7Mary3 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 A little bored tonight so here's my new conspiracy theory: Caterpillar has broken up with Navistar. Eventually they'll want to drop Navi's 13L for its CT trucks, and they still haven't said where the 15L engine they announced last summer is coming from, but Cat still doesn't want to get back into the on-highway engine building game itself. Ford meanwhile would like a nameplate that can hang on the side of the 750 that looks as good as "CUMMINS" does. So Cat and Ford are doing a deal where Ford builds Cat's on-highway engines (in Mexico, Turkey, wherever) and gets to put the Cat badge on the medium duty diesel trucks. Except that Cat really didn't break up with Navistar, at least not completely. When the Cat/Nav JV started, Nav basically was building a version of their PayStar heavy vocational truck for Cat, powered by a Nav engine that was basically a Cat C15 with SCR (instead of ACCERT or Nav's 'Advanced EGR'). While this was going on, Nav cut back the PayStar line, ostensibly to give the Cat truck some room in the market. Well, the Cat truck really wasn't all that. What is happening now is the Cat truck will move from Nav's Escobedo plant to one of Cat's plants (Texas?). The truck will not be all that different, and Nav will supply many components. In the meantime, Nav will introduce a new line of heavy vocational trucks to replace the PayStar. I think it's a safe bet the Cat truck will retain some form of 15L Cat diesel. Unfortunately, not seeing a place for Ford in any of this. The Nav/GM joint venture will result in a line of mediums for Chevy dealers, and I hear that GM will be doing quite a bit of work for Nav on cabs and components (gasoline/CNG/LNG engines for one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Given similar bore/stroke and bearing dimensions as you increase cylinder count you increase parasitic losses. No way around that. Sure, in the past there were V12s in some trucks, but as fuel efficiency has become more important cylinder counts have gone down. That is why the straight 6 is dominant in class 6 and up. And the 2 cycle Detroits are an interesting design - I have seen everything from a 2-71 to a 12V71, and have heard of 1-71s and 16V71s in industrial service. But again, when it came to emissions and efficiency even Detroit Diesel recognized that to meet market requirements the straight 6 was what they went with for the 60 Series. That is why in the later days of the 2 stroke they replaced the 8V71 and 12V71 with the 6V92 - even with larger displacement cylinders they reduced parasitic losses, and just as important to the bottom line total parts count. Other than comparing cylinder counts the V series Detroits are not a legitimate comparison since they are 2 stroke engines. If you're comparing fuel efficiency and emissions you are comparing apples to oranges. Now I got no skin in the game but I sure would like to see Ford slay a few Goliaths in the truck biz. While parasitic loss is certainly a thing I keep thinking everything in engine design comes down to compromise. Pulling a big coffee can sized piston through a giant hole is certainly harder than a smaller one. I have a feeling that parasitic loss from equal displacement engines of different cylinder counts may not be as bad as we think. Same goes for necessary spring pressures between big valves and small valves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 It's not a question of engineering, it's a question of the likely thousands of dollars of additional per unit costs that go towards fattening the Cummins and Allison bottom lines, instead of Ford's. Essentially, this is where I'm at: Ford used to sell Cummins & Allison options in their trucks. They don't anymore. They know more about this business than you or I do, and their counter-conventional-wisdom actions elsewhere have generally paid off (e.g. putting the 6.8L in the 650). I trust that they did the right analysis here. Not sure Richard how you arrive at .."thousands of dollars of additional ....per unit costs....fattening Cummins and Allison bottom lines". Like I said before, Cummins and Allison are in the business of supplying components to builders. I'm sure both would gladly sell Ford those components-that is the business they are in. Might the charge for these components be slightly higher than say the costs incurred by someone who has some sort of contract based on minimums? Perhaps, but that cost can be passed on to the purchaser who will decide if in fact it makes sense for his particular application. Any clue what the take rate was on Power Stroke F-650's back in the day when Cummins and Cats were also offered? (I do believe all three were options for a while-although I believe the PS was the 7.3- a motor with a good rep.) As to your comment that Ford knows more about this business than you or I, I guess if you subscribe to that theory as a fact, an awful lot of the discussion on this site would be meaningless would it not? And I'm sure Ford's decision to go the "one size fits all" route was arrived at after much analysis. I would also bet that there were Ford marketers -and dealers-who