NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL COORPORATION

Navistar International Coorporation -International Harvester Company (II) 1902 – present Lisle Illinois United States of America

Navistar International Corporation

Type	Public
Traded as	NYSE: NAV
Industry	Automotive
Predecessor	International Harvester Company
Founded	1902
Headquarters	Lisle, Illinois, United States
Area served	North America, South America, Russia, UK, Greece, Eastern Europe, India, Middle East, China, Singapore, South Korea
Key people	Troy A. Clarke, President, Chief Executive Officer Walter G. Borst, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer Steven K. Covey, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Chief Ethics Officer
Products	Trucks Buses and School buses, Diesel engines Chassis
Revenue	10.775 billion USD(2013)
Number of employees	16,500
Website	www.navistar.com

Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional Corporation (for­merly In­ter­na­tional Har­vester Com­pany) is an Amer­i­can hold­ing com­pany that owns the man­u­fac­turer of In­ter­na­tional brand com­mer­cial trucks, IC Bus school and com­mer­cial buses, Work­horse brand chas­sis for motor homes and step vans, and is a pri­vate label de­signer and man­u­fac­turer of diesel en­gines for the pickup truck, van, hoes and SUV mar­kets. The com­pany is also a provider of truck and diesel en­gine parts and service.

Head­quar­tered in Lisle, Illi­nois, Nav­is­tar has 16,500 em­ploy­ees and an an­nual rev­enue of $10.775 bil­lion (in 2013). The com­pany’s prod­ucts, parts, and ser­vices are sold through a net­work of nearly 1,000 dealer out­lets in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Mex­ico and more than 60 deal­ers in 90 coun­tries through­out the world. The com­pany also pro­vides fi­nanc­ing for its cus­tomers and dis­trib­u­tors prin­ci­pally through its wholly owned sub­sidiary, Nav­is­tar Fi­nan­cial Corporation.

History

The merger of Mc­Cormick Har­vest­ing Ma­chine Com­pany and the Deer­ing Har­vester Com­pany in 1902 re­sulted in the for­ma­tion of the In­ter­na­tional Har­vester Com­pany (IH) of Chicago, Illi­nois, which over the next three-quar­ters of a cen­tury evolved to be­come a di­ver­si­fied man­u­fac­turer of farm­ing equip­ment, con­struc­tion equip­ment, gas tur­bines, trucks, buses, and re­lated com­po­nents. Dur­ing World War II, In­ter­na­tional Har­vester pro­duced the M-se­ries of mil­i­tary trucks that served the Ma­rine Corps and the U.S. Navy as weapons car­ri­ers, cargo trans­porters and light ar­tillery move­ment. Today, Nav­is­tar pro­duces In­ter­na­tional brand mil­i­tary ve­hi­cles through its af­fil­i­ate Nav­is­tar Defense.

1986-1991: Transition from agricultural roots

In­ter­na­tional Har­vester fell on hard times dur­ing the poor agri­cul­tural econ­omy in the early to mid-1980s and the ef­fects of a long strike with the UAW over pro­posed work rule changes. IH’s new CEO, Don­ald Lennox, di­rected the man­age­ment or­ga­ni­za­tion to begin ex­it­ing many of its IH’s his­tor­i­cal busi­ness sec­tors in an ef­fort to sur­vive. Some of the sales of prof­itable busi­ness en­deav­ors were ex­e­cuted to raise cash for short-term sur­vival, while other di­vi­sions were sold due to lack of im­me­di­ate prof­itabil­ity. Dur­ing this pe­riod of ques­tion­able eco­nomic sur­vival, in an ef­fort to raise needed cash and to re­duce losses, the man­age­ment team led by Mr. Lennox at IH shed many of its op­er­at­ing di­vi­sions: Con­struc­tion Equip­ment Di­vi­sion to Dresser In­dus­tries; Solar (gas tur­bines) Di­vi­sion to Cater­pil­lar; Cub Cadet (lawn and gar­den equip­ment) to MTD Prod­ucts and, lastly, the Agri­cul­tural Di­vi­sion to Ten­neco, which merged it with their J.I. Case sub­sidiary. The Scout and Light Truck Parts Busi­ness was sold to Scout/Light Line Dis­trib­u­tors, Inc. in 1991.

After the Agri­cul­tural Di­vi­sion sale in 1985, all that re­mained of IH was the Truck and En­gine Di­vi­sions. The com­pany changed its name in 1986 to Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional Cor­po­ra­tion. (The In­ter­na­tional Har­vester name and IH logo were as­sets of the Agri­cul­tural Di­vi­sion and con­se­quently were part of the sale to Ten­neco; the IH name and logo are still in use, hav­ing been in­cor­po­rated into the Case IH brand name). In the early 1980s, IH de­vel­oped a se­ries of re­li­able large-dis­place­ment V8 diesel en­gines that were sold as an op­tion for heavy-duty Ford 3/4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks.

Nav­is­tar still uses the “In­ter­na­tional” brand in its diesel en­gine and truck prod­uct lines, and the brand name con­tin­ues on in prod­uct lines of Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional’s In­ter­na­tional Truck and En­gine Cor­po­ra­tion subsidiary.

1990s-early 2000s: Rediversification

Dur­ing the 1980s and 1990s, the pop­u­lar­ity of diesel en­gines had made Nav­is­tar a lead­ing man­u­fac­turer of bus chas­sis, par­tic­u­larly school buses. The com­pany pur­chased one-third of Amer­i­can Trans­porta­tion Cor­po­ra­tion (Am­Tran), an Arkansas-based man­u­fac­turer in 1991, and the re­main­ing two-thirds in April 1995. By be­com­ing both a body and chas­sis man­u­fac­turer at the same time, Nav­is­tar gained sig­nif­i­cant mar­ket share in the in­dus­try. In 2002, Am­Tran was re­branded as IC (In­te­grated Coach) after a few months as In­ter­na­tional Truck and Bus.

After nearly a cen­tury of busi­ness in Chicago, Nav­is­tar an­nounced its plans on 30 Sep­tem­ber 2000 to leave the city and re­lo­cate its cor­po­rate of­fices to west sub­ur­ban War­renville, Illi­nois. The com­pany’s Mel­rose Park, Illi­nois plant is no­table for a sig­nif­i­cant work­place shoot­ing on Feb­ru­ary 5, 2001.

International MXT, the smallest of the

XT pickup trucks

In 2004, Nav­is­tar re-en­tered the re­tail ve­hi­cle mar­ket for the first time since 1980. The In­ter­na­tional XT (Ex­treme Truck) pickup truck was a se­ries of three pickup trucks. It was (by far) the largest pickup truck avail­able for re­tail sale and two of the three ver­sions (the CXT and RXT) were es­sen­tially

In­ter­na­tional Duras­tar medium-duty trucks fit­ted with pickup beds. The third ver­sion (the MXT) was es­sen­tially a street-le­gal ver­sion of aNav­is­tar-de­signed mil­i­tary ve­hi­cle. The three XT trucks were sold until 2008.

