RoadwayR

4 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

I have to disagree. Tyson was very pleased with their Ford HN80s, and many die-hard Ford fleets chased the HN80's trail and bought Sterlings....and still operate them today with a sense of pride.....as if they were Fords.

I wonder how the Ford built HN80's compared to the Freightliner built versions.     

I wouldn't doubt Louisville did build pool trucks before the medium/heavy line was dismantled.  I was told F-700's started coming from Mexico sometime in 1997.  I think Dallas and Mavis had the contract to haul them up from Mexico.  We didn't buy any of the Mexican built mediums until the Blue Diamond days.

Yes, heard the same story about Hebe and the creation of the separate Acterra franchise.   

1 hour ago, TS7 said:

Roadway true, but HN80 was to be class 6-8(new L series 1997 ). I saw a mockup of a L-6500 or L-7500 with a sloped hood in 1996. I think that there was never to be a new 1999 F-650 or F-750 back in 1996. The fools running Ford today cannot see that a larger cab for class 4-7 trucks would sell great, I hope I  am wrong. The 7.3 gas V-8 will sell big.

That was indeed the plan, there was to be a medium duty HN80 to replace the medium duty F series for the 1999 model year.  When Ford abruptly sold out the HN80 in 1997, they continued the medium duty F's for a couple more years.  Ford cleared out the medium/heavy line at Louisville and and brought up F-700's from Mexico.  Those trucks were junk, limited options, Cummins 5.9L only.  Freightliner eventually created what would have been the 1999 HN80 medium duty when they brought out the Acterra line.  In 2003 Ford stuck a Super Duty cab on the Mexican F-700 chassis for 2 years before giving up and letting Navistar build them a medium duty.

Regardless of who built them, HN80 was a pretty big disappointment.  Best way to describe them was a poor execution of a good design.  Even if Ford had not sold the design to Freightliner, I don't think they would have amounted to much.  I remember hearing horror stories from the fleets around here that ran Sterlings.  Rare to see one now. 

BTW- the really interesting HN80 was the long-nose line-haul conventional Ford was planning.  One was built, and it was shown only once.  I don't remember what truck show it was, but it was right before the Freightliner announcement.  Of course Freightliner didn't go through with it, they wanted Sterling to be a vocational line.  A friend of mine saw the truck in person.  Wonder whatever happened to it.  

7 hours ago, TS7 said:

Kscarbel you are right on cab size. I still think that the old Ford HN80 cab would have been a great on a class 4-7 truck for Ford.  

That was the plan, but..........

I like a larger cab on a medium duty truck.  However, I was told a lot of the market research indicated that many medium duty ruck users are concerned with overall cab height.  I imagine GM and NAV considered that along with the economies of using an existing pickup truck.  I know tow truck operators that didn't like the old Kodiak/TopKick 4500/5500 because they would not fit into many parking structures.   

3 hours ago, Maxidyne said:

The Bronco had superior off road performance to the Jeep and had options Jeep didn't even offer like a V8 engine.

Jeep did offer the AMC 304 in the CJ-5 Renegade in the early 70's, and the 304 continued as an option in both the CJ-5 and CJ-7 until 1979 or so.  They had a lot of power for their weight, and since all later AMC V-8's were the same dimensionally, it was easy to swap in a 360 or 401 in a CJ.  L.A.P.D. bought 100's of 401 Matadors, and when they started showing up in wrecking yards the Jeep guys were all over them!  The Bronco did have the 289 and 302, but swapping in even a 351 Windsor was tough because the deeper oil pan interfered with the front crossmember and the 351 was taller.  Someone eventually made a special oil pan and pickup as I remember.  Nonetheless, I think the first gen. Bronco had the CJ's and Scouts beat.  The K/5 Blazer was a different animal entirely, and I was sad to see Ford drop the original Bronco and replace it with a somewhat lame copy of the K/5.     

