kscarbel2

.

ConMet, Protean Electric partner to develop electric in-wheel drive system Fleet Owner / March 13, 2017 Consolidated Metco (ConMet) announced it is partnering with Protean Holdings Corp. (Protean Electric) to develop an electric in-wheel drive system to provide hybrid-electric solutions for the medium and heavy-duty commercial vehicle markets. “We are combining our decades’ long expertise in wheel hubs for commercial vehicles with Protean Electric’s success with drive systems for electrified passenger vehicles,” stated Beto Dantas, ConMet VP of Marketing, Innovation, and Strategy. “The result is the development of an innovative wheel end product that will provide lower lifecycle costs, improved fuel economy, added torque, increased power, and better overall vehicle performance.” “This agreement enables us to expand the market reach of our ProteanDRIVE technology into the commercial vehicle market,” explains Andrew Whitehead, Chief Commercial Officer at Protean Electric. “ConMet has the commercial vehicle market and wheel hub experience we have been looking for to help develop this solution” The ConMet/Protean in-wheel electric drive system will enable ConMet’s OEM and fleet customers to address the continued tightening of safety and emissions regulations, increasing demands for improved fuel efficiency, weight and drivetrain packaging optimization, and shifts in vehicle demands for long-haul and urban delivery, according to the company. In addition, the jointly developed electric wheel end system, which is compatible with existing vehicles, will provide vehicle packaging advantages, reduce complexity, and minimize drivetrain losses for truck, tractor, and trailer applications. ConMet will feature the new electrified hub in its booth at the MidAmerica Trucking Show March 23-25, 2017 in Louisville, KY.

Ford Motor Co. Press Release / March 13, 2017 .

Reuters / March 13, 2017 Fourteen million Americans would lose medical insurance by next year under a Republican plan to dismantle Obamacare that would also reduce the budget deficit, the nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said on Monday. The CBO report forecast that 24 million more people would be uninsured in 2026 if the plan being considered in the House of Representatives were adopted. Obamacare expanded insurance to about 20 million Americans. The report could influence sentiment toward a bill already under fire from Democrats and some Republicans, who have long vowed to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The CBO projected that 52 million people would be uninsured by 2026 if the bill became law, compared with 28 million who would not have coverage that year if the law remained unchanged. Two House of Representatives committees have approved the legislation to dismantle Obamacare that was unveiled by Republican leaders a week ago, but it faces opposition from not only Democrats but also medical providers including doctors and hospitals and many conservatives. The CBO, however, said federal deficits would fall by $337 billion between 2017 and 2026 under the Republican bill. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said Trump's plan would cover more individuals at a lower cost and it was "virtually impossible" to envision that 14 million people would lose insurance coverage by next year. Democratic leaders in Congress said the bill could result in elderly people being kicked out of nursing homes as it simultaneously gives tax cuts for the richest Americans. "How can they look their constituents in the eye when they say 24 million of you no longer have coverage and those of you who do have it, will have less coverage at more cost to you," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. PREMIUMS TO RISE The Affordable Care Act aimed to help restrain U.S. healthcare spending, which is about 17 percent of the nation's economy, but it has continued to grow faster than inflation. The proposal would end the Obamacare expansion of the Medicaid insurance program for the poor and would replace Obamacare's income-based subsidies with fixed tax credits for the purchase of private insurance. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center on Monday said the Republican plan would benefit the wealthiest U.S. households far more than middle-income families. A family making $51,600 to $89,400 a year, including fringe benefits like employer-provided health insurance, would get a tax cut averaging $300. The top 0.1 percent of earners with incomes of at least $3.9 million would get a tax cut of about $207,000, the study said. The CBO estimated that insurance premiums would rise 15 percent to 20 percent in both 2018 and 2019 because fewer healthy people would sign up after the repeal of the Obamacare penalty for declining to obtain insurance. But it said the hikes would be offset after 2020 by a $100 billion fund allocated to states in the bill and deregulation in the insurance market. While the federal government would lose revenues through the repeal of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates’ tax penalties, CBO said the loss would be surpassed by savings on insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments that Washington would no longer have to provide for people who lost coverage. At the same time, CBO said the repeal of the individual mandate’s tax penalties would mean higher health insurance premiums for those who retained coverage, because insurers would still have to cover any applicant without being free to raise premiums for older, sicker people, despite lower numbers of younger, healthier customers who are cheaper to insure. Craig Garthwaite, director of the healthcare program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, said the CBO estimates made it harder for Republicans to sell their proposal. "Overall, this is a really bad number for the AHCA. Far more people are predicted to lose coverage than many estimated - and these losses are going to happen more quickly than we would have thought," he said. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a key backer of the plan called the American Health Care Act, said the CBO estimates showed it would ultimately lower premiums. "Our plan is not about forcing people to buy expensive, one-size-fits-all coverage. It is about giving people more choices and better access to a plan they want and can afford. When people have more choices, costs go down," Ryan said.

