Jump to content

7Mary3

Member
  • Content Count

    2,238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

7Mary3 last won the day on December 26 2011

7Mary3 had the most liked content!

About 7Mary3

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

966 profile views
  1. Yeah, been wondering about that. The GM 6.6L gas was revealed the same day, and they were not shy about stating it's output.
  2. I remember a good V-6: http://6066gmcguy.com/gmcv6a.html Anyway, I think a small version of the 6.2L V-8 would make more sense.
  3. True about CAFE, but GM's upcoming BEV push will nonetheless influence their numbers significantly. Ford's 6.2 and 7.3 are safe, as are GM's 6.2, 6.6, and 8+L. And GM's 6.2L is a 'premium' engine and is still restricted to higher trim levels, but nonetheless more in 2020. They have room in their CAFE to offer it. The company I expect to have trouble with CAFE in coming years is FCA.
  4. BTW- GM is expanding availability of their 6.2L V-8 into more Silverado and Sierra models for 2020.
  5. V-8's are NOT necessarily too thirsty for CAFE. Remember CAFE is a fleet average, and does not cover larger commercial vehicles. GHG is driving commercial vehicle fuel economy in a round-about fashion, and they way the regulations are written the heavier the vehicle the more lenient the standard. In any event, CAFE will be progressively skewed by increasing hybrid and BEV sales, and this should provide 'room' for a few less-efficient high performance vehicles. But about the 7.3L, I heard rumors that a smaller @5.8L could be made to replace the 6.2L, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. The 7.3L assembly line is a low volume operation (in a shed out behind Windsor!), so I don't think Ford is seeing many 7.3L sales beyond F-450 and larger commercial trucks.
  6. San Francisco has pretty good public transportation, but the cable cars are not much more than a tourist attraction. Their heritage streetcars are really nice and are actually in regular service.
  7. I don;t think the autonomous is going to play out for a long, long time. Eventually maybe, but it's running into an awful lot of problems right now. Shared vehicles may have a place in metropolitan areas.
  8. Go back and read exactly what Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board said. She was EXPECTED by some to make a statement about a gasoline engine ban, but she didn't. In fact, she said measures like banning certain types of vehicles, fees and taxes were "things that most of us don't think is the right way to go". Fake news? It's probably a moot point anyway, I figure BEV's will be so good by 2040 they will be by far the passenger vehicle of choice. Larger trucks might be a different story, but cars, CUV's and minivans no question. And that's just it, with more and more BEV's on the road the air will be cleaner and there will be less pressure to make ICE vehicles cleaner. And I think the ICE will prove to be overall the cleanest and most efficient what to power heavier vehicles for many years to come.
  9. Sure it's a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean that isn't what they will do.
  10. Our fleet never had too many 6.0L Powerstrokes, but they were trouble. And if anything, we over-maintained them. A couple of our techs. were recruited from Ford dealerships, and their expertise was invaluable. The proof for us was the fact that right alongside the 6.0L Powerstrokes we had 7.3L Powerstrokes, 5.9L and 6.7L Cummins B's, Isuzu 4HK1's, and a couple of Duramax's that were far less trouble and less expensive to own in the same applications. We did have one oddball F-650 with a 6.0L, and it wasn't really any better than the F-450's. We have an employee that had a F-250 Super Duty and he rebuilt the 6.0L with the special head gaskets and stud kit, did an EGR delete and an bunch of other modifications and did pretty well with it.
  11. The 6.0L and 4.5L Powerstrokes were not PR nightmares. They were nightmares period! Just plain unreliable and expensive to repair. Anyway, very true about gas engines, particularly in class 4 through 6. Isuzu has reshuffled their model lineup for 2020, the popular NPR will be gasoline only but diesels will still be available in the NRR and NQR. The class 6 FTR is rumored to be getting the new GM 6.6L gas engine sometime in 2020, and the 6.6L will likely be in the Silverado medium/International CV around the same time. The 7.3L is definitely the right move for Ford, I could see it outselling the 6.7L Powerstroke in commercial F series trucks within a few years. There are a couple of rumors I am hearing that if true could mean more competition for Ford. The first is a larger gasoline engine for the medium duty Rams, along with a class 6 offering. If true, I think the engine would likely be a 7L heavy duty version of the Hemi, and no doubt the truck would be a 6500 version of the Ram 5500 cab and chassis, like the new F-600. The second rumor is another GM/Navistar JV truck, this time a class 7. It may be in the form of a replacement for the current International DuraStar/MV series with GM supplying a new 8L+ gasoline V-8. Even if all this comes to pass, I think Ford is in a good position in class 3 through 5. Class 6 and 7 is a little cloudy, I think Ford will need to maintain a cost advantage over their competitors to be successful.
  12. 7Mary3

    New Ford 7.0 L....?

    I hear it's for the oil pump.
  13. Ram is indeed doing very well, but Chevy has only rolled out one version on the new Silverado so far. There are many holes in Chevy's full size truck lineup right now, even on the HD side. We won't know anything for sure sales wise until first quarter 2020.
  14. I was figuring since the cab and powertrain were GM, along with the electrical. Navistar supplies frame, suspension, and front axle, along with assembly. I hear that Navistar is very interested in GM's gas engines too. I think Navistar is probably behind the upcoming 8+L gas V-8 GM is developing.
  15. Actually the majority of Crown's were horizontal mid-engine, usually a 6-71, sometimes a NH220. The last Crown school buses (with the squared-off nose and tail) were 6V-92 T-drive pusher.
×