7L for the F-650/750, the 6.7L Powerstroke is a comparable engine in every respect. I believe but cannot confirm the Powerstroke and Cummins have the same GVW/GCW and frontal area restrictions, so what is the point of adding the 6.7L Cummins to Ford's option list? Navistar went with the 6.7L Cummins to replace their (horrible) MaxForce 7. Now if Ford were to move up into 'real' class 7 territory, something like the 9L Cummins would be needed, but then again I believe the rest of the truck would not be competitive with current Freightliner and International class 7 offerings.

 

Would Cummins like to sell engines to Ford? Of course they would. Would it be wise for Ford to buy them? I say not at the present time. The F-650 is doing well in it's present configuration, and I think the key to it's success is the fact that it is the lowest priced class 6 on the market. That is the low hanging fruit, Ford got into the market using components they already had in production! Unfortunately (according to some) that means we won't be seeing medium duty F's in fire service towing aerials, or tandem axle class 7's, or over-the-road tractors (I think the Allied Van Lines guy in the promotional video was a tad daffy!). You know, if you go back to 1948 and look at what Ford did with the then-new F-7 and F-8's, you will see some striking similarities to the 650/750 program of today.

[jpd80]

I read that VW was hoping to bring MAN through the door to Naviatar, especially if it starts buying up big chunks of Navistar.

 

My next question from there would be, where does this leave Cummins and would it then be more conducive

to seek an arrangement with Ford to really press more class 6 and 7 products..

[theoldwizard]

Another example of Ford playing in the shallow end of the pool where everything is nice and safe?

 

I'm intrigued with the notion that an even bigger gasoline / CNG engine that could be more low hanging fruit,

I wonder how or if Ford has really considered that option, or does that possibility still elude them?

CONCUR ! Any encounter I have with Ford Powertrain Engineers (less and less these days) I ask about anything that might replace the 3V V10 in Class 6 & 7 and most people just look at me like I grew an extra head !

 

 

One message that Alan Mulally told Bill Ford, was he could make Ford Motor Company a profitable company once again, but it would be a SMALLER company. Every corporate level strategic move since then, including everything Mark Fields ("Mark, don't screw thing up !") has done, has been carefully thought through to minimize risk and maximize profit.

 

 

One simple case in point. Ford could have left the current products at Michigan Assembly and used the mostly, still empty, Wayne Assembly plant to build Ranger/Bronco. Moving Focus, etc to Mexico will be expensive, but it will pay back in a relatively short period of time.

 

 

I am as frustrated as the rest of you in the fact that Ford is not going after the obvious "low hanging fruit" in the Class 6 & 7 gasoline engine market. The only thing that I can think of that they could do quickly (and with low engineering and tooling cost) is a electric-turbo charger on the existing V10. Electric motor to spin it up quick from idle and then let the exhaust turbine take over once the gases are flowing. This would have limited benefit because of octane limitation, unless other changes were made to the fuel system like water-methanol injection. The other possibility that fleets would like reject, is optimizing such an engine to run on E85. I don't know about the rest of the country, but E85 sells for MORE $/gallon around SE MI, and is NOT easy to find, so that kind of kills that idea.

 

Long term, this will kill any real attempt for Ford to penetrate Class 7 (as others have already noted).

Edited December 22, 2016 by theoldwizard

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Exactly! If the parameters change, then reconsider the decision!

 

 

I read that VW was hoping to bring MAN through the door to Naviatar, especially if it starts buying up big chunks of Navistar.

 

My next question from there would be, where does this leave Cummins and would it then be more conducive

to seek an arrangement with Ford to really press more class 6 and 7 products..

RJ,JPD,

Checked with my "Euro source"-Man has a 4.5L 4 banger with HP/ torque ranges of 150 HP-416pd.ft to 220HP-620pd.ft and a 6cyl at 6.9L with 250HP-737pd.ft to 340 HP-900pd.ft

 

Both engines are Euro 6 which I do believe meet our current EPA standards??

 

 

CONCUR ! Any encounter I have with Ford Powertrain Engineers (less and less these days) I ask about anything that might replace the 3V V10 in Class 6 & 7 and most people just look at me like I grew an extra head !

 

 

One message that Alan Mulally told Bill Ford, was he could make Ford Motor Company a profitable company once again, but it would be a SMALLER company. Every corporate level strategic move since then, including everything Mark Fields ("Mark, don't screw thing up !") has done, has been carefully thought through to minimize risk and maximize profit.

 

 

One simple case in point. Ford could have left the current products at Michigan Assembly and used the mostly, still empty, Wayne Assembly plant to build Ranger/Bronco. Moving Focus, etc to Mexico will be expensive, but it will pay back in a relatively short period of time.

