kscarbel2

They were using credits, as FCA is doing today in the light vehicle segment. The law allows that. But the issue to remember is, aside from the extremely arrogant Ustian, the Massive EGR (MEGR) system used by Navistar was designed and funded by the EPA (with your tax dollars........but without your informed knowledge or consent). Your incompetent and unqualified EPA decided that MEGR (EGR levels from 35% to 50%) was the optimum emissions technology for the United States (instead of SCR!), but they needed at least one truckmaker to run with their ball........and a politically correct Ustian quickly agreed to do it (because the EPA was paying most of the tab). And as Paul says, after the EPA's MEGR system failed, Navistar has been hung out to dry..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA Suing Navistar Over 2010 Engines Transport Topics / July 16, 2015 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 14 filed a lawsuit against truck maker Navistar International Corp. alleging that the company in 2009 began the manufacture of 7,750 heavy-duty diesel engines it offered for sale in calendar year 2010 that did not meet emissions standards applicable to 2010 engines. “None of the subject engines were covered by a certificate of conformity [nor exempt from the prohibition against selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction into commerce engines not covered by a COC] when they were sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce by defendants,” the EPA said. “Additionally, each and every delegated assembly engine was ‘fully assembled, except for aftertreatment devices’ in 2010 and is therefore not a model-year 2009 engine.” A certificate of conformity verifies that a heavy-duty diesel engine meets EPA’s standards limiting the emission of oxides of nitrogen and non-methane hydrocarbons. Navistar could face penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation of the Clean Air Act. “We dispute these allegations,” Navistar spokesman Steve Schrier told Transport Topics. “We believe our 2010 engine transition was appropriate, and we intend to aggressively defend our position going forward.” In its complaint, EPA said that on Nov. 3, 2010, the EPA sent Navistar a request “seeking certain information as part of an EPA investigation into Navistar’s compliance with the emissions standards.” “EPA generally sought information from Navistar relating to the names, build dates, model years, vehicle information numbers, serial numbers, engine classes, dates of installation and assembly, and other information related to engine and vehicle manufacturing operations of Navistar,” the lawsuit said. On Feb. 4, 2011, Navistar provided an initial response to EPA claiming the information being sought was confidential. The EPA said it has determined that some, but not all, of the information submitted to the agency in a spreadsheet deserves “confidential treatment.”

Transport Topics / April 1, 2016 Peterbilt Motors Co. announced the introduction of a newly formulated paint for heavy-truck cabs and sleepers that is designed to enhance coating color and durability. The company said the coating also has environmental benefits as it reduces carbon use. The new formulations are available in base and clear coat applications that are applied robotically, the statement said. They also can also be used for aftermarket repainting and refinishing. “The new paint coatings have better color characteristics for greater gloss, reflectivity and luster,” said Leon Handt, Peterbilt’s assistant general manager of operations. “Resistance to environmental damage, such as acid rain, de-icers and bird debris is also increased.” The coatings are applied at Peterbilt’s Denton, Texas plant, where the company has implemented other environment-related steps such as a no-idle policy and carpooling.