Bob, they are imported as CKD (completely knocked down) kits, which are then assembled by Spartan. Most Isuzu trucks sold around the world are assembled locally from either CKD or SKD (semi knocked down) kits. Another example, the Hino FF and FG medium trucks sold in the US during the 1980s were assembled from SKD kits by Jim Moran's Southeast Toyota Distributors in Jacksonville, Florida where they arrived via the port. .

Scania offers the world's most effective exhaust brake, complimented by the superb Scania Retarder. Once you experience the retarder, it's hard to go back to a Jake brake. Here's some info on the Scania Retarder: https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/35732-scania-freewheeling-retarder-reduces-fuel-consumption/#comment-245667 https://www.scania.com/group/en/braking-that-makes-cents/ https://www.scania.com/group/en/a-brake-with-history/

Los Angeles Times / March 13, 2017 The unmarked 18-wheelers ply the nation’s interstates and two-lane highways, logging 3 million miles a year hauling the most lethal cargo there is: nuclear bombs. The covert fleet, which shuttles warheads from missile silos, bomber bases and submarine docks to nuclear weapons labs across the country, is operated by the Office of Secure Transportation, a troubled agency within the U.S. Department of Energy so cloaked in secrecy that few people outside the government know it exists. The $237-million-a-year agency operates a fleet of 42 tractor-trailers, staffed by highly armed couriers, many of them veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, responsible for making sure nuclear weapons and components pass through foggy mountain passes and urban traffic jams without incident. The transportation office is about to become more crucial than ever as the U.S. embarks on a $1-trillion upgrade of the nuclear arsenal that will require thousands of additional warhead shipments over the next 15 years. The increased workload will hit an agency already struggling with problems of forced overtime, high driver turnover, old trucks and poor worker morale — raising questions about its ability to keep nuclear shipments safe from attack in an era of more sophisticated terrorism. “We are going to be having an increase in the movements of weapons in coming years and we should be worried,” said Robert Alvarez, a former deputy assistant Energy secretary who now focuses on nuclear and energy issues for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. “We always have to assume the worst-case scenario when we are hauling nuclear weapons around the country.” That worst case would be a terrorist group hijacking a truck and obtaining a multi-kiloton hydrogen bomb. “The terror threat is significant,” said one high-level Energy Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly. “If you are in one of the communities along the route, you have something to worry about.” The Times reviewed government documents dating back two decades and interviewed dozens of government officials, former military officers and arms control advocates to examine the agency. The picture that emerges is an organization hampered by an insular management, a crisis of morale among the rank-and-file and outdated equipment. Among the findings of the Times investigation: The agency is 48 agents short of its planned staffing of 370, a result of budget cuts. Weapons and tactics classes were canceled in 2011 and 2012 for lack of money. More than a third of the workforce has been putting in more than 900 hours a year of overtime, which former couriers and Energy Department officials say has contributed to a breakdown in morale and rapid turnover. In 2010, an inquiry by the Energy Department’s inspector general found widespread alcohol problems. It cited 16 alcohol-related incidents over a three-year period, including an agent on a 2007 mission who was arrested for public intoxication and two agents on a 2009 mission who were handcuffed and detained by police after a fight at a bar. In 2014, the commander of the agency’s operation at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee threatened to kill an employee in an altercation, but no disciplinary action was taken. The agency’s top executive in 2009 was charged with drunk driving after police found him parked on a sidewalk with an open bottle of beer and a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.15%, nearly twice the legal limit, according to New Mexico court records. The agency’s truck fleet is antiquated by commercial standards and well past its operational life even under the department’s own guidelines. About half the tractors are more than 15 years old. The high-security trailers used by the agency are even older, designed before the current era of terrorist threats. How the agency wound up in this state is a story of neglect that begins at the end of the Cold War. After the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991 and chances of a nuclear attack faded, the U.S. dramatically reduced its nuclear stockpile and gave it less attention as military priorities shifted. The transportation