kscarbel2

Peterbilt Motors Press Release / June 17, 2016 .

The work ethic of the people at the Hayward plant was terrible. They were "California casual" about showing up for work......one never knew how many people were coming in. The Allentown people sent out there were in constant frustration. The workers would install cab screws with their power tools until the threads were stripped. They didn't care. The idea of setting up a west coast plant for west coast truck production was logical. However, there was a people problem. This is all why the plant was closed, and the 2nd gen Cruise-Liner was built at Macungie.......with significantly better quality. I believe one reason Peterbilt closed its plant at nearby Newark, California plant in 1986 was for the same reason, issues with assembly quality. Caterpillar, Ford, GM and International Harvester abandoned the Bay Area as well.

Transport Topics / June 17, 2016 The heavy-duty engine oil specification that has been used for about 10 years is set to be replaced by two new ones: CK-4 and FA-4. The pair have been enhanced to withstand the rigors of lubricating hotter-running diesel engines and boost fuel efficiency better than the current offering, known as CJ-4 and marketed under many brands. Their ability to resist degrading in higher-temperature engines is the biggest improvement in their makeup compared to CJ-4, experts said. CJ-4 will be phased out of the supply chain while the two new engine oils are set to go on sale Dec. 1. For months, manufacturers have used outreach, including websites, to inform the trucking industry of the pending changes in the new specification, which once was known as PC-11. “I see a lot of heads bobbing up and down like they understand what’s going on . . . but we won’t know that answer until the December timeframe,” said Dan Arcy, global OEM technical manager for Shell Global Solutions, noting customers won’t see the oils until that time. One new oil, CK-4, will be backward compatible with existing engines that use CJ-4, but adds new capabilities. Compared with its predecessor, CK-4 will offer enhanced oxidation stability, aeration and shear stability — meaning it resists thickening and is less prone to foaming and breaking apart. The enhancements help the oil retain its viscosity and, as a result, improve fuel efficiency, experts said. CK-4 will be sold in the same viscosity grades and in the same conventional, full synthetic and synthetic blend oil types. The other new oil, FA-4, is designed to be used with model year 2017 diesel engines. It will come with the same oxidation stability, aeration and shear stability enhancements found in CK-4. However, FA-4 will be available in lower viscosity grades, which could lead to an additional increase in fuel efficiency. “I think we have turned a lot skeptics into people who now understand it and are excited by the performance benefits that it brings,” said Shawn Whitacre, Chevron Lubricant’s senior staff engineer. He said current lubricants made from the CJ-4 specification may be kept around for awhile. “It is kind of impractical to have an abrupt changeover because of the supply chains that have to run the course,” Whitacre said. However, most engine manufacturers, as of early May, had not said which oil will be the factory fill in their 2017 engines. And, could the other new oil be used as a service fill if it was not the factory fill? And what about new drain intervals? “ All of those positions are hopefully going to become more clear over the next three or four months,” Whitacre said in April. Whitacre is chairman of the ASTM Heavy Duty Engine Oil Classification Panel that developed the new oil specifications at the request of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. Among engine manufacturers, only Navistar International Corp. responded to questions from Equipment & Maintenance Update about its intentions for factory and service fills. “We have validated FA-4 and that will be an option for our customers with N13 engines,” spokeswoman Lyndi McMillan said. “However, our standard factory fill for 2017 will be CK-4.” A customer that has CK-4 as factory fill could use FA-4 as the service fill while the reverse is true as well, she added. As for fleets, they will need to pay closer attention to viscosity grades, said Brian Humphrey, OEM technical liaison, heavy-duty driveline for Petro-Canada Lubricants. Previously, identifying the SAE viscosity grade alone was all that was needed to be done to specify viscosity, he said. Now, CK-4 and FA-4 change that by adding another “viscometric property difference” called high temperature — high shear to the SAE XW-30 grades, he said. “This property becomes important in small, high pressure points of the engine and is slightly lower for the FA-4 oils to enable better fuel economy,” Humphrey said. This issue has all the engine makers “conducting lots of internal testing” to ensure which of their engines can use FA-4 oils, he added. The improvements in engine oil performance are intended to assist engine manufacturers in meeting the next step in Phase 1 of the federal greenhouse-gas emissions rule. The rule mandated an initial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and improvement in mileage standards by 3%, from a 2010 baseline, by January 2014. That rises another 3% with the upcoming second step in January 2017. Shell’s Arcy said the key to improved performance is coupling the right base oil with the right additives, such as antioxidants. “And it could be two or three antioxidants making up the overall chemistry of the oil. We have found there are synergistic effects between them. Putting twice as much X amount of a certain type of antioxidant in might not be as good as if you put in some X and some of Y,” Arcy said, noting there are “a lot of moving pieces.” Zinc and phosphorus are anti-wear additives used in oils and have antioxidant capabilities. “So depending on how you balance out your zinc ‘antiwears,’ it’s going to also influence what is the best antioxidant to use and how much you need,” he said. PC-11 is “the most stringent standard ever. You never shed requirements, you only add to them,” Whitacre said, referring to earlier work done to develop CJ-4, once known as PC-10. There are nine engine tests that lubricant manufacturers have to run, and two of them were added to get to CK-4 and FA-4, Whitacre said. Seven were a part of the CJ-4 category that requires engine oils to stand up to high operating temperatures for 360 hours in a running engine. The oil pan, or sump, temperature has risen already to 115 degrees Celsius from 105 degrees Celsius, as engine manufacturers “have tried to squeeze a little more fuel economy out” with existing CJ-4 oil, Humphrey said. Engine makers will probably allow the oil pan temperature to go up another 10 degrees to 125 degrees Celsius as they strive for more gains in fuel efficiency, he said. Arcy suggested that not every new engine will be 10 degrees hotter, however. “One might be 10 degrees, one could be 2 degrees, one could be 5 degrees or no hotter.” Meanwhile, selective fleet testing of the new lubricants remains under way. “We have been hearing that some fleets already have been taking progressive steps and testing the lower viscosity FA-4 oils to get that [extra] fuel efficiency benefit,” said Randy Tumbarello, U.S. fleet director at Trimac Transportation Inc., whose parent company Trimac Group that ranks No. 45 on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers. He also is chairman of the engine study group at American Trucking Associations’ Technology & Maintenance Council. Arcy said Shell has worked with several on-highway fleets “that put on high mileage, 250,000 to 300,000 a year [per truck].” Shell began testing its low viscosity FA-4 type oils in 2012 and has accumulated more than 30 million miles of testing with every engine manufacturers’ on-highway product, he said. Some engines have been run out to 900,000 miles, with inspections along the way. Some owner-operators and fleets with older equipment may see only a small change switching their CJ-4 oils to the enhanced CK-4 oils. Other fleets with a combination of older and newer equipment may choose to stock both CK-4 and FA-4 oils until the older units are cycled out of the fleet, according a statement from Exxon Mobil. Filter manufacturers also have explained there should be no adverse effects on the filters currently in use, Tumbarello said, describing comments these manufacturers made during a recent TMC discussion of the pending changeover. Engine manufacturers have said that, at a minimum, they wanted to maintain drain intervals, Arcy said. “I think we have to wait for the OEMs to give their recommendations.”

