TeamsterGrrrl

The Volvo AMT has only been out for a few years now so it really hasn't had a full test yet. In a few years we could be looking at thousands of Macks scrapped with far less than a million miles on them because their Volvo AMTs failed and it would cost more money to fix them than they're worth,

I'll agree, for urban trucking an automatic is the way to go, and automatics open up opportunities in trucking to a whole bunch of people with disabilities. But not this automatic- Eaton's has a much longer track record and is based on their bullet proof twin countershaft designs, Allison's AMT is a twin countershaft design with a torque converter, and I wish ZF's were available here. And for really tough urban and off road trucking, the traditional Allison is the way to go.

I'm surprised we're not seeing more antitrust action, especially against Daimler. The Antitrust Division rode herd on Continental Baking for decades, and Continental never had quite the 50+% market share Daimler now has. Sad that a lowly bankruptcy attorney representing a dead company has to do the Justice Departments job for them.

They can keep the automated transmissions and other stuff, but the adjustable pedals sound like a good idea- some of the KWs and such seem have the pedals positioned for somebody six foot six tall.

China is a double edged sword- On one hand it's half the world market for big trucks, so you can't afford to ignore it. On the other hand, you pay a fortune to buy not quite half a Chinese manufacturer, then they often just steal your technology and you get peanuts.

Multiple countershaft transmissions like Eaton's and the Maxitorques typically go a million miles or so before rebuild in highway use. So far most of the Volvo Automated Manual Transmissions (AMTs) in North America haven't been around long enough to cover that many miles, though I've heard of some that have covered a half million miles without major repairs. The Volvo AMTs have been out longer in Europe, but mileages are lower there so I've heard of a few making it to the million kilometer mark, I haven't heard of any making it to a million miles. Given that big trucks in Europe tend to get sold off to third world markets by that million kilometer mark, if there's an unrebuilt million mile Volvo AMT anywhere, it's probably in the third world... Or more likely the AMT has been replaced by a manual or the truck scrapped. I have heard reports from Australia of Volvo AMTs needing rebuilds around that half million mile mark though, which does not bode well. None the less, some Volvo AMTs may make it a million miles without rebuild, provided Volvo's application guidelines are strictly followed, with the truck pulling moderate loads on level Interstates. With the AMT spending most of it's time in direct drive, the weaker single countershaft and it's bearings don't get loaded that much. And of course, I'd love to see Volvo show us an unrebuilt million mile AMT that's seen real world use and make me eat my words... I am a Volvo shareholder, after all!

Still available, they just don't advertise it.

http://gearheadgrrrl.com/2015/02/04/the-bulldog-devolves-volvo-makes-overworked-slushbox-standard-on-mack-construction-trucks/ Pretty soon, the only Mack part left will be the bulldog on the hood... Sad.

You're quite correct, a real truck cab needs enough headroom for a tall driver on a suspension seat and tall enough side windows to allow the driver to see all of the west coast and convex mirrors. The dashboard needs space for switches and gauges for stuff a pickup don't even have. Ford would be smart to build a separate cab for the medium and heavy trucks and let the country club pickup "truckers" have their glitzy F150s. That would cost more $$$ though, as Ford and most everyone else is looking for enough volume to keep the cab assembly line busy building a couple hundred thousand units a year. Thus Ford will probably cheap out and build a compromised new medium/heavy truck and count on the "low bid" buyers to keep their assembly lines busy and mass produced components like the Powerstroke and Super Duty cab to keep costs down and profits up.

KW? The new KW conventional cab does resemble the DAF's...

They might use the narrower Volvo FL/DAF LF "Club cab"...

IIRC. Ford has officially denied they'll be an aluminum cab Super Duty. However, that could be just a diversion... Also, Ford has built a 3/4 ton F250 with the 1/2 ton cab before while building a 3/4 ton with the Super Duty cab at the same time. So perhaps they'll just put the aluminum cab from the F150 on 3/4 and 1 ton chassis?

