REOGasMackDiesel

Oshkosh today is doing rather well, They have so many subsidiary's, I don't think owning Mack would bother them in least actually lots of Oshkosh's here in WI and Mack's too.

Given the date 4/1 this all just a joke ;o)

Mike

My family drove, AM General's, REO's, Diamond-T's, Mack's, Diamond-Reo's, GMC's, Studebaker's, IHC's, Oshkosh's, Jeep's, and a very limited few Ford's . . . For trucks anyway, The cars you'd have to add Packard, Nash, Hudson, and American Motors ;o)

We drove the Independent's mostly and filled in the gap's with GMC's and if need be a couple Ford's.

Almost never seen a Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth products once Chrysler and AMC buyout/merger happened We stopped buying Jeeps well NEW Jeep's anyway ;o)

So yes what's in my signature is all own, There ain't a modern rig kicking about and those are the toys. Nope they are the drivers, workhorses, and well toys too ;o)

Just another hard worker surviving life.

Mike

I'm still driving early 1950s-late 1980s vehicles so the NEWER stuff is beyond my means as far as I am concerned. As the economy tanked I slowly replaced stuff with rigs I could service and repair myself.

Not mention buy them cheaper ;o)

Mike

Mack, Cummins, and IH are the top 3 diesel engines I use. Tended to avoid the Detroit's as they were known as massive leaker's and I don't like leaks. I was told CAT's were good engines but very expensive to service and maintain so I limited my exposure to them as well.

Mike

Ok I thought I read it was a 19L/1150Ci I6 when first came out my mistake. Well with what you have pointed out the Mack has 5hp/10tq over the Cummins ISX diesel.

So how can the MP10 be slower/weakier ? !

Mike

I think the ISX is 19L's as where the Mack is only 16L's ? Torque might be a factor, similar HP but different torque numbers ? ?

If that's the case 3L's larger, 60/61 cubes per liter gives the Cummins a serious CID advantage ;o)

Mike

The MP10 comes in multiple power settings ya know. 2 of which are below 600hp ;o)

Just saying . . .

Mike

Do modern day diesel engine manufacturer's still build sleeved engines ? !

I haven't paid any attention as all of my stuff is old and obsolete, I was just curious in this buy it today throw it out next week world if sleeved engines have vanished and gone away ? !

I'm told sleeved engines are infinitely rebuildable ? Short of catastrophic failures such broken cranks and busted engine blocks ?

Maybe I was misinformed . . .

Mike

So when Renault bought Mack was Mack making money ? !

When Volvo bought Renault/Mack were they making money ? !

What I don't get is why buy another brand if they are failing ? Let them shut down and have one less competitor to compete with. Now if Mack was making money during both sales why were they sold ? ! That's like calling your boss and saying "hey I'm tired of making money I quit"

Why sell what's making money ? And Why buy what's not making money ?

Mike

Actually, Renault invested in and rebuilt Mack Trucks. Renault virtually gave Mack total operating autonomy (in those days, Mack was superior to Renault in heavy truckmaking). Ask any veteran Mack employee. Acting Mack President Elios Pascual from Renault earned the deepest respect from Mack employees, the likes of which vividly remind of the days of when the legendary Zenon C.R. Hansen ran Mack Trucks.

I don't care what they "thought" the title to "Mack trucks inc" said Renault so they are infact Renault's the cash went to the french. The medium duty cab overs all Renault trucks with Mack badging !

I'm sure if one took the time you could find tons of "Renault" items in a 1980+ Mack trucks. I bet you might find out the 1988+ E-Series engines all had "Renault" named copy writes and designs ;o)

Mike

Well if the Mack isn't a Mack because Volvo bought them in 2002, Than really you have than say Mack hasn't been Mack since 1980 when Renualt took over ! Sorry but that is how your math would end up working out to.

For me as long as it says "MACK" on it its a Mack !

Mike

Well that sucks . . . I hate seeing good trucks getting crushed.

