Mackpro

Titan to be Discontinued

161 posts in this topic

My 2010 Titan has the ISX Cummins now 620HP ... 2050 ftlbs torque

think n its a EGR .......................... not too sure of the litre capacity

cya

§wishy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oso2 said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

I think you overestimate the importance of the 15L. The Mack 13L has 505hp/1860lbs available - but the Detroit 15L only offers 500hp/1750lbs. If you want that 1850lbs you need a DD16 - a heavier, more expensive proposition. So already the Volvo/Mack looks pretty competitive. Cheaper, lighter and more fuel-efficient - what's not to love? 

Here's the other thing:  500/1850 is far more juice than most operations require. Around here most bulk, fuel and steel operations using Macks and Volvos spec 13L engines to move 139,000lbs (63.5k kgs). I'm sure Paccar sells a lot of 13L motors as well. Another thing I learned: no matter what the make, a lot of these heavy haulers are only set to 450/470/1650lbs.

So who really needs that 16L? People moving serious weight (far more than 80,000lbs) over serious hills like the Rockies. That's not a lot of sales.

Again, some people need it, many don't. But at the end of the day, it's the customer's decision. And Cummins and Daimler have collectively sold thousands of ISX15, DD15 and DD16 engines in our country. The customer speaks.

Why do we sell so many V8s?  Drive one.........and you'll know.

It's hard to explain or,.........it's really not that hard.

It's a feeling, a sense........of being in control.........and having access to.........all that power whenever you need it.

Knowing that you're going to keep that steady pace over that next crest...........

Overtake that truck in front of you..........without effort.

You know? It's like another way of driving..........my way.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to try out a mp8 to know if it could satisfy our need . I've heard they have good power . My previous truck was a e7 460 xt 487 hp 1760 torque  . It did the job but in real steep situations off road and on town highways you had to be on your game because if you screwed up and missed a gear you'd be all done it would fall flat if you didn't shift at the right time .my Titan I have the confidence I'll make the hill without a problem . I drove. E9 before the 460 and I had that confidence I have now. That's why I'm leary of the mp8 I. Those hairy spots will it perform. I weigh between 100 to 110 k all the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMACK I agree with you Mack was headed downhill during the 90's with the CH and limited vendor options (Under Renaults watch before Volvo). Also I agree Mack should have stuck with the Mack Western concept. At that time Mack, White and IH (pre Navistar) were trying to move west all selling a wide variety of vendor options. Eventually they all gave up and failed. Paccar and freightliner were trying to move East and they stuck with it and succeeded. The present day Mack/V#### situation is more of the same as in the 90's.(Not enough options compared to the competition). Take the reins off of Mack----(Volvo). I am sure if they did Mack would out sell Volvo. Don't think Volvo would appreciate that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lmackattack said:

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

Actually the CL was offered with alot of options the first few years e7,e9.caterpillar 3406,Detroit series 60 . Sleepers and axle and suspensions of all ratings and vendors . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2017 at 10:46 PM, logtruckman said:

Actually the CL was offered with alot of options the first few years e7,e9.caterpillar 3406,Detroit series 60 . Sleepers and axle and suspensions of all ratings and vendors . 

The CL was a nice highway truck but was expensive and heavy. Most highway customers wanted something cheaper and lighter. Highway being a large market that Mack still misses the mark on.

Probably my favorite model of Mack for versatility but those engine options were very expensive purposely to keep customers buying Mack engines and components. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, logtruckman said:

Actually the CL was offered with alot of options the first few years e7,e9.caterpillar 3406,Detroit series 60 . Sleepers and axle and suspensions of all ratings and vendors . 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lmackattack said:

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

It was a poor concept from day 1.

I was able to speak directly to the Mack Canada marketing guru at a show at the time and he flat out said there was not enough market to justify the cost of engineering a sleeper on the Titan.  That was before the small bunk option was made available.  The customers cries for a large bunk totally fell on deaf ears.  I'm sure Volvo played a part in knowing all you had to do was by a VN with a D16 if you wanted a mid or large sized bunk for your truck.

The CL engine option demise was the market. Mack made the options expensive and people didn't buy them as much to save jobs at Hagerstown in the long run. I know customers we had up here that loved CAT options etc but they paid a premium for them. In the end Paccar would sell a truck with the same power train much cheaper then a CL.

Titan was a flub from day 1. The day I was shown the Titan front end clip at the then test center I knew it was going to be a fail from the one question I asked an engineer.......

Where are the tow hooks?

Why does this truck have NO tow hooks at the front end!!!!

