Red Horse

He will be back as he is dealing with a tough loss-keep him in your thoughts.

Seems to me Nikola doesn't have a prayer with respect to their suit - what is unique? It is a basic shape-

Well I think the only thing they should really get rid of is Hackett!. As for 650/750 I thought for sure they would be gone given their inattention to the segment-at least IMO. But in one of the press releases this week, "commercial vehicles" were identified as a key market. Having said that, as many commercial customers run the full range of trucks-and for sure if not class 8, class 1 through 6 and 7 for sure- I don't believe they can afford to drop 650/750. For example, look at the utilities. For sure a range from class 1 to 7-with a few class 8's thrown in. Now if you follow medium duty on the BON site-as RoadwayR does- there are plenty of posters who think they are doing just fine selling their internally sourced 650/750 and have no need for alternative power trains beyond the PowerStroke/Torqueshift combo. I disagree. Hopefully a stated recognition of the importance of commercial vehicles will wake them up to the need for more options that will make the trucks more attractive.

Well the good news is you did not try driving it to the breakfast

Still I do believe a family owned business started in late1890's. A rarity today when most of these concrete/aggregate businesses have been bought out by European operators. That CH is just a toy hauler-not in the corporate fleet How about it Black Dog??

Same way everything was moved back then-with a lot of patience! Think of it-534 Fords and 549 Binders competing with 220's 250's. 6-71's and 318's And a 335 Cummins was a "big dog" back then

Invented by a guy named Willets and White one way or another had an exclusive on it. We had a lot of 4564's in mid 60's. 250 Cummins, Rt-910 RR, Velvet Ride and 38 rears. I never thought they were a bad riding truck-for sure when compared to F-2000 D Binders we had with Hendrickson "rubber blocks"- -I think it was called Shear Ride.

Ugh-that is a Luber-Finer right? Why would they jam that under the hood?

And what could that "operator error" be? He landed the ladder on the roof? As GA-D noted, angle of base section says it was either a hydraulic failure or was powered down? I assume these lift cylinders are double acting? And if there is no hyd fluid on ground, that says a valve body was activated? Also have to assume these things are all "fly by wire"and wireless controls at that -any chance these things can pick up a stray signal? I know this thing is 13 years old so it is not that sophisticated but I do know some of the new stuff has a feature where you can actually download your control box function to your Iphone! Talk about scary!

Boston TV reporting tonight Pierce pledged their assistance in arriving at a cause. City also announced they had hired an "expert"

thx guys- well the Commissioner/Chief immediately said ..."truck failure-not operator error. this guy by the way is an up from the ranks guy in the department. The mayor by the way is a former union official- I think in the laborers. This department also had a bad accident a couple of years ago when a truck "lost its brakes on a steep hill and crashed, killing guy in right seat. I believe stated cause was .."driver had executed a three point turn prior to going down hill and lost all his air". I guess they order these things with the "spring brake delete option". Saw news footage in which they showed a crane bringing it down, then unit drove away with all sections in place-looked like it should going down the street.

So here is one for you Fire Pro's. Last night a 13 year old Boston ladder truck (Has a basket-don't know what proper name for that is)- and it is working a 3 decker fire and a guy is in the basket and it is just above the flat roof. Suddenly the ladder collapses-looks like all the telescopic sections just like popped out of whatever the guides are that keep them tracking-or the hydraulic lift cylinders just lost all pressure and the ladder dropped. would the ladder sections when extended have enough strength to remain ridgid/intact with the upper most sections resting on the building.?

JB-My guess is they are clueless. Case in point- received this months edition of Work Truck Magazine and once again, there was a Ford Commercial Truck flyer included. One thing I noticed was for 750 they list a a max GCWR of 50,000 pds. In the old days, (KTP era) you could get an F-700, and F-800 with a GCWR of 60,000 pds. And an F-8000 with a 3208 Cat carried a GCWR of 75,000 lbs. The F-700 would have had a max front axle of 9000 lbs and a rear of 19,000 pds while the F-800 and F-8000 could be built with a 12,000 front and 23,000 rear. Looking at todays 750, you can get that same 12 front and 23 rear. The frames are in essence available in same ratings (SM and RBM), and I'm sure the wheel/tire ratings are the same. As for cabs, while some say the current 750 cab is a "Pick UP" cab, I would bet it is far more comfortable than the old F series cab. Now in the old days, many carrier used F models in their P & D operations-and I'm sure many a day those city P & D tractors went out with a 40-45 box that pushed that 60 or 65,000 lb rating. It was a cost effective alternative to the L/LN series of competitive trucks from GMC, International etc. So why do the new trucks carry a lower GCWR rating? My bet is Ford does not have the confidence in the 6.7 Power Stroke/ Torqueshift combo to support 60 or 65,000 pd. ratings in particular when you are pulling a 13-6 box height with all of that wind resistance. Again a solid case for another engine/trans combo that could provide incremental sales of 750 without a lot of engineering cost. I guess they just don't see Avon Lake utilization as a serious issue.

Oh- forgot-thx for great pix as usual

Only problem with that C model is I believe it has an 8.2 Detroit "Fuel Pincher"-not the best rep. If it was a Cat, it would not have had that "diesel" badge but would have been a 7000 or 8000

I would say a management problem or that is their PM cycle. Then again, could well be they get rid of them while they have good market value-not because they are junk and they like the low annual maintenance cost associated with low mileage vehicles.. I say that is an expensive strategy but I've heard of some companies that believe in that philosophy.

Ok-please elaborate- so the pixs are in my "Photos" on my Mac. I do the usual as directed and then the message comes up.".unable to download"

Competition should be worried!

Sounds to me like Farley has OD'd on Hackett Kool-Aid. Hard to believe that Bill Ford and Big Al went out of their way to hire Farley from Toyota . I think whatever good ideas Farley may have brought from Toyota, he has forgotten their formula for success.

Padula Bros is a large 3 location Deere dealer here in Mass. At there open house today-10% off on parts and spot this-direct info from owner..."79,000 original miles. Bought new by a farmer in Bridgewater Ma and he used it to haul silage". Only thing he did was have it painted!I should have taken pictures of the inside-what you would expect of an owner driven truck with 79,000. 3406, single frame, 46 rears. As usual, I can't get pix to upload-what am I doing wrong guys? iPhone to Mac Book Pro. Only site I have trouble uploading to is Bigmacktrucks!

My My-beautiful pair........the skates of course

Jim- cut the crap-no more jokes -we are done with winter!

Point of info for any club members- No meeting this Saturday- rescheduled for Sat April 14th-unless we get another Nor'easter!!!! Bob

Looking good Rich- where is the flooring????

This is what a lot of us thought was going to be announced at Work Truck Show. Did I see a standard transmission??? Nice size!