U-S-A! U-S-A! Ford Steamrolls GTE Class at 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans! Car & Driver / June 19, 2016 What a difference a day—and 2890 miles—makes. After the first hour at this year’s Le Mans 24 Hours it looked as if Ford’s expensively bought return to the world’s most famous endurance race, timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the brand’s first overall victory, was set to unravel in dramatic fashion in front of a record-breaking 265,000 fans. Before the race even began, the No. 67 GT had been pushed off the grid and back to its garage with a gearbox fault. It was eventually fixed, but with a delay that took it out of contention for class honors. Torrential rain meant the race began behind a trio of safety cars, and when these were eventually called in 52 minutes later the remaining three Fords looked to be off the pace. It took just four minutes for the No. 66 GT that was running second in class to be passed by the No. 51 Ferrari 458. The leading GT, No. 68, soon proved equally powerless to keep the Ferrari at bay, and before long both they and the Ferraris were overwhelmed by the flying Porsche Motorsport 911 RSRs, which proved to be particularly happy in the damp conditions. The grins that had been worn by the senior executives in Ford’s corporate hospitality unit faded. Although this is Ford’s first year in the World Endurance Championship we were in no doubt that Le Mans was the primary target. “It’s optimized not just for the class, but for here, it was designed for this track,” Raj Nair, Ford’s CTO told us before the race began, also admitting that it would have made more sense for the GT to make its debut a year earlier to gain experience for the bid to win on the 50th anniversary of the GT40’s first victory. “To be honest we had some false starts. We had a window there that could have allowed us to run in ’15, put the car out and then really make the run in 2016 for the 50th anniversary. But we didn’t get the program approved in time.” Yet against early expectations, the GTs came back to stage a return that took Ford to a victory that was both emotional and deserved, with the 2016 race becoming one of the closest and most exciting in the 84-year history of the event. While Toyota’s remarkable failure to win with three minutes left handed Porsche overall victory—the brand’s 18th at La Sarthe—until the very end of the race almost as much attention was being paid to the battle further down the order between Ford and Ferrari in GTE Pro. As Porsche’s early challenge faded, and it became clear that Aston Martin and Chevrolet’s GTE Pro cars were well off the pace (see our previous post on the controversy surrounding various “Balance of Performance” adjustments), so the race did indeed become another Ford-Ferrari duel in the mold of the classics of the 1960s, albeit one where Ford developed a strong numerical advantage. The No. 71 and No. 51 AF Corsa works Ferrari 488s dropped out after 143 and 179 laps respectively, the latter with a spectacular engine failure. By evening, Italy’s honor was being upheld by just the privateer No. 82 Risi Competizione 488, which surrendered its class lead at 7:30 pm to the No. 68 GT. Yet the pack of Fords didn’t have the remaining 20 hours of the race to themselves, with the No. 82 Ferrari fighting a remarkable rearguard action that saw the lead change several times as the two cars changed position. By 8:30 in the morning the Ferrari led the No. 68 car by just 13 seconds, with the gap increased to more than a minute as the GT was called in for a pitlane penalty for a refueling infringement. But it didn’t last. Ford increased the pace and took the class lead with under three hours to go, the No. 68 car’s margin increasing as the Ferrari suffered an unforced spin. For the final stint former F1 driver Giancarlo Fisichella took over in the 488 and managed to fend off the chasing No. 69 GT, denying Ford a 1-2 finish but allowing it to finish the race with first, third, and fourth in the GTE Pro class, with German Dirk Muller getting the honor of driving the victory. Even the No. 67 car was patched up to make it to the end of the race, albeit 78 laps behind the leaders. So was it worth it? The 2016 Le Mans is destined to be remembered as the race that Toyota lost in spectacular fashion, but it’s also one that effectively justified Ford’s decision to sign off the significant development budget for both the GTE racer and its roadgoing sister. We’re looking forward to seeing how that version builds on this momentum.

