RoadwayR

It would be interesting if they built a class 6. Cummins would like to see it.

EMD has a Tier 4 locomotive: http://www.progressrail.com/en/products/locomotives/freight/sd70acet4.html I believe U.P. is putting them in service now. Never heard of G.E. using Deutz power, they originally bought Cooper-Bessemer diesels before obtaining a license to build C-B diesel designs themselves. As far as I know G.E. still manufactures their own prime movers based on Cooper-Bessemer designs.

I knew a guy that had an old Air products tractor, it was a '79 or so White Road Boss, also with a 6V-92. I got the impression Air Products was a bit like Roadway, they would buy tractors from just about anyone, but would always order the exact same powertrain.

I think Cummins will make it, but I see them transitioning from primarily highway engines to non-highway (if they haven't already). And, speaking of highway diesels, think of how much trouble they would be in if they didn't have FCA (Ram) to sell to. Navistar's move to basically replace their VT365 with the Cummins B6.7 generated some good press, but I am not sure that deal represents a lot of volume. In addition, I believe the GM/Isuzu 'Duramax' will be offered in International's new class 4/5 truck, what is to stop that engine from replacing the B6.7 in other International applications?

I was just thinking that.......

I heard rumors that a tandem-axle F-850 and the option of the International DT466E were being planned for the Ford/Navistar Blue Diamond joint venture trucks before the whole 6.0L Powerstroke debacle. The Blue Diamond trucks were available with the Cat 3126/C7 anyway, so they had the engine for a tandem. I think the whole point of the new F-650/750 is to offer a low priced medium with an all-Ford powertrain, so I don't think we will be seeing an F-850 tandem.

I think the basic HN80 cab design would still be reasonably competitive if it were still around today. I don't think anyone faulted the design of that cab, only the assembly quality and material selection. I didn't have much first-hand experience with either the Ford or Freightliner built versions of these trucks, but I do remember hearing some horror stories about them. One in particular was from a driver (I think he was working for a local grocery store chain) who hit a deep dip and had the whole dash assembly break loose and fall into his lap! Freightliner put considerable effort into these trucks for some time after acquiring the line from Ford, and I got the impression the Sterling versions were better than the Ford versions. Of course, Ford would likely have also improved the line had they held on to it. One casualty of the Freightliner take-over was the de-emphasis of the OTR versions of the HN80. Ford introduced the HN80 line with a new Aeromax version, replacing the LTLA-9000 and it even came with the tag line "Together We Will Run the Country". It didn't survive under the Sterling name, as Freightliner saw Sterling as a vocational and regional haul line only. Ever see a Sterling with a sleeper? I never did. BTW- Ford built a long-nose HN80 prototype the was to replace the LTL-9000! It was shown at one truck show (Mid-America?) in 1996 and was never seen again. As for the tooling, I think the whole Sterling assembly line was scrapped when Daimler closed the St. Thomas plant. Sterling's are not easy to find parts for these days.

I have already heard of 6.7L Powerstroke owners buying up all the CJ-4 oil they can find at Walmart, ect.. Funny thing is Ford was recommending 5W-30 in these engines, an oddball viscosity for truck diesel engines. Now this. That having been said, warranty might not be too much of a big deal as long as the proper oil is readily available. What I see that will be a problem is fleets with other makes of diesels that want to run CK-4 5W-40 in everything.

I think the real reason Ford sold the HM80 was to convert KTP over to light duty production (the all-new 1999 Super Duty). Profit-wise, it was one of the smarter things Nassar did. I heard at the time Ford's heavy truck production earned just about enough money to fund their NASCAR effort. From what I understand, Ford came close to selling their medium duty line to Freightliner in 1997 as well. As you stated in another post, there was to be a medium duty version of the HM80 and James Hebe was very interested in it. When Ford decided at the last minute to retain the medium duty F series, they sourced a very limited option Cummins B diesel only F-700 from their Cuautitlan assembly plant. Freightliner eventually built their own version of an HN80 medium duty, the Acterra. An HN80 cab on an FL70 chassis, the Acterra was probably fairly close to what Ford's truck would have been.