office budget stagnated, and was hit by big cuts in some years, leading to staffing shortages and delays in updating equipment. Drivers had to start working long hours of overtime, which led to morale problems and management breakdowns. Despite these problems, the agency asserts that it has maintained a high level of security and has never lost a weapon, though it has been involved in several accidents. The agency denied repeated requests for interviews with top managers. It issued a statement touting its safety record: “For more than 40 years — even after driving the equivalent distance of a trip to Mars and back — no cargo has ever been damaged in transit,” it said. Yet even one of its most stringent security measures was breached, the inspector general found in 2014, when an “unauthorized” employee had access to a nuclear weapon on a convoy mission. According to two knowledgeable sources, the person in question had lost his human reliability rating, which is based on screening for drugs, alcohol abuse or mental health problems, among other things. Under the agency’s rules, the unidentified employee should not have been allowed on the mission. The employee was discovered at a military base and removed from the assignment. Overseers in Congress say the transportation office is less prepared for an attack than it used to be. "It clearly needs a reinvestment,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview. “Like other parts of the nuclear enterprise, the agency has been allowed to atrophy as the country has focused on other things.” ‘Transportation is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear security’ The United States has 4,018 nuclear warheads. About 450 are in underground silos in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota. An additional 1,000 or so are on submarines, which dock at bases in Washington and Georgia. Hundreds more bombs are assigned to the U.S. strategic bomber fleet, which is based in Louisiana, North Dakota and Missouri. And a reserve stockpile sits in bunkers near the transportation office headquarters at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. Each weapon — a complex physics machine that contains as many as 6,000 parts, including tanks of gas, wheels and gears, batteries, wiring, plastic-type explosives and radioactive materials — requires routine inspection, testing and maintenance. The workers who perform those services don’t travel to the weapons. The weapons go to them. They are picked up by the transportation office and driven to the government’s sole plant for working on live nuclear warheads, the Pantex Plant outside Amarillo in the Texas panhandle. From there, various pieces are parceled out to government plants and laboratories across the country. Uranium assemblies travel to Tennessee, plutonium parts to New Mexico, radioactive gas canisters to South Carolina, non-nuclear classified parts to California and firing mechanisms to Kansas City. Those parts are then returned to Texas so the warheads can be reassembled and trucked back to their silos or military bases. The system dates back to the 1950s and the rapid buildup of nuclear arms that accompanied the Cold War. Weapons were spread across the nation to ensure that a significant number could not be destroyed in a focused missile strike. The same went for the facilities that service those weapons. But exactly where they wound up — and where they are today — largely came down to politics, as members of Congress schemed to bring high-paying jobs to their districts. The result is an unwieldy system that requires some of the most dangerous and vulnerable components of the nation’s defense system to be routinely shipped on long-distance journeys from one end of the country to the other — and the shipments, with the coming modernization effort, are only expected to multiply. “This has a classic footprint of an antiquated and inefficient supply chain management system that was created at a time of national emergency," said Nick Vyas, an industrial logistics expert at USC. “If this were a private operation, it would be out of business in less than 90 days,” he said. “No person in their right mind would subscribe to a service like this.” More serious than the inefficiencies in moving so many parts is the vulnerability inherent in placing nuclear bombs on the highways, several experts said. “Transportation is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear security and everyone knows that,” said Bruce Blair, a retired Air Force missile officer, Princeton University researcher and founder of Global Zero, a nonprofit group that seeks elimination of nuclear weapons. The danger is not a traffic accident — even a fiery crash is not supposed to explode a warhead — but a heist. “In an age of terrorism, you’re taking a big risk any time you decide to move nuclear material into the public space over long distances via ground transport,” Blair said. “Bad things happen.” The high-security trailers that carry the weapons present potential intruders with formidable obstacles, including shock-delivering