Return of the 7.3 SD

the company i work for just bought 10 new trucks. all were 4 door 4wd with the biggest v8 available. they also weren't the bottom of the line trucks but we ended up buying them for less than what i could go get the bottom of the line truck for. our guys don't haul more than one other person in their truck and we have 1 ton trucks with flat beds for hauling anything more than a couple 2x4s. the only thing that they really need is a 4wd single cab truck
 
LBarr2002 said:
So let me get this straight... Ford was the first of the big three to go overhead cam. Then small displacement with turbo charging was the future. Now their latest greatest is a large displacement pushrod engine o_O
Click to expand...
Cheaper to manufacture, proven reliable design and cheap to maintain.
 
So my question for you guys that work places that are buying the biggest gas engine possible...this is basically the crux of my question, is corporate just blindly checking biggest gas engine box, or does any thought go in to it. If you’re buying Ford, the 6.2 is the biggest right now, and serving the purpose. So when you buy the new trucks with the 6.2 and 7.3 being the options, is your fleet buyer buying 20 new trucks with an extra $2500-3500 option tag, just because the 7.3 is there and saying the 6.2 can no longer do the work and is obsolete? In places where towing heavy loads is crucial, I get it, work smarter, not harder. But as a finance guy that’s been on the buying end, I’m not dropping an extra $60k for someone to putt around in with a tool box.
 
I suspect the 6.2 will fade away. It hasnt been without problems.
We do get good fuel mileage out of it though.
 
Ron said:
I suspect the 6.2 will fade away. It hasnt been without problems.
We do get good fuel mileage out of it though.
Click to expand...

Ford’s big thing right now are options. In a fleet 350, the only gasser you can get right now IS a 6.2, so it’s a bit of a misnomer for folks to say ‘we’re going biggest gas engine available’...when it’s the only option anyway. Yeah the 7.3 will probably pull sales away, maybe the 6.2 will be phased out sooner rather than later. But this is where us pesky finance guys come into play...if the 6.2 is doing the job now, and it’s an option for the near future anyway, what’s the point in upgrading (with the exception of heavy towing). I’m sure ford didn’t sink all this money in this engine, not to replace the 6.2...and they’ll run both options until something supplants the 7.3 as the biggest bad boy on the block. Like I said originally, I just see this being extremely niche while running both options. You’ll have the retail consumer that wants the newest gadget and the fleet guys that want more gas capability. But also as noted, if it’s still only 10% of sales, it’s probably going to generate $300mil, which I definitely understand.
 
UTfball68 said:
So my question for you guys that work places that are buying the biggest gas engine possible...this is basically the crux of my question, is corporate just blindly checking biggest gas engine box, or does any thought go in to it. If you’re buying Ford, the 6.2 is the biggest right now, and serving the purpose. So when you buy the new trucks with the 6.2 and 7.3 being the options, is your fleet buyer buying 20 new trucks with an extra $2500-3500 option tag, just because the 7.3 is there and saying the 6.2 can no longer do the work and is obsolete? In places where towing heavy loads is crucial, I get it, work smarter, not harder. But as a finance guy that’s been on the buying end, I’m not dropping an extra $60k for someone to putt around in with a tool box.
Click to expand...

Look at the service vehicles riding up and down the road. I'd say half or better are diesels when an OK size gasser would do the job just fine. Most finance people aren't also car people. When whoever comes up and says "my guys need new trucks , this is the one we need" and hands them spec sheet of a base model work truck with a diesel, they buy them.
 
awheelterd said:
Look at the service vehicles riding up and down the road. I'd say half or better are diesels when an OK size gasser would do the job just fine. Most finance people aren't also car people. When whoever comes up and says "my guys need new trucks , this is the one we need" and hands them spec sheet of a base model work truck with a diesel, they buy them.
Click to expand...

I’d also go out on a limb and say if you’re in a place that can afford the cost of fleet vehicles, it’s gonna be done by committee with some sort of vetting process with multiple options presented, and not just some plant manager or foreman handing over a sheet to a dude in a cube saying ‘buy this’...at least that’s not been my experience. Now that’s not saying there’s not a use it or lose it Budget, and semi-intentionally overbuying.
 
UTfball68 said:
I’d also go out on a limb and say if you’re in a place that can afford the cost of fleet vehicles, it’s gonna be done by committee with some sort of vetting process with multiple options presented, and not just some plant manager or foreman handing over a sheet to a dude in a cube saying ‘buy this’...at least that’s not been my experience. Now that’s not saying there’s not a use it or lose it Budget, and semi-intentionally overbuying.
Click to expand...

disagree completely, in my experience
 
UTfball68 said:
And that’s why I feel I can make most businesses more profitable than the people running them.
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, its also why I feel like accountants make horrible business owners.

