New Light & Medium Duty News

[Bob Rosadini]

Don't worry, Freightliner did plenty of squirming over that guaranteed buy-back program a few years later. Also remember that Sterling (Ford heavy truck under Freightliner) was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

I really think Ford was looking for a way out of heavy duty before the first HN80 was even sold. Freightliner was very interested in HN80 because of Ford's strength in vocational heavy trucks, an area that Freightliner was weak in. From my perspective, it did not seem to me that Freightliner scammed Ford at all, Ford just wanted out of the business so they could convert KTP to produce the Super Duty.

 

Freightliner put a lot of effort into Sterling. They improved the dealer network, worked to improve the Sterling trucks, put particular emphasis on the vocational models, and expanded the option list. It is true they de-emphasized the over-the-road models, as Freightliner had a good lock on that market at the time.

 

My personal experience with the HN80 was limited, but I think I can say with some confidence that neither Freightliner or International would have been crushed by them. Lost a few sales maybe, but that truck wasn't no Peterbilt, that's for sure.

 

I wonder if Bob Rosadini remembers that Dodge Bighorn and Super-CNT models. Their story is very similar to the HN80 in some ways, though Chrysler simply shut the doors on their heavy truck operation instead of selling it.

For sure I remember the CNT's -we had quite a few-=not sure what a Super CNT was-unless that was a C with an 8v-71 that sat higher because of the bigger radiator -we did have a few of those. But I think Chrysler's move was easy-they did not have a lot of new money invested in those trucks. Ford on the other hand spent a LOT of money bringing HN--80 out and it was gone in what- a year? How could someone have signed off on such an expenditure and in a year its gone? Went from a positive business decision to a firesale! One story I heard was they had no intention of selling-until Jim Hebe called with an offer- and Jac jumped at the chance-I guess his signature wasn't on the authorization for expenditure for the HN-80 program.

 

No doubt KTP has pumped out huge numbers of 250-550 since but I still say there would have been another way to do that. KTP, the biggest hevy truck plant in the world when it opened in 69 was long since paid for. But I'm sure the heavy truck business survived as long as there were people in high places who had a passion for that business and a sense of value in being a diversified manufacturer. Along comes Jac, and he had his own agenda- junkyards, British autoparts stores, and luxury "autos"-made more sense.

[7Mary3]

Going back to the early 70's, Chrysler did put some effort towards their heavy truck line. They were making a push to sign up more heavy dealers (an area they were very weak in) and introduced the long-nose Bighorn in '73. The Bighorn was an almost all-new truck and did generate some attention if not sales. The Super-C was an update of the high-cab 8V-71 powered CNT that you remember but had a short fiberglass tilt hood instead of those swinging steel fenders. Very few were built. No question they didn't spend anywhere near what Ford did on the HN80, but they did bail out of the heavy duty market just as it appeared they were getting more serious about it. Just like Ford.

[theoldwizard]

This is NOT news ! This is "overheard at the water cooler", although admittedly the "water cooler" was inside Ford !

 

One of my contacts overheard some folks talking in a very positive manor about Medium Duty Trucks (in the past no one would even whisper that term). It seems that they have figured out that if they can use existing Ford engines and Ford transmissions that Medium Duty Trucks have the potential of being real money makers !

 

Some of the same folk have admitted that the 6.8L V10 is well past its prime. If there is a replacement coming it would most likely share existing tooling.

[Bob Rosadini]

This is NOT news ! This is "overheard at the water cooler", although admittedly the "water cooler" was inside Ford !

 

One of my contacts overheard some folks talking in a very positive manor about Medium Duty Trucks (in the past no one would even whisper that term). It seems that they have figured out that if they can use existing Ford engines and Ford transmissions that Medium Duty Trucks have the potential of being real money makers !

 

Some of the same folk have admitted that the 6.8L V10 is well past its prime. If there is a replacement coming it would most likely share existing tooling.