Yes, they use GM-based PSI engines, and the Cummins-Westport ISX12 G. http://www.psiengines.com/whatwedo/on-highway-engines/

I have not heard that from them.

Bob Smith and Steve Rayborn are good people. But they have zero chance at successfully selling the class 8 COE Chinese Foton in the US market. It's a conventional cab market. China has some world class trucks now, but Fotons (GTL) is barely in that group. And, of course, the natural gas truck market has collapsed in the US, as it has in China, due to low-priced diesel. Alkane's business model depends on subsidies.

The CH was officially launched for model year 1988. Based on that date, the cab is 28 years old. But as Terry Warmkessel will tell you, in those days, we typically utilized a 5-year road map to bring an all-new model to life. I that sense, the CH cab is arguably 33 years old. The CH cab was yet another brilliant achievement of the former Mack Trucks. Hansen enthusiasm still existed during its creation. But fast forward to year 2016. Most Mack salesmen coast-to-coast are struggling to sell Pinnacles to fleets because the driver can't stand up out of the driver's seat, as they can in the competitor's cabs, and the competition in finding/keeping good drivers is fierce. After three decades, customers like to see something new, an all-new cab taking advantage of the latest technologies. The new cab has really rode the rollercoaster. Just ousted Olof Persson let it languish, as he did the LE cab replacement (LR), and that is a half-hearted (cheap) effort. In Sweden, I was told on numerous occasions the new cab would be an offshoot of the upcoming new Volvo global cab platform. However, that was before Persson was fired and the Scania gang was brought in. Volvo is in serious financial straights. Volvo Construction is bleeding badly with no light at the end of the tunnel, having, for example, recklessly lost millions in China with bad loans. Brazil, a long-time important market for both Volvo and Scania, is in terrible shape, and low truck sales reflect that. And then the US truck market didn't merely slow down......it crashed. Thus, it's completely possible they will buy time by revising the CH cab roof, among other things, creating an integral raised roof with that of the sleeper. That certainly wouldn't cost much. But I doubt they'll spend the money to widen it. The engineering would be cheap, but they have to invest in new tooling. The last time I saw the CH cab tooling, it was in terrible shape. Tooling has a lifespan. The tooling belongs to Volvo. It is consigned to CVG to use.....they produce the cab under contract. Volvo didn't want to spend any meaningful money on tooling refurbishment. Unless something has changed, the remaining life of that tooling is short. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/39183-source-of-mack-cabs/ If Volvo plans to truck the cabs 180 miles from King's Mountain to Dublin, paint them there, and "then" truck them the other 420 miles to Macungie.........no comment. Why not create jobs in Pennsylvania (the laid off Macungie workers that Volvo claims to care about) by assembling, painting and grooming the cabs at a Volvo-owned satellite facility adjacent to the Macungie plant (you know, where most are utilized).