systems, thick walls that ooze immobilizing foam, and axles designed to explode to prevent a trailer from being towed away, according to independent nuclear weapons experts. “The trucks will kill you,” a scientist involved in the matter said. The Energy Department recruits ex-soldiers and special operations commandos for its courier jobs, usually veterans of U.S. wars. Incoming agents train for 21 months at Ft. Chaffee in Arkansas, focusing on how to counter a roadside attack by terrorists set on stealing a weapon. The couriers must pass yearly psychological and medical assessments. They spend months each year working out in private gyms, rehearsing tactics and training with high-powered weapons to counter an attack. The work itself is mundane and tiring, involving long hours on the road under a constant state of high alert. Workers often put in 75 hours a week, according to numerous reviews of the agency. Matt Hill joined the transportation office after 13 years in the Marine Corps and three deployments to Iraq. He was looking for civilian employment that would tap into his military experience. But the job was not what Hill expected. Life on the road meant long weeks away from his family. The pay, about $73,000 a year with overtime, was less than he made in the Marines. Couriers have been quitting, many of them the experienced veterans so crucial to maintaining safety, Hill said. Finally in February 2016, after just three years on the job, Hill quit too. "The senior agents are all leaving," he said. “People at the top won’t listen.” ‘Ominous symptoms’ of structural problems The agency has been the target of worker complaints for years. In the 1990s, a nuclear courier named Jim Bailey alleged that on-the-job radiation exposure had damaged his DNA and led to birth defects in his daughter. A panel of experts found that was unlikely. But in a 67-page report issued in 1998, it laid out a number of other deep problems within the agency, finding that “low morale, distrust and poor communications” among agents are “the ominous symptoms of progressively worsening structural problems” in working conditions. Two-thirds of couriers had symptoms of sleep disorders, including irritability, and the cramped trucks led to knee and back ailments, the report found. Bailey was fired but sued and won a small amount of back pay and the right to return to his job. He never did. After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government turned its attention to the nation’s most critical vulnerabilities and concluded that more needed to be done to prevent terrorists from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In a 2005 letter to Congress, then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called the transportation office a “top priority” and asked lawmakers for money for more agents, special weapons, tougher armored vehicles and improved tactics. The goal was to increase staffing from about 290 to 420 couriers by 2008. But the agency never reached that level, as lawmakers rejected most of the funding request. Today it aims to employ 370 agents but has 322. The long hours couriers must work — identified as a chronic problem by the inspector general — contribute to poor morale and a tense work environment. Those tensions can boil over, as when the supervisor in Tennessee threatened to kill an employee. The same supervisor had been involved in seven verbal and physical incidents that weren’t reported, including “uncontrolled anger, hostility and aggression toward fellow workers and authority figures,” according to a 2014 report by the inspector general. The failure to discipline the employee posed a grave danger, the report found, concluding that it raised the risk that “unsuitable individuals could be allowed to protect nuclear weapons, weapon components and special nuclear material, raising possible national security concerns." As for the alcohol issues cited by the inspector general, the agency has banned beer kegs at parties at the Fort Chaffee dormitory for trainees and mandated random alcohol testing and suspension of agents with a blood alcohol concentration above 0.02%. And after years of lean budgets — and sometimes outright cuts — the agency requested a 19% increase in fiscal 2017, to $283 million. But Congress didn’t approve it, and the agency’s funding for this year is less than what it received in 2012. The agency has been able to purchase five new rigs a year. More potent self-defense systems for the trucks are on the way in a trailer dubbed the Mobile Guardian, which the Energy Department is spending $670 million to develop. But the new trailers are not expected to hit the road until 2023 — long after the weapons modernization program is underway. Meanwhile, the older rigs are well maintained and log fewer miles than comparable commercial trucks, and agency officials are confident they will be able to do the job, said Al Stotts, a spokesman for the nuclear administration. “They don’t send them out with problems,” he said. Video - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-couriers-20170310-story.html