 

 

I am as frustrated as the rest of you in the fact that Ford is not going after the obvious "low hanging fruit" in the Class 6 & 7 gasoline engine market. The only thing that I can think of that they could do quickly (and with low engineering and tooling cost) is a electric-turbo charger on the existing V10. Electric motor to spin it up quick from idle and then let the exhaust turbine take over once the gases are flowing. This would have limited benefit because of octane limitation, unless other changes were made to the fuel system like water-methanol injection. The other possibility that fleets would like reject, is optimizing such an engine to run on E85. I don't know about the rest of the country, but E85 sells for MORE $/gallon around SE MI, and is NOT easy to find, so that kind of kills that idea.

 

Long term, this will kill any real attempt for Ford to penetrate Class 7 (as others have already noted).

As to an "electric turbocharger"-does that make it a "supercharger" ?-what about moving the location of the turbo as was done with the 6.7 to cut lag? KISS formula must start applying at some point I would think.

 

As for E85 I believe the ethanol lobby should start looking over their shoulder. When the Renewable Fuel standards came out I said.."Buy John Deere stock"- I didn't -but everything I have read says the Trump Admin has other views about ethanol.

[bzcat]

The "low hanging fruit" for Ford may not be Class 7... There could be even lower hanging fruits - for example, putting some plastic cladding on C-Max and selling it as a CUV instead of a miserable tall wagon. Or replacing the DCT in Focus with 6F25 and adding 1.5 Ecoboost like Ford already did in all other markets.

 

The point it Ford is a big company and the low hanging fruit in one segment of a market doesn't necessarily mean it is a true low hanging fruit in terms of capital or labor deployment required to make it happen.

 

Assuming the capital investment for adding Cummins/Allison in F750 is the same as adding 1.5 Ecoboost and 6F25 in Focus (surely a false premise because 1.5EB+6F25 requires no new engineering and are existing Ford drivetrain), which will result in higher profit? WE DON'T KNOW. That's why Richard keep saying we don't have the necessary facts to say this is a low hanging fruit.

 

Yes, it appears Ford is not that interested in competing in Class 7. But remember F-650 was a product of convenience borne by labor agreement. Ford probably doesn't consider it a core essential product. If Ford has decided to not invest in Focus in North America, I don't think the math will work out for a non-core product like F-650. But I'm totally just guessing... because we don't know.

Edited December 22, 2016 by bzcat

[Joe771476]

If Ford abandons medium duty, they lose credibility in class 2 thru 5. Furthermore, if they do drop 6/7, Ram (FCA)will probably venture into it, giving Ram even further market penetration in 2 thru 5 as they already outperform Ford in this segment already. Quite frankly they must be giving trucks away. Ford won't be selling cars in the future as we/they know it now, because these millenials don't want to drive. And everybody's a car mfr. now...Tesla, Google. Tesla by the way has apparently caught Daimler, PACCAR, Navistar/VW (sad huh) off guard with their electric Class 8 tractor sleeper cab that goes 800 miles on a charge. In order for Ford to gain credibilty in class 7, they have to go into Class 8. Maybe they should shake it up and go into a joint venture with Tesla! If not, then at least everything in class 8 EXCEPT sleeper cabs.I see too many firms with Ford Class 2 thru 5 trucks AND Class 6 and 7 Ford trucks. Once you break that loyalty, you give future sales away to the competition. They already did it in 1997, and a lot of municipalities and private sector firms realized there were other makes out there when they had to shop for heavy trucks! This was especially true when CT DOT started buying Freightliners for the first time and at the time Daimler owned Dodge/Ram and all of a sudden I was seeing CT DOT Dodge class 2 thru 5 trucks for the first time in my life! Except for Class 8, Ford is the only thing close to a full-line producer. Remember, Daimler(Freightliner/Mercedes) have no class 1 thru 5 trucks.....yet! Ford must know all this or they wouldn't have continued 6/7 after the dissolution of Blue Diamond.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Joe771476

[J-150]

.

Edited December 24, 2016 by J-150

[CurtisH]

Tesla by the way has apparently caught Daimler, PACCAR, Navistar/VW (sad huh) with their electric Class 8 tractor sleeper cab that goes 800 miles on a charge.

All I've seen on this subject is that Tesla is planning to unveil this sometime next year. If they are just unveiling it next year, production is probably 2-3 years beyond that. I'm not sure Tesla will be around that long.

 

I can't comment on the rest of your statements. They sound reasonable, but I have no experience with this market.