Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mrolds88

Mack/renault Diesels

18 posts in this topic

Hi Guys,

Was wondering if anybody had any info on the Renault 6 cylinder diesels that Mack put into their small cabovers from the early 80's on? I am looking to repower a GMC 1 ton crew cab and theought this might be a way to go. Any guidance? Let me know

Thanks,

Greg :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Was wondering if anybody had any info on the Renault 6 cylinder diesels that Mack put into their small cabovers from the early 80's on? I am looking to repower a GMC 1 ton crew cab and theought this might be a way to go. Any guidance? Let me know

Thanks,

Greg :thumb:

I had one in an 89 CS-300P truck that I put a 22 ft. steel rollback bed on. It gave very good service as far as reliability. Good starting engine without being plugged in on winter nights, backed by a close ratio 6 speed overdrive transmission.

Like I said, it delivered very good service for me but if it was to break, Mack had you "right where they wanted you"; as most parts were only available through the dealer and they were expensive.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Was wondering if anybody had any info on the Renault 6 cylinder diesels that Mack put into their small cabovers from the early 80's on? I am looking to repower a GMC 1 ton crew cab and theought this might be a way to go. Any guidance? Let me know

Thanks,

Greg :thumb:

:SMOKIE-LFT: i had one for 8 yrs, i got the truck at a sale for the bed but i ran it until the cab rotted off, the motor got good fuel mileage and ran like a top, i still have it, dumb me got a late model truck with a cat in it and switched the bed over, the 1st trip out it was on the big hook coming home with 2 broken pistons, Mack is not no higher than cat when it comes to parts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:SMOKIE-LFT: i had one for 8 yrs, i got the truck at a sale for the bed but i ran it until the cab rotted off, the motor got good fuel mileage and ran like a top, i still have it, dumb me got a late model truck with a cat in it and switched the bed over, the 1st trip out it was on the big hook coming home with 2 broken pistons, Mack is not no higher than cat when it comes to parts

Thanks guys for the replies. I realize that nothing is cheap anymore no matter what you are doing. I figured that if I could start at a reasonable cash outlay it would make life easier. It sounds like the Renault may be a good way to go then. I will keep checking here to see if anybody else has any more input Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friends uncle just bought an 84 mack midliner with the renault in it. Its pretty quick. We raced that mack against an international with a 466 and 6 speed and the mack won by a long a shot. The trans they used behind them has probably the weirdest gear pattern ive ever seen in a truck

1 3 4

R 2 5

Its funny when somebody drives it that doesnt know the pattern. missin gears and such

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friends uncle just bought an 84 mack midliner with the renault in it. Its pretty quick. We raced that mack against an international with a 466 and 6 speed and the mack won by a long a shot. The trans they used behind them has probably the weirdest gear pattern ive ever seen in a truck

1 3 4

R 2 5

Its funny when somebody drives it that doesnt know the pattern. missin gears and such

Chris

I had a 1964 GMC truck with that same shift pattern. It was always funny to ask somebody to back my truck out someplace just to watch, (from a distance of course)!!

My Mid-liner truck was reverse to the left and up, very standard. The transmission was a Renault BDSL-181.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my most frustrating experiences in a truck was trying to drive one of those wretched Renaults. Fortunately that rental died the next day and I never got stuck with it again. The Renaults were an embarrassment, and it's good to see them banished from the Mack lineup. All that can be said for them is that rotting away in the junkyards they will provide a plentiful source of spare Bulldogs for the real Macks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my most frustrating experiences in a truck was trying to drive one of those wretched Renaults. Fortunately that rental died the next day and I never got stuck with it again. The Renaults were an embarrassment, and it's good to see them banished from the Mack lineup. All that can be said for them is that rotting away in the junkyards they will provide a plentiful source of spare Bulldogs for the real Macks

Those IH DT466 are darn good engines, dont know what everybody else thinks, parts should be easy to find. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 466 is a great engine just low on power. They run forever. At least the older ones do. Whats the deal with mack and renault? Did mack own renault did renault own mack? On the older macks a lot of the parts have both Mack and Renault cast in it.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 466 is a great engine just low on power. They run forever. At least the older ones do. Whats the deal with mack and renault? Did mack own renault did renault own mack? On the older macks a lot of the parts have both Mack and Renault cast in it.

Chris

Chris,

Renault began to aquire Mack around 78 or 79. They fully bought out mack in 82 or so. They used mack engines in there trucks most notibly the E9 in the Magnum. Mack imported the midliner and more recently the midlum (marketed as the freedom). They seem very reliable because I still see quite a few 80's models still running around with no problems. And to be truthful the newer Renault cabs are damn good looking. Heck I love the Australian Quantum :rolleyes: . At least they didnt butcher Mack like friggen Volvo is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Thad, so they owned mack right up until volvo bought them out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Thad, so they owned mack right up until volvo bought them out?

Volvo up and bought out the both of them in 2001. And my mistake they fully bought out Mack in 1990, started with a 10% share in 1979 and then to 20% 1982.

