RoadwayR

I may have wrote that for the ATHS years ago. That is the story I heard. The Chevy Titan 90 was a clone of the Astro 96, and it's last year was 1980. The GM trucks that had I heard had the Deere engines were 1986 (or so) C-60/6000 medium duties, the engine used was a Deere 5.9L. Some did make it out into the real world, and they were in the parts books. Someone told me they were first offered to Deere dealers. No idea if they were all recalled, but that sounds plausible. GM probably would not have wanted to support 'orphan' trucks. Later on, a CNG converted Deere 5.9L was shopped around, and I think one of the school bus manufacturers offered it for a few years. The company I work for had one in a Freightliner FL60, ran very good. No idea how it got in there, but I don't think it made it into regular production. I never saw another.

Timing is everything. This will ultimately be a successful move, even if it gets off to a slow start. Nonetheless it looks like this move was made more to bail VW's car business out and fund their BEV plans than fund the purchase of NAV. As far as Traton buying Navistar, I am still not convinced Navistar wants to be bought. Let their shareholders enjoy the profits of NAV's turn-around. Who knows, maybe things go bad for VW it will be Navistar buying Traton!

Why do I have a feeling that if/when Ford sells out to VW this will all magically end up a MAN operation?

Really nice looking rig!

I assume for a version of the upcoming Scania 13L?

Guess Ford didn't learn anything from the Kearns case. Funny thing about the Ecoboost engines is that I remember hearing all the engineering on those was contracted out to a Bosch subsidiary in India. Wonder where the idea really came from?

No doubt Traton will want a strong relationship with Navistar, the question is 'how much and when?'. They absolutely need International in the U.S. to challenge Daimler and Volvo. It's a little too early to see just where the Ford-VW thing is going. I don't even want to think about FCA and Renault..........

I think these Construcktors looked like Autocars, but they were more like a heavy duty vocational version of the 4000 with a set back front axle. Later on the Constructor merged into the Autocar line.

Renault undervalued? Really? Hard to believe. Anyway, deal looked bad to me without Nissan. Maybe Nissan and FCA ought to talk.

I run one now and it's strong for today!

Definitely a '66, has the square 'G M C' letters in the grille. '65 and earlier are curved. Dual exhaust and 10 stud Budds usually indicate 6000 or 6500 series, which would have had a 401 or 478 V-6. But, this particular truck is Canadian! Series designation on the cowl instead of the door, no 'V-6' emblems. It's probably an Oshawa built 960 series with a new-for-'66 366 Big Block Chevy engine.

Don't know, but it wouldn't hurt if Cummins paid attention to how Isuzu does DPF's and aftertreatment.

https://www.apnews.com/Business Wire/50961f0dcb864892827d3e55c594966c

Can't help but think Otosan Trucks would be a great addition to MANAS. Free up Ford Otosan to provide more light commercial vehicles to Ford and VW for Europe and North America. Strengthen MAN's position in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Looks like the guy on the right's tee shirt has the Roanoke logo on it. Besides, he looks like a guy that would work the night shift in the garage. Like I do!

But maybe not for International. Imagine that engine in a new HX 520. Might get a lot more guys thinking about 'Binders again. BTW, didn't the Cat 3408 have a 72 degree bank angle? I know it had a really expensive crankshaft. Impressive engine, could do anything a 12V-71 could do for twice the price........

The company I work for has been buying M2 106's is great numbers for about 8 years now, most Cummins ISB powered with Allison 3000 series transmissions. Our drivers like them, big cab, great visibility, tight turning radius, easy to get in and out of, decent HVAC. As far as reliability is concerned the Freightliner parts are fine, most common problems seem to be the coolant surge tanks and an occasional radiator. Cummins emissions and aftertreatment devices are by far the bulk of the trouble. We have since 'graduated' to the M2 112, similar spec. but with the Cummins/Westport ISL-G. Those trucks have been nearly trouble-free. We would probably give International a shot if they offered the ISL-G or some other CNG engine as an option. We are pretty much done with diesel. Freightliner has come a long way in medium duty since the FL 50/60/70. Those trucks were piles.

I think whatever success Ford's 'global truck unit' is experiencing at the moment is attributable to Otosan, not the clown show in Dearborn.

How ironic! Almost sounds like some kind of back door deal was made. Brazilian truck market very important to VW, VW's truck operation about to be spun off, Ford-VW 'partnership'. Coincidence? This does not bode well for CAOA.

What I am hearing is that these Fords are in many instances easier to repair (replacing a bed side, for instance), but more prone to damage that steel bodied pickup trucks. That seems to be what this article is saying, roughly 7% cheaper to repair but a 7% higher instance of repair. I wonder what they will look like after 10 years. Maybe they will not corrode as bad as steel, but will we be seeing lots of little cracks and dings all over?

I would love to see one with the LeRoi gas V-8 in it.

As I said in the post, I think Ford should have let the old Louisville run it's course until switching KTP over to Super Duty production and not bothered with HN80 at all. Sure, hindsight's 20/20 but I believe if Ford had to do it all over again, that's what they would have done. Regarding Ford's analysis of the decision to go ahead with HN80, remember at the time Ford's management was anything but rational. The power structure at the Glass House was one of fiefdoms bent on destroying each other, Ford Motor and the customer be damned. I was told by Ford insiders back in the day that the light truck group was always out to screw the heavy truck group, and had wanted KTP for years. Supposedly the decision to use the International 6.9L diesel for the F series back in 1982 was partially done as a slap in the face for the heavy trucks guys as International was Ford's biggest competitor at the time. It seemed to me that HN80 happened while Bill Ford Jr. was running the heavy truck division, and after he left it heavy truck had no champion and fell victim to a rational profitability argument from the light duty guys. I wish I could go back to those days and ask better questions! To be a fly on the wall during some of those meetings.......

No way, the numbers were not there for Ford in heavy trucks since the mid-80's. What really killed Ford's heavy truck business was the boundless increase in light truck popularity that really took off in the 1980's. The Louisville plant is FAR more profitable building high volume high margin light trucks than it was building low volume labor intensive low margin (because most all of Ford's large truck sales were low bid fleet) heavy trucks. The mystery was why did Ford bother with the HN80 program in the first place? They dropped the C series in 1990, the CL in 1991, should have let the old L's go until they had to retool the plant for the 1999 Super Duty pickups. Of course they wouldn't have had anything to sell Freightliner, but they lost a lot of money on that deal anyway. I have never heard that Ford still had their heavy truck tooling nor any rumor that they had any intention of re-entering the heavy truck market in the U.S.. Freightliner did buy all the old L series tooling along with that for the HN80, it was all auctioned off in St. Thomas late 2009. Possibly Ford bought the tooling? That would be interesting!

Well, I certainly hope the Autocar hyperbole lasts longer than the 18-odd months the HN80 party lasted. But, everything I have seen of the Autocar conventional so far leeds me to believe this is a very serious effort. Not to change the subject, but to this day Ford's abrupt exit of the heavy truck market after designing a whole new series of vehicles for it has to be the most bizarre thing I have ever seen a major manufacturer ever do. Did someone not get the memo? Wonder if there wasn't more to the story.

Looks good for a rear loader or roll-off. International used to have a pretty good LCF chassis for front loaders. Don't remember the model number, but it was a sort of a hybrid. Basically a widened Cargostar cab with a big doghouse on a Fleetstar chassis, Cummins or Detroit power.