In 2005, Nav­is­tar pur­chased the Work­horse com­pany (started in 1998 by in­vestors who took over pro­duc­tion and sales of Gen­eral Mo­tors’ pop­u­lar P-se­ries Step­van chas­sis when GM dropped it), a man­u­fac­turer of step-van and motor home chas­sis, to seem­ingly re-en­ter the de­liv­ery van market. It ap­peared that the new sub­sidiary might also ben­e­fit by its as­so­ci­a­tion with a com­pany whose his­tory from the 1930s into the ’60s in­cluded the pop­u­larMetro van. For a short time Work­horse of­fered an in­te­grated chas­sis-body prod­uct called Met­roStar. In Sept. of 2012, Nav­is­tar an­nounced the shut down of Work­horse and the clo­sure of the plant in Union City, IN in order to cut costs.

2006-2008

Accounting issues

In Jan­u­ary 2006, the com­pany de­clared it would not file its form 10-K an­nual re­port with the U.S. Se­cu­ri­ties and Ex­change Com­mis­sion on time. The delay was caused by the dis­agree­ment with its au­di­tors, De­loitte and Touche, over com­plex ac­count­ing is­sues. In April, Nav­is­tar fired De­loitte, its in­de­pen­dent au­di­tor for 98 years, and hired KPMG to help re­state earn­ings back to 2002 to fix ac­count­ing er­rors. On De­cem­ber 15, 2006, Nav­is­tar ex­ec­u­tives an­nounced fur­ther delay of its re­state­ment and 2006 re­sults. The an­nounce­ment prompted the New York Stock Ex­change (NYSE) to an­nounce the delist­ing of the com­pany, after 98 years of trad­ing, al­though the NYSE sub­se­quently de­layed the delist­ing pend­ing an ap­peal by Nav­is­tar. How­ever, Nav­is­tar was re­moved from the S&P 500 Index, and the NYSE even­tu­ally de­nied Nav­is­tar’s ap­peal and delisted the stock; it traded on the Pink Sheets until 30 June 2008, when it was relisted on the NYSE, under its pre­vi­ous ticker sym­bol, NAV, after catch­ing up with its filings. Christo­pher An­der­son, the De­loitte part­ner re­spon­si­ble for the 2003 audit, ac­cepted a one-year sus­pen­sion from pub­lic au­dits in 2008, and be­came the first in­di­vid­ual to be fined by the PCAOB.

CEO Daniel Us­t­ian agreed to sur­ren­der to Nav­is­tar shares worth $1.3 mil­lion, while for­mer Chief Fi­nan­cial Of­fi­cer Robert C. Lan­nert con­sented to repay $1.05 mil­lion, each sum re­flect­ing mon­e­tary bonuses they had re­ceived dur­ing the re­state­ment pe­riod, the SEC said. Four other com­pany ex­ec­u­tives paid civil penal­ties with­out ad­mit­ting liability.

In De­cem­ber 2014, Nav­is­tar dis­closed more ac­count­ing prob­lems. These in­volved out-of-pe­riod ad­just­ments, which were cor­rec­tions of prior pe­riod er­rors re­lat­ing to prod­uct war­ranties. This re­sulted in a $36 mil­lion in­crease in Cost of Prod­ucts Sold. In ad­di­tion, a ma­te­r­ial weak­ness was dis­closed. In the com­pany’s an­nual 10K, they re­ported that weak­ness was “sur­round­ing val­i­da­tion of the com­plete­ness and ac­cu­racy of un­der­ly­ing data used in the de­ter­mi­na­tion of sig­nif­i­cant ac­count­ing es­ti­mates and ac­count­ing trans­ac­tions. Specif­i­cally, con­trols were not de­signed to iden­tify er­rors in the un­der­ly­ing data which was used to cal­cu­late war­ranty cost es­ti­mates and other sig­nif­i­cant ac­count­ing es­ti­mates and the ac­count­ing ef­fects of sig­nif­i­cant transactions.

Hybrids and Navistar Defense LLC, 2003-present

 International MaxxPro MRAP

In Oc­to­ber 2003, Nav­is­tar CEO Dan Us­t­ian an­nounced the com­pany would be form­ing a de­fense busi­ness unit in order to sell mil­i­tary ve­hi­cles. Nav­is­tar De­fense would be led by Archie Mas­si­cotte, a 26 year vet­eran of the com­pany. Us­t­ian stated “This is a nat­ural area of growth for In­ter­na­tional. We al­ready have all the plat­forms that the U.S. mil­i­tary and other NATO coun­tries could lever­age for prod­ucts and services.”

In 2007, Nav­is­tar’s In­ter­na­tional Truck and En­gine Cor­po­ra­tion be­came the first com­pany to enter hy­brid com­mer­cial truck pro­duc­tion, with theIn­ter­na­tional DuraS­tar Hy­brid diesel-elec­trictruck.

Nav­is­tar De­fense LLC is the prime sup­plier ofMRAP ar­mored ve­hi­cles to the US mil­i­tary. The Nav­is­tar 7000 se­ries has been fielded by the Cana­dian Forces for do­mes­tic op­er­a­tions. In 2005, the U.S. Army or­dered 2,900 7000-MVs for the Afghan Na­tional Army and Iraqi Min­istry of De­fense and an ad­di­tional order of 7,000 was added in 2008.

Nav­is­tar De­fense also has a small Cana­dian branch, named Nav­is­tar De­fence Canada.

Nav­is­tar De­fense re­ported sales of $3.9 bil­lion in 2008 and $2.8 bil­lion in 2009.

In Oc­to­ber 2009, the com­pany en­tered into a strate­gic agree­ment with Czech-based com­pany Tatra to jointly de­velop, pro­duce and mar­ket new mil­i­tary vehicles.

In De­cem­ber 2009, an­a­lysts were skep­ti­cal of the com­pany’s long-term po­ten­tial. “Nav­is­tar came out of nowhere and be­came a big player with MRAP, in what was a short-term pro­gram,” said Dean Lock­wood, an an­a­lyst at Fore­cast In­ter­na­tional Inc., a Con­necti­cut-based de­fense con­sul­tant. “They didn’t prove them­selves to be a long-term major player.”

In 2010, Nav­is­tar De­fense’s sales were $1.8 bil­lion. The com­pany’s 2010 An­nual 10K re­port stated “we con­tinue to ex­pect that over the long term our mil­i­tary busi­ness will gen­er­ate ap­prox­i­mately $1.5 bil­lion to $2 bil­lion in an­nual sales.”

In 2011, Nav­is­tar De­fense’s sales were $2.0 billion.

In 2012, Nav­is­tar De­fense re­ported $1.0 bil­lion in sales. Busi­ness In­sider ranked Nav­is­tar De­fense at 22 in the top 25 US de­fense companies.