Go back and look.  The first batch didn't have them.   There was more to this story but it showed this truck was going to be an engineering and marketing  flop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of all comes down to modern day mack doesn't know how to make a truck people want . You almost always have to compromise to buy a mack ether pay more money or get less hp . We loved ours CL' s but ours were all e7 powered very durable engine but horrible engine brake and mediocre power. The etech ones weren't that durable though. Anyway mack doesn't really have a clue how to make anything but dump trucks and garbage trucks . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2017 at 1:42 PM, Oso2 said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

I think you overestimate the importance of the 15L. The Mack 13L has 505hp/1860lbs available - but the Detroit 15L only offers 500hp/1750lbs. If you want that 1850lbs you need a DD16 - a heavier, more expensive proposition. So already the Volvo/Mack looks pretty competitive. Cheaper, lighter and more fuel-efficient - what's not to love? 

Here's the other thing:  500/1850 is far more juice than most operations require. Around here most bulk, fuel and steel operations using Macks and Volvos spec 13L engines to move 139,000lbs (63.5k kgs). I'm sure Paccar sells a lot of 13L motors as well. Another thing I learned: no matter what the make, a lot of these heavy haulers are only set to 450/470/1650lbs.

So who really needs that 16L? People moving serious weight (far more than 80,000lbs) over serious hills like the Rockies. That's not a lot of sales.

Like it's been said on this thread before consumers want options and don't want to pay more for them simply because it's a Mack. Every farmer around here has a 475-550 horsepower engine in their trucks. Do they need that much? No but they not unlike myself like to have option to lay on the go pedal when we need it. If Mack made a 15 or 16 liter that is durable and has power they could possibly take some market share from Detroit. Word around the fuel pumps that I hear from drivers and mechanics is DD is the most reliable def/dpf engine but they just don't have the grunt. I drive one every day and am always blown away when I drive my neighbors truck pulling similar weights with a 444 Cummings at how much better it pulls the weight than my 2014 DD15 does. All day long foot to the floor to try and maintain speed, other than shifting it seems rare that your foot ever leaves the floor. I hear the MaxxForce engines have all kinds of problems and I've heard similar things about Cummings, so come on Mack marketing team, keep the MP10 price it competitively and make some options available on your trucks. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lmackattack said:

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

More about the CL I'd say 80 or 90 percent of them had e7 engines I've seen alot of them with 350 hp e7 alot with 427 and 454 and 460 . For some reason in 03 mack decided to only offer them with cummins isx I know this because we had 2 trucks totaled in 03 by a suicide car driver. We were looking into new trucks and the sales man said only cummins in the CL from now on. They did offer the signature 600 cummins in 2000-2002 as a stop gap for the loss of the e9 but you could still get the e7 until 03 . I always thought they should offered the mp 8 in the titan as cheaper lighter alternative to the mp10 in hindsight the titans work great for us but most applications there just to big and tall ,they were never meant to be a high volume truck if I recall mack planned on building about 100 to 200 a year based on serial numbers I've looked at it guess they made about  1000 in North america but I might be wrong on that I would like to know the total production numbers of the titan .

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 11, 2017 at 9:52 PM, james j neiweem said:

LMACK I agree with you Mack was headed downhill during the 90's with the CH and limited vendor options (Under Renaults watch before Volvo). Also I agree Mack should have stuck with the Mack Western concept. At that time Mack, White and IH (pre Navistar) were trying to move west all selling a wide variety of vendor options. Eventually they all gave up and failed. Paccar and freightliner were trying to move East and they stuck with it and succeeded. The present day Mack/V#### situation is more of the same as in the 90's.(Not enough options compared to the competition). Take the reins off of Mack----(Volvo). I am sure if they did Mack would out sell Volvo. Don't think Volvo would appreciate that.

You're right. If you recall, I explained before to you why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

Actually the first Titans were on a Granite frame. Even the serial numbers start with G. Later on when frames were changed they went to TD designation. 

All the more reason to be a disappointment from day one.  

The granite frame was just a VHD frame.  

and the customer will never even know.....lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bullheaded said:

DD Detroit doesn't have the grunt? Yours must be sick because mine is the closest thing you can get to a C15 Cat power wise.....and I also have an ISX600.

The DD16 600 2050 torque pulls like crazy. And so does the MP10 605.

 

I never did understand the issue of putting a bunk on the Titan. And how they talk about having to "engineer" it.

Local dealer around here have put all kinds of Pinnacle 60 in mid rise bunks on Titans. They just get the subframe and air ride for the Pinnacle and bolt it all in.

The bunk issue was the same argument over and over again.

The first Titan delivered in Canada had a stupid looking aftermarket bunk on it and was published in the Bulldog magazine. Engineering was the excuse that never went over well.  Friggin joke.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bbigrig said:

The bunk issue was the same argument over and over again.

The first Titan delivered in Canada had a stupid looking aftermarket bunk on it and was published in the Bulldog magazine. Engineering was the excuse that never went over well.  Friggin joke.

Another thing I wonder is why can't you get a bigger sleeper on a Granite  or why can't you get a 20 k front axle in a Pinnacle boggles my mind and then they wonder why there market share is so low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2017 at 5:57 PM, Bullheaded said:

Now I know the real reason why the Titan, MP10 and D16 are being discontinued.

