chu613

Yes, I should remember the fact that Mack no longer exists. Some of us know but it's just hard to acknowledge and act accordingly.

We want to believe that there might be 1 or 2 engineers left from the old team to trim things around.

Obviously, if Volvo develops the new cab for Mack they don't want them out of the highway business.

At the end of day money goes in the same pocket regardless if it's a Mack or Volvo truck sold.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mack has recently launched the 6 by 2 configuration. I'm not sure that Volvo wants Mack out of the hwy business, or maybe they want that but still they will allow Mack to develop a new cab based on their cab.

Truth is that Mack can't compete with Volvo when it comes to hwy trucks.

They just don't have what it takes.

Volvo doesn't have to push Mack out, as Mack goes out itself due to its uncompetitive product.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen your truck in the shop the other day.

Sorry for your troubles. I have a 2011 CHU with Hendrickson suspension and the truck rides and handles like a dream. I was looking forward to that TwinY suspension but not anymore.

Nobody should have that kind of headaches.

That is just not acceptable

Yes. The cabs that get married with a sleeper have a different roof. This design came up in the late 90'. The lunch of Vision?

Earlier CH trucks used one type of cab for both daycab and sleeper cabs

Now this once unic truck was killed by Volvo. Renault Magnum is not produced anymore, instead was replaced by Renault T which is based on Volvo FH. When I first saw a Renault Magnum was probably '91 or '92 and I thought that truck came from another planet.

Renault pushed the envelope in designing that truck. At that time it was the only truck with a axle forward set up and a completely flat cabin floor.

It took the European Truck of the year award.

The axle forward design was not common among european designed trucks due to turning radius but very common on the american designed cabovers as you guys now so I'm guessing that this might have had something with Mack( Kscarbel might have some info on this)

The new Renault T it's a set back axle truck wich shows Volvo's hand in that truck.

I personally don't like the new Renault T but that's just me.

So pay close attention to the new Mack truck wich is gonna be based on Volvo cab.

Volvo did it in Europe with Renault and they will do it here with Mack to. It will happen regardless of what Mack customers think or want

He even modified the position of fuel tanks

Rawhide never had set back fuel tanks

Got that loud and clear. Always good to hear from you. What would I/ we do without your always valuable info?

But I'm still not clear of some things.

First,we're talking about EPA 2007 and EPA 2010. This emission components might be designed and made by the same company but they don't look the same.

Volvo/Mack were and still are the only trucks to use a vertical DPF for 2007 and 2010. For 2007 emissions everybody else have used the under truck torpedo style DPF. I now that CAT had an in house design of their DPF wich from what I've heard back in 2008-2009 was a disappointment. I've heard really sad stories from owners of CAT equipped trucks like KW, PETERBILT, WESTERN STAR and FREIGHTLINER. Some guys even went broke, law suits etc. Cummins and Detroit ( Series 60 and DD15) were using that torpedo style of DPF wich was not that bad. They kind of look the same but I'm not sure if they were the same or made by the same company. Oh I forgot, they couldn't be the same cause Cummins has their on aftertreatment. All I new was that mine was running flawless and theirs not.

For 2010 we're still running the vertical DPF plus the separated SCR ( a unique setup) when Detroit has a completely different setup compared with what they had for 2007.

I got it, they're made by the same companies but they're different models or type of components. They don't look the same, they don't burn the same and they don't have the same reliability.

A friend with a Coronado had to change the whole emission box before he hit 500000km. Lucky him it was warranty. Another one just but the 600 hp 122 SD back in NOV and the truck is in the shop every other week with all kind of problems, engine and aftertreatment.

My truck? It has 711000km as right now and nothing has been done to the aftertreatment and I mean nothing not even the clean up they recommend at 400000 km. On my first 2008 I've put 750000km and nothing has been done to the DPF.

So clearly there's some differences here. Or not?

Look forward to your reply.

ALEX

I agree with Detroit beeing the best engine available today in North America.

True statement, no arguments, but I'll have to give the prize for the best aftertreatment ( DPF/SCR) to Mack-Volvo.

After 7 years of driving DPF-SCR equipped Mack I just can't say one goddamn thing wrong about them.

They have been pretty much flawless for me.

The engine is not the best but it's still a respectable motor, and it served me well since the beginning. I heard that they're testing commonrail injection on D13 in Europe as we speak. It's about time cause it's the only engine in North America to not have it. I'm talking heavy duty.

Even the Paccar engine has it and they use CGI for the engine block as well. Looks like the Paccar engine/DAF is a couple of steps ahead of Volvo.

Never thought of that after driving DAF and beeing pretty disappointed with the truck back in early 2000, but obviously they came o long way with the new engine.Good for them.

I just wish that Mack will just pay more attention on how they put this cabs together, the way they select the suppliers, quality control,etc.