felt that was a short sided view in terms of just what a slightly expanded option list would cost as well as just what that expanded option list would do for additional sales. In fact,based on my 40 + years in the distribution business in which fleet operations were a key part of my responsibility, I can say I met many Ford people who happened to be in a fleet assignment and to be polite, were clueless. I guess that is what happens when you work for a multifaceted business in which assignments are often made in the name of "career development". Again- an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Not sure Richard how you arrive at .."thousands of dollars of additional ....per unit costs....fattening Cummins and Allison bottom lines". Like I said before, Cummins and Allison are in the business of supplying components to builders. I'm sure both would gladly sell Ford those components-that is the business they are in. Might the charge for these components be slightly higher than say the costs incurred by someone who has some sort of contract based on minimums? Perhaps, but that cost can be passed on to the purchaser who will decide if in fact it makes sense for his particular application. Any clue what the take rate was on Power Stroke F-650's back in the day when Cummins and Cats were also offered? (I do believe all three were options for a while-although I believe the PS was the 7.3- a motor with a good rep.) As to your comment that Ford knows more about this business than you or I, I guess if you subscribe to that theory as a fact, an awful lot of the discussion on this site would be meaningless would it not? And I'm sure Ford's decision to go the "one size fits all" route was arrived at after much analysis. I would also bet that there were Ford marketers -and dealers-who felt that was a short sided view in terms of just what a slightly expanded option list would cost as well as just what that expanded option list would do for additional sales. In fact,based on my 40 + years in the distribution business in which fleet operations were a key part of my responsibility, I can say I met many Ford people who happened to be in a fleet assignment and to be polite, were clueless. I guess that is what happens when you work for a multifaceted business in which assignments are often made in the name of "career development". Again- an opinion. Think this through: First of all, let's say that Ford does offer a Cummins/Allison combo. What is their only leverage against Freightliner and International? Price. Ford is already the smallest conventional 6/7 manufacturer, which means they likely have the highest per unit costs and certainly the lowest revenue, and you think that they would be wiser if they added to their cost and still sold product at a discount to the competition? How is that a path to success? --- When you are the smallest manufacturer in a segment you specialize. --- Regarding this comment: "I guess if you subscribe to that theory as a fact, an awful lot of the discussion on this site would be meaningless would it not?" Firstly, anyone who thinks they understand this business better than Ford's executives is almost certainly mistaken, and they, whoever they are, certainly do not have a track record of putting that knowledge to good use. Secondly, it is not as though this decision by Ford is unintelligible. It has a clear and easily discernible explanation that fits neatly into well-established business principles. Don't confuse a decision you don't like with a decision that makes no sense. Edited January 16, 2016 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Is this a case of an engine option being beneficial to everyone else except Ford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Is this a case of an engine option being beneficial to everyone else except Ford? Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 I guess Cummins and Allison are sort like special badges you must wear before you become an Eagle Scout in the truck biz I guess. Tongue in cheek but basically true. Now the Powerstroke nameplate is one tarnished son of a gun. All people can remember is the 6.0 debacle. I never liked the idea of Ford outsourcing something as important their mass market Diesel engine. Now those who are in the know realize that the Ford built 6.7 is a smash hit but trust me it'll be a while before Ford lives down the 6.0 and to a lesser extant the 6.4. Ford used to be a respected name in diesel engines. Their tractor diesels were excellent and served very well in class 6 and 7. I would wager that those old Ford 6 bangers were just as good as the Cummins that replaced them (just not as emissions compliant) and far better than the screwy "Fuel Pincher" v8 they bought from GM. That was a spectacular joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 I guess Cummins and Allison are sort like special badges you must wear before you become an Eagle Scout in the truck biz I guess. And I guess since Ford is in the business of selling engines, I should be able to buy an engine from Ford for the same price as a dealership service department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 