Why is GM clinging to Cadillac in Europe? Michael Wayland, Automotive News Europe / March 11, 2017 As General Motors bids au revoir to its Opel/Vauxhall operations, the automaker has confirmed it will remain in the European premium market with Chevy performance cars and Cadillac. But why? The answer arguably is threefold: • Why not? Cadillac's European operations are separate from Opel, and given their size, there's little downside to sticking around. • The vehicles for sale have higher profit margins and help the reputations of both brands. • It's a long-term play to defend Cadillac's and Chevy's statuses -- to an extent -- as global brands. "Having some presence is better than having no presence at all," said IHS Automotive senior analyst Stephanie Brinley. "It doesn't have to be high-volume. It has to be profitable." Cadillac has spent a decade trying to gain traction in Europe against BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi. The three German juggernauts account for roughly 85 percent of the region's premium market. Each sold between 820,000 and 840,000 vehicles in the region in 2016, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. Cadillac's 45 dealerships in Europe -- mostly in Germany and Switzerland -- sold just 781 vehicles last year, up 33 percent from 2015, according to GM. Add in the Chevrolet Camaro and Corvette, which are sold alongside Cadillac in many dealerships, and sales remain lower than many niche exotic brands that sell cars for millions of dollars apiece. "I don't know the benefits of keeping Cadillac there," said Rebecca Lindland, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "Anytime brands like Bentley or Ferrari outsell you, that's not a positive." Bentley sold 2,676 vehicles in Europe in 2016; Ferrari sold 3,610. She added: "I can better understand keeping Corvette and Camaro -- those types of American cars -- more than Cadillac." Indeed, the success of Ford's Mustang in Europe suggests there's still a viable market for out-of-the-mainstream American sports cars with some heritage. Ford sold 15,300 Mustangs in Europe in 2016, a 44 percent increase from the previous year. GM said it sold just more than 1,800 Corvette and Camaro cars in Europe last year. Between the Cadillac and Chevrolet models, GM wants to reach 5,000 annual sales in Europe by the end of the decade, which would remain a tiny sliver of the overcrowded, 15 million-plus-vehicle European market. "It's a big mountain to climb," Brinley said. "That's the reality of it." Johan de Nysschen seemed bullish on Cadillac's expansion into Europe when he took over as brand president in summer 2014. But a year into his tenure, he said the company was pushing back those plans to "beyond 2020." The move is part of Cadillac's long-term attempt to become a larger player in the global premium market. It continues to grow in China and many developing markets, including the Middle East. The U.S. and China are Cadillac's "volume hubs" while it eyes "disciplined growth in Europe," according to the company. "Cadillac global growth plan continues, and is making progress," Cadillac said in an emailed statement to Automotive News. "Realistically, we see our brand as playing more of a boutique role in Europe -- an alternative to the traditional luxury establishment." Cadillac is continuing with plans "to considerably increase" its dealership network "over the next few years," spokesman Andrew Lipman said. In Europe, Cadillac sells the ATS compact sedan and coupe; CTS midsize sedan; CT6 full-size sedan; XT5 midsize crossover; and Escalade full-size SUV. The ATS-V and CTS-V high-performance versions also are available. GM's plans to remain in Europe with the Chevrolet sporty cars and Cadillac are similar to its plans for Russia, which included focusing on the premium market with Cadillac. In Russia, the brand sells the CTS/CTS-V, XT5 and Escalade/Escalade ESV.

