Red Horse

Hmnn? What were the "good ideas" associated with the Cat trucks? Probably good for Navistar as if someone bought a Cat and liked the cab, they would likely say..."I think I'll buy the same cab without all the issues and for less money from Navistar"

Thx Interesting info. If the Lockheed Martin/BAE version gets the nod, that should be good news for Ford as far as unit costs. Also I have to believe acceptance of a proposal with the 6.7 should be a good testimonial to the durability of the engine-or should I say "perceived" durability?

Nice- When my youngest was into HO trains I bought an air brush and we did some 50's 60's diesels-made em look old-never knew the tea trick though

PZ 1. The minute I hit the send key I had a thought and went to the bookcase and pulled out my copy of "Mack" by John Montville. You are correct according to this book as it lists all models by years of production. Many B series are listed through 1966. Guess I should send Museum a note

I got my info from the "The Mack Bulldog, Hood Ornament". An 8 page booklet produced by Mack Museum. If you are correct, Museum is in error so if you have good info, drop them a note so they can correct their publication. (Info is at top of pg. 8)

Thx- If that is the case I do believe they were going to use the 6.7 Power Stroke. I can't believe that anyone would use such a complicated engine in an environment that willnot exactly be "service friendly"-i.e. you are not going to pull into the maintenance bay on a regular basis. Am I correct on the 6.7 announcement by BAE?

I thought BAE had announced they were putting together a proposal? Or did they do that and did not make the "cut"?

Thx- The "weathered" look is outstanding!

The Mack version was the "N". Both Ford and Mack cabs were built by Budd. I do believe Ford designed the initial cab. Big difference, the Ford always had a full width bench seat and was designed for compact V blocks. The Mack N had a huge doghouse to accomodate the Mack 673 diesels as well as all the linkage associated with Mack two sticks.

To be specific, B production was 1953 to 1965, total production of 126,377 trucks. Another bit of Ford C Trivia, I read somewhere that the first C built, and the LAST one built were driven off the line by the same guy! Don't know if the guy was still on the payroll at Louisville or if they brought him in for the event from retirement.

I believe you are correct in terms of the Ford C series beating the AC. But didn't the R beat that counting the RD? If C was 33 years, first R was 65. Wasn't RD built until 2002 or 2003??

I have the LNT-8000 tractor kit still in the box-must be 30 years old. I had built one with a 7000 gal Fruehauf tank kit that came with Gulf decals I do believe that LNT and the tank are in pieces in the attic.

For sure! If you have any of his finished, please post some pix. One of these days I'm going to breakdown and order a B with 24" rubber.

OK Matt-thjey didn't even turn the "M" around!

Not yet-next week.

For sure -that is who I was going to say---unbelievable old inventory

EJ-But YOU have a brilliant governor

Ahh- Louisvilles! Great bang for the buck IMO. Did the arm rests fall off?- Yep. did the frames fail? Never-at least in my experience. Biggest problem was drivers who were prejudiced--"Its a Ford-they make pick ups!" Had one old boy tell me-"Hate this thing" -I said "WHy"? Answer.."That windshield is so big its like sitting in your living room window-everyone can see you"! Didn't bother telling him-"Yeah and you can see everything in front of you too"

Hope you have good front rubber-with that long wheelbase and those tandems at the ass end hopefully that old Ford has a big front end

Hmnn? Drug deal repo?

