Red Horse

Matt, Tell the old man he should drill a well because your rates will be going up!

The 7.8 at 240 HP was a very popular engine in LN-8000's in home heat service. 33,000 lb GVW "tax cheater" 2800 gals of no 2 heat. some outfits also used 3000 gal tanks so that put them closer to 35,000 lbs. This engine was an Ag engine so very durable block. Only reason I believe it went away in favor of the Cummins 8.3 was it would have been too costly for Ford to "clean up". Goes back to the day when Ford and International slugged it out for class 7 sales crown.

LN's 93" BBC Great truck. Great visibility, and as you said, great for getting into tight places

No experience with Huskidrive but as I recall, the dash mounted flipper was to discourage guys from thinking they were driving a "five and two" and would end up splitting gears if the selector was located on the stick. As for the PT-270, we were a big White customer and a bought a lot of 4564's- all NH 250's. Well we wrecked one and bought a 4564 with a PT-270. I think White had built it to our specs/color hoping they would get a shot. Had a RR, RT-906. 906! 3 holes then pull the button and grab the other three! Never saw another one. Agree- Mr May and Mr Pelizonni truly invented a better mousetrap! Now 40 years later I recognize what an advance it was.

Like I said before- what a marriage-two partners who have more outstanding "legal baggage" in back of them than the rest of the industry combined. Or am I out of touch and all of the legal cases have been resolved?

Not exactly on topic, but as KSC mentioned Liugong, a friend of mine bought a new 3 yd. Liugong loader early this winter. UNDER $90,000 brand new. A 3 yard CAT for under 90,000 would be used with about 8000 hours on the clock-unreal pricing. Very impressed at first. However, the nickle/dime stuff has started. It is Cummins powered,not sure about rest of driveline. From time to time I run a 966 Cat with over 10,000 hours on the clock. Wonder how that Liugong will perform at that stage in its life. Back to topic and inline with KSC's comments, I hope these guys get the book thrown at them. It is a free country. You want to quit and take your mind to the Chinese? Fine. When you go to the extremes these guys did, different story- Hang 'em out to dry!

Direct drive and 2.64 gears? Kind of tall isn't it? what do you haul?

Hmnnn...Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc. Nothing like a fair trial but does look like a blatant case. How many others like this are out there.

Further thoughts on this 12.2 MPG "success story": -The route was a 312 mile RT On I-35, San Antonio-Dallas. Can anyone comment on nature of this route? Relatively flat? Significant issue. -GVW was 65,000 lbs. Why didn't they use Federal max of 80,000 lbs for five axles? -Engine was a 10.7L @ 375 HP and speed was limited to 65 MPH. That is a "safe" HP rating and a "safe" max speed to generate good MPG. You could say this would be a reasonable baseline for a "corporate" operation. Typical owner operator? Not likely -Rear axle ratio of 2.28. While I have no clue what trans. ratio in top gear was, I have never heard of a tractor with such a tall rear end ratio. Such a ratio IMO would work on only the optimal route-namely flat, minimal wind conditions and something less than max GCW. If ever there was a tractor that could "smell a grade", this would be it! No doubt some of this will "trickle down". But how much and at what cost. And by the way-as I've said before-old guy here! Not that old however that I go back to the days of "bull nose" trailers, but I go back to the days when the Rudkin -Wiley cab airshield made its debut-followed by the various bulbous "nose cones" that were affixed to the nose of the typical square nose box to improve economy. These were relatively low cost add ons that did improve economy. And speaking of economy, 4.5 mpg was not considered outrageous at 73,280 to 80,000 lbs when you kept a diesel at 2100 RPM. I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to say with these test parameters, not shocked by this success. And like I said, F'liner got 40 mil of our tax dollars for this "experiment"? As I see it, Daimler got a good deal courtesy of the US taxpayer. Typical government sponsored exercise.

You think when our tax dollars are handed out for these grants there is any clause that talks about "cost effectiveness" of the design? Or practicality? No doubt- a lot of surface area on the roof of a 102, 53' box. But how many boxes are dedicated to a tractor in this country?--yeah I know in 40 years tjhings will change- blah blah.

Understood-my reference to.."not everyone wants a crossover SUV" was a reference to the Explorer and all the GM products.

Well made the trip today to Canterbury with Bill S and Dan M to visit Denis and his Wednesday "coffee club". Always a treat seeing these boys-talk about history! We then went over to Pat C's American Paving shop where he and his boys were working on a couple of AB projects before they get back out on the road putting new asphalt down. A few pix- Denis and his latest addition-237 powered F, the "coffee club, Denis and Pat and Pat's boys at work.