Republicans scramble to defend healthcare reform despite party divide The Guardian / March 12, 2017 The Trump administration claimed on Sunday that no Americans would lose money under the controversial Republican plan to overhaul healthcare, an extraordinary promise that experts have so far widely contradicted. Tom Price, Trump’s health and human services secretary, told NBC’s Meet The Press that “nobody will be worse off financially” under the party’s Affordable Care Act replacement proposal, which has come under withering bipartisan criticism. Analysts have concluded that the Republican plan, the American Health Care Act, would in fact drastically cut tax credits for many people who buy health insurance on the open market; allow insurance companies to charge older people more; and sharply cut Medicaid, the government program that provides free or low-cost healthcare to the poorest Americans. Insurance industry figures have also warned that, by scrapping the government mandate that forces Americans to buy health insurance, the plan will push more younger and healthier people away from buying coverage, which would sharply increase prices for those who do. At the same time, tax cuts within the plan would save people earning $1m a year or more about $157 billion over the next ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a non-partisan congressional panel. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the former Democratic presidential candidate, said on Sunday that the Republican bill was an “absolute disaster” and “a disgrace” that had been put forward with a “cowardly” lack of transparency. “What this has everything to do with is a massive shift of wealth from working people and middle income people to the very richest people in this country,” Sanders said on CBS’s Face The Nation. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan research office, is expected to say early next week in its “scoring” of the plan that the overhaul would also result in millions of people losing health insurance coverage. Paul Ryan, the House speaker, claimed on Sunday that while “on paper” the Republican plan indeed appeared to provide coverage to fewer Americans than the existing Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), ultimately the Republican plan would encourage more coverage by “lowering the cost”. “But we’re not going to make an American do what they don’t want to do,” Ryan told CBS. “You get it if you want it. That’s freedom.” The plan also continued to come under heavy fire from within the Republican party. Rightwing members of the House of Representatives complain that it does not go far enough in dismantling Obama’s system, while members of the Senate warn that it is too radical to pass the upper chamber. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has become one of the party’s most outspoken critics of the bill, said it “would have adverse consequences for millions of Americans” and had no chance of being passed by the Senate in its current form. Although far to the right of many of his Senate peers, Cotton said the plan could well be toxic for Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections. “I’m afraid that if they vote for this bill, they’re going to put the House majority at risk next year,” Cotton said of his colleagues who control the lower chamber on ABC’s This Week. Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, the chairman of the hardline conservative Freedom Caucus, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that he and his colleagues were “not even close at this point” to supporting the Republican plan, which he said required significant alterations. Republican governors, too, have moved against the plan. Ohio governor John Kasich, a former presidential candidate, flatly rejected Vice-President Mike Pence’s claim that the bill would give his state resources to “literally offer our most vulnerable citizens even better coverage”. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Kasich was asked: “Is he right?” “No, he’s not right,” Kasich answered, citing his state’s 700,000-person Medicaid expansion, which would be rocked by changes to coverage for mental health, drug addiction and chronic illness. “The bill needs a fix. The current system doesn’t work,” he said. “But you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” A report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare nonprofit, concluded last week: “Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement.” The Kaiser analysis estimated that a 60-year-old in a rural, Trump-voting West Virginia county, earning $30,000 a year, would face an $8,000 reduction in tax credits under the Republican plan. When reminded of this finding on Sunday, Price said this failed to take into account that the person in question should have more choice under the Republican plan’s marketization. “Who knows what that 60-year-old wants? I know that the federal government doesn’t know what that 60-year-old wants,” said Price. [So Tom Price is saying that the federal government is actually clueless about what the American people want. How then can they be creating health care legislation?]

