Is this the start of Workhorse again? Isuzu?

[rekoj71]

Is this the platform that may come back as the Workhorse chassis or will it come from something else?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/gm-to-return-to-us-medium-truck-market/ar-BBl8VZz?ocid=iehp

Sorry, don't know how to clicky.

[Hank_MI]

As they say, torque is real and can be measured, HP is just the result of a mathematical formula.

[Bruce_Brown]

OhhWell wrote:

Bruce Brown wrote:

harold1946 wrote:

The engine produces 550 ft. lbs. of torque. The torque converter is the multiplier, making it capable of over 1000 ft. lbs.

Just like any other engine/transmission combination. :W Now toss in the rear end gear and you can really confuse the issue.

The fact of the matter is this engine does NOT make diesel like torque. Through gearing, etc, it can get a decent tow rating, but it will never have diesel like torque.

The Cummins ISB, the smallest main stream diesel used today, starts at 660 #/ft of torque, and depending on the application goes all the way to 800 #/ft.

There is nothing wrong with a gas engine, but to say this engine will compete with a diesel is stretching it a bit.

People still care about the torque numbers these days? Funny.

Only those who understand it. :W

I wonder how many people know you have to know the torque # first to get to the HP number.

[OhhWell]

Bruce Brown wrote:

harold1946 wrote:

The engine produces 550 ft. lbs. of torque. The torque converter is the multiplier, making it capable of over 1000 ft. lbs.

Just like any other engine/transmission combination. :W Now toss in the rear end gear and you can really confuse the issue.

The fact of the matter is this engine does NOT make diesel like torque. Through gearing, etc, it can get a decent tow rating, but it will never have diesel like torque.

The Cummins ISB, the smallest main stream diesel used today, starts at 660 #/ft of torque, and depending on the application goes all the way to 800 #/ft.

There is nothing wrong with a gas engine, but to say this engine will compete with a diesel is stretching it a bit.

People still care about the torque numbers these days? Funny.

[Bruce_Brown]

harold1946 wrote:

The engine produces 550 ft. lbs. of torque. The torque converter is the multiplier, making it capable of over 1000 ft. lbs.

Just like any other engine/transmission combination. :W Now toss in the rear end gear and you can really confuse the issue.

The fact of the matter is this engine does NOT make diesel like torque. Through gearing, etc, it can get a decent tow rating, but it will never have diesel like torque.

The Cummins ISB, the smallest main stream diesel used today, starts at 660 #/ft of torque, and depending on the application goes all the way to 800 #/ft.

There is nothing wrong with a gas engine, but to say this engine will compete with a diesel is stretching it a bit.

[rgatijnet1]

The original article mentions nothing about Workhorse or PSI. It only mentions that GM will partner with Isuzu AGAIN and put their badge on some medium duty trucks, like they are now doing with Nissan. GM will be supplying their own engine.

[harold1946]

1492 wrote:
Looks like the current gas version of PSI 8.8L is rated for around 550 Lb-ft torque max.






PSI brochure indicates that the block is capable up to 1,000 Lb-ft.

The engine produces 550 ft. lbs. of torque. The torque converter is the multiplier, making it capable of over 1000 ft. lbs.

[harold1946]

vjstangelo wrote:
But will they have the expertise to work on the new motor being supplied by PSI? I have seen no parts available at the local stores, and the nearest Workhorse service center to me (2 hrs away) is a Chevy dealership. Will they train their mechanics to work on a PSI motor?

There are many stories on this blog about Ford dealerships turning away F53 and Class C chassis for warrenty work, so would a Chevy dealer work on a PSI motor? I am skeptical...

Not to worry; I am quite positive Workhorse/ PSI will make any and all information available.

[vjstangelo]

But will they have the expertise to work on the new motor being supplied by PSI? I have seen no parts available at the local stores, and the nearest Workhorse service center to me (2 hrs away) is a Chevy dealership. Will they train their mechanics to work on a PSI motor?

There are many stories on this blog about Ford dealerships turning away F53 and Class C chassis for warrenty work, so would a Chevy dealer work on a PSI motor? I am skeptical...

[harold1946]

vjstangelo wrote:
Who would work on the drive train for service, I'm wondering...

Any Workhorse service center. :S

[vjstangelo]

Who would work on the drive train for service, I'm wondering...

[Ault]

GM does not have anything to do with Workhorse

[TropicalRV]

tatest wrote:
This is the third time around for GM to try a comeback into the MDT and HDT business, after being forced out of it twice by the terms of a U.S. government financial rescue.

I don't think it has anything to do with Workhorse, a company set up to pick up GM's chassis business after GM was forced to abandon it in the earlier bailout. There is no other connection, and Workhorse has since failed, been bought and sold again, and will get into the motorhome chassis business if the new owners (mostly in the hybrid truck chassis business) decides the tiny RV chassis market is worth the bother.

More likely that GM might try to get back into RV and step van markets themselves, to compete with Workhorse?

Does GM have any relationship with Workhorse? Don't think so. Sorry GM fans.

[Bruce_Brown]

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Ford has had a history of major recalls with all of their vehicles that makes the WH brake issue seem like a minor incident.

:h What the heck are you talking about????? Every manufacturer has had recalls, every one. Just look at how many air bags are being recalled today - every manufacturer, all used the same supplier for the air bags.

Brakes on the other hand, oh I don't know...not really a big deal until you need them, then it's really not much more than the real possibility death. The worst part about this was how long WH ignored the issue, then said there is no issue, then blamed the customer, then dragged their feet once they couldn't ignore it any more. Even then, don't use your brakes hard or you'll still pay the bill.

From the link above;

Rotors with radial cracks are NOT considered recall related damage unless there is other evidence of damage. Such cracks are typical of “riding” the brakes downhill, absence of a towed car brake system and continued hard braking. If the cracks are severe enough to merit replacement, that would be at the owner’s expense.

But hey, at least they got on the pitman arm issue fairly soon, so at least you could steer when your brakes failed.

And for the record, I don't own a gas chassis - haven't since 2002, so I have no dog in this hunt. Having said that, what Workhorse did with this (lack of) recall was boarderline criminal IMO. They knowing were putting lives at stake, and the excuses they were using were absurd.

[timmac]

rgatijnet1 wrote:
So Ford is getting a 6 speed tow haul transmission in 2016. I guess this is similar to what WH had with the Allison transmission way back in 2006.
It was easy for Ford to be leader of the pack when they had no competition.
Talk about engineers that screw things up, the two piece spark plug fiasco that Ford did with the F53 chassis up through 2008 is a perfect example of bad engineering. .

Yes Ford has some issues but as time goes on it will just get better if they stick with the current V-10 and transmission, I have the 2 piece spark plug now in my 08 and soon to replace them with the newer 1 piece spark plug but other than that the chassis is flawless so far.

The spark plug that breaks in 2 pieces is only a minor issue if you replace them before 50,000 miles and they have a tool to remove broken piece if it happens, many now on Youtube have videos about this and its almost a 100 percent removal without any issues if done early..

Here's a success removal, hope mine goes this well
https://youtu.be/XOVhhkC3A2c