Again, sad they won't bring this to US. Not everyone wants a "crossover" SUV. Amazes me they stick with the Flex which sells like 2000 vehicles a month if they are lucky but they won't build this here. Wife had three Explorers and when it came time to replace here 2004, having driven my daughter-in laws new Explorer, wanted no part of it. Claimed only SUV she could see out of was Pilot. I found a 2010 Explorer Limited with 27,000 miles, 3v-4.6 V-8, 6 speed auto. And Ford CPO. She loves it but what do I do next-besides divorce over a car?

Too bad we will never see it here in US

Now that is a beast! Likewise I have never seen a 4 x 4 7500. Fords were great machines for the money I had a friend who was a Deere salesman. He always said, once he lost an account to Ford, he would never get it back as whatever issue he may have had, the upfront cost savings was more than enough to keep him happy. Now talkabout "old", I learned on an International 350 with a Pippin back hoe. the 350 was sold as a farm tractor or an industrial. Backhoes were aftermarket. the Pippin was built by Cone Automatic Machine Co of Vermont. Four stick controls. I then worked for a guy while I was in school who had an 840 (841?) Ford-gas job,with a 14' Ford backhoe. Quick on and off attachment-we would shift back and forth between hoe and york rake. Likewise 4 sticks. This Ford also had an Eranco aftermarket driving front axle. This little machine was great,and in early-mid 60's 4wd TLB's were few and far between. I think the only 4 wd factory machine was the Dynahoe which was a big buck machine.

THX-nice to see an English translation. Perhaps some day they will prove that "One Ford" is not a buzz phrase but will translate into some of that engineering effort in this country. Surprised that Sergio lets FPT market to Ford, then again I suppose no different than Detroit Diesel in the GM days- just another business unit selling to whoever will buy their product.

The hydraulic assist concept seems to make a lot of sense in a predominant stop and go operation or where the weight of the accumulator tank (I think that's what its called) is not a significant penalty. Think of an off road haul truck (open pit mining) and The grades these things descend. Talk about storing energy!

KSC- I'm assuming that live tandem version is offered in the lower ("old style") Cargo cab in Brazil? It looks like there are two versions of the low CF-one in Brazil and the other more rounded version in Turkey-or am I imagining things?

Certainly impressive numbers-assuming they are verified. But.."no brakes until year 10", "and 50% less fuel" speaks volumes. Next questions? What is first cost premium and what if any maintenance costs have been incurred on the Parker system??

OK- I get your point- new cab from a "marketing" perspective. And likewise agree- R cab worked very well. And as a matter of fact, hate to see the CH cab go as from my perspective, as a vocational cab it it big enough. What are key dimensions to me in a vocational cab?-Headroom, Legroom and decent shoulder room. Now you get into a "large car" OTR sleeper tractor, and I guess you make the case that you have to be able to stand up, get in the sleeper without a lot of athletic ability etc as KSC pointed out. But IMO, all of that cab width is if anything a detriment in a vocational cab. Remember when International came out with the S series in the 70's/80's? The 90" BBC version had that extremely wide cab? Why? And looking at that Volvo F cab that KSC says will be the basis of the new Mack cab, looks like we are headed for a "Euro" style cab so I guess we better get used to "wide is better". So if you dump truck, mixer, logger etc drivers want to stand up to change into or out of your long johns/Carhartt coveralls you will be able to do that. Again from my perspective, most driver friendly vocational cabs were R model and Louisville.

Agree with highlight. Hate to see another American Icon bite the dust. And TeamsterGrrl_ So real world, the cab is what ? 20 years old? But is it functional? Does it have decent visibiity and driver comfort? How is the Freightliner SD cab that much better for example? As a pure vocational cab seems to me it does the trick. As a "large car" cab, maybe marginal but is that their real market? I don't think so.

For sure-my thoughts exactly! Good luck in any case-sounds like a great adventure.

Small world-that rubber block 2000D came from our Milwaukee terminal-must have been something in the air out there! Now I would bet tht 549 would/will move!

Joe-thx for education-never knew there was a "1900" based on the 2000. Only experience I ever had with that series was we had a "cast off" 2000 that had been surplused in another part of the company. NH-250, RT-910 with that rubber block suspension (Hendrickson?) good thing I was young and did not have brittle bones!

Hmnn-you sure that f-2000 has a V-8? Never thought V-8's were avail in a 2000 series. Worked my way through school working for a contractor and one of the things I drove was a B-180 powered by a 345 V-8. registered for 24,000 and would routinely gross 34,000! "5 and a 2"and that V-8 would fly!