Navistar Fined $7.5M in Truck Emission Case Heavy Duty Trucking / April 1, 2016 The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards. Navistar, without admitting or denying the charges, reached a settlement with the SEC and agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty. Separately, in a complaint filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, the SEC charged former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian, who left the company in 2012, with misleading investors and with aiding and abetting violations by the Illinois-based Navistar. Multiple new outlets report they have been unable to get a comment from Ustian regarding the case against him. The SEC alleges that Navistar and Ustian failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards that took effect in 2010. “We believe that it was time to put this matter behind us and that this settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders. Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders,” said Lyndi McMillan, external communications manager for Navistar in a statement to Truckinginfo.com. Navistar and Ustian also are alleged to have repeatedly misled investors about Navistar’s development of the engine, which used exhaust-gas-recirculation (EGR) technology. Navistar later abandoned the effort and adopted the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology used by its competitors. “When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its new emissions technology." David Glockner, director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office said, “We allege that in 2011 and 2012, the EPA repeatedly raised serious concerns with Navistar about its applications to certify an engine using EGR technology and that top Navistar officials knew the company had not succeeded in developing a commercially viable engine that would meet EPA standards. Navistar and its then-CEO misled investors about these difficulties in numerous SEC filings, press releases, and public conference calls, and today we seek to hold them accountable for that misconduct.” According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Navistar: “In early 2011, in an effort to reassure investors about its emissions control strategy, Navistar applied for certification of an engine it knew was not ready for production and sale even if the EPA certified it. The EPA did not approve the application and by summer 2011, Navistar decided not to pursue it any longer. “In late 2011, Navistar began preparing another application for EPA certification. Four days after a meeting in which the EPA staff told Navistar that the proposed engine did not appear to meet the certification requirements, Navistar filed its 2011 annual report on Form 10-K, which stated that it planned to apply to have the EPA certify the engine and that it believed the engine met EPA’s certification requirements. “After Navistar submitted a new application in early 2012, EPA staff raised ‘several serious concerns’ that it said would need to be resolved before it could approve the application. Nevertheless, in a press release and filings in March 2012, Navistar characterized the application as a 'milestone,' and in a conference call with analysts and investors, Ustian indicated that certification was proceeding in a typical timeframe and that Navistar could begin production on the engine in June 2012. “In May 2012, Navistar withdrew its January 2012 application and submitted a third one incorporating changes to lower emissions at the expense of fuel economy and other engine performance features. In a June 4, 2012 meeting, EPA staff told Navistar that it had serious concerns about this application as well and the next day informed Navistar in writing that the engine as currently designed was 'unlikely' to be certified. Despite this, Navistar’s June 2012 quarterly filing and conference call suggested that Navistar was unaware of any concerns by the EPA regarding the May 2012 application – one of several misstatements in the filing and call regarding the application. “In July 2012, Navistar announced that it was withdrawing its application and would begin work on an engine using SCR technology.”

Ex Navistar President Gets His Steve Sturgess - On Everything Trucks / April 3, 2016 (http://www.stevesturgess.com/2016/04/ex-navistar-president-gets-his.html) When I penned the retrospective on the Navistar engine debacle (search Told You So here) I thought I’d said goodbye to the outgoing president Dan Ustian. Not so. Seems the Securities and Exchange Commission is not going to let the mendaciousness of his leadership go unpunished. In a complaint lodged in the US District Court for the northern district of Illinois, Ustian is being called to account for the fraudulent misleading of the investment community about the progress of the 13-liter MaxxForce engine program goals and successes in meeting EPA2010. And, of course, the propping up of the Navistar share value by so doing. If you go back and re-read what I said in the previous posting, you’ll see I got fired for telling that same investment community in late 2010 that his was a house of cards and that Navistar would never be whole till Ustian was gone. ‘Scuse me if I don’t crow a little here . . . Anyway, Navistar is also named as a party to the fraud and within moments of the suits being filed has offered to pay a penalty of $7.5 million to settle. The regulatory agency statement said the company and its former leader “failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards.” The story broke during the first few hours of the 2016 Mid America Trucking Show, and the 57-page complaint was in my e-mail within moments. Navistar said that “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC” according to a quickly responding Transport Topics. No word if this will be accepted as yet. The SEC complaint, with a demand for a jury trial for Ustian, is very specific in detailing how Ustian contrived to mislead the investment community and the press through publicly available Analyst Calls right up until the moment in July 2012 when the whole house of cards came tumbling down. That was when the company declared it would pursue Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as the technology it would employ to meet EPA2010 and not the Advanced exhaust gas recirculation (A-EGR) championed by Ustian and his bunch of yes-men. In fact, reading the complaint is very revealing. There were many in the company’s engineering side talking and e-mailing internally that the Navistar was heading up a blind technology alley but Ustian placed a gag order on them. One in particular is a jewel. In paragraph 60 of the complaint, you can read the following: “In fact, at the time the 2011 Application was submitted to the EPA, the engine described in the application could run only in the testing laboratory. In a February 9, 2011 email regarding the engine covered by the 2011 Application, a Navistar Senior Technical Specialist working on certification matters told other engineers in the certification group: ‘I asked a bigger question. Would this engine ever be drivable in a truck and I got laughs in response.... Translation you have a[n] underpowered 13 liter engine that is coughing, sputtering and wheezing like some terminal cancer patient on a respirator’.” And how about this: “When Navistar’s Vice President of Powertrain Product Development forwarded this email to Navistar’s Vice President of Integrated Product Development and suggested he talk with Ustian about these issues with the D-cert engine, the Vice President of Integrated Product Development responded that Ustian “totally knows it” and advised him to “[t]ell these guys to not worry about this sh[--] and not keep sending emails to each other.” Now here’s the big kicker, and it’s there in the indictment as fact. One of the proposed solutions to the problem that the engine would run – just about – in the test lab but could not possibly power a truck was to propose to EPA that there be two lookup tables for the engine controller: one to be used in test, the other when the truck was going down the road. They made this proposal with a straight face but EPA laughed them down. In the now famous Dieselgate, Volkswagen did the exact same thing, and presumably at just about the same time, though without asking EPA’s permission. The sad thing is that this after-the-fact bolting of the stable door will never reconstitute the fortunes of the many family trucking businesses that had to close their doors because of the unreliability of the MaxxForce and the hubris of one man: Dan Ustian. One has to hope the courts will come down on him like a ton of bricks and put him in the poorhouse along with all those customers he misled and with the financial community he duped.