Wiz- take it from this old guy-sometimes that water cooler info is the most accurate-lets hope so. May not be the 64'000 lb GVW 10 wheeler hauling a load of gravel out of a pit I was hoping for but it might be a whole bunch of 26'000-33'000 lb jobs delivering a broad range of goods. And its a foot in the door.

 

As for the V-10- whatever works as a gaseous engine is what is needed. Then again cost on the gaseous options HAS to come down. State of Mass DOT just bought a few CNG Freightliner tandems. Big heavy plow trucks. The CNG tank set up occupies what would be called a small "coffin box" in the old days-back of cab sleeper. And that space equates to about .."50 gals of diesel". Also payout on these trucks is 2.5 years at 50,000 miles a year. Never happen in this state.

[7Mary3]

Wizard's comments are very interesting, and support what I have been thinking all along about the Avon Lake medium duty. Using existing Ford powertrains over expensive vendor supplied components might indeed make this a profitable venture. The downside is that those same powertrains will limit sales to certain segments of the medium duty market. So, at the end of the day Ford may not be selling a lot of medium duty trucks, but they should be profitable at relatively low volumes. This will also increase the volume of the 6.7L Powerstroke, which has been something Ford has been looking to do.

 

As for a gasoline option, my guess is there might not be enough sales of the V-10 in the 450 through 750 to justify a new engine program. If a gas engine family could be developed for everything from a 250 to a 750, it might be a different story.

[twintornados]

...As for a gasoline option, my guess is there might not be enough sales of the V-10 in the 450 through 750 to justify a new engine program. If a gas engine family could be developed for everything from a 250 to a 750, it might be a different story.

**cough-cough** 6.2L BOSS/Hurricane **cough-cough**

 

Honestly, this motor has the "backbone" to be a great motor, CGI block, wide bore spacing, stout construction. She has the potential to be one of the "great ones" in the line. Hog it out to 7.5-8.5 liters and give it a direct injection gas version, tune for maximum bottom end torque and watch this engine really take off in medium duty.

Edited March 27, 2014 by twintornados

[theoldwizard]

... Then again cost on the gaseous options HAS to come down. State of Mass DOT just bought a few CNG Freightliner tandems. Big heavy plow trucks. The CNG tank set up occupies what would be called a small "coffin box" in the old days-back of cab sleeper. And that space equates to about .."50 gals of diesel". Also payout on these trucks is 2.5 years at 50,000 miles a year. Never happen in this state.

CNG does seem to be taking a "toe hold" in Class 8. This is from Freightliner's FAQ on Natural Gas Trucks

 

Freightliner Trucks offers factory-installed and warranty-covered CNG tanks in 60-diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) and 75 DGE configurations in the M2 112 and 114SD. Factory-installed LNG options on the M2 112 and 114SD include 119- and 150-gallon tanks, which equate to 65 and 86 DGE respectively. Below: 75 DGE CNG and 150 gallon (86 DGE) LNG configurations. Tank supplier-installed rail-mounted CNG tanks also are available.[/size]

 

 

 

Note how the LNG tank requires the longer frame !

[theoldwizard]

**cough-cough** 6.2L BOSS/Hurricane **cough-cough**

 

Honestly, this motor has the "backbone" to be a great motor, CGI block, wide bore spacing, stout construction. She has the potential to be one of the "great ones" in the line. Hog it out to 7.5-8.5 liters and give it a direct injection gas version, tune for maximum bottom end torque and watch this engine really take off in medium duty.

• CGI would add a lot of cost to the engine and is not necessary it the engine is NOT boosted.
• It will certainly take 7.5-8.5L to be a "competitive" engine in Class 6 and 7.
• Direct injection, despite all of the hype, really does not add much power. (The big win for DI in EU is "lean cruise".)

Remember, Class 6 and 7 is very cost sensitive. Many (most ?) are purchased for fleets of municipal, utility or local delivery.

