How the Mack name ended up where it is today

[39 Baby Mack]

Screenshot_2016-02-07-08-43-54.png

HANSEN FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Hank Nave, the man from White

Ron

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[kscarbel2]

The 98 E-tech launch was due to Emissions. That's it. They couldn't get the PLN E7 to pass the 98 standards. When E7 (pre Etech) was cut the 454 was 46hp and 100lbft of torque away from the E9 in engine specs. Even the torque curve on the E7 was good. I had a E7454 it was a bit of a dog but we got great life out of it. They defiantly pushed those 12L engines to the max but the old E7 faired well. I compare th versatility of the E6 to the E7 daily. That Etech was and is just more to go wrong with little to show for it.

That's right, installing electronic unit pump (EUP) injection on the E7 occurred because the U.S. government abruptly closed long time emissions loopholes.

In October 1998, a court settlement was reached between the EPA, Department of Justice, California Air Resources Board and engine manufacturers over the issue of high NO_x emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines under certain driving conditions.

I hope to impress on everyone how massive and irresponsible in scope this politically-driven EPA scam was. (President Bill Clinton was behind it).

Since the early 1990’s, the manufacturers utilized engine control software that allowed engines to switch to a more fuel efficient, but higher NO_x output, driving mode at highway cruising speeds. The EPA considered this engine control strategy an illegal “emissions defeating device”

The court settlement resulted in a consent decree that dictated:

1. Civil penalties for engine manufacturers and requirements to allocate funds for pollution research

2. Upgrading existing engines to lower NO_x emissions

3. Supplemental Emission Test (steady-state) with a limit equal to the FTP standard and NTE limits of 1.25 × FTP (with the exception of Navistar)

4. Meeting the 2004 emission standards by October 2002, 15 months ahead of time

Mack officials at the time said the EPA had long been aware of how its injection timing control system worked and never complained.

Terrence Grube, Mack's executive vice president and general counsel, said:

'If the agency {EPA} would like to change emissions standards or testing procedures in the future, we'd be happy to help in that process, but we refuse to sit still in the face of assertions that we have ever violated the law!'

So confident was Mack Trucks that it was acting legally that it cut off talks with the EPA.

Mack has installed the controls on 62,000 engines during the 1994 through 1998 model years, accounting for about 60 percent of its production, said spokesman John Mies.

'Throughout this period, these Mack engines have passed the only test for emissions [that the] EPA requires for such engines,' Mack's suit said (http://www.autonews.com/article/19980622/ANA/806220764/epa-says-mack-engines-pass-tests-but-pollute;-truckmaker-sues).

As a result, CAT, Cummins, Detroit, Mack, Navistar, Renault and Volvo had to pay over one billion dollars in fines. (https://www.dieselnet.com/news/1998/10epa.php)

Though I generally like Robert Bosch, I never liked their unit pump injection. Having said that, their common rail injection represents near perfection in fuel injection.

Rather then depend o Bosch, Scania and Cummins began cooperating in 1992 on the development of high-pressure injection systems, forming the Cummins-Scania High Pressure Injection LLC joint venture in Columbus, Indiana in 1999. Cummins launched the first system, electronically controlled HPI (high pressure injection) on the Cummins Signature 600, and Scania followed with HPI-equipped Euro-3 engines for the 2001 model year. In 2005, Cummins and Scania formed their Cummins-Scania XPI Manufacturing joint venture to produce XPI (extra-high pressure injection), the truck industry's leading common rail system.

As I've said before, some customers operating E7 E-Tech engines encountered issues, but certainly not all. Some camshaft problems, due to an H-ring caused lifter misalignment condition*, were an unacceptable inconvenience to the customer. The E-Tech was popular with many customers. In fact, the E7-460XT made quite a name for itself. The E-Tech EUP (Electronic Unit Pump) version of the Mack E7 engine featured Bosch's widely used PLD electronically-controlled high pressure (up to 1800 Bar) unit injector pumps.

