hwyman3 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 ://www.thetruckersreport.com/navistar-may-opened-2-billion-potential-fraud-lawsuits/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 https://www.thetruckersreport.com/navistar-may-opened-2-billion-potential-fraud-lawsuits/ try this link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Ahh yes, the MAXX JUNK.....Ford should buy up Navistar, get rid of the crap, bring in some Turkish Ecotorq monsters with Eaton transmissions and just demolish class 7/8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Ahh yes, the MAXX JUNK.....Ford should buy up Navistar, get rid of the crap, bring in some Turkish Ecotorq monsters with Eaton transmissions and just demolish class 7/8. That would be an interesting purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwyman3 Posted August 19, 2017 Author Share Posted August 19, 2017 https://www.thetruckersreport.com/navistar-may-opened-2-billion-potential-fraud-lawsuits/ try this link Thanks, tried to post it from my cell phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 Gotta Love Navistar and their engine work.... Ford learned a big lesson trusting Navistar with the MAN designed Powerstroke, so this news about the 13,1 liter Maxxforce is not surprising 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 If this is true this would be one of the most irresponsible cases in US manufacturing in recent history. IMO since GM is in bed with them they should buy em out and clean house in management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 If this is true this would be one of the most irresponsible cases in US manufacturing in recent history. IMO since GM is in bed with them they should buy em out and clean house in management. Or they should do what Ford did: Get away as quickly as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 Or they should do what Ford did: Get away as quickly as possible. Well they do share a factory with the vans and the JV truck is about to hit showrooms. It probably be a better bet to let NS lose in the courts and GM buy up the leftover pieces after a possible BK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) GM wants minimal exposure to cost and liability on the commercial vehicle side. I seriously doubt that GM would entertain any idea of buying Navistar's carcass to further complicate what they already have, access to vehicles.. Edited August 19, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 buy up the leftover pieces after a possible BK. When has that *ever* worked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) I was going to say Old GM but that would be a false equivalent fallacy.. Edited August 20, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 I was going to say Old GM but that would be a false equivalent fallacy.. It'd be more like Fiat buying Chrysler's leftovers, and look how well that's turned out, even after the gov't more or less *gave* Chrysler away. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 If this is true this would be one of the most irresponsible cases in US manufacturing in recent history. IMO since GM is in bed with them they should buy em out and clean house in management. Funny you mention that, because the senior management team that has been cleaning house at Navistar are ex. GM people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 Gotta Love Navistar and their engine work.... Ford learned a big lesson trusting Navistar with the MAN designed Powerstroke, so this news about the 13,1 liter Maxxforce is not surprising MAN designed Power Stroke?? Which one? 6.0? 6.4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 MAN designed Power Stroke?? Which one? 6.0? 6.4? 6.0. I'm curious how much input Ford had in the 6.4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Well guys I have been wondering for years what the back story is on Ford's light Diesel engine programs. Going all the way back to the early 6.9's that were designed to fit in the same place as a 460. Why did Ford (and frankly GM and Mopar too) feel it was necessary to partner with someone else to develop relatively simple diesel engines for themselves? Ford really has had a ton of experience with building diesels overseas and in the tractor works here in North America. Ahh well the people that made those decisions are probably long retired so unless someone writes a book we may never know the why, and yes I can guess the economic reasons for such a scenario. But the mention of MAN diesels being involved in the 6.0 design does agree with a little tidbit I heard from an avid diesel builder when he said that Navistar had a European partner. So here are my questions, if MAN was truly the design originator then why did the 6.0 turn out to be fragile? I'm not just talking about the EGR cooler and the coolant filter etc. I am talking about 4 stretchy bolts around the cylinders instead of 6 conventional fasteners? Why were the rocker arm assemblies troublesome and moreover the roller lifters too? I'm no expert but I don't think companies like MAN screw up very much, if they were indeed Navistar's partner. Where was the breakdown on the 6.0 program? What role did Ford engineering play, if any, in the 6.0's design? I know Ford did the "FEAD" assembly on the engine as well as some other packaging features, but did Ford, Navistar or the European partner screw up here? It seems like a cascading comedy if errors that wasn't funny at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 I'm no expert but I don't think companies like MAN screw up very much, if they were indeed Navistar's partner. My understanding is that MAN were in over their heads trying to design a light/medium duty truck engine meeting US emissions regs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Wow I