In 2013, Nav­is­tar De­fense re­ported $543 mil­lion in sales. In the com­pany’s 10K fil­ing, they pro­jected mil­i­tary sales to con­tinue to de­cline, cit­ing U.S. bud­getary constraints.

In 2014, Nav­is­tar De­fense re­ported $149 mil­lion in sales. The com­pany pro­jected 2015 mil­i­tary sales to be slightly higher due to re­cent con­tract awards re­lat­ing to the gov­ern­ment’s MRAP fleet.

Contract awards, losses and other events

On Au­gust 22, 2012, Nav­is­tar De­fense lost their bid for the En­gi­neer­ing, Man­u­fac­tur­ing & De­vel­op­ment (EMD) con­tract worth $187 mil­lion for the Army and Ma­rine Corps’ Joint Light Tac­ti­cal Ve­hi­cle (JLTV) pro­gram. Nav­is­tar had pro­posed its Saratoga ve­hi­cle for the com­pe­ti­tion. On Fri­day Au­gust 28, 2012, Nav­is­tar filed a protest with the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­abil­ity Of­fice (GAO), but pulled their protest on Tues­day, Sep­tem­ber 4, 2012.

On June 20, 2013, Nav­is­tar De­fense idled pro­duc­tion at their West Point, MS pro­duc­tion plant. 80 work­ers were no­ti­fied that July 5, 2013 would be their last day. West Point was best known for man­u­fac­tur­ing MRAP ve­hi­cles. The com­pany cited se­ques­tra­tion, the draw­down in Afghanistan and a chal­leng­ing en­vi­ron­ment in the de­fense in­dus­try as factors.

On Au­gust 22, 2013, Nav­is­tar De­fense lost their bid for the Ground Mo­bil­ity Ve­hi­cle (GMV) 1.1 con­tract, po­ten­tially val­ued at $562 million. Nav­is­tar had pro­posed its Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Tac­ti­cal Ve­hi­cle (SOTV) for the com­pe­ti­tion. On Tues­day Sep­tem­ber 1, 2013, Nav­is­tar De­fense and AM Gen­eral filed a protest. On De­cem­ber 19, 2013, the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­abil­ity Of­fice (GAO) de­nied Nav­is­tar and AM Gen­eral’s protests.

In Jan­u­ary 2014, the Pen­ta­gon an­nounced they had no­ti­fied al­lies of their in­tent to give away or scrap 13,000 used MRAPs. This was due to the war in Afghanistan wind­ing down, the mil­i­tary want­ing a lighter ve­hi­cle and high cost to ship them from the mid­dle east back to the U.S. Re­cip­i­ents have in­cluded var­i­ous po­lice de­part­ments and some uni­ver­si­ties. Nav­is­tar De­fense built 9,000 of the 27,000 ve­hi­cles bought by the Pen­ta­gon. Giv­ing away the MRAPs was seen as a blow to Nav­is­tar De­fense’s parts sales.

In De­cem­ber 2014, Nav­is­tar De­fense lost their bid for the En­gi­neer­ing, Man­u­fac­tur­ing De­vel­op­ment (EMD) con­tract for the Ar­mored Multi-Pur­pose Ve­hi­cle (AMPV). BAE was awarded the $382 mil­lion con­tract on De­cem­ber 23, 2014.

Nav­is­tar De­fense lost their bid for Canada’s De­part­ment of Na­tional De­fence (DND) MSVS (Medium Sup­port Ve­hi­cle Sys­tem) Pro­ject – SMP (Stan­dard Mil­i­tary Pat­tern) ve­hi­cles con­tracts. They pro­posed their ATX8 ve­hi­cle as part of an agree­ment with Czech-based com­pany Tatra. The con­tract was for ac­qui­si­tion and in-ser­vice sup­port (ISS) of a fleet of up to 1,500 SMP ve­hi­cles, up to 150 Ar­mour Pro­tec­tion Sys­tems (APS) kits, and 300 Load Han­dling Sys­tem (LHS) trailers. Com­peti­tors in­clude Oshkosh (MTVR), BAE Sys­tems (FMTV), Daim­ler AG (Zet­ros), Re­nault Trucks (Kerax 8×8) and Rhein­metall/ MAN (HX77 8×8). A con­tract award de­ci­sion is ex­pected in June 2015. On July 16, 2015, Canada awarded the Ac­qui­si­tion and In Ser­vice Sup­port con­tracts to Mack De­fense, LLC (Re­nault Trucks).

On July 25, 2014, the DOD awarded a $27.6 mil­lion mod­i­fi­ca­tion to an ex­ist­ing con­tract to ac­quire mine-re­sis­tant, am­bush-pro­tected hard­ware kits to up­grade MaxxPro Dash and long-wheel base am­bu­lances to their final con­fig­u­ra­tion. Es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date is May 30, 2015.

On Au­gust 27, 2014, the DOD awarded a $38 mil­lion con­tract to Nav­is­tar De­fense to re­store MRAP Maxx Pro Dash ve­hi­cles to “like-new” stan­dards. The DOD re­ported that Nav­is­tar was the only bid­der. The work in­cludes adding in­de­pen­dent sus­pen­sion sys­tems and re­place­ment of manda­tory parts, with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of June 30, 2016. Work will be per­formed in West Point, MS.

In Sep­tem­ber 2014, Nav­is­tar De­fense an­nounced they would hire 200 work­ers and re-open op­er­a­tions at their West Point, MS pro­duc­tion plant. West Point had been idle since June 2013 due to se­ques­tra­tion, the draw­down in Afghanistan and de­clin­ing orders.

In Sep­tem­ber 2014, amidst nu­mer­ous di­vesti­tures, Nav­is­tar Inc. CEO Troy Clark gave Nav­is­tar De­fense a vote of con­fi­dence, not­ing that the mil­i­tary busi­ness unit would be re­tained. In a Sep­tem­ber 2014 in­ter­view with Reuters he said “it’s not a bil­lion-dol­lar growth op­por­tu­nity, but it’s not some­thing that’s bleed­ing off the fu­ture for­tunes of our company.”

On Oc­to­ber 14, 2014, Nav­is­tar De­fense was awarded a $9.2 mil­lion firm-fixed price for­eign mil­i­tary sale (FMS) con­tract to Jor­dan for one hun­dred 4-ton 4×4 cargo trucks and twenty days of op­er­a­tor and main­te­nance train­ing. Work will be per­formed in New Carlisle, Ohio with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of May 20, 2015. Bids were so­licited via the in­ter­net with nine­teen received.

On Feb­ru­ary 2, 2015, Nav­is­tar De­fense was awarded a $15,381,152 firm-fixed-price con­tract with op­tions for eight MRAP MaxxPro Hard­ware Kits to sup­port MaxxPro ve­hi­cle stan­dard­iza­tion and reset. Work will be per­formed in Lisle, Illi­nois, with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of July 16, 2016. Bids were so­licited via the In­ter­net with one re­ceived. Fis­cal 2015 other pro­cure­ment (Army) funds in the amount of $15,381,152 are being ob­lig­ated at the time of the award. Army Con­tract­ing Com­mand, War­ren, Michi­gan, is the con­tract­ing ac­tiv­ity (W56HZV-15-C-0070).