Volvo qualifies for tax incentives if the truck's local content is above 65%. Take the Volvo VM, unique to the Brazilian market. The engine is from MWM-International (yes, Navistar engines in a Volvo). (As of July 2014, Navistar's MWM unit had delivered 50,000 engines to Volvo Truck and Volvo Penta) The 10-speed is Eaton, and Eaton also builds the optional Volvo 14-speed for them in Brazil. (I imagine the optional I-Shift is imported) The steer axle is Sifco, and the drive axles are Meritor.

That's terrific.

They certainly can be, but it's an add-on..........not an integral factory build. I'm merely expressing my personal opinion. If you remain pleased with your Volvo VNX (US market Mack Titan), I think that's great.

It's not underpowered. For Brazil, in this application, this "medium-heavy" truck performs beautifully. With a 4.89 or 5.38 rear axle ratio, it works fine there. Though never so much as India, Brazil is a price-sensitive market, plus remember Brazil is in a massive economic downturn. In Turkey and the global market, Ford is able to build and sell a global spec heavy truck. Ford Brazil uses locally-produced components (Cummins + Eaton + Meritor), because there's a requirement for significant local content to gain tax incentives.

If you never took it apart, you've no idea the condition of the rubber insulators. Rubber ages. You can't "see" until you disassemble it.

My friend, you are what in many parts of the country are called "good people". I always enjoy hearing your thoughts. They did trim weight with the US model......it underwent considerable change. But it remains heavy on average, and expensive. I, personally, can't get past the tacky chrome trim. The Australian "original" never had it.......Oz customers would be in an uproar if Volvo suggested it.

Did you coat the trunnion insulators with 20 weight non-detergent motor oil, per the Mack Service Bulletin ?

That BC, there's absolutely nothing that he can't do. A fountain of knowledge with endless ability.

Foreign truckmaker Volvo owning the iconic American name "Mack Trucks" isn't right. It's no different than if Toyota was allowed to acquire Ford, Volkswagen allowed to acquire GM.................and Fiat allowed to acquire Chrysler. There's nothing at all right about the Mack logo on a North American Volvo chassis.

Too heavy and expensive for what most local U.S. low-boy operators do. And, compared to the attractive professional-looking Australian Titan, the US market Titan with its tacky chrome trim reminds me of a Harlem pimp-mobile. https://www.macktrucks.com.au/trucks/titan/ https://www.macktrucks.com.au/~/media/files au/brochures/titan_brochure.ashx?as=1

Glenn, I know hydraulic clutch actuation is an option* on Freightliner's medium-duty Businesss Class M2s, but I don't know if they have air assist. * An example of global truckmakers giving American market customers a lower content truck. The superb [175hp] Mack MS200P Mid-Liner rigid (straight truck) had hydraulic clutch actuation beginning in 1979. But it was the larger [210hp] MS300P (rigid) and MS300T (tractor) that had "air-assisted" hydraulic clutch action. The Mack MS300T tractor with the air-assisted hydraulic clutch and the fully-synchronized BDSL2052R 10-speed splitter transmisson was an absolute thrill to drive ! Most heavy trucks today, aside from North America, have air-assisted hydraulic clutch actuation, provided by Wabco or other (http://www.wabco-auto.com/products/category-type/driveline-control/clutch-control/), and they're a pleasure to drive.

. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/45485-mack-defense-partners-to-produce-renault-armored-personnel-carrier/#comment-335295