Navistar settles with SEC over probe into company’s 2010 emissions strategy; former CEO hit with charges Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ) / April 1, 2016 The Securities and Exchange Commission announced April 1 that Navistar International Corp. agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the criminal investigation into whether the company intentionally misled investors about its progress in meeting 2010 emissions standards. The SEC also announced April 1 it has brought charges against former Navistar CEO Dan Ustian, claiming the truck and engine maker’s former boss misled investors about the company’s ability to meet those standards. The SEC and Navistar say the settlement does not signify Navistar’s admission or denial of the accusations. In a statement to CCJ, Navistar says it was “time to put the matter behind” it. “This settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders,” Navistar told CCJ. “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders.” Regarding the charges against Ustian, twice in 2011 and once in 2012, the company’s proprietary MaxxForce engines were denied EPA certification, meaning they did not meet 2010 emissions standards. The company applied for 2010 certification after the official compliance date because it had built up so-called emissions credits for exceeding earlier emissions standards. The SEC, however, claims Ustian and Navistar applied for the certification despite knowing its engine didn’t meet the standards set by the EPA. The company filed for certification in what the SEC says was a misleading attempt to reassure its investors that its exhaust gas recirculation strategy would work. The SEC claims Ustian intentionally misled the company’s shareholders about the EGR strategy’s ability to meet 2010 standards. All other North American truck and engine makers used a different strategy, the diesel exhaust fluid-based selective catalytic reduction system, to meet 2010 emissions standards. Navistar, however, strayed from the pack to pursue its EGR-only approach, a strategy it eventually abandoned in favor of SCR in late 2012. Ustian stepped down from his post as CEO in 2012. Navistar announced in September it had received notification from the SEC about looming charges. Despite the settlement of the criminal charges, Navistar, Ustian and the company’s former CFO are facing civil lawsuits making accusations similar to those by the SEC. Navistar is also still facing civil suits from trucking companies claiming Navistar knowingly sold heavy-duty diesel engines whose longevity was suspect, given the heavy use of EGR. The EPA has also filed a lawsuit against Navistar over its 2010 emissions strategy.