On March 18, 2015, Nav­is­tar De­fense was awarded a $83,424,223 cost-plus-fixed-fee multi-year con­tract for sys­tem tech­ni­cal sup­port and sys­tem sus­tain­ment tech­ni­cal sup­port for MRAP MaxxPro ve­hi­cles. Fund­ing and work lo­ca­tion will be de­ter­mined with each order with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of March 31, 2019. One bid was so­licited with one re­ceived. Army Con­tract­ing Com­mand, War­ren, Michi­gan, is the con­tract­ing ac­tiv­ity (W56HZV-15-D-0037).

On April 13, 2015, Nav­is­tar De­fense was awarded a $17,522,057 firm-fixed-price con­tract with op­tions to pro­cure seven Mine Re­sis­tant Am­bush Pro­tec­tion MaxxPro Dash hard­ware kits for MaxxPro ve­hi­cle stan­dard­iza­tion and reset. Work will be per­formed in Lisle, Illi­nois, with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of Dec. 31, 2015. One bid was so­licited with one re­ceived. Fis­cal 2014 and 2015 other funds in the amount of $17,522,057 are being ob­lig­ated at the time of the award. Army Con­tract­ing Com­mand, War­ren, Michi­gan, is the con­tract­ing ac­tiv­ity (W56HZV-15-C-0092).

On April 30, 2015, Nav­is­tar De­fense was awarded a $31,199,783 mod­i­fi­ca­tion (P00004) to con­tract W56HZV-14-C-0102 for reset and up­grade of the MRAP (mine-re­sis­tant am­bush pro­tected) fam­ily of ve­hi­cles to Code-A stan­dards. Work will be per­formed in West Point, Mis­sis­sippi, with an es­ti­mated com­ple­tion date of July 31, 2016. Fis­cal 2013 and 2015 other pro­cure­ment (Army) and op­er­a­tions and main­te­nance (Army) funds in the amount of $17,990,419 were ob­lig­ated at the time of the award. Army Con­tract­ing Com­mand, War­ren, Michi­gan, is the con­tract­ing activity.

In April 2015, Nav­is­tar De­fense Pres­i­dent Bob Walsh re­signed. On May 19, Kevin Thomas was pro­moted to President.

2001-Present: Failed engine strategy, layoffs, consolidation and turnaround

Failed Engine Strategy

In 2001, then CEO Dan Us­t­ian faced nu­mer­ous EPA reg­u­la­tions to re­duce the amount of ni­tro­gen ox­ides and soot em­a­nat­ing from diesel en­gines. De­spite the change in the com­pli­ance arena, the reg­u­la­tions would not begin to be phased in until 2007, with full im­ple­men­ta­tion slated for 2010.

Us­t­ian had mul­ti­ple en­gi­neer­ing paths avail­able. Among them were Se­lec­tive Cat­alytic Re­duc­tion (SCR), Ex­haust Gas Re­cir­cu­la­tion (EGR) or the use of ni­tro­gen oxide ab­sorbers. All re­quired more en­gi­neer­ing and de­vel­op­ment to achieve com­pli­ance. Us­t­ian be­lieved truck­ers did not want to bother with an extra tank of fluid af­tertreat­ment. As a re­sult, he con­vinced the com­pany to spend $700 mil­lion to fund EGR development.

On Oc­to­ber 31, 2007, Nav­is­tar for­mally an­nounced their in­tent to move for­ward with EGR as the com­pany’s strat­egy. The com­pany state­ment in­cluded Us­t­ian men­tion­ing “I have pub­licly been an ad­vo­cate of cus­tomer friendly emis­sions con­trol so­lu­tions which do not add ad­di­tional costs to our truck and bus cus­tomers. While SCR is a means to achieve the NOx re­duc­tion re­quire­ment for 2010, it comes with a steep cost to our cus­tomers. Our abil­ity to achieve our goals with­out adding cus­tomer cost and in­con­ve­nience is a com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage for International.”

On No­vem­ber 24, 2008, Nav­is­tar re­vealed it would use EPA Cred­its in order to com­ply with the 2010 legislation.

In Feb­ru­ary 2009, Us­t­ian touted the ben­e­fits of EGR tech­nol­ogy as a key dif­fer­en­tia­tor for the com­pany’s en­gines. How­ever, by now, the rest of the in­dus­try had cho­sen to use the com­pli­ant SCR tech­nol­ogy. Us­t­ian dis­agreed with SCR, say­ing “the other thing that EGR avoids is the risks of an SCR strat­egy. Read the label on this and it will show you that there are chal­lenges with keep­ing con­trol of using this tech­nol­ogy: ‘Store be­tween 23 de­grees and 68 de­grees.’ So es­sen­tially it says you can’t throw it out­side. You can’t op­er­ate it in con­di­tions above 85 [de­grees] or below 12 [de­grees]. You can, but, it will put the bur­den onto the cus­tomers.”

Non-Conformance Penalties

The EPA rec­og­nized Nav­is­tar’s im­mi­nent non-com­pli­ance and cre­ated a sys­tem of Non-Con­for­mance Penal­ties (NCPs) that in­cluded a $1,919 dol­lar fine for every non-com­pli­ant en­gine that Nav­is­tar sold. To bridge the gap, Nav­is­tar began using EPA cred­its it had pre­vi­ously earned for being com­pli­ant in lieu of pay­ing fines. In Au­gust 2012, Nav­is­tar stated they would run out of EPA cred­its soon. Only days ear­lier the EPA an­nounced in­creased new penal­ties of $3,744 per engine.

In March 2009, Nav­is­tar sued the EPA, claim­ing that the agency’s guid­ance doc­u­ments for SCR im­ple­men­ta­tion were in­valid be­cause they were adopted with­out a pub­lic process and with input only from the SCR en­gine mak­ers. Nav­is­tar and the EPA set­tled the law­suit a year later.

Fur­ther mask­ing the EGR prob­lem were high mil­i­tary sales. In the com­pany’s 2010 10K re­port, Nav­is­tar cited or­ders for MRAPs as off­set­ting flat com­mer­cial sales due to the recession.

Move to Lisle, IL

In Sep­tem­ber 2010, de­spite un­cer­tainty over EGR and a slug­gish econ­omy, Nav­is­tar lead­er­ship re­vived an ef­fort to re­lo­cate the com­pany head­quar­ters from War­renville, IL, to nearby Lisle, IL. The new head­quar­ters was ex­pected to re­tain or cre­ate 3,000 per­ma­nent jobs and about 400 con­struc­tion jobs. Nav­is­tar Pres­i­dent Dan Us­t­ian said roughly 500 en­gi­neers would be hired im­me­di­ately. Nav­is­tar aimed to in­vest $110 mil­lion in the 1.2 mil­lion-square-foot Lisle cam­pus, which would in­clude prod­uct de­vel­op­ment. The state gave Nav­is­tar in­cen­tives of nearly $65 mil­lion, in­clud­ing tax credits.

