Red Horse

Well then you can relate to what I'm talking about. I have memories of meeting this truck on a pit road and the minute the driver was on the brakes you would see that nose drop down to the degree you would never see a conventional I-beam/leaf spring front drop like that unless something was broken. Interesting that here we are 58 years later after GM tried that out and the conventional I beam/leaf spring set up still rules although air bags are starting to make some inroads. But unless its on a custom fire truck chassis, still no true IFS designs to speak of...or so it seams to me.

Kevin-I think "One Ford" went out the window when Mulally left.. My only thought is this fwd platform has a lighter GVW than the RWD's we get here. In any case when you look at the continued downsizing in engine sizes, have to believe its only a matter of time before this gets here. Where is the 3.2 built?

I wonder how this compares with frames on RWD US versions

Then in 1960 GM came out with the brilliant IFS front end for heavy trucks. Long torsion bars that went back to frame I believe under cab. Local sand and gravel outfit had one- single axle with like a 6-8 yd body. Unforunately while a decent ride, I believe they had a bad habit of twisting frame rails. I think by 62, it was gone. In any case that 59 i a beauty.

Well I have to say I agree with Maxidyne's comment on "electrification". Then again maybe we should make a distinction between "electrification" and "autonomous" vehicles. No doubt there will be a battle between electrified vs IC vehicles-assuming the cost of electricity is accurately captured, but its the self driving cars that makes me scratch my head. I thought Americans loved their vehicles?..Loved to drive? Apparently Silicon Valley has convinced people at the top that we are done with all that. Then again, considering most new drivers don't know what a 3 pedal vehicle is, and probably can't change a tire. perhaps Silicon Valley knows what's best for us. Thank God we have furniture man at the helm😎

Shows what 23 years of good care does-good lookin' "95"

For sure-no bullshit guy who had no trouble calling a spade a spade. A different kind of guy from the majority of the ones we have seen at the top. And kind of like whoever is at the top at Ford, he always had to contend with a family that was behind the scenes-at least that is the perception I have. How about it Kevin or anyone else with a good handle on just what Fiat is all about these days??

Hippy-congrats-where did you finally find the signs? Looking good!

How about that- Horns on the roof! Apparently some old school guys who don't care about the .0006 mpg loss because of aero dynamics!

"Cat-Navistar". Again everytime I think of it I say-"marriage made in Hell! Both companies created all kinds of bad press with engine issues- and they get together??? Shocker Kevin that the Cat site still mentions the on highway trucks. The one time the name "Cat" didn't work with the loyalists.

Maxi-I'm with you but I think this X12 is too big to stuff into a 750. I do believe its a 12 L designed to compete with 15L engines. What is crazy IMO is the fact that Ford is now using the old Super Duty steel cab for just 650 and 750. No clue as to where those cabs are stamped but they end up at the Ohio plant, along with the aluminum cab that is assembled on the 450-550 chassis that are also built there. All of this suggests to me-I hope- that there will ultimately be a new purpose built cab for 450-750 and select components will also be used to replace the E series cut aways that are still built at Ohio. MAYBE WE WILL SEE SOMETHING THAT WILL COME OUT WHEN THE NEW 7L+ V-8 gas engine comes out as that will be a home run for Ford as there is a big need for a low cost gasoline class 6/7 conventional. And while they are at it maybe time for a tandem as well. there are plenty of applications that need the GVW rating but just don't run the annual mileage to justify the diesel premium.

Isn't the downside of LNG very heavy tanks cutting into payload? (Even heavier than CNG systems)?? As for the cab itself, one of the better looking Euro cabovers IMO.

amen- was it a case of a narrow spec that precluded US firms from competing? If its any consolation, I'm sick of reading on the packaging of a tool I've purchased....." Engineered in US to (fill in the blank) specifications. Made in China". At least these things might have a plate that says-..Engineered in EU (Italy), made in US.!

Well then I stand corrected-it was the "answer" to the Maxidyne-so it was a CT.

I believe the Cummins was known as the PT 270. We needed a quick wreck replacement and found a White 4564 with Velvet Ride, that motor and a Roadranger RT -906. 3 holes, then pull the valve!. Only one I ever saw.

Jim-further trivia-correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the two speed control was not on gear shift but rather was dash mounted to discourage drivers from trying to split gears like a true 5 and 2.

good catch!

so is this the Navistar version? If so looks like they are sticking with old Terrastar cab and only commonality is chassis/power trains???

Surprising. The big driver toward front discharge here? IMO the customer. Once contractors have their first delivery with a front discharge, they don't want a rear discharge unless pour is a "big dump" into a concrete pump or a big form job, much less labor time to place concrete.

thx Kevin-somehow cab looked smaller to me in that shot-but in any case very "aero" and clean vs so many of the others that IMO are not.

Kevin-Now what is this one-? Not the big one due to be introduced in Sept. Never saw this before in any of the Ford world sites???

Kevin, Those conveyors are nice but for sure they can't compete with a front discharge. There are some rear discharge mixers in service that have an aftermarket conveyor system mounted on them and in some cases i'm sure they work well and can eliminate the need for a pump or a lot of hand labor (wheelbarrows, buggies or pulling concrete once in forms) but I'm sure these Liebharrs are costly from a first cost as well as maintenance issue. Front discharge? On many jobs truck gets on site and driver never gets out of cab and he is pouring -unless he has to ad chutes. And if pouring things like piers or individual pads, walls?- driver stays in cab-moves truck and directs chutes accordingly. Working my way through school I wheeled my share of concrete off the back of B-81's, LJ's etc. Would have made my life easier then. I saw Quickfarms comment about So Cal-here in Northeast for sure front discharge rules. Exception might be major cities where so much construction requires pumps. A rear discharge is much cheaper first cost, driver backs up once to pump and load is discharged into hopper. Boston Sand and Gravel is the big dog in Boston and they have plenty of new rear discharge units. As for outfits in outlying areas? Most new units are front discharge and the old DM-600s are the spares!

Kevin- given the fact they are over 20 years old, I still see a good number around here-for sure, plenty of LN-8000 fuel oil trucks-not surprising given the fact IMO they owned the household delivery market here in the Northeast-plus they are parked pretty much for 6 mos. a year. Also plenty of Louisvilles still in construction service around here. As for an evolved HN 80-and I'm thinking vocational-just like the R/RD -they would stand out in a crowd of OTR tractors posing as vocational trucks😎 I do agree with TS7-I can't imagine anyone is waiting for a class 8 cab over from Ford or anyone else-but I do think Ford is missing the boat by not bringing that LCF Cargo here in class 7 or even 8 as a vocational tandem. But I guess I'm living in the past

surface coal? What state?

Makes me wonder why the Europeans haven't discovered front discharge.