SEC: Navistar International and Former CEO Misled Investors About Advanced Technology Engine U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission / March 31, 2016 The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards. Navistar, without admitting or denying the charges, has reached a settlement with the SEC and agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty. Separately, in a complaint filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, the SEC charged former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian with misleading investors and with aiding and abetting violations by Lisle, Illinois-based Navistar. The SEC alleges that Navistar and Ustian failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards that took effect in 2010. Navistar and Ustian also are alleged to have repeatedly misled investors about Navistar’s development of the engine, which used exhaust-gas-recirculation (EGR) technology. Navistar later abandoned the effort and adopted the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology used by its competitors. “When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its new emissions technology." David Glockner, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office added, “We allege that in 2011 and 2012, the EPA repeatedly raised serious concerns with Navistar about its applications to certify an engine using EGR technology and that top Navistar officials knew the company had not succeeded in developing a commercially viable engine that would meet EPA standards. Navistar and its then-CEO misled investors about these difficulties in numerous SEC filings, press releases, and public conference calls, and today we seek to hold them accountable for that misconduct.” According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Navistar: In early 2011, in an effort to reassure investors about its emissions control strategy, Navistar applied for certification of an engine it knew was not ready for production and sale even if the EPA certified it. The EPA did not approve the application and by summer 2011, Navistar decided not to pursue it any longer. In late 2011, Navistar began preparing another application for EPA certification. Four days after a meeting in which the EPA staff told Navistar that the proposed engine did not appear to meet the certification requirements, Navistar filed its 2011 annual report on Form 10-K, which stated that it planned to apply to have the EPA certify the engine and that it believed the engine met EPA’s certification requirements. After Navistar submitted a new application in early 2012, EPA staff raised “several serious concerns” that it said would need to be resolved before it could approve the application. Nevertheless, in a press release and filings in March 2012, Navistar characterized the application as a “milestone,” and in a conference call with analysts and investors, Ustian indicated that certification was proceeding in a typical timeframe and that Navistar could begin production on the engine in June 2012. In May 2012, Navistar withdrew its January 2012 application and submitted a third one incorporating changes to lower emissions at the expense of fuel economy and other engine performance features. In a June 4, 2012 meeting, EPA staff told Navistar that it had serious concerns about this application as well and the next day informed Navistar in writing that the engine as currently designed was “unlikely” to be certified. Despite this, Navistar’s June 2012 quarterly filing and conference call suggested that Navistar was unaware of any concerns by the EPA regarding the May 2012 application – one of several misstatements in the filing and call regarding the application. In July 2012, Navistar announced that it was withdrawing its application and would begin work on an engine using SCR technology. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Anne Graber Blazek, Amy Flaherty Hartman, Tim Stockwell, Will Saylor and Ann Tushaus, and was supervised by Robert J. Burson. Eric Phillips and Jonathan Polish will lead the SEC’s litigation against Ustian.

As they say, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Volvo has long attempted to reach the same heights as Scania, and one can't blame them for trying.

Volvo (finally) incorporated common rail into its engines for Euro-6 (near EPA2010), which it launched in 2014. Now, we're told it will launch common rail on its North American EPA2010 engines in 2017. In the world's largest heavy truck market, the Chinese adopted Bosch common rail way back in 2010, and it's been a walk in the park for them.........zero problems, even though they had 500ppm or more sulfur content in the early years. Why the US stubbornly continues its go-it-alone emissions standards while the rest of the world follows the Euro standards, remains a mystery. It's a costly pain-in-the-neck for all the engine makers to have to design two sets of engines. The world should have "one" set of emissions standards.