In March 2011, Nav­is­tar an­nounced the move to Lisle. Ren­o­va­tions were com­pleted in the fall, but the com­pany grad­u­ally moved from War­renville to Lisle in sum­mer 2011. “You can’t build a cam­pus like this any­where for any­where near the price we paid for this, and even though you might get more in­cen­tives, when you look at the whole pic­ture, you re­ally can’t beat it,” said Don Sharp, Nav­is­tar vice president.

In 2011, Nav­is­tar began phas­ing out its Truck De­vel­op­ment and Tech­nol­ogy Cen­ter (TDTC) in Fort Wayne, In­di­ana. In early De­cem­ber 2011, the com­pany laid off 130 em­ploy­ees, mostly en­gi­neers and de­sign­ers who were United Auto Work­ers members. In total, 300 out of 1,400 Fort Wayne em­ploy­ees even­tu­ally ac­cepted of­fers to re­lo­cate to Illi­nois. The other 1,100 work­ers ei­ther re­tired or chose to re­main in In­di­ana and find work elsewhere. The cost to move em­ploy­ees and con­sol­i­date op­er­a­tions was es­ti­mated to be $75 mil­lion. The only Nav­is­tar em­ploy­ees re­main­ing after De­cem­ber 2012 were 20-25 peo­ple man­ning the com­pany’s test track on Ox­ford Street. In late July 2015, the TDTC closed and the re­main­ing work­ers were let go.

In Jan­u­ary 2012, the EPA adopted an in­terim final rule that al­lowed Nav­is­tar to con­tinue sell­ing the en­gines sub­ject to NCPs. Sev­eral Nav­is­tar com­peti­tors sued, and in June 2012 the same ap­peals court ruled that EPA’s in­terim rule was in­valid be­cause it did not give the pub­lic no­tice and an op­por­tu­nity for comment.

In the mean time, Nav­is­tar’s EGR de­ci­sion had led to sig­nif­i­cant re­li­a­bil­ity and qual­ity prob­lems. Truck dri­vers began los­ing trust and con­fi­dence as Nav­is­tar ve­hi­cles were break­ing down fre­quently. Con­se­quently, they aban­doned Nav­is­tar trucks in favor of com­peti­tor’s trucks.

Tension Mounts

In June 2012, spec­u­la­tion mounted about a pos­si­ble takeover of the strug­gling truck maker. This came as hedge fund MHR Fund Man­age­ment LLC dis­closed a 13.6% stake in the com­pany, slightly higher than bil­lion­aire ac­tivist in­vestor Carl Icahn’s 11.9% stake. As a re­sult, Nav­is­tar adopted a poi­son pill de­fense. If the plan were trig­gered by an out­side in­vestor tak­ing a stake of 15 per­cent or more in the com­pany, then Nav­is­tar would issue its share­hold­ers rights that would let them buy new com­mon stock in the com­pany at a dis­count of 50 per­cent: For each share held, the in­vestor could buy $280 worth of new shares for $140. The in­vestor who took the 15 per­cent stake or more would not have the right to buy ad­di­tional shares.

In Au­gust 2012, Nav­is­tar an­nounced it would use Cum­mins en­gines and SCR technology. After 37 years with the com­pany, Dan Us­t­ian re­tired im­me­di­ately in Au­gust 2012 and left his po­si­tion on the board as well. For­mer Tex­tron CEO Lewis Camp­bell was named in­terim CEO and Troy Clarke was pro­moted to Chief Op­er­at­ing Officer. Us­t­ian’s sev­er­ance pack­age began at $7.9 mil­lion. The com­pany’s proxy state­ment dur­ing this time es­ti­mated the total pack­age to be $14.6 mil­lion, con­tin­gent on a share price of $42.07 on Oct. 31, 2011, the end of the com­pany’s fis­cal year.

On Sep­tem­ber 9, 2012, bil­lion­aire and key stock holder Carl Icahn sent an open let­ter to Nav­is­tar’s board, blast­ing them for “abysmal busi­ness de­ci­sions” and “poor cor­po­rate gov­er­nance.” Icahn noted from 2009-2012, that “this Board has au­tho­rized spend­ing share­holder money on law­suits against sup­pli­ers, com­peti­tors and reg­u­la­tors, mar­ket­ing plans to con­vince cus­tomers that non-com­pli­ant en­gines are ac­tu­ally com­pli­ant, ac­cu­mu­lat­ing non-core as­sets such as a Recre­ational Ve­hi­cle man­u­fac­turer, and a “gold-plated” cor­po­rate head­quar­ters that cost over $100 mil­lion. The one thing this Board re­fused to spend money on was a back-up plan in­volv­ing the in­dus­try stan­dard tech­nol­ogy Nav­is­tar now must rely on.”

In a Sep­tem­ber 2012 in­ter­view, Cum­mins CEO Tom Linebarger said, “all we did was act nice to them (Nav­is­tar) even when they didn’t talk nicely about us,” he smiled, re­call­ing harsh com­ments that Nav­is­tar ex­ec­u­tives had made about SCR being used by all its competitors.

In Oc­to­ber 2012, Chief Prod­uct Of­fi­cer Deepak Kapur stepped down, fol­lowed by Group Vice Pres­i­dent of Prod­uct De­vel­op­ment Ramin Younessi in De­cem­ber 2012. CIO Don Sharp also left the com­pany in April 2013.

Layoffs and consolidation

Au­gust 2012 fea­tured a Vol­un­tary Sep­a­ra­tion Pro­gram (VSP) as well as in­vol­un­tary lay­offs. This was due to the failed en­gine strat­egy, ris­ing war­ranty costs and de­clines in com­mer­cial and mil­i­tary sales. The com­pany let go 500 em­ploy­ees and in Sep­tem­ber 2012, an­nounced plans to lay off 200 more salaried employees.

In ad­di­tion, the com­pany an­nounced it would close its Gar­land, Texas man­u­fac­tur­ing fa­cil­ity by mid-2013, re­sult­ing in the loss of 900 jobs.

In March 2013, Nav­is­tar an­nounced that in­terim CEO Lewis Camp­bell would step down and COO Troy Clarke would be named CEO and Chair­man of the Board. Jack Allen was named COO. In June 2013, CFO A.J. Cederoth stepped down and James M. Moran, Nav­is­tar se­nior vice pres­i­dent and trea­surer, would act as in­terim CFO until a suc­ces­sor could be found. In late June 2013, for­mer Gen­eral Mo­tors ex­ec­u­tive Wal­ter Borst was named Ex­ec­u­tive VP and CFO.

In Sep­tem­ber 2013, Nav­is­tar an­nounced it would cut 500 more jobs amid a larger than ex­pected third quar­ter loss. Nav­is­tar re­ported a slower than ex­pected re­turn to prof­itabil­ity due to large mar­ket share losses, de­clin­ing sales and weak mar­ket conditions.

