Red Horse

I must be dense. Just what does the following say: In the heavy Cargo range, Ford Otosan has been offering the 10.3-liter Fiat Powertrain Technologies (FPT) Cursor 10 found in Iveco trucks. Following last years announcement (below), we learned that Ford Otosan will produce the 11.1-liter Cursor 11 and 12.9-liter Cursor 13 under license in Turkey (The Cursor 11 replaces the Cursor 10). For the JMC-Ford joint venture to find success in China’s heavy truck market, they would have to build these FPT engines in China. Ford Otosan is to invest US$ 100 million in the production of the new 11-liter and 13-liter Ecotorq engines. The intellectual property rights of the engines, designed by Ford Otosan engineers, belong to Ford Otosan. The new Ecotorq engines that will be manufactured at Euro 6 emission standards, are expected to have wide use including heavy commercial vehicles as well as industrial and marine applications. In first paragraph, clearly states these are FPT engines that are being built under license in Turkey. Second paragraph talks about "intellectual property rights"... designed by Ford Otosan engineers" ...that.."belong to Ford Otosan". What am I missing-they didn't design anything-they are building Fiat Power under license! Also, just how close does this guy Marchione want to FPT to be involved with any Ford re entry into heavy trucks? I assume FPT is NOT a spin off and is in fact under Chrysler/Fiat control???

Looking Good!! Is that a new Transit off to the side?

Any id on who owned it? I think Getty had some 358's. DM's were the more popular city spec chassis in the 70's.

I do believe that is NOT an airport refueler but is rather a 3000 gallon NYC spec gasoline hauler. back in the era when NYFD ruled the roost on petroleum delivery in the boroughs. 3000 gal was max on gasoline. Steel tank, chassis was restricted to a few manufacturers as for example all wiring underhood had to be in BX etc etc. tank and valves by the way was single sourced. Talk about a good deal.

I read a press release (I believe it was Nissan's ) and in my opinion it was in essence a less than positive . Referred to the Cummins option as a more "cost effective" or words to that effect option vs other pick up diesel options that were more geared toward commercial operations. Hmnn-that says "throw away motor" to me. ie-"want a diesel with guts?- get a PS, Duramax or Dodge 6.7! If you don't need longevity, we have the option for you"!

"King of Salvage" Good source. Not a lot of stock but I've bought from him before with good luck. Always worth checking to see what chuck has.

10-4 on all the comments on spokes. And for sure, how often do you see a "lightweight" with spokes! That is a rare beast-to say nothing of a 237 in that long hood!

Just to make you feel at home, a shot of Rick's milling machines. As for the reclaimer, I don't think there are many outfits that use a machine of this size on residential work but they do. One of my kids has a house that is one of 4 on a common drive- probably about 500/600 feet long. He and his three neighbors agreed on need for a repaving job and most bidders were going to rip up old asphalt and replace base with new asphalt-old school. Lazaro brought in that reclaimer and eliminated the off site trucking. Most cost effective bid.

Ok Tim, time for an education. Attached Wirtgen is what I call a reclaimer. True? I assume this is just a more expensive "purpose built" unit vs the Cat in your picture that looks like it has "loader components"?? This unit belongs to Lazaro Paving, Shirley MA

I do believe Matt you are correct. Intended for the bulk hauling industry. I think the early ones were built in California (Hayward) when that plant was functioning.

Very nice. IMO, the 53-55's were a timeless design. If you showed a "civilian" a new F-650 and the 53-55 F-6 00, and asked him to guess difference in ages, my guess is he/she would not come close that there is over 60 years between the two. The 56 with the wrap around windshield was almost a step backwards-and I guess that given the fact the wrap around look only lasted 4 years I guess it was!

Matt-hmnn, I like that "427" license plate

Thx I guess I should start by cleaning the cylinder to confirm weep is on the rod vs end cap.