And I guess since Ford is in the business of selling engines, I should be able to buy an engine from Ford for the same price as a dealership service department. Richard you are not going to find a bigger Ford engine advocate than me. I'm pulling for Ford to do what they have in light cars and trucks, and that is lead power train wise. Leading in power train is exactly what put Ford at the forefront and I believe that they should continue. No more milquetoast efforts. The 6.7 Powerstroke is capable of dominating the segments it was slotted for. I'm simply raising the question of Ford going further and picking off the status quo with superior engineering. I truly believe they can and should do exactly that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I don't think the engine's the issue in Class 8. I believe the issue is finding a way to profitably build some subset of the array of Class 8 trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) I don't think the engine's the issue in Class 8. I believe the issue is finding a way to profitably build some subset of the array of Class 8 trucks. This. Especially when those trucks are basically a chassis /cab and then people choose, engine, transmission and axles from suppliers. Would Ford even bother offering its European Cargo in such a mature segment with expectation of known equipment brands. I think that's the battle Ford would face. Edited January 17, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Bring on the Ford Otosan 9.0L I-6 Ecotorq!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econolineman Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I know several have been speculating about Chassis cab super duties from KTP moving to Ohio Assembly. Yesterday it was official that they are. http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/01/16/ford-revs-up-truck-plant/ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Whoa. Actual news! Very interesting. Makes OHAP a more profitable plant & frees up space on the KTP line for more Expys & Navis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Think this through: First of all, let's say that Ford does offer a Cummins/Allison combo. What is their only leverage against Freightliner and International? Price. Ford is already the smallest conventional 6/7 manufacturer, which means they likely have the highest per unit costs and certainly the lowest revenue, and you think that they would be wiser if they added to their cost and still sold product at a discount to the competition? How is that a path to success? --- When you are the smallest manufacturer in a segment you specialize. --- Regarding this comment: "I guess if you subscribe to that theory as a fact, an awful lot of the discussion on this site would be meaningless would it not?" Firstly, anyone who thinks they understand this business better than Ford's executives is almost certainly mistaken, and they, whoever they are, certainly do not have a track record of putting that knowledge to good use. Secondly, it is not as though this decision by Ford is unintelligible. It has a clear and easily discernible explanation that fits neatly into well-established business principles. Don't confuse a decision you don't like with a decision that makes no sense. Well Richard-as usual you win-I'm old and tired out . HOWEVER-final thoughts. from the beginning, my point was/is, Ford needs an alternative to the PowerStroke/Torqueshift combo. And the previous 6.7 Cummins/Allison combo would NOT cost a lot to offer IMO. The engineering has to be virtually a sunk cost. And many of the associated parts needed are probably still in the Ford parts list. Might the frames need some new holes-possibly but its not like this combo is foreign to Ford. And keep in mind, not only would this option be attractive to those who are turned off by the thought of a "PowerStroke pick up motor" in their MD truck,there are plenty of existing Ford customers who have that combo in their existing trucks-big factor. As to your point that.."as the smallest conventional 6/7 manufacturer which means they likely have the highest per unit costs" you make a big assumption. I like to think that unit costs are also greatly influenced by manufacturing efficiencies as well as component economies of sale. In fact, isn't that the drum you keep beating? And I agree-but while you only infer those economies are purely the result of utilizing the PowerStroke/Torqueshift, I say the same logic applies to additional utilization of plant capacity, cab shells etc when you add additional sales because of another power train option. And by the way-again to your point Ford is the smallest 6/7 manufacturer, some facts. In class 6, using 11 mos ytd 2015 stats, Ford had the second largest market share in class 6 (25%) and 4.9% of class 7. A year ago, same 11 mos, class 6 was at 30.7% and class 7 was 6.21%. Think the lack of a Cummins? Allison option had anything to do with that reversal? Now to be fair, Nov '15 class 6 had big numbers-1488 vs 1057 inNov '!4 but my bet is the V-10 momentum in class 6 continues to grow. Class 7? A different story and IMO the Power Stroke is the reason for the decline. I would like nothing better than for someone to prove me wrong. Go Steelers! Nothing like home field advantage :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 thank You! Bob Rosadini, on 01 Dec 2015 - 09:28 AM, said: Back to the KTP expansion news............ This raises a lot of questions. First and foremost, a 50% increase in manpower? That says to me they are either going to blow GM and Dodge away with existing vehicles or they will add a new vehicle. Or is the overtime at KTP totally out of control? Wishful thinking on blowing the competition away by that much. As for another product, given the move of mediums to Ohio, (OAP) and the fact that OAP is currently underutilized, not likely that any new vehicle would be added to KTP. In fact, all of the news I have read mentions 250 , 350, Expedition and Navigator. No specific mention of 450 and 550. I could see the 450 dually pick up remaining at KTP, but it seems logical to me that 450 -550 chassis mprph into some sort of vehicle based on some 650/750 cab structure-and a move to OAP. Keep in mind, GM is about to get back into class 4 and 5 with Navistar. My bet is that truck will not be derived off a Silverado pick up but rather will be more "medium duty" as were the old 4500/5500 GM's before they pulled the plug. Compare an old 5500 GM with an F-550 chassis. the Ford clearly showed its pick up roots while the 5500 was much more substantial-from its tilting hood assembly to the heavier running gear-in spite of the fact they both had the same GVW ratings. There has to be a lot more to this than we are told Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) The above announced action moving the cab/chassis F-Series to OHAP will do more to improve plant utilization than anything a Cummins/Allison powertrain would bring to the table. Edited January 18, 2016 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I know several have been speculating about Chassis cab super duties from KTP moving to Ohio Assembly. Yesterday it was official that they are. http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/01/16/ford-revs-up-truck-plant/ Great news !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Whoa. Actual news! Very interesting. Makes OHAP a more profitable plant & frees up space on the KTP line for more Expys & Navis. Great news for OHAP. looking at the investments Ford announced KTP IMO is in for a significant Renewal over the next 5 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I wonder if the 650/750 will get the '17 Super Duty cab before too long. I have seen '17 450/550 prototypes, and they will use the new cab. Since all chassis/cabs will be built under the Avon Lake plant, you would think it makes sense. If I worked at Avon Lake, I would breath a sign of relief. Even if the 650/750 flop, the future of that plant now seems secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I wonder if the 650/750 will get the '17 Super Duty cab before too long. I have seen '17 450/550 prototypes, and they will use the new cab. Since all chassis/cabs will be built under the Avon Lake plant, you would think it makes sense. If I worked at Avon Lake, I would breath a sign of relief. Even if the 650/750 flop, the future of that plant now seems secure. agreed, I wonder what else is in store for OHAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Would there be any advantage in moving Detroit chassis truck production to OHAP? I take it that's the F150 Cab Chassis production, it's around 1,100 per month I guess what I'm asking is whether Ford would consolidate all stripped chassis production at OHAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I wonder if the 650/750 will get the '17 Super Duty cab before too long. I have seen '17 450/550 prototypes, and they will use the new cab. Since all chassis/cabs will be built under the Avon Lake plant, you would think it makes sense. If I worked at Avon Lake, I would breath a sign of relief. Even if the 650/750 flop, the future of that plant now seems secure. Well I'm one of those who thinks a totally new cab is going to evolve at OHAP-actually aren't you also one of those who thinks the current SD cab is inadequate for class 6/7?. However if you are saying you have seen a '17 450/550 prototype sounds like at least in the short term, that is not in the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Would there be any advantage in moving Detroit chassis truck production to OHAP? I take it that's the F150 Cab Chassis production, it's around 1,100 per month I guess what I'm asking is whether Ford would consolidate all stripped chassis production at OHAP Are you talking about the motor home chassis? (F-553?? I think). If that is what you are talking about, that would make sense in terms of balancing out OHAP numbers IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Saw my first new F650 on the streets of Los Angeles over the weekend. It was a white box van with no marking so don't know who was operating it. Also saw a bunch of them on a transporter on the local freeway going somewhere so they are starting to arrive in numbers. 1 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.