MOST (key word,dont miss it - I am sure you are the exception to the rule) cant separate the numbers from personal touch of business. Not everything has a hard measurable cost.
Any half educated accountant can improve the bottom line year 1-3...the question is does he destroy the culture and the backbone that made the business.

Now I work for a small company. ~100 employees and only somewhere around ....$80-100MM a year in revenue.
But our fleet buying decisions are made by a single person. He also is the same man who signs the checks.
 
Ron said:
For the sake of argument, its also why I feel like accountants make horrible business owners.

MOST (key word,dont miss it - I am sure you are the exception to the rule) cant separate the numbers from personal touch of business. Not everything has a hard measurable cost.
Any half educated accountant can improve the bottom line year 1-3...the question is does he destroy the culture and the backbone that made the business.

Now I work for a small company. ~100 employees and only somewhere around ....$80-100MM a year in revenue.
But our fleet buying decisions are made by a single person. He also is the same man who signs the checks.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that...most accountants don't see grey. But I'd also say if the guy signing checks (generically speaking, but using your numbers as an example) has gotten along just fine with 42 trucks that have the 6.2 in it, he's an idiot if he goes 7.3 just because now it's there...and I'd say he'd need to pay someone like me $10k for a week to make those decisions for him. That has nothing to do with culture or backbone...it has everything to do with an unnecessary $126,000 option. Do 42 new 7.3's improve the business in any way or make it more money than a new 6.2??? Probably not. I know he's not replacing them all at once and you did say there were some GM's in there...but the point remains the same. $126,000 is enough to hire Ron that gopher so his time isn't wasted with dumb customer requests (improves culture and productivity), plus new equipment that will make him money (improves culture and productivity), or hell scratch both of those ideas and make everyone happy by giving them a $1250 bonus just because. All hypothetical and grossly exaggerated...but right now a 6.2 is more than enough, why 6 months later is it not anymore. If the answer is anything short of 'because I want it'...folks are lying to themselves, and that brings me back to my prior point about business profitability.
 
I'm just glad to see big blocks coming back. The Ford DOHC, SOHC motors are okay but are physically massive and don't have the bottom end I wish they did.
 
Pike and Altec will eat these up. All of our farm trucks are former Pike and Altec off lease fleet trucks in the 200k mile range. No power company gives a shit about the fuel bill. They want the trucks to run reliably and all new diesels are just too complicated and finicky for them in most cases.
 
UTfball68 said:
I don't disagree with that...most accountants don't see grey. But I'd also say if the guy signing checks (generically speaking, but using your numbers as an example) has gotten along just fine with 42 trucks that have the 6.2 in it, he's an idiot if he goes 7.3 just because now it's there...and I'd say he'd need to pay someone like me $10k for a week to make those decisions for him. That has nothing to do with culture or backbone...it has everything to do with an unnecessary $126,000 option. Do 42 new 7.3's improve the business in any way or make it more money than a new 6.2??? Probably not. I know he's not replacing them all at once and you did say there were some GM's in there...but the point remains the same. $126,000 is enough to hire Ron that gopher so his time isn't wasted with dumb customer requests (improves culture and productivity), plus new equipment that will make him money (improves culture and productivity), or hell scratch both of those ideas and make everyone happy by giving them a $1250 bonus just because. All hypothetical and grossly exaggerated...but right now a 6.2 is more than enough, why 6 months later is it not anymore. If the answer is anything short of 'because I want it'...folks are lying to themselves, and that brings me back to my prior point about business profitability.
Click to expand...

What if...the intendeed market isnt 6.2 buyers?
What if the intended market is the bottom of the diesel buyers?

Diesels present a unique problem for Ford (and Dodge and GM)...each dealership has a select few diesel techs yet all gas techs are equal.
I dont know the numbers but what if the 7.3 is more profitable than the 6.7, and sells between the 6.2 and the 6.7 in terms of price?
 
For us it was resale value on buying the trucks we did. Our old trucks when sold the base model trucks sold for a grand or more less than the fancier ones. If you can buy them at the same price why not make some money on end of use


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron said:
What if...the intendeed market isnt 6.2 buyers?
What if the intended market is the bottom of the diesel buyers?

Diesels present a unique problem for Ford (and Dodge and GM)...each dealership has a select few diesel techs yet all gas techs are equal.
I dont know the numbers but what if the 7.3 is more profitable than the 6.7, and sells between the 6.2 and the 6.7 in terms of price?
Click to expand...