Another "expert" on another internet forum is now saying Volvo bought Paccar.

So I guess they are dropping these models to pay for Paccar.  Bahahahahahaha.

You referring to the BS on TBN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, logtruckman said:

Another thing I wonder is why can't you get a bigger sleeper on a Granite  or why can't you get a 20 k front axle in a Pinnacle boggles my mind and then they wonder why there market share is so low. 

I don't know of any highway truck that offers a 20K front axle. Most top out around 14-16k.

But yes, the lack of a big sleeper on the granite is inexcusable. The KW T880 now has a 75" mid-roof; Coronados have good sleepers and the VNX has a 60" midroof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2017 at 0:29 AM, Bullheaded said:

DD Detroit doesn't have the grunt? Yours must be sick because mine is the closest thing you can get to a C15 Cat power wise.....and I also have an ISX600.

The DD16 600 2050 torque pulls like crazy. And so does the MP10 605.

I never did understand the issue of putting a bunk on the Titan. And how they talk about having to "engineer" it.

Local dealer around here have put all kinds of Pinnacle 60 in mid rise bunks on Titans. They just get the subframe and air ride for the Pinnacle and bolt it all in.

No, it's not sick. The company I work for has a fleet of them and I'm not impressed. I think some of it is the way they are spec'd out but we had C15's in the same fleet spec'd trucks and it pulled way better. Just my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Like it's been said on this thread before consumers want options and don't want to pay more for them simply because it's a Mack. Every farmer around here has a 475-550 horsepower engine in their trucks. Do they need that much? No but they not unlike myself like to have option to lay on the go pedal when we need it. If Mack made a 15 or 16 liter that is durable and has power they could possibly take some market share from Detroit. Word around the fuel pumps that I hear from drivers and mechanics is DD is the most reliable def/dpf engine but they just don't have the grunt. I drive one every day and am always blown away when I drive my neighbors truck pulling similar weights with a 444 Cummings at how much better it pulls the weight than my 2014 DD15 does. All day long foot to the floor to try and maintain speed, other than shifting it seems rare that your foot ever leaves the floor. I hear the MaxxForce engines have all kinds of problems and I've heard similar things about Cummings, so come on Mack marketing team, keep the MP10 price it competitively and make some options available on your trucks. 

The current Navistar engines employing an SCR emissions solution are not experiencing any issues, including the 12.4-liter MAN D26 license-built "N13".

https://www.internationaltrucks.com/-/media/navistar/trucks/pdf/brochure/n13_speccard.pdf

Scania aside, I would take a Navistar N13 (MAN D26), Detroit (Daimler) or Cummins with their Bosch or Cummins-Scania XPI high-pressure common rail fuel injection over a Volvo engine with inferior Delphi fuel injection (unit pump or the new jury rig). The Paccar MX (DAF) with its Bosch unit pump injection is also significantly better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, logtruckman said:

Another thing I wonder is why can't you get a bigger sleeper on a Granite  or why can't you get a 20 k front axle in a Pinnacle boggles my mind and then they wonder why there market share is so low. 

If I'm not mistaken.......

The Granite and Titan both use a reinforced cab shell.  It has more structure to it in case of impact damage.  The reinforced cab can only take the old style V opening Mack used on older sleepers. Pre 99 without the full cab back wall cutout.  The reinforced cab oak optional on Pinnacle day cabs I believe but standard on Granite and Titan.

The current factory sleepers would not be compatible needing the full back wall opening if I remember correctly.  Could be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bbigrig said:

If I'm not mistaken.......

The Granite and Titan both use a reinforced cab shell.  It has more structure to it in case of impact damage.  The reinforced cab can only take the old style V opening Mack used on older sleepers. Pre 99 without the full cab back wall cutout.  The reinforced cab oak optional on Pinnacle day cabs I believe but standard on Granite and Titan.

The current factory sleepers would not be compatible needing the full back wall opening if I remember correctly.  Could be wrong though.

Thanks for the explanation . 😊on another note I've heard of maybe a mp8 550to 575 hp rating coming soon hope it's true . 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2017 at 8:01 AM, kscarbel2 said:

The current Navistar engines employing an SCR emissions solution are not experiencing any issues, including the 12.4-liter MAN D26 license-built "N13".

https://www.internationaltrucks.com/-/media/navistar/trucks/pdf/brochure/n13_speccard.pdf

Scania aside, I would take a Navistar N13 (MAN D26), Detroit (Daimler) or Cummins with their Bosch or Cummins-Scania XPI high-pressure common rail fuel injection over a Volvo engine with inferior Delphi fuel injection (unit pump or the new jury rig). The Paccar MX (DAF) with its Bosch unit pump injection is also significantly better.

Yup the dollar store fix!  :thumb:  Volvo Trash!

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