There are no adapters that will allow you to put 19.5 wheels on in place of 22.5, the brake drums are too big to fit 19.5 rims over. As far as the automatics, most of the R models you see with a 237 or 300 have overdrive top gears. To avoid losing a lot of speed capability, you'll need a newer overdrive Allison automatic with the overdrive top gears. An Allison with the torque capacity to handle a 237 or 300 Maxidyne can be pretty spend, even if it's 15 years old.

A 350 is only faster than a 300 Maxidyne out on the highway running at 50 MPH and above- With it's broad torque curve the 300 Maxitorque will match a 350 in accelleration because the flow of power will be interupted half as many times. That's why Maxidynes have long been preferred for trucks that run in town, and Econodynes have been preferred for trucks that run on high speed roads with few stops.

The 5th wheel manufacturers make 5th wheel brackets of varying heights, might want to check them out before you DIY it.

As for the M2s, I drove some of their predecessors with the Mercedes LN cab from '87 to '92. They were great riding trucks with a comfortable and roomy cab, though the medium duty cab didn't "age well" with rust problems and stuff like the heater and windshield wiper mechanism were a pain to get at. This devolved into the "Business Class", with Daimler ditching the coil spring and shock rear cab mounts and turning one of the best riding trucks into the worst. The M2 was little improvement, I drove a rental tractor with a C7 Cat and was underwhelmed. As for Ford's upcoming new Super Sized Super Duties, I think most of the intended market for this truck- government agencies and small businesses and fleets- Will do just fine with it and the Ford Powerstroke and automatic. The only customers who may have problems are the folks who try running too many miles at too high a speed with too much weight on, Though with the engine downrated to 300 HP they'll have to chip it to break it. From what I'm hearing the Cummins C series will be an option, and I wouldn't be surprised if they offer Allison automatics and various manuals too. I suspect the real issue will be how Ford handles known problems like the turbo mounting... "Cab lifts" are an engine service "procedure" that was supposed to go away with the "N" series!

380 horsepower is enough, presuming you won't be grossing over 80,000 pounds. But the 6 speed transmission will be fine on the highway, but won't have a low enough first gear for off road start ability on steep uphills.

80 to 90 centimeters ain't enough extra length for much of a hood, they'd end up with a conventional like the White Road Boss short conventional, with a hood barely long enough to cover the radiator and front of the engine and most of the engine still buried under the cab. Might make conventionals viable in euro day cab applications though, and allow more rounded front ends on cabovers or longer sleepers.

From what I've heard, the upcoming Super Duty mediums will include a tandem model, putting the line well into Class 8.

Although the Ranger's last American home, Twin Cities Assembly, is gone, the Ranger was built at Louisville along with the bigger pickups and heavy trucks. Most plants today can build multiple platforms, even on the same line.

Sadly, the marketing mentality at Ford and in Detroit is that we all really want the biggest most expensive vehicle possible, and that Ranger buyers really want an F150... Thus Ford marketers think that the Ranger canabalizes sales from the more profitable F150.

Agreed- the new GM small pickups weight almost as much as the new F150, and probably will get about the same MPG with the gas engines at least. The only thing they have going for them in comparison with the new F150 is a lower price and they're a little easier to park.

Killing the Ranger in North America is one of the few mistakes Ford has made in the last few years... I own a Ranger and have no interest in replacing it with an F150!

Back in the U.S., had a Ford employee who seems to be pretty knowledge tell me that the new heavy duty range with the Super Duty cab will go clear up to an F850 series with tandem drive. Ford has been listening to customer comments too, and thus Cummins power will continue to be available in Ford medium and heavy trucks.

The Granite has a slightly taller and thicker frame as standard, which can be ordered as an option on the CH, so i suspect the weight difference with the same specs is only a couple hundred pounds. One advantage the Granite has vs. the CH in axle forward spec is better aerodynamics with it's more rounded hood. But an honest Mack saleman told me the real reason we see so few Granite tractors- The CH and CX are priced a couple thousand dollars cheaper than a Granite!