Wow, not only can you get a franchise to sell the thing, but you can get one to build them too!

Maybe Freightliner will try to get rid of the Cummins B again.

If you think about it, Chevy will soon have a class 4/5 conventional, class 3 through 6 LCF's, and the possibility of a tandem LCF and a class 6/7 conventional in the future. All through JV's and marketing agreements. The whole lineup probably cost GM less than Ford spent on the just 650/750.

Well, before you go thinking Ford and Chevy are the only manufacturers whose marketing departments are clueless when it comes to commercial truck advertising, check out this example from DTNA, an organization that certainly ought to know better: In the February issues of Fleet Equipment, there is a 2 page ad commemorating the 50th. anniversary of Western Star. A wonderful spread showing a late model Star in a logging setting in a rich sepia tone, and copy touting Western Star's origin and experience in demanding applications. Nice. In the background is a very clear shot of an old Mack DM800! No question Western Star is a fine truck, but seriously guys, don't show one of your competitor's old soldiers in your nostalgic ad! As for the Chevy medium duty announcement, my guess is there may be a new gasoline engine under development but it might not be ready when the new truck debuts.......

I wonder if that 6HK1 DOC engine could be EPA/CARB certified. No particulate filter or SCR could be quite an advantage.

Good article. My employer is going to CNG in a very big way, primarily because we are a natural gas/electric utility, but also because we are seeing a significant rise in the operating costs of diesel powered trucks. Does it make financial sense? I can't answer that conclusively at this point, I don't have all of the pertinent information and you never really know until the end of the vehicle's life cycle, but it looks promising. Mechanics and drivers like CNG, and that's always a plus. As for Cummins and Westport, I don't think conversions of compression-ignition engines to spark-ignition gaseous fuel engines is a good solution. They do have an advantage in that they integrate into chassis set up for equivalent diesel engines easily, but I think they are too heavy and inefficient. A decent short-term solution until we see if there is a market for a purpose-built heavy duty CNG/LNG engine. I think the PSI 8.8L and 10.4L V-8's are closer to the ideal CNG/LNG engine. Volvo/Mack's D13 LNG engine sounds a little bit like Detroit Diesel's unsuccessful PiNG engine.

If the rumors of an Isuzu LCF tandem heading to North America are true, what are the chances that it would be badged as a Chevy as well? That having been said, I am not sure there would be too much of a market for a truck like that, but if it were offered with the 6HK1-TC or 6UZ1-TCN it might make a good regional tractor or refuse truck.

If I am not mistaken, isn't the 4HK1-TC a 4 cylinder version of the 7.8L 6HK1-TC? I believe the 6H had a B10 rating of 400,000 miles. I hope we see the 6H here in the U.S. again, it's a great engine.

GM and Isuzu didn't get around the import issue, the trucks are assembled by Spartan Motors in Charlotte MI..

Back to the subject of the new Chevy/Isuzu class 6 LCF, I think it is interesting to compare it to it's likely #1 competitor, the Ford F-650. My best guess at this point is the Ford will have a lower purchase price, but the Chevy will have lower operating costs and better resale. There is still an aversion to cabovers in this weight class, but ease of use in congested urban areas and the very spacious cab may convince some operators to switch. I think we will see a trend to smaller diesels in class 4-6 trucks and the 5.2L Isuzu could eventually be an advantage over the Ford 6.7L Powerstroke. If the 6500XD/FTR is anything like the NPR's I have been around, it won't break.

Superb HN80? I say good design, poor execution.........

Too much weight on the front axle. Spread probably part of it too. Most all jobs use a pump anyway.

NO front discharge mixers in CA.. And the market for mixers here alone is enough for Kenworth to sell plenty.

My guess is a GM cab on both the Chevy and International versions. Is GM-VISTA the new name of the JV? There are rumors the JV will eventually include class 6/7 trucks too. Now that Navistar has the PSI propane and gasoline engines in the conventional IC bus, they need to offer those engine options in their medium duty line.

Speaking of Brigadier's, take a look at these two: Notice anything strange?

Not a 392, it's a V series, probably a 478 or 549.