SEC: Former Navistar CEO covered up failed engine technology Crain's Chicago Business / March 31, 2016 The former chief executive of Navistar International orchestrated a "campaign of deception" to mislead investors, regulators and the public about the truck maker's inability to comply with environmental regulations, according to a new lawsuit. Daniel Ustian, who led the Lisle-based truckmaker from 2003 to 2012, made a huge bet on an engine technology, called exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR for short, that failed to meet tougher Environmental Protection Agency nitrogen oxide emission standards that went into effect in 2010. The manufacturer ultimately abandoned the technology, but before doing so, Ustian repeatedly lied about whether his gamble on the engine device was working, according to a 57-page lawsuit the Securities and Exchange Commission filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago today. "(From) 2010 through 2012, instead of coming clean with the public regarding the difficulties Navistar was experiencing in developing and certifying a competitive EGR-only engine, Ustian engaged in a coverup," according to the suit. Ustian violated securities laws, and should be subject to a wide range of penalties, according to the complaint. The SEC wants him to cough up an unspecified amount of money and pay a civil penalty. The agency seeks to have him permanently barred from serving as a corporate officer or director. "When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth," Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. A spokeswoman for the SEC in Washington declined further comment. Lyndi McMillan, a spokeswoman for Navistar, declined to comment on the suit against Ustian. The securities regulator also accused Navistar itself of engaging in deception, but the company agreed pay a $7.5 million to settle the dispute with the SEC. Navistar didn't admit or deny anything related to the SEC's accusations. “We believe that it was time to put this matter behind us and that this settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders,” McMillan said in a statement. “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders.” Navistar's stock fell 17 cents today to close at $12.52 a share. The stock was valued at nearly $29 a share a year ago and $40 a share in 2014. The company has struggled to win over customers and market share amid years of regulatory acrimony that included a multiyear restatement of results to correct overstated earnings. The SEC's complaint against Ustian portrays the ex-CEO as arrogant, trash-talking his competitors' upgrades to their engines while trumpeting how Navistar was handling the standards. He devoted "$700 million and tens of thousands of hours of its engineers' time" on Navistar's exhaust gas recirculation engine, or EGR, technology, the suit says. For a while, Ustian was protected by a stash of emission credits that allowed Navistar to continue selling its products even though it had not been able to meet EPA standards using an engine equipped with the EGR technology. The pressure grew as the credits dwindled. Rather than admit his bet failed, “Ustian engaged in a progressively desperate and fraudulent scheme to deceive the investing public into believing that EPA certification of a competitive EGR-only engine that met . . . (EPA standards) was right around the corner,” the SEC's lawsuit claims. “The deception was manifested in Ustian's and Navistar's statements in conference calls with analysts, in press releases, and in reports filed with the SEC.” CHICAGO NAMES Meanwhile, according to a MarketWatch report, tried to lobbying its way out of its problems, hiring names well known here and in Washington. Those brought on board included Tyrone Fahner, a Chicago-based partner at Mayer Brown and former Illinois attorney general, as well as ASGK Public Strategies, a public relations firm founded by former Obama adviser David Axelrod; the Chicago-based company is now called Kivvit. At one point Faher lobbied Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, about Navistar's problems, MarketWatch said in its report, in September. For its part, ASGK was hired to “put pressure on the EPA” for a certification of Navistar's engine technology or “provide political cover” for an EPA certification, according to an SEC filing cited by MarketWatch. Kivvit declined to comment, while a Mayer Brown spokesman had no immediate comment. Two other law firms, Williams and Jensen and Alston and Bird, also worked for the money-losing truckmaker. At point, a Williams employee thought about trying to get ex-Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn as well as U.S. Sen. Dick, D-Ill., Durbin and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to “carry the ask” of pressuring the EPA to approve the failed technology developed under Ustian.

Reuters / March 31, 2016 Navistar International Corp. agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it defrauded investors into believing a diesel truck engine it was developing could meet tough federal emissions standards. The SEC also filed a related lawsuit accusing former Navistar CEO Daniel Ustian of leading a "campaign of deception" to defraud investors in 2011 and 2012. Navistar did not admit or deny wrongdoing. The Lisle, Ill.,-based company said it settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, and that "it was time to put this matter behind us." Ustian has not settled. A lawyer for him did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago. Shares of Navistar fell 19 cents to $12.50 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The case arose from Navistar's failure to win EPA approval of a heavy-duty diesel truck engine designed to meet Clean Air Act standards adopted in 2010. According to the SEC, Navistar spent more than $700 million to develop special "exhaust gas recirculation" (EGR) technology to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, only to abandon the effort in July 2012 and settle for technology used by its rivals. The SEC said Ustian had led a "progressively desperate and fraudulent scheme" through news releases, conference calls and regulatory filings to deceive investors into believing that EPA certification was "right around the corner." It said that as late as June 2012, Ustian signaled that feedback from the EPA suggested that certification might come soon, despite knowing that the agency had refused to certify a proposed engine the prior month. The SEC said Navistar's lead engineer on the project had written in a June 4, 2012 email that the EPA response had been "unequivocally NO!," but soon retracted that email upon learning that "Dan put the gag order on us." Navistar shares tumbled 15.2 percent on July 6, 2012, when it announced it was abandoning the EGR technology, the SEC said. Ustian resigned the next month. The lawsuit against Ustian seeks civil penalties, a ban on his serving as an officer or director of public companies, and other remedies.

Speaking with 10 years of experience with XPI and Bosch common rail fuel injection in the global market, including unforgiving emerging global markets with high sulfur content, I can tell you that far from having any issues (bugs), common rail has set a new benchmark for reliability in fuel injection. Unit pumps (EUP) was a mistaken direction, but from trial and error, innovation is born. Since the utterly reliable American Bosch mechanical pumps, I hadn't been satisfied with the newer technologies.......until common rail. Simply put, it is the best yet. Volvo's EUP is supplied by Delphi. My opinion of Delphi is indescribably low.

I just want to point out that Cummins' large (10+ liter) engines use the superb "XPI" common rail system independently developed and produced by the Cummins-Scania fuel systems joint venture. It has no relation to Bosch. While I much preferred American Bosch to Robert Bosch in the days of mechanical pumps, the Bosch-sourced common rail fuel systems on the 5.9, 6.7, ISC and ISL have performed well.

Kenworth Truck Company Press Release / March 29, 2016 Day in and day out, the T880 is a dependable, versatile vehicle capable of performing your toughest jobs productively and efficiently. With the strength, stamina and operating economy you need to move your business ahead.

Detroit Diesel Corp. Press Release / March 29, 2016 Welcome to the Canadian Rocky Mountains of Alberta! In this video, we'll learn several tips for driving the 12-speed Detroit DT12 (Mercedes-Benz PowerShift 3)) automated manual transmission (AMT) in winter conditions.

No transport trucks allowed on new Yarmouth-Portland ferry Truck News / March 29, 2016 Truckers in Atlantic Canada are not pleased with the vessel Bay Ferries and the Nova Scotia government selected to run between Yarmouth N.S. and Portland, Maine as it will not accommodate commercial trucks. Last week, it was announced that the new vessel is a former US navy ship called the CAT. Though Mark MacDonald, Bay Ferries president, said the catamaran ferry can hold commercial trucks, it will not take them since city officials in Portland said they do not want more trucks on their streets, according to a CBC report. With no trucks allowed the new ferry, trucking companies that relied on the service from Nova Scotia to Maine will suffer by having to hire more drivers and adjusting their operations, said Jean-Marc Picard, executive director for the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association in an interview with Truck News. “It’s certainly disappointing,” he said of the ferry announcement. “Because obviously this means there is one less options for carriers in the area. There’s certain carriers that will be affected more than others because of the products they haul, like seafood. So hopefully this won’t put them out of certain markets in the US…Now carriers will have to plan accordingly to make sure they can still service that market going forward.” Picard added that the announcement that no transport trucks would be allowed on the vessel was a surprise to the trucking industry. In addition, it was announced last week that ferry services in the Maritimes were included in the federal budget with an infrastructure investment of $51.9 million. This investment will help ferries operating between Wood Islands, P.E.I., and Caribou, N.S., and the CMTA ferry service from Souris, P.E.I., to Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Que. and Saint John, N.B., and Digby, N.S. Truckers in the area have been frustrated with the ferry situation in Nova Scotia as far back as October of 2015, when the province said it had chosen Bay Ferries as the candidate to operate the route. At that time, government said the company had 45 days to choose a ship. The deadline came and went without a ship being named.

Overdrive / March 29, 2016 The unmistakable sound of a real truck.........18-liter Caterpillar 3408-powered Kenworth COE Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/850-e9-500-v8-mack-vs-3408-v8-cat/ Related viewing - http://www.overdriveonline.com/chris-dinsdale-presents-huge-roadtrains-of-the-north-west/?utm_medium=single_article&utm_campaign=site_click&utm_source=in_story_promotion

Car & Driver / March 2016 Link - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-gmc-sierra-1500-denali-62l-v-8-4x4-test-review

Autoblog / March 29, 2016 The aluminum-bodied Ford F-150 is due for its mid-cycle refresh soon, and now we have photographic clues of the changes coming to the company's most popular vehicle. From earlier spy video and other intel, we know that the updated half-ton F-Series will debut with a new light-duty diesel engine. Changes in front appear to be substantial based on the amount of camouflage covering everything from the firewall forward. From what little is visible, the grille is in for some major updates. It's hard to tell, but it looks like the three-bar arrangement is on its way out, at least in its current form, to be replaced by something with a larger piece running across the center and small ribs above and below. Based on camo placement, changes are also in store for the headlights, although these tea leaves are even more difficult to read. Changes to the hood and front bumper are far more modest, if there are even changes at all. The stronger lines on the hood match those of the current truck, although the more medial details aren't visible here. That could be an effect of the camo, though. As for the bumper, aside from the design of the obscured fog lights, it looks more or less unchanged. The big, central intake and its details are still visible, but we can't see whether the current truck's tow hooks will continue in place. Look for the facelifted, diesel-powered F-150 to debut as a 2018 model Photo gallery - http://www.autoblog.com/photos/ford-f-150-facelift-spy-shots/

I'm sorry to deluge everyone with so much news at once. The industry has been running at "Maxidyne" speed over the last 30 days.......a lot of info to cover. A lot of news from the NTEA Work Truck Show.........2 massive Volvo-Mack recalls........common rail finally arrives on US market Volvo engines........and much more.

Gary Jones who heads Rainier is another great guy. But he's a chassis engineer, mostly for motor-homes. He's not a truck guy, and his chance for success was painted on the wall from day one. He is doing diesels (not alternative powertrains) with his medium COEs, but most people aren't going to buy a no-name truck from a very small no-name truckmaker with a Chinese cab.

The Return of the Truck that Never Went Away Heavy Duty Trucking / January 13, 2014 Cabover fans rejoice! The Freightliner Argosy is alive and well, and available through most DTNA dealers in North America – as a glider kit. While many were glad to see them go, cab-over-engine chassis designs still appeal to a small but loyal sector of the industry. Many will be surprised to learn that the Argosy COE never completely disappeared. According to Don White, manager for Cab and Glider Sales for Daimler Trucks North America, the fully assembled truck was taken out of production due to low market demand in 2006, but it has remained on the books in the NAFTA countries as a glider kit ever since. "The numbers have been extremely low," White says. "There has been very little demand for it, so there was never any reason for us to publish or promote its availability. Then along came Walmart and some others that saw a fit for the truck in a particular niche. That suggested to us that there is still a place for the cabover in the industry, but probably not in full production quantities." With that, White said the company recently decided to publish the availability of the glider option to the dealer network to see if that would stimulate interest in the truck. It worked. "We have seen an increase in quotations, but not yet a big increase in orders," he says. "We are now seeing a lot more interest in this alternative." In early January, Kevin Bigliazzi, sales manager at Freightliner of Hartford in East Hartford, Conn., ran an ad in Truck Paper for an 2015 Argosy glider. The phone started ringing almost immediately and it hasn't really stopped. "The ad was a bit of a trial ballon," Bigliazzi says. "We decided to advertise one since we were told they were available, and lo and behold we started getting calls on it right away. Many said they were shocked to see it advertised. They didn't know they were available." White says now that the cat is out of the bag, the company is hearing from a lot more people who say they are really interested in an Argosy. "Nobody was really asking the question before, because they figured it just wasn't available," White told Truckinginfo.com. "Now that we are actively pursuing the market, I think things will heat up for the Argosy. I think it's an opportunity for DTNA to help some of these people get into a truck they say they need for some special business application." According to White, DTNA is targeting a few large carriers that use bigger trailers for one reason or another and that can take advantage of the truck with regard to length or weight restrictions. He said they have had inquiries from a few West Coast hay haulers and some different niche market operators who can need the lower weight and shorter overall length. An Argosy glider sparked a bit of a buzz in late 2011 when Walmart Canada unveiled what it calls the Supercube truck, pulled by an Argosy glider tractor. The trailer is 60 feet, 6 inches long with a deep 62-inch kingpin setting, and boasts a cubic capacity of 5,100 cubic feet – 30% more cube than a standard 53-foot trailer at 3,900 cubic feet. The key to making the truck work in Canada was the Argosy glider tractor. It's a day-cab, but it totes a drom box capable of carrying four pallets in its additional 521 cubic feet of cargo space. The overall length of the thing is 75 feet 6 inches bumper-to-bumper. Truckinginfo ran a story on the Supercube truck back in November 2011. While White declined to speak to Walmart's plans for the Argosy or the Supercube concept, he did say that the retail giant has "made some further inquiries into this program." The company continues to build Argosy tractors for export, though they are now mostly right-hand drive models offered for sale in Australia, New Zealand and other countries. Left-hand drive models were sold for a while in South America, but they have been discontinued as well. Click here to see the Argosy website from New Zealand. Subject to Restrictions Because it's a glider kit, there are certain restrictions prospective Argosy owner must keep in mind. It is sold without an engine or transmission and rear-axle assembly. The customer is required to take a so-called "donor truck" out of service and use the major components to complete the glider. Under EPA guidelines, the final assembly can use engines the same age or newer than the donor truck but not older. In the case of the Argosy, because it was never engineered to accommodate engines and emissions systems beyond EPA 2004 levels, the newest engine customers can use are of that vintage. DTNA also offers remanufactured Detroit Diesel Series 60 and Cummins ISX engines to power the glider kit. And of course, the completed glider needs to meet NHTSA/FMVSS/CMVSS and all state, as well as Canadian and Provincial regulations -- as well as EPA guidelines -- for where the truck will operate. White says the main attraction with any glider is the price. "Depending on the model and the trim package and what major components the customer orders through DTNA, the acquisition cost can be up to 40% less than a new truck," he says. "If it's done properly, some customers may be eligible for an additional Federal Excise Tax savings of 12%." All the details are available on DTNA's glider kit website. Even with the restrictions, Bigliazzi says the ad he ran in early January has probably already sold one Argosy glider. "I had a call from a customer with whom we were just starting to work up a spec on a Western Star glider," he said. "When he saw they ad for the Argosy, he called and told me to stop work on the Western Star and get going on the Argosy instead. "The Argosy is more expensive than a Columbia or a Coronado glider, and that's probably just a demand thing," Bigliazzi notes. "The last figure I heard from DTNA was that they sold less than 400 of the trucks last year. That's really not a big number. I think the number would be higher if people knew they were available." Well, they are available, and dealers like Freightliner of Hartford are ready to put an Argosy together for you. And you thought the COE was history .... Photo gallery - http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/aftermarket/news/story/2014/01/the-return-of-the-truck-that-never-went-away.aspx

Additional information: Although no crashes or injuries have been caused by this problem with Mack trucks, the issue may cause the truck driver to lose control of the vehicle or spill debris from the assembly into the roadway. According to Mack Trucks Inc., and Volvo Group North America Regulatory Affairs Department, the cap nut that retains the inter-axle driveshaft yoke to the rear axle input may loosen prematurely. When the cap loosens and falls off, the yoke can separate from the axle input shaft and allow the drive shaft to completely disconnect. If the driveshaft disconnects, it would disable the vehicle, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle and potentially crash. Mack Trucks Inc. first became aware of the problem on October 22, 2015, when a customer reported experiencing a failed driveshaft. Following the report, Mack Trucks Inc. and the Volvo Group of North America conducted a four-month investigation that concluded that the driveshaft was defectively designed, prompting the recall. The NHTSA is warning Mack truck drivers to listen and be cautious of unfamiliar vibrations and rattling noises coming from underneath of the vehicles. This could be a sign of the cap nut loosening that would cause the inter-axle driveshaft yoke to disconnect from the rear axle input shaft.

Rosenbauer Specialty Vehicles http://www.rosenbauer.com/en/rosenbauer-world/vehicles/special-vehicles/forest-firefighting-vehicles.html http://www.rosenbauer.com/fileadmin/sharepoint/products/specialvehicles/INTERN_Interschutz_2015/Prospekte_Sonderfahrzeuge_neu/rb_gbk_broschure_sonderfahrzeuge_EN_216x303_2015-05-11_v22_sj.pdf

Hino Trucks Australia / March 28, 2016 "Hino - A Better Class Of Truck"