Bruce Amacker Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I can't answer on the Dodge, but I remember them, I'd guess early 70's. You young guys think a 330, 360, 361, 370, 390, and 391 are old, 477/534 gassers were the pigs in big Fs and the original Super Duty when I was young. Mechanical governor in the block, Holly 4bbl, and probably 3 mpg on a good day. The local city had some as tandem plows, you talk about a hog! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchan68 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I can't answer on the Dodge, but I remember them, I'd guess early 70's. You young guys think a 330, 360, 361, 370, 390, and 391 are old, 477/534 gassers were the pigs in big Fs and the original Super Duty when I was young. Mechanical governor in the block, Holly 4bbl, and probably 3 mpg on a good day. The local city had some as tandem plows, you talk about a hog! I remember the 361 being the engine in the larger Fords of the 70s up until 79 I believe it was, until the introduction of the "newer" line that was introduced in 1980 (from F-100 to F-800), where the 370/429 line of gassers replaced it. Speaking of the 477/534 line of engines, I believe our shop foreman remembers working on them. Didn't International have a similar line of engines (I think) 479/549 were the displacements for their Fleetstar trucks, equipped with the so-called "twin stick" transmissions? This would be the one-up to their 304/345/392 engines, if I recall correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredsvt Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I dunno Brad. It could go either way. I remember when I was a young pup working on the older F600-700-800 trucks with 370's and 460'S I think they were. They moved... rather nicely with manual transmissions however they were not the greatest when loaded up heavy. In comparison todays 6.8L runs much better and has a lot more power and torque. I am more concerned with the durability. Who wants to be swingin engines out of these trucks? I actually don't think that is a bad looking truck BUT it looks too much like the current medium duty trucks. I am not sure what Ford could have done to change that or how different they wanted it to be. After all it's still using an F-series cab apparently. You definitely know it's a Ford when you see it. I believe the gassers in trucks of the era you speak of, were equipped either with a 370 or 429 cubic inch displacement that were from the same family of engines Ford called the so-called "385" series, using the same engine blocks as the 460. My vague recollection, is the larger displacement 460 engine was used only in Ford's smaller trucks (3/4 to 1 ton). This is the same as GMC and Chevy offering the 366 and 427 in their trucks with the larger 454 being offered only in their smaller trucks. I always wondered why the larger 26,000 lb. GVWR class of trucks used smaller displacement engines. Not only that, but I also remember the majority of them being equipped with Clark 5-speed manual transmissions with 2-speed axles in them too. It was also explained to me that the extra gear reduction was needed to compensate for the lack of low end torque from the gas engines. And for this reason, the ones equipped with the optional diesel engines (of which I believe the 8.2L Detroit "Fuel Pincher" V8s was one of them) were not equipped with the 2-speed axle. All I remember though, is all of those trucks were absolute dogs. You were already up to top gear by the time you got up to 40 mph (which was a lot of shifting). Today's trucks of that class seem to be absolute rockets when compared to those mentioned in the above paragraph. Trick question. Does anyone remember when was the last year Dodge was in the medium duty truck game? I mean the ones in the same class as the ones mentioned above, not the current Ram trucks with 4500 and 5500 designations. If any engine needed a two speed axle, the "fuel pincher" Detroit was one. When I worked at the limo company, we had a 8000 series GMC rollback, with that fine oil leaker and head gasket eater. No turbo on that one. Noise and slow are the order of the day. Much like the International 9.0 liter V8 diesel. Our outside tow guy had a similar GMC with a turbo "fuel pincher" it was better, but he was doing head gaskets about every 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Bruene Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm sure the V-10 option will likely be more for customers in California... I don't imagine you'll see too many outside of the eco-dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy57 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 A few of the cities around me use F650/750 gassers because they can do the gaseous fuel kits and burn the methane off the landfills. Ford jumped on that since they were in a place to do it. These are their roadside limb and loose trash trucks with a flatbed and a hydraulic boom and claw. The trucks they used before were IH 4200 low spec VT365. I bet the V10 is a power house compared to the IH with low suds 6.0's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Browning Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Did you notice Ford lists a CNG/LPG Prep Package in these trucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselD Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Uhaul is a big gasser fan too and it wouldn't surprise me if they had a bug in someones ear at ford. I remember seeing a cobbled together F650 proloader with a v10 in it years ago. They claimed it was something they converted themselves to test how well it could hold up to their demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmorris Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Uhaul is a big gasser fan too and it wouldn't surprise me if they had a bug in someones ear at ford. I remember seeing a cobbled together F650 proloader with a v10 in it years ago. They claimed it was something they converted themselves to test how well it could hold up to their demands. Doesn't surprise me. Anyone who rents diesels to the general public is just asking for headaches. