BMT Benefactor
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lmackattack last won the day on March 22 2013

Lmackattack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

665 Excellent

About Lmackattack

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/23/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    bulldogs and boobs

Previous Fields

  • Make
  • Model
    RS700L / B613LST
  • Year
    RS 1977 / B 1965
  • Other Trucks
    there is no other truck

Recent Profile Visitors

2,858 profile views
  1. I forgot about the "Big 6" That could have done wonders if it was as good as it looked.
  2. I have had constant issues after the last major change. I stopped visiting because I found it hard to stay logged in and follow threads I was interested in. I liked the old format much better. Trent
  3. My opinion was that the old E6 / E7 Mechanical 300s were just a very solid engine used for the job they did. they were not a powerhouse for over the road use but the little 676 cube 6cyl would hold its own against engines of 855 cube inch. A 300 mack would run with a 350 cummins. A 350 mack would run with a 400 cummins. The macks had slight torque advantage even with a smaller bore/cube engine. Gearing also has alot to do with it as Mack had widely used double reduction diffs and direct final drive transmissions. Macks could put more HP/TQ to the wheels with their common gearing in use with Macks own drive train. That being said the old saying "There is no replacement for displacement" still holds true. In my opinion the cummins would pull long hills better. They had the displacement advantage to hold the Hp where the Macks would start to struggle and louse speed faster. I feel Mack lost the edge in the HP wars when they did not advance 6cyl engine engine options by raising their HP and Displacemet. Mack continued to push their 300 or 350HP small bore 6cyl diesel when all others 6cyl engine mfg were pushing their 400+ HP big bores... just my .02
  4. not sure if you hard but Emil Passed away a few weeks back.
  5. LOL I would have lasted about a whole week with some of the crap modern day management thinks is normal. C&NW was a colorful railroad to bad all the little lines keep getting bought out by the big class 1s
  6. What railroad did you work for? Always wanted to work for a railroad but I would never fit with all the current day union politics, safety this, cant do that kind of stuff.
  7. I always thought the view out of a standard B model was not all that great. It makes the hood look longer than it is. My B75 sits on a R model frame and its even worse. Looks cool but not great for tight spots
  8. Were you a RR Engineer? I visited this site 4years ago. I took the road the winds around the south side of the loop. I was heading East If you have ever driven that road you know its winds around pretty good. I did the drive in a semi truck with 53' race car hauler. axles all the way at the back.. It started out fine but I was getting a little worried about a mile into it.
  9. Yes the CL had engine options early on but I recall them very limited after just a few years? they also had sleeper options. 1/2 the CL's I saw had big bunks yet the titan had no provisions for a sleeper. when Mack years later did put out a Titan bunk option it was a very sad attempt to think OTR heavy haul drivers only wanted to live out of a flat top small 36"? bunk ... Back to the CL, Seams most were delivered with a E9 but not uncommon to find other power options. Then when the E9 went away I think you could only get a cummins for power. the point im trying to make is when the CL was released it had decent engine power and cab options. The Titan did not. I saw far more CL's out on the road than I did Titans. However when the CL slowly went to limited engine options they failed to attract much attention. Fast forward to the Titan , it was released on the same platform as how the CL died off. I just do not understand that concept
  10. Again this all comes down to options... Mack historically was built and sold on the fact that they built the whole truck. "Mack Western" opened up non mack component options that at the time seamed very popular. I think Mack could have kept better pace if they would have grown on the Mack Western idea. The 70s ad 80s must have been a great time for Truck MFG just based on the classy photos I see of trucks of that day... I think the downfall for mack was in the 90s, they did not stay on the cutting edge with style or drive train options. Seams thru the 90s all they had were R models and the CH. The CH is a rugged truck but it parted ways from American styling and was only sold with Mack power. The CL was a good idea but again limited engine options if I recall. fast forward to today Mack again has their premier Truck (Titan) with lack of options. It does not have sleeper options or off breed engine options . It is just amazing to me they basically continued on their same sales platform of the last 2 decades. What Truck MFG in this day thinks their premier Truck will only sell with limited Engine and Cab options. They really missed the boat on the titan. not sure what they can do now to fix this
  11. Do the L model cabs have more room in them? they look taller than a standard B Cab?
  12. I see the problem..... no grease on the Frame rail ramps.
  13. Good to hear from you Rob....Hope you had a merry Christmas and Happy new year. I think we all would like to hear more from ya if you find the time....
  14. I was at the Las Vegas con expo when the Titan was released. I was not all that impressed with the options. it was a overpriced truck that sat up to high and had bolt ons that made it look a little more flashy. The HP ratings were promising with the big maxidyne but they soon lowered them. It lacked sleeper options. you could get a Paccar with a sleeper with the same specs but at less cost. IMO The only thing you got with the Titan was the Mack name and bragging rights to the biggest Mack of the day. If Mack/Volvo do not introduce a larger competitive priced truck with a known mack name such as superliner or Magnum etc....this will be the end for their severely limited heavy haul market. There are very few old school mack fleets left. most Dump truck fleets I drove for had a bunch of Little R models and 1 or 2 superliners for heavy lowboy work. Today I dont see any fleets using Titans or even Granite's for lowboy work. Seams mack is being regulated into fleet spec city trucks.
  15. was he backed up on the other load of gravel?