The DD13, DD15 and DD16 (M-B OM471, OM472 and OM473) are irrefutably the best powerplants available in the US market today, and superior to the Volvo engine in the Mack. Thus, if you buy the Mack brand truck, you're not getting the best value engine wise with regard to fuel economy, performance and durability.

As power train Mack is as good or better than others, but when it comes to cab build quality and fit and finish they are the worst. I wouldn't touch a Mack if I were you. Day cabs are not that bad as they don't need to much staff done to them, but you still have to check the door seals,headliners and door panels.

The door seals will not be glued properly, especially around the corners and you might even find them unglued up to 10 inches on a straight line. I was looking at this brand new Mack truck the other day sitting on the dealers lot and the rubber seal on the driver side was of at least 10 inches sitting there twisted between the cab and the door. BRAND NEW TRUCK.

You'll have to check the headliner for defects and to not be caved in or out.

The door panels might not be installed properly, you'll have to check for gaps all around.

Don't forget to check your cab alignment with the frame. The way you do that is to measure the gap between the cab and the hood on each side using your fingers or anything you want. Most likely it will be of like 99 percent of Mack trucks. Another way is to just look at the airbags. If they're straight up you're good if not then the cab it's of.

Mechanicaly they're good but the cabs and the way they're put together might be worse than anything else out there.

If you get on the sleeper side I have another list for you.

I've spend the last 7 years driving Mack trucks, literally living in them. I've been a guest in my own home. The biggest mistake I made was to by another one in 2011. I shoud have sell the 2008 I had and be done with Mack.

I would stick with Freightliner and Western Star if i would be you. It's not worth it. I just can't recommend this trucks to anybody.

Inter-axle or power divider (PDL) are the same thing, it depends how you want to call it.

That's what I said about Mack having the automatic PDL.

What Mack didn't have,was the differential lock or dif. lock wich will lock the wheels on the same axle. At least that's what I was told.

A PDL will lock the first axle with the second wich means that the little shaft between the axles will turn no matter what, giving you traction on at least one wheel on that axle until you do the "magic trick" wich is locking your wheels ( dif lock) and then both wheels on that axle will turn with the same speed.

When you have a PDL the first axle will be bigger on the upper front part of it where the PDL gears are and it will always run 10-15 degrees C hotter due to more gears/ more friction.

A truck with 3 way locks means that it will have a PDL and a dif lock wich is usually on the last axle.

A 4 way lock will have a PDL and dif locks on both axles.

We're not talking about limited slip dif here and personally i never heard about this in the heavy duty world.

Limited slip dif is a pretty high technology used in the automotive word.

On heavy duty trucks we use axle lock, nown as inter-axle or power divider wich will lock your axles together,and wheel locks or dif locks wich will lock your weels on the same axle together.

If that truck has Mack axles wich I think it does you might have an automatic power divider although I'm not sure.

I now that Mack has a patented automatic power divider now but I'm not sure if they had this in '95.

This will eliminate the switch on the dashboard for the PDL ( power divider lock ) wich means that when one of your weels starts to loose traction the PDL will automatically lock the axles together and you'll have traction on at least one wheel per axle. It can be both wheels on the same side or on a x patern.

I was told by a Mack salesman not to long ago that Mack didn't have wheel locks on their axles until 2-3 years ago wich rock my world to be onest so you might not have that.

Traction control is not something that you'll have on that truck because It goes hand in hand with the ABS wich wasn't standard on trucks until late '90.

Hmmm......

You didn't say anything bad about the KW truck. The problem is the Cummins engine not the truck in your case.

KW doesn't have any input in designing or building the engine,but they're associated with it and wrongfully blamed for the failures.

After driving Mack for the past 7 years and still doing it as we speak,I can't recommend Mack over KW.

The built quality isn't just there. I'm talking about hwy truck not vocational.

Mack builds a good truck but KW is better.

If Mack would be a better truck than KW,the sales would show that but they don't.

KW fights for the first place with Freightliner and Mack fights for the last one with Western Star.

I'm talking about Canada

In 2008 they were forced to modify the cab because of the MP engine wich is longer than the ASET engine.

That was not really an update it was something that they HAD to do in order for them to accommodate the new engine.

Instead of redesigning the hood they just pushed the engine back into the cab. An update is when you improve something, this was basically a reengineering of the cab.

Because of this they had to redesign the dashboard. On the old setup the heater was just behind the engine in the cab but on the new setup they had to move it on the pass side due to the length of the MP engine.

So all the modifications were basically dictated by the new engine dimensions not because Mack had some money to spend.

Just look at the regular Mack CH and Mack CL

They didn't modified the cab but they designd a longer hood to accommodate the longer Cummins engine.

Mack truck wasn't engineered to receive big engines like most of the other trucks because they didn't offer other engines in the last 15-20 years or more.

The CH was and still is a medium nose truck so if you want to drop a big engine in you either redesign the hood or you push the engine inside in our case.