.

.

McNeilus does offer a front discharge unit (in cooperation with Oshkosh), but the majority of what America's largest mixer body maker gets orders for are those dinosaurs you speak of. https://www.mcneiluscompanies.com/concrete-mixers/s-series-front-discharge-mixer/

The old man (Zenon C.R. Hansen) and Walter May were smarter than most, had integrity and knew what they were doing.

You're right. But the government is not wasting money as far as the aristocracy is concerned. They're taking taxpayer money and redistributing it. Why does it take 5 years to upgrade a highway when it should only take one? Because there's a chain of people who profit from it. It's all an intentional waste of money.

In my humble opinion, the HN80 was as well engineered as the CH. I still recall when chicken producer Holly Farms took delivery of their new fleet. The HN80 only failed because Jacque Nassar mistakenly sold the heavy truck unit. The truck was superbly engineered. The HN80 caused Ford's heavy truck sales to rise over 50 percent in March 1997. Not a bad start. And in the first quarter of 1997, Ford zoomed forward, from last place in 1996, past Volvo in 1997 (Good on ya Ford). https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/41662-a-look-back-at-“american”-innovation-the-ford-hn80-new-aeromax-and-louisville/#comment-302854

Iveco took control of Ford's European heavy truck operations in 1986 with a 52% interest. I believe the Joint venture, Iveco Ford Truck Ltd., ended in 1997 with the closure of the Langley, Berkshire, UK plant. Any non-compete wouldn't have exceeded 10 years. The Cargo technology remained Ford-owned. It's safe to say that Iveco isn't the reason that Ford doesn't make use of the global market Cargo in the US. Daimler gained North American production rights in 1997 with the Ford Truck purchase. The last year of Freightliner Cargo (FC70/FC80) and Sterling Cargo (SC7000/SC8000) sales was 2006. And that was the last generation Cargo, not today's all-new Cargo. Sadly for a company that created the superb HN80, Ford just has little interest in Class 6, 7 and 8 commercial trucks. The Class 6 F-650 only sells well because of its price, and certainly not because of an impressive sales marketing team.

Meanwhile back at Ford headquarters, the members of the manufacturer's commercial truck unit are fast asleep. Only the Ford-Otosan team in the global market still has blue Ford commercial truck blood flowing thru their veins. What Ford needs in the North American market is right under it's nose (Ford-Otosan designed Brazil production). http://www.fordcaminhoes.com.br/cargo/c-1419/especificacoes-tecnicas http://www.fordcaminhoes.com.br/cargo/c-1519/especificacoes-tecnicas .

Chevrolet Introduces 6500XD Low Cab Forward Truck Truck Trend / March 10, 2017 Standard Equipment Includes Allison Transmission, Dana Axles As part of its continuing effort to grow its commercial vehicle lineup, Chevrolet is announcing the availability of a new 6500XD model to its Low Cab Forward medium-duty lineup. The truck has a dock-height chassis, is available in eight wheelbase configurations, and can accommodate bodies up to 30 feet in length. The truck has a maximum gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 25,950 pounds, a front axle rating of 12,000 pounds, and a rear axle rating of 19,000 pounds. In terms of powertrain, the 6500XD is equipped with a 5.2L I-4 turbodiesel producing 520 lb-ft of torque, mated to an Allison 2500-series six-speed automatic transmission and a Dana rear axle. For commercial customers with specific configuration needs, General Motors has a dedicated Upfitter Integration Group to serve as a liaison between Special Vehicle Manufacturers, customers, and GM’s engineering, marketing, and service teams. A website with detailed body builder manuals, technical bulletins, and best practices is also available to assist upfitting. The 6500XD will be available at Chevrolet Commercial dealers by the end of 2017. The cabover truck comes ahead of the forthcoming medium-duty conventional cab truck being codeveloped with Navistar, expected to come to market in 2018.

