jeffbyrne

Great pics of your Mack Jim, thanks for posting.

Hi, I would be interested. Would you ship to Australia at my cost?

Thanks for the info, Vlad. I thought 500-600kgs. I was hoping someone could tell me for sure. It is all done now and I have the cab at home.

Hi, does anyone know the shipping weight of a groomed, 1985 'R' Series Mack cabin. I need to know if I can pick up this cab with my trailer, or hire a bigger trailer. Any info could help me. Thanks.

I am apalled at the attitude displayed here by a small number of members. It's just proven what i've often wondered about alot of guys here, the replys they make, the things they say. I'm not a member because I think you are all a great bunch of blokes, I'm here for the love of Mack. kindest regards Jeff.

How about, all Quads are overdrive, but a '0' on the end means double overdrive

I think your mistakeing the ENDT673 with an END673T, which did not have piston coolers. The ENDT673 did have piston coolers, and started at 225hp. In Australia the 'Perry' water filter was used as standard on the ENDT673 and the ENDT675 up till about the time ESI came in.

Mark, point taken on the availability of the AMT R-685ST. But the R-600 has all the correct parts, excepting for the cab and hood, where as the DM's have everthing incorrect bar cab, hood engine and wheels. What I'm saying is if you had a DM-600 kit, why bother buying a U-600 transkit, all you are getting really is a cab and hood and you get them with the DM-600. I don't understand getting a transkit plus a DM-600, If you are prepared to build a U from a DM600 or 800, you may aswell build your U on a Ford Louisville, a W-900, a White Road Boss or a Diamond Reo, Chev Titan/GMC Astro. Because if

Hi, am I missing something here, why would you buy an AITM U-600 transkit, then a DM-600 or 800 kit? If you bought an AITM U-600 transkit, would'nt it be an AMT R-685ST kit you would be needing to build the U-600? Please let me know your logic. Regards Jeffro.

Great story n pic's keg, I know the feeling, I slept night after night in my ole R, a 73 237, 2stick 6speed. Mine had a factory box and seat base fitted with enough room to still get to the air valves. If I had kept it running I would of made a frame in front of the passenger's seat, to make more room on top and use the space under. 'The good ole days'

Not as original build, an ESI engine uses all spin ons, but over 45 years things get changed. This is why I say, 'you need the numbers' of the engine, or maybe the fuel pump or the turbo will do, so you can then see if they are the correct numbers in the charts/Mack workshop manuals for a particular engine. Because as you can see you can't go by appearance alone.

This is ridiclous, in a nutshell, a guy on Hanks has complained about a guy on BMT using his pic without express permission. Ok, if the guy on Hanks wants to be like that he can, probably because he has a case, I'm not saying he's being reasonable though. He may have been having issues with this subject for a long time, so he's got a bee in his bonnet about it. Since this topic/subject started a day ago most of the talk here has been about how Hanks is wrong and unfair, or members missing the point and bringing up ridiculous 'what if's'. Then a thread starts on Hanks about BMT, and how we

You can't just walk on to private property an take photos, but the street or a car park or a gas station, well you would need a sign saying you can't take photos on this property, then the guy with the camera would walk to the sidewalk and take a pic.It's really quite simple.

You don't need permission to take a photo of a truck driving down the highway. If a guy is sitting in a truck at a truckstop, it would be courtesy to say "do you mind if I take a photograph of your truck" if you say yes, the photographer can do whatever he want's with the photograph. If the guy is'nt sitting in the truck the photographer will probably take the pic anyway. This is about ownership or the photograph, if you own the truck, it does'nt mean you own the photograph.

Bigdogtrucker, The chassis number puts this truck in the 1967 period, could be 68, as stated. The number is for a 237 tandem, but would not have been a Quad. It would more than likely have been a 5 speed Maxitorque.