Edited March 27, 2014 by theoldwizard

[Joe771476]

I'm wondering how much experience and know-how has been learned by Ford having found this 2003 article on their Ford Otosan Ecotorg diesel. Can it be easily adapted for the US?

 

 

 

Ford Otosan Launches Ecotorq Diesel for Heavy Trucks | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto

[7Mary3]

Unfortunately, it appears as though the Boss 6.2L has some fatal flaws that will keep it out of anything larger than an F-350.

 

It is starting to look like a dead end, it has been dropped form the F-150 and no word of any larger versions. Maybe it will get DI and some new heads at some point.

 

As for the Ecotorq, it would probably cost too much to get it EPA/CARB compliant based on projected sales.

[lfeg]

Redoing the 6.2 for Medium duty use would be a costly undertaking, let alone the work needed to get it into the 8+ liter range. The demand (even if 50% of the F650/750 were so equipped) would not justify the expendature.

 

Hey, even the FT engines would not be all that viable at todays torque and hp numbers. A 391 uprated to 300 - 350 hp would not hold up in every day service, the bones are not there to handle the heat and stresses. It may have been able to grind that 33.000 lb GVWR up the mountain at 20 mph all day long back in the day, but that is not acceptable today.

[theoldwizard]

Unfortunately, it appears as though the Boss 6.2L has some fatal flaws that will keep it out of anything larger than an F-350.

 

It is starting to look like a dead end, it has been dropped form the F-150 and no word of any larger versions. Maybe it will get DI and some new heads at some point.

Don't write off the 6.2L just yet !

 

The 6.2L was NEVER supposed to be installed in the F150 ! Then came the Raptor and it "needed" something "more". Sales and profits took off and Ford was able to, somehow, meet CAFE requirements.

 

Extensive work will need to be done to the 6.2L to make it "competitive" in Class 6 and 7. Ford has shown their hand on the PowerStroke. I think they are really going to need 2 V8 gasoline engines to cover Class 2 though Class 7.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Why reinvent the wheel?

 

Ford has the blueprint already for a better 6.8L V-10 from the modifications that they made to the 5.4L V8 for the Mustang Shelby GT-500 (DOHC, bored out to 5.8L). The same design principles applied to the 6.8L V-10 would give you a 7.3L V-10 with DOHC. The engine could then be given variable cam timing on the intake cam and run the balance shaft off of the exhaust cam. I have to believe that just doing that would give you decent improvements in performance.

 

Assuming that these numbers from Wikipedia are true...

2012 Ford F-650 & Ford F-750, 3-valve SOHC, 362 hp (270 kW) and 457 lb·ft (620 N·m)

It would make sense that the improved engine would be capable of at least 10% more performance, resulting in approximately 400 hp and 500lbs of torque.

 

It don't believe that such an improvement is out of the question as this was supposed to be a modular engine architecture, and such modifications to an (admitedly low volume) production V8 from the line should translate to the V-10. It would retain largely the same tooling that it currently uses, most of the dressing to the engine, and be more cost effective than further development of the 6.2L albatross that Ford came up with. Also, the increase in displacement will also be very valuable when its used for CNG/LNG applications as, from what little I know, they are down on power as compared to the gasoline version of the existing V-10.

[RichardJensen]

I don't know if you can safely bore out the 6.8L for medium duty applications. You're looking at a heavy sustained load that, I would think, would require a major upgrade in cooling, which you would be defeating by shrinking the water jackets.

 

But that's just my armchair take on it. Why not a 6.2L-based V10?

[twintornados]

I don't know if you can safely bore out the 6.8L for medium duty applications. You're looking at a heavy sustained load that, I would think, would require a major upgrade in cooling, which you would be defeating by shrinking the water jackets.

 

But that's just my armchair take on it. Why not a 6.2L-based V10?