In May 2014, a third round of lay-offs in as many years oc­curred at the cor­po­rate head­quar­ters as part of on­go­ing cost cut­ting measures.

On July 31, 2015, Nav­is­tar ceased op­er­a­tions and laid off the re­main­ing 15 em­ploy­ees at the Truck De­vel­op­ment and Tech­nol­ogy Cen­ter (TDTC) in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Cost-cutting and divestitures

As part of the turn­around plan, Nav­is­tar ex­ec­u­tives cut costs ag­gres­sively. They cut SG&A costs by 16% in 2013 and cut prod­uct de­vel­op­ment spend­ing by 24%. In­terim CEO Lewis Camp­bell’s pri­or­i­ties in­cluded a focus on qual­ity, re­duc­ing the com­pany’s cost struc­ture and par­ing back its prod­uct line.

Nav­is­tar also sold sev­eral busi­nesses that it deemed were not pro­vid­ing enough of a Re­turn On In­vested Cap­i­tal (ROIC). Among them were their Monaco RV busi­ness as well as Work­horse Chassis. They also ex­ited their joint ven­ture with Mahin­dra  and sold off their E-Z Pack unit, which made bod­ies for garbage trucks, as well as its Con­ti­nen­tal Mixer unit, which made con­crete mix­ers, for prices the com­pany char­ac­ter­ized as “not material.”

In Jan­u­ary 2014, Forbes re­ported sev­eral key chal­lenges fac­ing Nav­is­tar, which in­clude de­clin­ing mil­i­tary sales, a pen­sion plan un­der­funded by $2.7 bil­lion, two self-dis­closed weak­nesses in ac­count­ing prac­tices and a new col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment for the com­pany’s 6,000 full and part-time work­ers who are rep­re­sented by labor unions.

In Feb­ru­ary 2014, Nav­is­tar an­nounced it would move some en­gine pro­duc­tion op­er­a­tions from Huntsville, AL, to Mel­rose Park, IL by sum­mer 2014. The move elim­i­nated 280 jobs in Al­abama and saved an es­ti­mated $22 mil­lion. Nav­is­tar said it would keep two other diesel en­gine plants op­er­at­ing in Huntsville.

In Sep­tem­ber 2014, Nav­is­tar re­ported its best quar­ter in years. It an­nounced a third quar­ter net loss of $2 mil­lion, or $0.02 per di­luted share, com­pared to a third quar­ter 2013 net loss of $247 mil­lion, or $3.06 per di­luted share. It was also in Sep­tem­ber that CEO Troy Clarke an­nounced that the com­pany’s biggest di­vesti­tures were com­plete, and that the focus would now be on re­gain­ing lost mar­ket share.

On No­vem­ber 6, 2014, lead­er­ship changes con­tin­ued at Nav­is­tar, with Ex­ec­u­tive VP and COO Jack Allen re­tir­ing im­me­di­ately. Rather than hire a new COO, CEO Troy Clarke split the COO du­ties among three other executives.

Legal issues and struggle for profitability

In De­cem­ber 2014, the United States Ju­di­cial Panel on Mul­ti­dis­trict Lit­i­ga­tion or­dered that 13 of 14 civil law­suits brought against Nav­is­tar for MaxxForce en­gines would be con­sol­i­dated into one case. The con­sol­i­dated law­suits say Nav­is­tar’s use of Ad­vanced Ex­haust Gas Re­cir­cu­la­tion emis­sion con­trol sys­tem, or EGR, was de­fec­tive and re­sulted in re­peated en­gine fail­ures and fre­quent re­pairs and downtime.

On De­cem­ber 16, 2014, Nav­is­tar re­ported a larger than ex­pected 4th quar­ter net loss of $72 mil­lion. While sales rose 9 per­cent to $3 bil­lion, the com­pany cited re­struc­tur­ing and war­ranty costs as the main rea­sons for the loss. A day ear­lier, the com­pany an­nounced it would be clos­ing its en­gine foundry in In­di­anapo­lis, re­sult­ing in the loss of 100 jobs and cost­ing $11 mil­lion. The com­pany es­ti­mated an­nual sav­ings of $13 mil­lion in op­er­at­ing costs.

In March 2015, Nav­is­tar re­ported a first quar­ter 2015 net loss of $42 mil­lion, or $0.52 per di­luted share, com­pared to a first quar­ter 2014 net loss of $248 mil­lion, or $3.05 per di­luted share. Rev­enues in the quar­ter were $2.4 bil­lion, up $213 mil­lion or 10 per­cent, ver­sus the first quar­ter of 2014. The higher rev­enues in the quar­ter were dri­ven by a 17 per­cent year-over-year in­crease in char­ge­outs for Class 6-8 trucks and buses in the United States and Canada. This in­cluded a 42 per­cent in­crease in school buses; a 25 per­cent in­crease in Class 6/7 medium trucks; a 7 per­cent in­crease in Class 8 heavy trucks; and a 5 per­cent in­crease in Class 8 se­vere ser­vice trucks. Higher sales in the com­pany’s ex­port truck op­er­a­tions also con­tributed to the in­crease, par­tially off­set by a de­crease in used truck sales. The com­pany fin­ished the first quar­ter with a 27 per­cent year-over-year in­crease in order back­log for Class 6-8 trucks.

On June 4, 2015, Nav­is­tar re­ported a sec­ond quar­ter net loss of $64 mil­lion, or 78 cents a share, com­pared with a year-ear­lier loss of $297 mil­lion, or $3.65 a share. Rev­enue fell to $2.69 bil­lion from $2.75 bil­lion. An­a­lysts had ex­pected a loss of 18 cents a share and rev­enue of $2.82 billion.

On June 9, 2015, Nav­is­tar named Jeff Sass as the new Se­nior VP of North Amer­i­can Truck Sales. Sass pre­vi­ously worked 20 years for rival Paccar.

On June 12, 2015, Mark Rachesky’s MHR Fund Man­age­ment LLC dis­closed a 6% in­creased stake in Nav­is­tar, up to 15,446,562 shares. The firm now owns 18.9% of Navistar.

In July 2015, the En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency filed a civil law­suit against Nav­is­tar seek­ing $300 mil­lion in fines over its use of non-com­pli­ant en­gines in its 2010-model trucks – en­gines that did not meet the agency’s ex­haust emis­sion standards. “Be­cause (Nav­is­tar) com­pleted man­u­fac­tur­ing and as­sem­bling processes for the sub­ject en­gines in 2010 … each and every en­gine was ‘pro­duced’ in 2010 and is there­fore not a model 2009 en­gine,” the com­plaint said. Nav­is­tar clas­si­fied the en­gines as 2009 model year en­gines be­cause it began as­sem­bling them in 2009. Nav­is­tar has stated they dis­pute the al­le­ga­tions and would “ag­gres­sively de­fend” their position.