Mike

Both trucks look rough to me they both junk ? !

Mike

Nice rig

i think mack and volvo are still different . they use alot of the same parts but all macks are built in macungie by mack employees some have been there for 30 yrs and they take pride in there macks and are still almost entirely hand built. you can still get the mack transmissions and rearends and suspensions

I been saying this for a while, They don't seem to listen, or just don't care.

They keep thinking as they do and the Mack brand will surely disappear all together forever too I bet.

I would love to see a side by side comparison I'm sure there is more "Mack" to a Mack than these guys are giving credit for.

Mike

What's the deal here ? ! "Maore storage" "bigger cabs" ? ! If you want a Cadillac go buy one ! Mack's are about creature comforts they are all about getting the job done.

You would of been the farm bought tractors with cab's !

Mike

Don't forget Mack is Mack and Volvo is Volvo for now. By Mack adopting Volvo cab features it would be thus show their dominance over mack and making it look like Mack engineers don't know what they're doing

This what I have trying to say, They are currently running both brands as separate items with a few minor shared items.

Mike

KW and Pete are both Paccar's, Chevy and GMC are both General Motors,the difference is GMC/CHEVY-KW/PETE are operated as the same entity where Mack and Volvo have remained legally separate. Same as Fiat and Chrysler, Yep one owns the other but are ran as 2 different companys. Mack Defense was split off into its own operation. Same as Fiat did with RAM after buying Chrysler.

Fiat and Chrysler share technology and have done some badge engineering they also have plenty of their own separate designs and products.

Now my father used to say that most commercial trucks were bought based on how the body looked and price offered. To him they were all Mechanically the same trucks except Mack and a few IH's though they could be optionally offered the same too.

I think that has become even more true in the modern day trucks, Every brand can have X engine with Z transmission, and Y rear ends. So Mack has now sorta joined the crowd more so than they once were is all.

Just how I see it anyway . . .

Mike

I wonder if a Mack V8 would interchange with the Cummins V8 ? !

Mike

Well if they are the same thing they sure do a good job of altering them. From what I have seen they do seem to look like different trucks to me.

Anybody done a photo-shop 50/50 of a Mack and a Volvo to see if they truely are 100% the sam rigs ?

Mike

Memphis dropped the M123a1c trucks a few years back they won't be much help. The VT370 is the same engine with a turbo charger. You won't exceed the transmission's ability. The cummins diesel was weakier than the LeRoi gasser by 145tq.

LeRoi HT844:

297hp/725tq.

Cummins P1525 V300:

300hp/580tq.

They call it many names:

V210 P1525 V300 V785 and VT370.

All the very same engine and rotating assembly the truck was designed in 1955 and built through 1970.

Some where reman'd '70/'71/'72 also got retro-fitted with a V903.

Hope this helps you out

Mike

I tired to share the video from you tube but it didn't show up. The video said nothing about it being a planetary axle or anything that detailed just that 85K and 110K coming soon. Now given it was dated 8/09 I figured the 85 and 110 axles would be around by now ? !

Some post all willy nilly, I try to keep my questions posted correctly. Modern stuff in the modern section and vintage in the vintage section.

So modern day Mack's were the subject

Mike

Nope that looks far to old !

There is a Mack Titan walk around on youtube video its dated 8/2009 talks about rears 38K-65K LBs with 85K and 110Klbs coming soon. I'm asking about new stuff NOT the old stuff.

Mike

Wow lots of good Mack gasser info here.

Mike

From what I heard watching a Mack titan video these are to be some serious duty tractor chassie trucks. 11mm frames with 5MM doubling ? ! MP10@605hp/2050tq ? !

What about axles ? Heaviest I saw on Macks website was 46K-lB rears ? Shouldn't this rig be capable of 65+K rears ? ! Somebody once mentioned they offer a 110K-LB set for this truck ? !

Did the heavy axles get dropped ? Or were they never offered ?

Mike