That has been my contention from the jump....Since 6.2L BOSS and 6.8L Triton share common technology and both spring forth from the "modular" family genesis....a melding of both engines into one common line leveraging the positive aspects of both should be a natural progression and ultimately lead to lower production costs that Ford could amortize across a wider application thereby lowering the unit cost for both lines...without any other changes a V-10 based BOSS motor would yield 7.7 liters and would be a low cost brute for F-650/750.....

Edited March 28, 2014 by twintornados

[RichardJensen]

Well, the 6.2 doesn't really share anything useful with the 6.8 in terms of assembly.

 

But a 7.8L V-10 that uses the same pistons, rings, rods, bearing caps, valves, springs, rockers, bore spacing and gears as the 6.2, with a shared deck-height would be a redux of the 5.4/6.8 approach.

[twintornados]

Exactly, Richard....and if the added expense of a CGI block is the case, a "grey iron" V-10 block that uses all the same internals as the 6.2L BOSS motor would been a boon to cost sharing across the entire line. Personally, I would believe the a common CGI block for both would go a long way in terms of durability for any Hurricane derived V-10.

[RichardJensen]

I don't think you need CGI.

[twintornados]

I stand corrected on 6.2L BOSS/Hurricane...I was misinformed that its block was CGI....it is not. All the better to make a common shared V8 in 6.2L and a V10 in 7.7 liters....again, tune for maximum torque and back it up with an all Ford drivetrain for maximum cost savings. Fleets would love it....F350/450/550 would run the 6.2L and F650/750 would run the 7.7L V10 BOSS. All series would make use of the 6.7L Powerstroke with everything backed up by the 6R410 transmission.

[Bob Rosadini]

Haven't a clue who is right but you guys give me hope-just as long as a gaseous family is a part of the solution because one way or another big brother will be shoving that option down industries throat IMO

[fordmantpw]

Just attach two 2.7L EB V6's back to back and have a 5.4L V12 producing 550 HP and 700 ft-lbs of torque.

[jpvbs]

Suppposedly the Boss/Hurricane was engineered to go up to 7.0l. A V10 based on that would mean 8.7l. I wouldn't think Ford really wants to do another V10 though. Maybe they can apply some of the Coyote/Trinity ideas to get the V8 Boss to 7.5l.

[RichardJensen]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which is more economically efficient: A V-10 that shares a lot of parts with a V-8 or two low volume V8s.

[J-150]

Just attach two 2.7L EB V6's back to back and have a 5.4L V12 producing 550 HP and 700 ft-lbs of torque.

 

 

And keep it as a quad turbo

[old_fairmont_wagon]

While I completely agree that the duty cycles of a mod 5.8l v8 in the gt500 and a derived 7.3l v-10 would be substantially different, I would imagine that the much reduced cylinder pressures on the v-10 as compared to the blown v-8 would lend a lot to improving its durrability. It would also allow the v-10 to use less exotic pistons, less exotic cylinder lining technology and perhaps have some other cost improvements.

 

From a regular maintenance perspective, both the boss 6.2l and the v-10 use similar amounts of oil, have the same number of filters and hoses, and both only have one oil filter. The v-10, since it has only one plug per cylinder, actually has fewer plugs that the dual plug boss, to the tune of 6 less. So, except for major overhauls, i'd imagine that the v-10 is cheaper to maintain. I can't imagine that a dual plug boss derived v-10 would make anyone very happy. 20 plugs? Really? The radials on the b-17 didn't have that many plugs! (One row, 9 cylinders, dual plugs)

 

None of these are very good solutions. Ford needs a bespoke architecture medium duty gasoline and gaseous engine if it wants to be serious in this market. Basic characteristics should be 7.0-8.2 liters base displacement range, one plug, dohc, dual vvt, cgi block for durability and weight reasons. The design should be flexibile enoigh to handle reverse flow heads for a turbocharged version, staight flow heada for n/a and superchargex gaseous versions