And that’s why I said it would be interesting to see actual numbers, right now anything anyone says is merely a guess or assumption. Right now the only hard numbers I’ve seen is in 2018 ford sold 909,000 light duty trucks and 60% of those trucks were their top 3 trim lines...king ranch, limited and platinum. And that’s where the assuming starts...i doubt any of those were fleet vehicles...at those price points, I doubt the buyer cares how many diesel techs ford has...and I’d bet half of those are half tons. The remaining 360k are now divvied up in low end retail and fleet. And then you can try to extrapolate those assumptions to the fleet market...accounting for half tons and diesels...and now two gas options.
 
Last edited:
UTfball68 said:
I don't disagree with that...most accountants don't see grey. But I'd also say if the guy signing checks (generically speaking, but using your numbers as an example) has gotten along just fine with 42 trucks that have the 6.2 in it, he's an idiot if he goes 7.3 just because now it's there...and I'd say he'd need to pay someone like me $10k for a week to make those decisions for him. That has nothing to do with culture or backbone...it has everything to do with an unnecessary $126,000 option. Do 42 new 7.3's improve the business in any way or make it more money than a new 6.2??? Probably not. I know he's not replacing them all at once and you did say there were some GM's in there...but the point remains the same. $126,000 is enough to hire Ron that gopher so his time isn't wasted with dumb customer requests (improves culture and productivity), plus new equipment that will make him money (improves culture and productivity), or hell scratch both of those ideas and make everyone happy by giving them a $1250 bonus just because. All hypothetical and grossly exaggerated...but right now a 6.2 is more than enough, why 6 months later is it not anymore. If the answer is anything short of 'because I want it'...folks are lying to themselves, and that brings me back to my prior point about business profitability.
Click to expand...

The industry is always coming out with the next "it" thing your completely overthinking all of this. 20 years ago a 600 ft lb cummins was all the rage and people used them and they were great. Then a few years later the common rail comes out with more power. Why? Did the old truck not meet the needs anymore? No its because people always want more, more power, more comfort, more gadgets, more fuel economy. It isnt being introduced because the 6.2 isn't working. It's coming out because they think it will be better. And the next engine after that will come out because they think it will be better than the 7.3 and on and on. It's really that simple.
 
Stuntman Autoworks said:
The industry is always coming out with the next "it" thing your completely overthinking all of this. 20 years ago a 600 ft lb cummins was all the rage and people used them and they were great. Then a few years later the common rail comes out with more power. Why? Did the old truck not meet the needs anymore? No its because people always want more, more power, more comfort, more gadgets, more fuel economy. It isnt being introduced because the 6.2 isn't working. It's coming out because they think it will be better. And the next engine after that will come out because they think it will be better than the 7.3 and on and on. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%...I actually said that in the last sentence of what you quoted...but the point to that post was more about business profitability than buying on impulse.
 
14391E41-E41C-4DB1-B678-3D363F5C0469.png
 
UTfball68 said:
Agreed 100%...I actually said that in the last sentence of what you quoted...but the point to that post was more about business profitability than buying on impulse.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt any profitable company is buying on impulse.
 
Stuntman Autoworks said:
I seriously doubt any profitable company is buying on impulse.
Click to expand...

Again...I agree...but was told I was wrong, which is what started the discussion down that path.

awheelterd said:
Look at the service vehicles riding up and down the road. I'd say half or better are diesels when an OK size gasser would do the job just fine. Most finance people aren't also car people. When whoever comes up and says "my guys need new trucks , this is the one we need" and hands them spec sheet of a base model work truck with a diesel, they buy them.
Click to expand...
UTfball68 said:
I’d also go out on a limb and say if you’re in a place that can afford the cost of fleet vehicles, it’s gonna be done by committee with some sort of vetting process with multiple options presented, and not just some plant manager or foreman handing over a sheet to a dude in a cube saying ‘buy this’...at least that’s not been my experience. Now that’s not saying there’s not a use it or lose it Budget, and semi-intentionally overbuying.
Click to expand...
Ron said:
disagree completely, in my experience
Click to expand...
 
Said you were wrong about it being done by a comittee...and also about it being a spend or lose budget.
 
Ron said:
Said you were wrong about it being done by a comittee...and also about it being a spend or lose budget.
Click to expand...

My bad...I guess I thought when you said ‘completely’ that meant everything you quoted. And I’d still bet your company has a budget process the owner reviews and revises multiple times with multiple people that those truck purchases are on.
 
I can see where that was confusing. My b
 
Back
Top