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Browning Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Doesn't surprise me. Anyone who rents diesels to the general public is just asking for headaches. IMHO.I'll second that notion. I am experiencing that with Budget truck rental here in Jersey. Imagine, a truck being towed in because it will no longer accelerate... because the DEF tank is empty. I kid you not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneGorniak Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Well..................I'm in the market for a new Tool Truck! And I'd rather have one of these units than allot of the newer International's, Frieghtliners, Peterbilts, or Kenworths. One, because I'm a die hard Ford guy and two because I don't like all the emissions crap I'm seeing on any of these other diesels and three is the price tags. We can get the F59 chasis through Mac tools with the V10 but I hate frickin milk trucks and I am partial to my cab and chassis units. Right now I have two 1999 International 4700 trucks with the 444E engines that i know like the back of my hand that both my wife and I run. The Cab and Chassis units are easier for me to work on and more comfortable driving on long stretches. On my route, the longest visit away from home is 180km's one way or 112 miles. I drive through some nasty ass crap! I couldn't bare to listen to all that banging and clanging of tools going on in the back of a milk truck down the roads I drive. The 6.7 Powerstroke as well as the V10 has my curiosity up. I keep thinking V10 because of the amount we idle these tool trucks especially in the winter. My trucks never shut off until I get home at night. Even in the summer, we have to run the AC in the back to keep it bearable back there. Of course, there are generator options. But then you have another piece of equipment to maintain. I keep thinking V10. Less money in maintenance. So much easier on the engine with all the idling. I keep thinking V10. I'm looking at buying a used 22 foot 2006 International with a DT466 right now because it is pre emissions. But I keep thinking V10! How about it guys? Spec me out the ultimate Tool truck in this new Ford Chassis and think about it from my point of view! I want at least a 22 foot box or body on it. Right now I'm weighing in at approx 20,000 lbs when I go across the scales in my 16 foot box truck. I don't even have a clue what these trucks are worth. This is the first conversation I am having with anyone about a new Tool Truck. So have at her and let me know what you guys think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchan68 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Two things come to mind with the V10 Dwayne. Fuel comsumption and power. Too much of the former and not enough of the latter to haul that kind of weight around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneGorniak Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 They're that bad in power and fuel consumption, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredsvt Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Hi Dwayne I can't say about the 3 valve 6.8s power, but in a F53 38' motorhome (gvw 14500), the old 2v labored, or should I say SCREAMED to make them move, especially on hills. Our customer at the shop who parked it in our lot was happy with 7 to 8.5 mpg. When I was at the limo company, we had 4 6.8 E350 vans, set up as 11 passenger w/ large luggage area, for airport shuttle. Best mpg various drivers could get was 4 mpg. They do drive rather fast and hard to get from stop to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Browning Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Face it. Diesel power TRUMPS gas power when it comes to moving a load... even if the load is the vehicle itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Had a v10 gas econoline when I moved out west. Maximum of 60mph with my foot on the boards, (not governed just out of horsepower) and 6mpg. Way home was 6.4 diesel, 14mpg at 70-80mph with LOTS left in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneGorniak Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 How are the 6.7's holding up to the kind of abuse I want to put it through of never being shut off. I idle my trucks up to approx 1300 rpm's to keep them from coking when I'm stationary. Never any issues with the good ole' 444E's/7.3l's. Can u get an Alison behind that Powerstroke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Browning Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 According to the information Ford had released ONLY FORD power plants and transmissions will be used on the new medium duty trucks. No Cummins, No CAT, No Navistar. No Allison. I personally have not seen any 6.7L PSD's with any issues related to extended idling... someone else may have different experiences to share however! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneGorniak Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 The Ford site kinda sucks when it comes to trying to spec out a truck. By the time a guy gets a body on the back of one these, I imagine they'll be up there pretty good in price. http://m.ford.com/smartphone/modeloptions2.html?cid=commercial-truck&mid=F-650-750&year=2015&trimid=F-750+Superduty+XLT+Diesel#appsimHome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.