always thought MAN was avante garde in the diesel business. The 6.0 strays from tried and true diesel hard points like the ones I named. MAN diesels are on the cutting edge in many aspects of the diesel market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 Wow I always thought MAN was avante garde in the diesel business. The 6.0 strays from tried and true diesel hard points like the ones I named. MAN diesels are on the cutting edge in many aspects of the diesel market. My understanding, again, is that they underestimated the difficulty of meeting NVH, weight, economy & emissions targets for an engine that would be sold in (to them) tiny pickup trucks. The result was a raft of compromises and patchwork solutions (like the second fuel filter that nobody knew about which eventually clogged) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 The 6.0 being designed in Europe explains a few things that plagued those engines, one was already mentioned in that they struggled to meet US emissions. The other problem was the issue that poor quality US diesel fuel played on the fuel system and turbo veins on those engines. Supposedly the turbo and injection system were designed to run much higher quality diesel fuel than one could readily find in the US until 2007. Hence two fuel filters. The poor quality fuel would deposit carbon in the turbo veins and get stuck causing poor boost. The plugged fuel filters would result in poor fuel pressure burning up injector tips, injectors, and fuel pumps. The four head bolts per cylinder and bad egr design have already been mentioned but I still cant think of a logical reason why they designed them that way. The bottom end of the 6.0 was pretty strong. Both of those issues have been resolved with aftermarket solutions. The lifter problem is interesting in that it is a common part number that every Powerstroke had as well as the 6.9 and 7.3 IDI going all the way back to the Olds 350 diesel. I called BS on that when I heard it, but the part numbers are the same all the way from the 350 to the 6.4 Powerstroke. Anyway they were too small for Powerstroke applications in my opinion. The 6.7 does not share that part number. The lifters in those are much bigger. The rocker arm assemblies, as I understand, have a weird geometry that causes them to be a wear item at about 200,000 to 250,000 miles. I have a 6.0 in my Excursion with well over 200,000 miles and it still runs strong. Regular maintenance goes a long way in preventing 6.0 problems. It is sad to see International struggling from a historic standpoint. The DT engines were some of the greats. Its sad to watch the downward spiral, but with them consistently cutting corners and taking shortcuts I dont see how they could have expected the results to turn out any different. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 Yes Bob you have done a great job explaining my point better than I. I can understand the struggle to meet US emissions, NVH requirements and fuel quality tolerance but for the life of me I cannot understand how they could screw up cylinder head clamping and valve train loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 The 6.0 being designed in Europe explains a few things that plagued those engines, one was already mentioned in that they struggled to meet US emissions. The other problem was the issue that poor quality US diesel fuel played on the fuel system and turbo veins on those engines. Supposedly the turbo and injection system were designed to run much higher quality diesel fuel than one could readily find in the US until 2007. Hence two fuel filters. The poor quality fuel would deposit carbon in the turbo veins and get stuck causing poor boost. The plugged fuel filters would result in poor fuel pressure burning up injector tips, injectors, and fuel pumps. The four head bolts per cylinder and bad egr design have already been mentioned but I still cant think of a logical reason why they designed them that way. The bottom end of the 6.0 was pretty strong. Both of those issues have been resolved with aftermarket solutions. The lifter problem is interesting in that it is a common part number that every Powerstroke had as well as the 6.9 and 7.3 IDI going all the way back to the Olds 350 diesel. I called BS on that when I heard it, but the part numbers are the same all the way from the 350 to the 6.4 Powerstroke. Anyway they were too small for Powerstroke applications in my opinion. The 6.7 does not share that part number. The lifters in those are much bigger. The rocker arm assemblies, as I understand, have a weird geometry that causes them to be a wear item at about 200,000 to 250,000 miles. I have a 6.0 in my Excursion with well over 200,000 miles and it still runs strong. Regular maintenance goes a long way in preventing 6.0 problems. It is sad to see International struggling from a historic standpoint. The DT engines were some of the greats. Its sad to watch the downward spiral, but with them consistently cutting corners and taking shortcuts I dont see how they could have expected the results to turn out any different. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for them. Just out of curiosity-just what was the US diesel problem? -let's say from 1989 on when "premium diesel" was a specific marketing effort by most suppliers featuring additized diesel. And these additized packages were improved to comprehend the lost lubricity associated with reduced sulfur content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 AFAIK, "ULSD" wasn't mandated in the US until sometime after it was mandated in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 AFAIK, "ULSD" wasn't mandated in the US until sometime after it was mandated in Europe. Approx 2006 and 1999 respectively... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.