On July 20, 2015, Nav­is­tar an­nounced that it was re­fi­nanc­ing the $697.5 mil­lion se­nior se­cured term loan fa­cil­ity of Nav­is­tar, Inc., which ma­tures in Au­gust 2017, with a new $1.040 bil­lion se­nior se­cured term loan, which will ma­ture in Au­gust 2020. The re­fi­nanc­ing will ex­tend the ma­tu­rity of the term loan fa­cil­ity and pro­vide ad­di­tional liq­uid­ity and fi­nan­cial flex­i­bil­ity for the company.

Brands

International Trucks

 DuraStar Box (van body) truck

 ProStar® Semi tractor

 WorkStar Dump truck

In 1986, after the tran­si­tion from In­ter­na­tional Har­vester to Nav­is­tar, the truck prod­uct line (es­sen­tially all that was left) dropped the “Har­vester” por­tion of the brand name. In­ter­na­tional pro­duces a va­ri­ety of medium-duty, over-the-road, and se­vere-ser­vice trucks.

Pickups (XT-Series)

MXT (2004–2008)

CXT

RXT

Medium Duty

International TerraStar Class 4-5 conventional

International CityStar LCF (low-cab forward) cab-over

International DuraStar Class 6-7 conventional

Class 8

International LoneStar conventional

International ProStar+ conventional

International 9000 Series conventional

International TranStar conventional

Severe-service

International PayStar conventional

International WorkStar conventional

Navistar Defense

Pickup trucks

• International SOTV-A
• International SOTV-B
• International MXT-MV
• International MXT-MVU

MRAPs

• International MaxxPro

Class 8

• International ATX -6
• International ATX -8
• International 5000-MV
• International 7000-MV

IC Bus

Further information: IC Bus and AmTran

 IC Bus BE-Series school bus

In­ter­na­tional has a long his­tory in the school bus in­dus­try as a chas­sis provider, dat­ing to when school buses first be­came mo­tor­ized. In 1991, Nav­is­tar en­tered the school bus in­dus­try as a body man­u­fac­turer when it began its ac­qui­si­tion of Am­Tran, an Arkansas-based com­pany founded as Ward Body Works in 1933. Today, IC Bus pro­duces sev­eral mod­els of full-sized school buses along with buses for com­mer­cial use.

School/activity buses

AE-Series cutaway-cab conventional (based on International TerraStar)

BE-Series conventional (International 3300LP chassis)

CE-Series conventional (International 3300 chassis)

available in diesel-electric hybrid configuration

RE-Series rear-engine transit-style (International 3000 chassis)

Commercial buses

Along with com­mer­cial-use de­riv­a­tives of the school bus prod­uct lines, IC of­fers these dis­tinct products:

• AC-Series cutaway cab (based on International TerraStar)
• HC-Series cutaway cab (based on International DuraStar)
  • available in diesel-electric hybrid configuration
• LC-Series low-floor cutaway cab (based on International DuraStar LP)

Motorcoaches

IC Bus has in­tro­duced con­cept ve­hi­cles in both 40 feet (12 m) and 45 feet (14 m) lengths.

International Harvester/Navistar diesel engines

Further information: List of International Harvester/Navistar engines

In­ter­na­tional Truck and En­gine re­cently launched the “MaxxForce” brand name for its line of diesel en­gines. En­gines were re­branded as “MaxxForce” fol­lowed by a num­ber cor­re­spond­ing to the en­gine’s dis­place­ment, rounded up. So the 4.5L VT275 be­came the “MaxxForce 5. The Maxxforce Diesel en­gine line has re­cently been dis­con­tin­ued as a re­sult of Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional hav­ing many is­sues and re­ports of prob­lems with the en­gine. Ford con­tin­ued to use the Power Stroke brand name on their In­ter­na­tional-sourced en­gines. How­ever, the new 6.7L Power Stroke is not an In­ter­na­tional de­signed engine.

Joint ventures

Ford Motor Company

See also: Ford Power Stroke engine and Ford F-650

Since the 1980s, Nav­is­tar has had a close re­la­tion­ship with Ford Motor Com­pany. The re­la­tion­ship started out as an en­gine-shar­ing deal, but evolved into the pro­duc­tion of en­tire ve­hi­cles. How­ever, in May 2014, Ford cut Nav­is­tar out of the busi­ness of the F-650 and F-750 com­mer­cial trucks. Nav­is­tar had built them for Ford since 2001. Be­gin­ning in 2015, Ford plans to start mak­ing the trucks them­selves. It is ap­prox­i­mately a $400 mil­lion a year business.

Ford F-650, a product of Blue Diamond Truck

Ford PowerStroke diesel

As a re­sult of the gas crises of the 1970s, big-block gaso­line V8 en­gines (such as the Ford 460) had begun to fall out of favor with pickup-truck buy­ers. In the 1980s, diesel en­gines in Amer­i­can pickup trucks (in­tro­duced by Gen­eral Mo­tors in 1978) had be­come pop­u­lar, as they of­fered the power of a big-block V8 with the fuel econ­omy of a smaller en­gine. Ford en­tered into a sup­ply agree­ment with In­ter­na­tional Har­vester to re­ceive its 6.9 L IDI V8 en­gine. The first diesel-pow­ered Ford pickup trucks de­buted for 1982; it was avail­able for 3/4 and 1-ton mod­els. GM at the time had a De­troit Diesel V8 en­gine also on its debut, prior to that GM used a 350 Diesel. Dodge started using a Cum­mins six-cylin­der in 1988.

In 1994, when the In­ter­na­tional 7.3 L IDI V8 was re­placed by the T444E, the diesel op­tion was branded “Ford Pow­er­Stroke” to em­pha­size the switch to di­rect in­jec­tion. Through­out the 1990s and 2000s, Ford of­fered In­ter­na­tional/Nav­is­tar V8 (as the DT in­line-6 was far too large to pack­age in a pickup truck) in theFord Super Duty pickup trucks.

2004-15 F-750 Super Duty in use servicing a water pump

As of 2010, the 6.4 L Ford Pow­er­Stroke V8 was the last of the In­ter­na­tional/Nav­is­tar diesels used in Ford’s F-Se­ries Super Duty lineup. When Ford re­designed the Super Duty in 2011, it was fit­ted with a 6.7 L V8 de­signed and pro­duced by Ford.

Blue Diamond Truck

In 2001, Nav­is­tar formed a joint ven­ture with long­time (20 years) cus­tomer Ford Motor Com­pany to man­u­fac­ture medium-duty trucks and parts, in­clud­ing diesel en­gines for both par­ent com­pa­nies. The new com­pany, Blue Di­a­mond Truck Co. LLC, op­er­ates in the Nav­is­tar plant in Gen­eral Es­cobedo, Mex­ico. Its first prod­ucts were the

2004 Ford F-650 and F-750 medium-duty trucks.

Anhui Jianghuai Navistar

On 16 Sep­tem­ber 2010, Anhui Jianghuai Au­to­mo­bile Co., Ltd. (JAC) an­nounced joint ven­tures with NC2 Global and Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional Cor­po­ra­tion that will de­velop, build, and mar­ket heavy duty trucks and diesel en­gines in China.