[bbigrig]

I work on engines equipped with common rail Bosch manufactured systems. They are pretty good but have there own batch of issues and are more complicated to diagnose. They are also more expensive to repair in parts replacement and in labor when the proper diagnosis steps are taken. High/low pressure pumps (both in 1 unit), injector failures, injector feed tube leaks, cracked fuel rails, replacement of lines every time they are opened etc. By design and in a book the design of common rail seems flawless and simple. Working on them opens your eyes to more components and higher constant pressures equals more to go wrong and replace. If injector cup designs and materials could b improved, Detroit, Mack/Volvo as examples unit injectors have many benefits. Unit injectors can't handle the common rail pressures being another issue. The E-tech engine was a embarrassment from day one. Fuel efficiency and miles between defects took a dive. Adding EGR to th ASET version in comparison to other engines on the market made Mack lovers like me cringe. It was a sad time for Macks long standing reputation of building a strong product.

[Dirtymilkman]

I love my Etech. 35,000+ hours 1,000,000+ miles and still going strong. Its a 2001 in a cl. All I ever did was a water pump, alternator and valve set and injectors every 250,000 miles. 460 with stage 2 injectors and almost pulls as well as my mp10. Doesn't use any oil on 10,000 mile oil changed.

[Dirtymilkman]

Ks, did Mack have anything in the works for later emissions before Volvo got them? Or did Volvo make them just bandaid the etech?

[Joe Ditchkus]

The Mack Family Homestead was located about 1 mile from my house in Mount Cobb,Penna. It was torn down about 10 years ago and is now a small housing development.I was told one of the reasons Roadway used Detroit Diesel Engines was they hauled a lot of freight for Detroit Diesel and if they wanted to continue keep buying Detroits.Not the only reason but a contributing factor.

[kscarbel2]

Ks, did Mack have anything in the works for later emissions before Volvo got them? Or did Volvo make them just bandaid the etech?

E-Tech was launched in 1998 (after the EPA's stunt), and Volvo took over in 2000. Volvo wanted Mack's Hagerstown engine plant......to produce Volvo engines. Thus, the days of the Mack engine were numbered from 2000 as they set a schedule for incorporating Volvo global components into the Mack truck for economy-of-scale.

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner / August 1, 1998

At the end of the 1980s, the EPA announced fairly stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel engines and essentially told engine makers that they would have to invent the technology that would allow them to meet those standards. Manufacturers responded with electronic engine controls that have not only satisfied the requirements, but have also delivered major improvements in engine performance, durability, and fuel economy.

Now, prodded by a number of environmental watchdog groups, the EPA is saying that the technology is too good, that it sidesteps federal emissions requirements, and that manufacturers are violating the law even though all of their engines have been certified by the agency.

What's happened is that the EPA designed a certification test cycle that mimics stop-and-go conditions. That's where emissions are highest for mechanically controlled engines, and the EPA assumed that emissions for more fuel-efficient operating states such as steady highway speeds would be similar, if not better.

In essence, the EPA told engine makers to develop new technology to meet the law, but wrote enforcement procedures based on old technology.

The electronic controls are far more sophisticated than the EPA anticipated. They can control combustion for low emissions during the types of conditions they experience under the test cycle, and then move to more fuel-efficient timing under more typical over-the-road conditions. It seemed like everyone won - the government was satisfied because the engines passed its tests, and engine users were happy because they were getting better fuel economy. The problem is that the engines produce substantially higher emissions when they're operating in that more fuel-efficient mode. The discrepancy was common knowledge, but EPA chose to ignore the issue until political pressure was applied earlier this year.

http://fleetowner.com/mag/fleet_new_tech_old

http://articles.mcall.com/2002-05-15/news/3407299_1_engine-manufacturers-detroit-diesel-mack-trucks

[Underdog]

I love my Etech. 35,000+ hours 1,000,000+ miles and still going strong. Its a 2001 in a cl. All I ever did was a water pump, alternator and valve set and injectors every 250,000 miles. 460 with stage 2 injectors and almost pulls as well as my mp10. Doesn't use any oil on 10,000 mile oil changed.

I had similar experience with my E-tech 427. Put a cam in after 700,000, did rods& mains once, and a set of heads. I put 1.3 million on that truck and it is still going with the third owner must be over 1.5 million by now.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[mackdaddy]

Jack Curcio told me that hiring Hank Nave was the one mistake that Zenon did make.

[RoadwayR]

I wonder how things would have turned out if Chrysler would have been allowed to buy Mack in '64.

[james j neiweem]

It would have turned out that Fiat would own Mack

[Dirtymilkman]

Lol. Chrysler would have had to sell Mack in the 70's before they went broke the first time