Tom Kloza is the "man" when it comes to a good analysis of what is happening in the oil patch. And what he is quoted in the Fleet Owner story is no exception. Key point as always, Saudi Arabia is at the pricing throttle. And they have always been smart enough to recognize that while high prices are to their (and Opec's) benefit, they have always understood that if they get too greedy they have a bad effect on the world economy and if they slow it down too much, it hurts them. Unfortunately not all OPEC members recognize that and many have built their economies around high prices and can't tolerate a lower price. Too bad for them as the Saudis are willing to accept less to keep income steady even at a reduced rate. Also no doubt they (Saudis) are sensitive to what Iran and Putin is doing and they can keep those bad boys in check to a degree. They recognize the importance of a stable world scene. And as to our great success with shale, fracking etc, they know that the economics that make certain production say with a price close to 100 bucks a barrel a winner, once the price gets closer to 50 all of a sudden the economics don't work. Best example. in modern times crude moved from the well to the refinery basically by the two cheapest modes of transportation-pipeline and marine. Granted some moved by truck when distances were very short, but very little crude moved by rail. All of a sudden today we found crude moving by rail in unit trains. Moves such as unit trains from the Dakotas to Albany NY on the Hudson made sense. The crude is then off loaded and shipped down the Hudson by barge to Jersey and even Philly refineries. At 50bucks, think those transportation economics are going to work? The Saudis understand this and already things in the Dakotas are cooling off. Last point as to where prices will go, enjoy the prices while we can, but the really knowledgeable people are being cautious. A week or so ago I mentioned on another site, things can change very quickly if say Putin or the Iranians some how or other end up causing a problem in the Strait of Hormuz blocking tanker traffic. New ball game. Well over the weekend, I read a news story that told of the Iranians deploying some sort of high powered "drone bomb" in the vacinity of Hormuz! Bottom line we will never be out of the woods when it comes to energy IMO.

"N"Series! You are dating yourself. I will say this-many years ago, I remember we had an NT-950D "canary" (as in Ryder) for a short term rental-nice driving truck back then! But you bring up another good point with the so called "cab lift" to do serious maintenance on a PS Super Duty. As the 650/750 will have a new tilting hood assembly, and as they will be installing a V-8 in a chassis that was designed initially to accomodate an in line 6, I would have to think the ease of maintenance will be another incentive for some to spend the incremental dollars for a 650 vs. a 550. And as most 550's dealers inventory seem to be 4WD, I would bet a 650 will not sell for that much more than a 4 WD 550. While some would say "apples and orange" comparison, I would say a properly loaded 650 will hold its own vs a 4 WD 550 in snow/off road conditions..

KSC, Well I hear you load and clear about Daimler's strong position in class 7 and 8. And while I have no personal experience I have heard of others who share 84Superdog's sentiments. The M2's are not without issues. I would say if there is a company that is truly focused on trucks, it is Daimler and I would have to imagine if there are issues they will address them As for the specifics of the rumor that GM will partner with Navistar to get back into medium trucks via a JV at Escobedo to take up Ford's slot, I understand your lack of confidence in GM's management ability at the highest level but I gather you have no specific info as to the truth of this move? And regarding Ford, I don't think Ford intends at this point to challenge Navistar or Daimler for leadership in class 6/7-at least with their announced powertrain options-which is basically Henry Ford's philosophy from Model T days..."any color as long as it's black". But I think their initial efforts will be to grab the low hanging fruit with a cost effective power train consisting of the V-10 gas and 6.7 Power Stroke and 6 speed in house auto trans. I think it is safe to say that the 6.7 has done much to dispel the bad rep earned by the prior 6.0/6.4 since its introduction in 2012 (?). Furthermore, I would also bet that we will see a lot of buyers who were formerly using class 5 equipment, bump up into 650/750 as for probably not a lot more money, they end up with more truck without the breaking into CDL territory. In fact, there is a dealer in my area who stocks 750's which are normally 33,000 lb trucks, plated for 26,000 lbs. My suspicion is these are heavier trucks with a "paper" GVW that avoids the CDL issue. Do I think it is a mistake to drop the Cummins/Allison combo? Yes I do, but I would have to believe Ford knows what they are doing at THIS POINT in their return to US production of these trucks. Or should I say as a stockholder,I sure as hell hope they have a plan

Heard a story that with the end of the Ford-Navistar JV BlueDiamond Trucks, Navistar is about to partner with GM to build class 4-7 trucks at the Escobedo plant. This would be similar to the Ford deal with Navistar chassis and GM cab structures. For sure the GMC/Chevy dealers can't be happy watching Ram and Ford fight over class 4 and 5 sales. Plus, can Navistar afford to lose ANY incremental production volume. Now if I were a Navistar dealer, would I want more competition for my Terrastar class 4-5 trucks? I don't think so. How about it KSC-any opinions?

Tim M Just to get your interest in the "off season" attached shots of Rick Lazaro's new Wirtgen Milling machine. Powered by a C-18 Cat.