Nice-looks like aan early spring/winter scene-still have it? No visible rust! Wow-"dealer spec book"-Good info. I was of the belief that the 363 was available across the board in C series- Blackdog-Adley Express before you were born- C model straight job P & D units! OD- tried to open-only thing I got was about four pictures-I'm not a Facebook person so maybe that is a restriction?

So these packings are available as a "generic" product-just spec rod diameter? Matt, I don't think anyone uses a tankless system today..correct me if I'm wrong-and like I said originally- think this hoist is of 1956 vintage. No clue as to who made it

Guys- thx for your comments- I hate the thought of pulling that heavy unit out. I assume those big lugs on that end cover are used for spinning off? Gearhead- you saying just the packing nut? Or the end cover too. EJ- Let me tell you about Galion/Godwin. As I was going to utilize the old hoist, I contacted them and asked for a drawing of the box. When the body was delivered I get under it (its at my pal's shop sitting on a heavy 4 wheel platform cart about 3' off ground- perfect) Drawing does not come close to "as built". In any case after a lot of measuring I come up with what needs to be done to modify and we do it and success-it goes up and comes down-flat!

Guys I need some opinions. My '56 B-61X has the original dump hoist on it. No clue as to brand but I have top believe it was installed when chassis was new. A couple of years ago I installed a new 6/8 yard galion but kept the hoist. As you can see it is old school with no separate oil reservoir-everything is contained in the hoist cylinder. Problem is it leaks. I have tried tightening that big packing nut on end but that doesn't seem to help. Someone has suggested there is probably a big gasket on that end plate. Any thoughts?

Well you made me dig out my "Ford Trucks since 1905" by J K Wagner. Great book. I could only find record of 6V-53's being offered in F and T series from 67 on. In any case, that super clean red T that OtherDog posted doesn't have raised roof so it is a pre 66. And for sure Wagner only lists the V-6 Cummins and the C-160/C-180 6 cyl Cummins.

EJ-never understood that trans choice. Big George or Ed W?

ODog-you sure about that Detroit? to best of my knowledge, early 60's Super Duty diesel options were either the 200 HP Cummins V-6, or the Cummins C-180 (464 cu in 6) In any case , mint SD!

Very nice-solves the back seat driving issue!

My two cents on this, the TRXL 107 had a direct (1st) ratio of 8.59 and a a low hole ratio of 14.10. The TRXL 1071 had the same first reduction of 8.59 but the low hole ratio was 23.08. This made it very difficult to start out in the hole and progressively shift and maintain road speed. One alternative with the 1071 if you are off road or want to start a heavy load and progressively shift is to start in 2nd with the splitter in "low" then shift to first direct. Somehow I came upwith the formula that 23.08/8.59= 2.686. Or 8.59 x 2.686 = 23.07 So as 2nd in that trans has a ratio of 4.99 direct, if you take off with the splitter in low you have an effective ratio of 4.99 x 2.686 or 13.37 therefore going from 2nd low (13.37) to 1st direct gives you a nice prgressive jump from 13.37 to 8.59. I can tell you, driving a 1071 this way works in terms of a nice easy no strain start. I have asked many "experts" if driving the 1071 this way woud be harmful and can't get a straight answer. In terms of splitting higher gears, no clue but driving it this way makes it an effective 6 speed with a Maxidyne/Econodyne. IMO

Nice-howabout a picture of the F-850. 4-5 yard body on a 534 powered 850 is about half a load! In my youth I pulled out of a quarry in Conn and local ready-mix outfit had an F-1000, 534 powered. Single axle that had a 10' box with about a 10 yard water level body. Level load of 3/4 stone in that truck was about 15 ton payload

F series made its debut in 1948. I learned how to drive a "non-syncro" in a 48 F-5. Ex State of Conn Highway dump. I'm a 16 year old kid and my mason contractor uncle gives me the five minute driver training speech and I'm off on my first load. Had trouble upshifting! As he explained to me on second trip- "dummy-you only touch the gas when DOWNSHIFTING"!

No, the 65 had an "Egg Crate" grill. the truck Randy pictured is a 61- first year of the new style cab.