Red Horse

Someone told me the other day it is back at Greenwood-"electrical issues"

Kevin-point of clarification-I'm not suggesting a new chassis-just standardizing on one cab. And if it WAS a completely new medium duty cab, we would be back to the old days when the "pick up cab was 100 (150) to 350 and F-600, F-700 had that cab (modified I'm sure) with a third cab for F-800 and above. Agree 100% that the ISB/Allison combo is needed and if not the ISB one of Ford's Otosan options. Many say Ford can't "afford" the cost of adding those options however IMO the incremental cost would be more than offset by the sales gains.

Note following line in this press release.....The laid-off employees are expected to return to work this fall when Ford begins building redesigned versions of the models, the spokeswoman said. Is this a reference to the minor changes KSC posted the other day OR could this mean that 650-750 will get the aluminum cab. Keep in mind 350-450-550 chassis cabs ar now built in this plant. seems to me it would make sense to eliminate the steel cab still being used on 650-750. Or could it even mean an all new medium cab 350-750 chassis as well as the e series cut away??

Very nice-looks super clean- talk about "short wheelbase"!

As always Kevin thx for taking the time out of your schedule to keep us "civilians" updated.

ugh-don't do that same analysis this morning-NAV 27.65, Ford 11.09. Bring Alan back!

Nice-how many additional pounds you adding to the front axle load? eep the pix coming.

Matt- too lazy to go back to page 1-so what is the plan in terms of WB stretch? This going to be another roll back? If this had liners the rails look good-at least to my uneducated eye!

so Hippy-you've been hiding that F'liner!

300 Ford 6? Then again it had a flathead V-8 when it was working so 239 cubes vs. 300-I guess it now has "big power" The original Mack would have been?? 331? IN ANY CASE A BEAUTY.

And this costs...????

well guys correct-there is always two sides to a story-but regardless-this asshole drove for a fair distance with that car hooked up clearly in view of his mirror. So IF you believe he looked in his mirror-bad choice-he was putting everyone else on that road in danger. If he did NOT see him -again bad choice- you are in freeway traffic and you are not checking what is coming up along side you? IMO-either on something or just plain dumb! Lets say the four wheeler did something dumb- as I said, how do you justify putting everyone else in jeopardy as sooner or later that car would become disengaged.

Very good! or as one of our old fleet instructors was quick to say.." stop looking at the bulldogs ass!"

Well last two days have had all kinds of coverage of some A-hole driving a five axle covered wagon with a car hooked up on his trailer. Cars are passing him, blowing horns etc-finally someone pulls in front of this jerk and forces him to stop-says he "never saw the car" which is clearly hanging off the ass end of the trailer. Sad part is .."no charges". Unbelievable- talk about "operating under the influence". How else can you explain this. Cops must have been equally..." under the influence to not charge this idiot with something. Ah- the Smith System of Defensive Driving..."Keep your eyes moving-get the big picture, and know what/who is around you".

And keeping 4WD ???

Well this "fleet manager" must be the owners son in law given the following quote.......The durability factor was evident to us from the beginning,” said Brian Harris, fleet maintenance manager. “With our very first T370, as we were putting the box on it, right away we noticed the frame is built much sturdier than other brands of trucks we’ve owned. Right there, we determined to get more Kenworths. Guess he didn't understand the frame specs when he bought the trucks?

Yawn!

Kevin-the Americans (non- Asians) in the picture are Ford people??

Guy nailed it. Think of the law firms, accountants, software guys etc that derive their living off of this BS. Even if congress tried to get off their ass, would not happen-too many pigs at the trough!

Larry- I am reaching up under truck and the only thin g I feel is the threaded mail end sticking up from trans. Maybe I should raise the body and see if I can see anything else looking in from in back of cab . By the way, in addition to the two inch piece, there is what I would call a thick washer with a beveled top- when it fell out I was not expecting this but I'm guessing the beveled edge goes up against the attaching collar and the flat side goes against the trans.

And what kind of times would that 390 turn? trans? rears? You would probably know this- the '60 Starliner-360 horse-352 or 390?

Kevin-let's hope we get both in the US. A real SUV again- Everest- and something close to original Bronco. Although to TeamsterGrrls's point, If they took the Focus out of MAP because they can't make money on a 25 grand vehicle, what does that say the new Bronco will be. I say kill the Flex (2000 sales a month) and bring on the Everest! And maybe by the time the Bronco is released, my 68 will be back on the road-with the shifter still on the column!

Now THAT is a rare car! 68 390 so it was hydraulic lifters. When I was in high school, friend bought a new 61 Starliner. 390, solids, I believe that was 375 Horse. gave us Ford guys something to smile about!

Interesting to note the use of the A26 in Vietnam. And here we are 45 yrs later and propellers are again getting attention as a cost effective ground support means.

Larry, Matt and Harry S. You guys have convinced me I should do the math and post a chart on my dash-"1500 RPM in X gear= Y MPH"! Well I got underneath it again this afternoon and pulled that two inch connector off the cable-which by the way has no gear on it. I stuck it back into the transmission thinking if gear in trans is okay I would not be able to turn it. spun freely-that says the issue is in the trans??? I should probably post a picture of this "connector as it does not look like anything Matt you have posted.