Good link with a time line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Trucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget Renault owned a chunk of AMC. As for the DT466s Im told the power isnt too high because IH want to push alot hp & have reliability to suffer. IH did make some not so good diesels in the past, the 9.0 aka DV550, the V800, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Thad, I'll be driving a brand new 2006 Mack Granite tandem this winter with double wings and a live bottom stainless steel dump body and i think the Granite is one good looking truck compared to the ugly Sterlings and IH's i see. Im very pleased to announce that the State of New York Dept. of Transportation is now back to puchasing Macks after a long break since at least the early 1980's. God i hated those Fords and IH's we have been plowing with!. Somebody in Albany finaly got smart and figured out that Mack builds the toughest vocational truck for ice and snow removal for the northeast. And as far as Brad's statement about the IH 9.0 litre diesel I must disagree. when i worked for a local school system here the 9.0 was by far the best school bus engine we had, it always started in any weather and had lots more pull and torque than the DT-360 inline 6 that replaced the 9.0 V-8, then we got into those piece of crap T-444E engines that were nothing but glorified Powerstroke pick-up engines, nothing but computer and sensor problems. IH engines got so bad that the powers to be now purchase only Cummins and Cats in the current fleet of 28 buses. And I would like to add so not to piss anybody off, This is just my observations and opinion after 8 years of working with IH school buses. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Thad, I'll be driving a brand new 2006 Mack Granite tandem this winter with double wings and a live bottom stainless steel dump body and i think the Granite is one good looking truck compared to the ugly Sterlings and IH's i see. Im very pleased to announce that the State of New York Dept. of Transportation is now back to puchasing Macks after a long break since at least the early 1980's. God i hated those Fords and IH's we have been plowing with!. Somebody in Albany finaly got smart and figured out that Mack builds the toughest vocational truck for ice and snow removal for the northeast. And as far as Brad's statement about the IH 9.0 litre diesel I must disagree. when i worked for a local school system here the 9.0 was by far the best school bus engine we had, it always started in any weather and had lots more pull and torque than the DT-360 inline 6 that replaced the 9.0 V-8, then we got into those piece of crap T-444E engines that were nothing but glorified Powerstroke pick-up engines, nothing but computer and sensor problems. IH engines got so bad that the powers to be now purchase only Cummins and Cats in the current fleet of 28 buses. And I would like to add so not to piss anybody off, This is just my observations and opinion after 8 years of working with IH school buses. :lol:

Hi again. I owned a 1983 IH 1754 series truck with that 9.0ltr (180 h.p.) IH diesel engine. It was very dependable for me in the 4 years I owned it. Not a single breakdown at all hours of the day and night. The truck was also a rollback car hauler constantly on call. The only maintenance it required were regular oil changes and to be plugged in when under 30 degrees for rapid start. Prior to my ownership, it had an 18 ft. box on the back and hauled light freight five days per week. The only detriment to that engine was that it was VERY loud during operation. The 89 Mack CS-300 was "Library Quiet" in the cab by comparison!! I cannot say the Renault engine was as near "trouble free" as the IH engine. As far as parts availability, Center State International (Peoria, IL ) either had parts on the shelf, or the next morning whatever was needed was at my shop via their delivery at no cost for shipping. By comparison, the Mack dealer was 78 miles away, and I got to pay UPS charges for anything unless I went after the parts (a.k.a. terrible service with numbskulls behind the counter). Hence the reason the truck was parted with as most parts were only available through a Mack dealer. As I said in the earlier post, I never had any major issues with the Mack, but it was expensive to purchase any needed parts.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 9.0 was l-o-u-d also (huh ?) I never hear anything good about 'em. But, mine was was the Geo Metro of trucks when it came time to fill up the tank. I dont know why the #$^$# IH made a DT 360, though. As far as the T444s I always hear good about them, but in a medium duty truck Id take a DT466 over one anyday.

As far as the comments on the Renault powered Macks, I almost bought a rollback model about a year ago, but backed out because I had little info on the Renault diesel, and nobody could tell me anything about 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 9.0 was l-o-u-d also (huh ?) I never hear anything good about 'em. But, mine was was the Geo Metro of trucks when it came time to fill up the tank. I dont know why the #$^$# IH made a DT 360, though. As far as the T444s I always hear good about them, but in a medium duty truck Id take a DT466 over one anyday.

As far as the comments on the Renault powered Macks, I almost bought a rollback model about a year ago, but backed out because I had little info on the Renault diesel, and nobody could tell me anything about 'em.

Diesel Brad:

You're not kidding there about fuel mileage. Across Iowa, and Illinois (relatively flat ground) with the speedometer set on double nickles, I could get 17.3 mpg on average empty. The truck empty with a full bag of fuel weighted 17,760 pounds. I consistently got better than 11 mpg on wrecker calls. That Mack got about 8.5 to 9mpg no matter what you did.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda wish I hadnt sold mine now, way fuel prices are going. I remember when diesel was .30 less/gallon. It really equalled about 30 % less, which would be 2.10/gal today. Maybe the IH DT360 today wouldnt be such a bad idea .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0