Chevrolet Expands its Low Cab Forward Range with a New Class 6 Truck Chevrolet Press Room / March 10, 2017 Chevrolet announced today that it is expanding its range of Low Cab Forward trucks with a new dock-height Class 6 model – the 6500XD. The vehicles are expected to be available by the end of the year. The 2018 Chevrolet Low Cab Forward 6500XD, like its Class 3, 4 and 5 stablemates, is a highly flexible platform designed for driver comfort, superior visibility and serviceability, and ease of upfit. The 6500XD adds significant extra capability: Standard equipment includes a 5.2-liter four-cylinder turbodiesel that delivers 520 lbs.-ft. of torque, an Allison 2500 Series 6-speed automatic transmission (with PTO), Dana axles and a robust straight-rail frame. Front and rear axle ratings are 12,000 lbs. and 19,000 lbs., respectively. Maximum GVWR is 25,950 lbs. – enough capability to haul heavy machinery. Eight wheelbases are available and bodies up to 30-feet long can be accommodated. “Our goal is to offer the best work solutions and customer care in the business,” said Ed Peper, U.S. vice president, GM Fleet and Commercial Operations. “Our Low Cab Forward dealers and Upfitter Integration Group will work hand-in-hand with customers and their upfitters to spec the right truck for the job. After the sale, our dealers will be there to support customers with extended service hours and work-ready loaners.” GM’s Upfitter Integration Group provides technical assistance to upfitters and serves as a liaison between Special Vehicle Manufacturers, end customers and several of GM’s engineering, marketing and service teams. They also maintain a website that includes detailed body builder manuals, technical bulletins and best practice manuals. GM’s Expanding Commercial Truck Portfolio GM’s overall Commercial business has been growing steadily, with seven straight months of year-over-year market share gains. “Award-winning new products like the Chevrolet Malibu, Silverado and Colorado have helped GM Fleet earn more than 134 new accounts in the last three years,” Peper said. “At the same time, new products like the City Express small van, the Low Cab Forward range and the all-new medium duty conventional cab truck coming in 2018 make it possible for fleets to consolidate more of their business with us, which simplifies vehicle ordering, financing, maintenance, technical support and turn-in.” This product offensive includes new CNG and LPG propulsion options and an industry-leading 20 diesel-powered cars, crossovers, vans and pickups, all of which are compatible with B20 biodiesel. GM is also expanding its suite of industry-leading driver connectivity and fleet management solutions for small businesses and fleet managers. At the beginning of March, the company announced that it would add Spireon to its roster of telematics service providers, joining Telogis and GM’s own Commercial Link tool. These turnkey, scalable solutions can help with efficiency, idle time, labor, fleet mileage and maintenance-related downtime. They can also help provide insights into driver behavior. Because they are compatible GM’s OnStar technology, no after-market hardware installations required. For more information about the fleet product offerings and services, please visit GMFleet.com. .

Heavy Duty Trucking / March 10, 2017 Chevrolet is expanding its lineup of cabover trucks for 2018 by adding the 6500XD Class 6 Low Cab Forward truck to a lineup that already includes Class 3, 4, and 5 cabovers, Chevrolet has announced. Chevrolet will source the truck through an existing partnership with Isuzu Commercial Truck of America. With the 6500XD, Chevrolet will now offer eight cabovers through select dealers, including the Chevrolet 3500, 3500HD, 4500, 4500HD, 4500XD, 5500HD, and 5500XD. Chevrolet will show the truck at the NTEA's Work Truck Show that begins March 14. The 6500XD is based on Isuzu's 2018 FTR cabover and is powered by the same 5.2L turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine that makes 520 lb.-ft. of torque. The engine is paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission with power take-off. The truck also offers Dana axles and a straight-rail frame. Front and rear axle ratings come in at 12,000 pounds and 19,000 pounds, respectively. Maximum GVWR is 25,950 pounds. Buyers can choose from eight wheelbases and equip the truck with a body that's up to 30-feet long. "Our goal is to offer the best work solutions and customer care in the business," said Ed Peper, U.S. vice president, GM Fleet and Commercial Operations. "Our low cab forward dealers and Upfitter Integration Group will work hand-in-hand with customers and their upfitters to spec the right truck for the job. After the sale, our dealers will be there to support customers with extended service hours and work-ready loaners." Related reading - https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/47238-isuzu-returns-to-us-class-6-segment-for-2018/#comment-348570 .