9 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

 

This is the scariest thing I have seen in a long time.  This guy's head is really in the clouds.  He is probably right about some of it, but what does he think Ford's role in future transportation really is?  Ford is a heavy manufacturing company, not a tech firm.  Seems like he wants Ford to be something it isn't, and no number of train stations and ancient factory-turned-creative-lofts are going to turn it into a tech firm.  Vehicles will still be needed, many will be BEV's and AV's, and someone will still need to build them.  The rest of it belongs to the Silicon Valley, and it's not like this guy came from there!  I really hope he surprises me and proves me wrong, but............         

7 hours ago, Red Horse said:

Huh?  You must be reading Motor Trend.  You Tube is full of Ranger reviews and I don't think I have read one that you could call critical. One that comes to mind felt the dash on the XLT package  had too much "hard plastic.  That is about it.  By and large I would say the consensus is THIS is the pick of the liter when it comes to small pick ups. 

You are correct that it is an "interim" vehicle with a new one coming in?? 2022??

I think it was 'Motor Trend', now that you mentioned it.  Maybe some pro-Tacoma websites too.  Saw the Ranger at the L.A. Auto Show, it looked nice but not really outstanding.  I hear it's 4 cylinder gas only (though turbocharged), and rumor is it's a real SOB to work on.  No diesel, no V-6 might hurt it, but I don't think those options are really necessary.  

Some of the first reviews and road tests have not been too complimentary, but I hear this Ranger is something of an interim vehicle.  An all-new Ranger is supposedly in the works. 

Otosan will probably go after the Venezuelan market next.  Of course they will have to lend them money to buy the trucks.......... 

I don't see any need at all for Navistar and Ford to have any sort of relationship regardless of how far the Ford/VW agreement goes.

Major points, more or less in order:

Ford and Navistar split for good over the 6.0L Powerstroke debacle.

Navistar has a joint venture with GM for medium duty truck production, and assembly of GM's cut-away van chassis models.  Likely more to come.

Navistar has a relationship with Traton (formally VW's truck group) for diesel engines and other components sharing and parts procurement.  Traton owns 17% of Navistar.  Will Traton ever buy more or all of Navistar?  Who knows.

VW is spinning off their truck unit, now know as Traton.  It will be a completely separate entity from VW cars, but VW Group will likely retain some ownership.

GM sold off all European operations to Peugeot, including JV van production.  GM is completely out of auto manufacturing in Europe (I think a good move).

VW (cars) and Ford:

Speculation on my part, but I think Ford wants out of auto manufacturing in Europe but not necessarily out of the European market.  VW could conceivably make this happen by taking over Ford's manufacturing in Europe and with car platform sharing between Ford and VW.  VW could get access to Ford's Transit van in Europe, and possibly the new Ranger in the U.S. and other markets.  I do not see this deal having anything to do with larger commercial trucks, only the Ranger and Transit. 

VW is scary.  It may well be the least efficient auto manufacture in the world.  It has too many plants and too many employees for the number of vehicles it produces.  In some respects it's a quasi-socialist organization owned and controlled to a large extent by the Government of Lower Saxony in Germany.  I think VW will do whatever it takes to survive and would gladly sacrifice Ford to do so.  I see this as potentially much worse than DaimlerChrysler.  

Will GM be the last U.S. owned auto manufacturer in a couple of years?  

And I suspect there will be more GM/Navistar joint venture trucks.

https://media-cf.assets-cdk.com/teams/repository/export/7f0/c40e0d000100580840050568b5709/7f0c40e0d000100580840050568b5709.pdf

My understanding is most all of this applies to the 4500 and 5500 as well.  I think some of the longer wheelbases are restricted to the heavier series trucks.  I think about all Chevy really needs to add to these trucks is a gasoline/CNG/LNG engine and 22.5" wheels for the 6500's.  Gas engine is reported to be coming for the 2020 model year.