Mahindra Navistar

Main article: Mahindra Navistar

Nav­is­tar formed a joint ven­ture with Mahin­dra & Mahin­dra to build heavy trucks in India under the “Mahin­dra In­ter­na­tional” brand, which has since been re­named Mahin­dra Nav­is­tar. These trucks were dis­played at Auto Expo 2010 in Delhi, India.

The Joint Ven­ture ceased as Nav­is­tar ex­ited the joint ven­ture in 2013.

Tatra

Tatra and Nav­is­tar De­fence in­tro­duced at Eu­rosatory Ex­po­si­tion in Paris, France (June 14–18, 2010) the re­sults of their strate­gic al­liance since Oc­to­ber 2009, the mod­els ATX6 (uni­ver­sal con­tainer car­rier) and ATX8 (troop carrier) The ve­hi­cles ap­pear to be based onTatra T815-7 (T817) 6×6, 8×8 chassis, sus­pen­sion and cab­ins while using Nav­is­tar en­gines and other components. Under the deal Nav­is­tar De­fence and Tatra A.S. will mar­ket the ve­hi­cles in North Amer­ica, which in­cludes sales to the United States mil­i­tary and for­eign mil­i­tary sales fi­nanced by the United States gov­ern­ment. Tatra will source parts and com­po­nents through Nav­is­tar’s global parts and sup­port net­work for Tatra trucks de­liv­ered in mar­kets out­side of North Amer­ica, as well as mar­ket Nav­is­tar-Tatra ve­hi­cles around the world in their pri­mary markets.

Others

• In 2005, Navistar purchased MWM International Motores, a Brazilian engine manufacturer formerly associated with Deutz AG.
• Navistar International has a contract with Budget Truck Rental to produce their rental trucks.
• Navistar entered into an agreement to purchase General Motors’ medium duty truck unit in 2007, but because of changing market conditions, the purchase was not concluded.

Plug-in electric vehicles

 eStar electric van in Los Angeles in 2010. The vehicle was manufactured in the U.S. under license from Modec.

 eStar delivery truck in Washington. D.C. in 2012

Plug-in hybrid electric bus

The U.S. De­part­ment of the En­ergy an­nounced the se­lec­tion of Nav­is­tar Cor­po­ra­tion for a cost-shared award of up to US$10 mil­lion to de­velop, test, and de­ploy plug-in hy­brid elec­tric ve­hi­cle(PHEV) school buses. The pro­ject aims to de­ploy 60 ve­hi­cles for a three-year pe­riod in school bus fleets across the na­tion. The ve­hi­cles will be ca­pa­ble of run­ning in ei­ther elec­tric-only or hy­brid modes that can be recharged from stan­dard elec­tri­cal out­lets. Be­cause elec­tric­ity will be their pri­mary fuel, they will con­sume less pe­tro­leum than stan­dard ve­hi­cles. To de­velop the PHEV school bus, Nav­is­tar will ex­am­ine a range of hy­brid ar­chi­tec­tures and eval­u­ate ad­vanced en­ergy stor­age de­vices, with the goal of de­vel­op­ing a ve­hi­cle with a 40-mile (64 km) range. Travel be­yond the range will be fa­cil­i­tated by a clean diesel en­gine ca­pa­ble of run­ning on re­new­able fuels. The DOE fund­ing will cover up to half of the pro­ject’s cost and will be pro­vided over three years, sub­ject to an­nual ap­pro­pri­a­tions.

eStar electric van

The eStar is an all-elec­tric van man­u­fac­tured in Wakarusa, In­di­ana. Pro­duc­tion began in March 2010 and first de­liv­er­ies began two months later. The tech­nol­ogy used in eStar was li­censed to Nav­is­tar in 2009 in a joint ven­ture with Modec and Nav­is­tar bought the in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty rights from the Modec’s bank­ruptcy ad­min­is­tra­tors in 2011. The in­tro­duc­tion of the eStar was sup­ported by a US$39.2 mil­lion U.S. De­part­ment of En­ergy stim­u­lus grant under the 2009 Amer­i­can Re­cov­ery and Rein­vest­ment Act.

The eStar has a 5,100 lb (2,300 kg) pay­load ca­pac­ity and is avail­able with a 14- or 16-foot cargo box. The ve­hi­cle is pow­ered by a 70 kW 102 hp elec­tric motor pow­ered by an 80kWhr lithium-ion bat­tery pack sup­plied by A123 Sys­tems, and also uses re­gen­er­a­tive brak­ing. The elec­tric van has a range of 100 mi (160 km), and a full charge takes be­tween 6 and 8 hours. By May 2010 the eStar had re­ceived U.S. En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA) and CARB cer­ti­fi­ca­tions. The eStar also meets all Fed­eral Motor Ve­hi­cle Safety Stan­dards (FMVSS).

The first vans were de­liv­ered in May 2010 to FedEx Ex­press for use in Los Angeles. Other cus­tomers in­clude Pa­cific Gas and Elec­tric Com­pany (PG&E), The Coca-Cola Com­pany, and Canada Post. The eStar has a price of US$150,000.

Criticism

In De­cem­ber 2011, the non­par­ti­san or­ga­ni­za­tion Pub­lic Cam­paign crit­i­cized Nav­is­tar In­ter­na­tional for spend­ing $6.31 mil­lion on lob­by­ingand not pay­ing any taxes dur­ing 2008-2010, in­stead get­ting $18 mil­lion in tax re­bates, de­spite mak­ing a profit of $896 mil­lion and in­creas­ing ex­ec­u­tive pay by 81%. On Jan 31, 2005, Nav­is­tar Fi­nan­cial said it would re­state fi­nan­cial state­ments for fis­cal years 2002 and 2003 and the first three quar­ters of fis­cal 2004, be­cause it did not take into con­sid­er­a­tion po­ten­tial changes to fu­ture in­come. On April 7, 2006, Nav­is­tar re­stated fi­nan­cial re­sults from 2002 through 2004, and for the first three quar­ters of 2005, due to ac­count­ing prac­tices that are the sub­ject of a con­tin­u­ing review.

Images

Navistar International Vehicles

2010 International LoneStarTractor Trailer IDF Custom International. IC Bus CE300 school bus International DuraStar medium-duty truck International 4700 SCD OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA SONY DSC OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Coca Cola eStar electric truck at Washington D.C. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Beaumont, TX, November 2, 2005- A contractor has the value of his load of brush and tree limbs estimated before he dumps it at an Army Corps of Engineers debris site. FEMA funds the Corps of Engineers debris disposal program. Photo by Ed Edahl/FEMA Honourary Colonel’s Dinner at 438 ETAH OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA