Maxidyne

Don't sound like they're parkin' 'em: https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/wabtec-delivers-1000th-tier-4-locomotive/

And if any railroad is interested, Cummins had a Tier 4 locomotive engine before they were required.

Hard to argue with adding a safety feature like an engine brake, hopefully you'll never need it, but when you do...! I was driving a fleet truck powered by an L10 Cummins with no engine brake with only a 50,000 pound GCW when the Interstate was closed by an accident and traffic was rerouted onto the old two lane with a not all that long 6% grade but plenty of 30 MPH curves and a city with stoplights at the bottom. Speed limit was 55 MPH on 'til the road came into the city, but I came down most of it at 30 MPH with the engine wound out in lower gear and made it to the bottom with fresh brakes. Would have been nice to have an engine brake, especially if I'd had a full load!

Yup, but the railroads can and are buying them.

Problem is the market for C15/C18 Cat truck engines isn't big enough to justify making them meet current emissions standards, which would be no small task given that they don't meet even Euro6, never mind the tougher EPA2010. Cat's Progress Rail division that owns EMD locomotives was late bringing a Tier4 locomotive to market and the railroads ain't buying it due to reliability problems. Meeting emissions standards ain't Cat's strong suit, and as the standards tighten Cat will become more a legend than a serious player in the engine market.

Disc brakes are mostly a safety feature- If they prevent one catastrophic accident they've more than paid for themselves. Like anything new in trucking, there will be higher initial and parts costs until they become the standard and volume production brings costs down.

Ford may have 500 dealers selling the big Fs, but after Ford has been out of the big truck business for over 2 decades, how many can handle air brakes, etc.?

I haven't seen any Titans pulling doubles, seems like most of the few that were sold pulled lowboys. The lack of a sleeper cab option really hurt the Titan out here.

I suspect the 13 axle doubles with 4 tridems are the practical limit, beyond that you only gain about 6k pounds per axle. That said, the axle loads are so light that the trailer and dolly axles can often be "singled out" for some weight and tire wear savings. But few take advantage of such technology, if fact the 20 axle combinations are pretty crude and none too professionally operated.

I'm next to South Dakota where GCW is only limited by bridge formula B and how many axles you can fit into the 81.5' maximum trailers length. Thus we see 146K or so 13 axle grain hopper doubles and 170k 17 axle side dump doubles and even a couple 20 axle side dump doubles at 190k or so. I rarely see a Mack pulling the 13 axle doubles and haven't seen a Mack pulling the 17 axle doubles in years. Paccar pretty much has this market to themselves with the odd Daimler product.

Regardless of which way the engine points and which wheels get driven first, the Michigan State Police tests gave the new Explorer very high marks as it outperformed a lot of sedans. That may bode well for the next generation Mustang which will be built on the same platform as the Explorer, though it's going to be an even more obese Mustang.

The old cab inherited from the White RX was kinda scrunched, so Autocar made the wide version standard and squared up the slanted back panel to get a bit more room there too.

"We have thousands of smaller accounts under 10 units a year, under 20 units a year. Are those really retail, are those really fleet?" Sorry Ford, but the customer who buys even just one truck to earn a living has different needs than a customer who buys an F150 to impress the neighbors, an Explorer to traverse the wilds of the shopping malls, or a Mustang to impress their buddies. If you want my business back, quit trying to rip me off like you do your retail customers!

Yup, I'm still driving it a lot and saving the 2015 TDI for the future...

Made the same mistake misconnecting fuel lines on my '03 Golf TDI when I replaced the camshaft drive belt- Stumped me for awhile as it would start and run for a few seconds and then die. Got some online help from the forums and 8 years later the baby diesel still runs strong!

Just get a few Chevy, Volvo, and GMC emblems and an old Brigadier and you can build your own... Better yet, attach them with velcro!

Several private customers had orders in for the Transit Connect diesel, but I suspect Ford was really trolling for fleet orders and none were forthcoming. Given that unlike the 3 liter V6 diesel in the F150 the 1.5 wasn't already EPA approved, I suspect Ford decided it wasn't worth it to jump through the hoops of EPA certification for a couple thousand sales a year.

I've met steering wheel holders who have never driven a cabover who will recite "chapter and verse" the whole litany of myths about cabovers. These are the same guys who tell me 400 horsepower isn't enough to move the 20,000 pound average loads they haul...

On the original 237 HP Maxidyne the longest gearing offered was around 3.90 which gave 63 MPH at 2100 RPM on 10.00x20 tires, that was pretty buzzy but just about every big diesel truck of the time cruised at the same buzzy 2100 RPM. Mack upgraded to the 285 HP Maxidyne and offered 3.70 gears around the time the speed limits dropped to 55, so we crawled along at a more comfortable 1700 to 1800 RPM. The Low RPM Maxidyne typically was geared to cruise at 1500 or so RPM at 55, and when that wretched "double nickel" limit was raised to 65 the cruising RPMs were still pretty reasonable. I put a lot of miles on UPS MHs with the low RPM Maxidyne and it was a sweet ride... Probably the best Mack ever built!

IIRC Maxidynes only went to 300 HP until the 2001 models, when the top HP was finally cranked up to 370. The low RPM Maxidyne with the 1020 RPM torque peak was discontinued after 2000, I suspect they had to have the engine rev higher to pass the tighter 2001 emissions requirements.

Another Ford Failure- With the mid engine Corvette coming out in a few days and eclipsing the GT's performance for less than $100k, Ford jacks the GT's price and delays it's execution by a few days. In yet another market GM and the rest of the world is having Ford's lunch...

Basicly a business decision- When you've got months and months of orders to keep your assembly lines busy, why tie them up to build only half a truck?

This is pretty typical of the southern states getting into bidding wars for auto and truck plants- For example, Kentucky paid around a million $$$ a job to lure Toyota. Looks like Virginia got a better deal, but only if all those jobs actually materialize, which with Volvo's dwindling market share is iffy...

Here the market is switching over to automatics and a new truck with a manual is hard to find, and you guys are arguing over who makes the best manual?

During the 80s recession I suspect every truck maker was losing money. While American investors bailed, European truck makers took the long view and bought up American truck makers at bargain prices.