Straight 34" frame rail spacing with nothing, not even a rivet head, protruding from the top of the rails.  Nothing hanging off the sides of the rails behind the cab.

I think the man said 7 different wheel bases.

Easy electrical interface for upfitter.

Rear air suspension a factory option.  This will get them a lot of ambulance, bus, and 'Super C' motorhome business.

DEF filler in right front fender.  Upfitter doesn't have to install one.

Many Allison transmission options.  They are all 2000 series, but specific calibrations for various vocations.

I liked the old 4500/5500 Kodiak, but this truck is a lot more competitive.  Looks like the price will be competitive too.  

I got a chance to see a Silverado 6500 2 weeks ago.  It's an impressive truck with some innovative features.  

11 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Bob, why does a US state have to source from an Austrian company? (however good AVL may be)

Not a single American company can meet CARB's requirements? 

Has US Inc.'s expertise portfolio sunken that low.

Why did Ford have to rely on an Austrian company to engineer their diesel?  Wait, forget I asked......... 

They should bring those to North America, I think there is a small but worthwhile market for them.

I am sure Isuzu's AMT is a fine transmission, but a torque converter as a big advantage off road.

Those 'Ram 6500' trucks were cobbled up by Chrysler Mexico around 1996.  They were not much more than the then-new 'BR' Ram cab stuck on the old 1974 D-600 chassis.  The 70's era D medium duty trucks went out of production in the U.S. at the end of 1977, but continued to be built in Mexico due to their popularity in that market.  There was some talk about bringing the big Ram to the U.S., but I think taxes and the lack of Chrysler dealers equipped to handle commercial trucks ended the idea.  No matter, the medium duty Rams were dropped in 1999.  Daimler didn't want Dodge competing with Freightliner.   

On 12/4/2018 at 2:21 PM, grayhair said:

Duh, obviously GM needs to hire a furniture man to head the company and move their HQ to an old railroad station.  Jeez.

You forgot the scooters.

I am really curious to see where this GM/Navistar thing leads.  I think there's potentially enough business for them to make both sides happy.  But, it's going to come at the expense of some other players in the field...........

I went to the L.A. Auto Show today, and Chevy had a 6500HD crew cab 2 yd. dump on display.  Yes, it does appear to be aimed squarely at the low profile F-650.  Looking at the frame and suspension components, it's clearly more truck than an F-550 or Ram 5500.  

Ram also had a nice 5500 4X4 crew cab flatbed there.  Ford didn't bring any commercial vehicles, but in their defense it really isn't the venue for work trucks.   

Well, if you want to get technical.....  The current Allison 1000 series transmission was developed by Allison when it was still owned by GM.  When GM spun off Allison, GM kept the 1000 series transmission, rights to the Allison name,  and the Baltimore plant it was produced in.  So, was the 1000 still really an Allison?  You decide.

This new heavy duty 10 speed is something of a mystery.  I do not believe it is the 10 speed light duty transmission that was co-developed by GM and Ford (and is now in some versions of the F-150).  Adding to the mystery is reports that Ford will also have an all new heavy duty 10 speed in the Super Duty next year replacing the current Torq-Shift 6.  That bit of news caught me by surprise, I thought the Torq-Shift 6 was a great transmission and has only been around 8 or so years.

Question:  Is GM's new 'Allison branded' 10 speed going to be related to Ford's new 10 speed? 

Makes sense.  I was figuring maybe NAV was unloading their defense business in order to facilitate a merge with Traton.  I remember when Renault's ownership of AMC reached a certain percentage they had to divest AMGeneral.

Why?  Unless:  I seem to remember there are certain DOD regulations regarding foreign ownership of defense contractors........  

Doesn't look any worse than some of the late model Lexus cars and SUV's!

You what is really crazy?  Between the Tundra and the class 3-4 Hino Toyota doesn't offer any class 3 conventional trucks.  No 3/4 or 1 ton pickups, no chassis-cabs.  Why?