I guess will have to wait and see what will happen

I'm as curious as everyone here

If they do really just use a Volvo cab that will be the end of mack . I personally don't see them doing it . they just updated the ch cab in 08/ made it deeper and a new dash. If they were gonna just switch to Volvo cab they would of done it then . vocational customers don't like the huge cabs so it would be a huge mistake to switch to a Volvo cab without narrowing it a little and changing the look of it . but who knows . people have been saying the Volvo cab is coming for 10 yes now . still hasn't happened.

If they do really just use a Volvo cab that will be the end of mack . I personally don't see them doing it . they just updated the ch cab in 08/ made it deeper and a new dash. If they were gonna just switch to Volvo cab they would of done it then . vocational customers don't like the huge cabs so it would be a huge mistake to switch to a Volvo cab without narrowing it a little and changing the look of it . but who knows . people have been saying the Volvo cab is coming for 10 yes now . still hasn't happened.

I was told by a really trusty source that the new Mack cab will be based on the existing Volvo cab.

Volvo wants to save money so one cab for all.

This will have to happen sooner than later as the tooling for the Mack cab is in really poor conditions and they have to produce replacement parts for the next 10 years.

The way I see this is like this:

They will have the same identical cab with probably the same dashboard and steering wheel with Mack logo of course.

Mack will design a different sleeper around it and of course a different hood.

Look at Pete 579 and KW t680; same cab and different sleepers.

O and let's not forget about Pete387 and KW t 2000 back in the '90s who started all this.

Big companies look to save money so Volvo in our case will not spend millions to design o completely new cab for Mack.

It just doesn't make sense when they can do some tricks and get the job done

I want to now that too

Notice the difference in turbo size. The EGR one has the bigger one so it can push more air into it . Needs more air so you can get some hp.out of it. The EGR is the worst thing they could have done to the modern Diesel engine

Got it. Thanks

The E7 E-Tech not not a Renault design although the French truckmaker controlled Mack during its development. The E7 E-Tech is an E7 with unit pump injection. Renault's name was on the block because the E7 E-Tech also equipped Renault Magnum heavy trucks sold in Europe and the global market.

Please clarify the E-7 origin for me. I was under the impression that this engine was a Renault design. I personally saw a Mack Vision with an ASET engine in it having the Renault name on the engine block on the pass. side somewhere around the lower side of the block. I was born and raised in Europe and I've been driving trucks there for 9 years before I've emigrated to Canada. I drove almost any truck except one: Scania. Just did'n happened. When I first drove a Mack, that E-tech engine looked familiar to me specialy when you see the Mack-Renault name on what's I think is the fuel prime pump.

Some customers operating E7 E-Tech engines encountered issues, but certainly not all. Some camshaft problems, due to an H-ring caused lifter misalignment condition*, were an unacceptable inconvenience to the customer. The E-Tech was popular with many customers. In fact, the E7-460XT made quite a name for itself.

The E-Tech EUP (Electronic Unit Pump) version of the Mack E7 engine featured Boschs widely used PLD electronically-controlled high pressure (up to 1800 Bar) unit injector pumps. Fuel injection is controlled by a high speed solenoid valve controlled by the engine control module.

A Bosch supply pump (ZP6) is gear-driven directly from the engine camshaft. To meet the EUP fuel flow demands, fuel flow (454 liters/hour) and pressures (6.2 - 7.5 Bar) are much higher than previous systems. The additional fuel flow helps to cool the EUP while the higher pressure ensures the gallery is full.

The nozzle and holder assembly is similar to past engines, but has a more robust 22mm design to withstand the higher fuel pressures involved, and has a non-return valve at the inlet.

The E7 E-Tech is an E7 with unit pump injection. The adoption of EUP wasnt a Renault influence. From 1995, the whole industry was migrating to Bosch unit pump injection. Just as, from 2007 to reach Euro-5 (near EPA2007), the industry migrated to higher pressure common rail, and extra-high pressure common rail for Euro-6 (near EPA2010).

My only regret is that common rail injection wasnt yet available in the 1990s. The Euro-4 (near EPA2004) engines sold today in year 2014 (many countries today are Euro-4 or less) utilize Bosch common rail with SCR, a very straightforward, trouble-free and high-performing solution.

FYI: While we say EUP, Bosch refers to it as UPS (Unit Pump System).

Little Known Facts: The Mack E7 E-Tech, when installed in the Renault Magnum tractor, carried the Renault engine designation MIDR 06.24.65.

http://renault-magnum.ru/manual/2-1.pdf

http://renault-magnum.ru/manual/2-2.pdf

* http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-SB213034.pdf

http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-sb213006.pdf

http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-sb213033.pdf

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/7734-e-7-lifter-h-ring/

Some customers operating E7 E-Tech engines encountered issues, but certainly not all. Some camshaft problems, due to an H-ring caused lifter misalignment condition*, were an unacceptable inconvenience to the customer. The E-Tech was popular with many customers. In fact, the E7-460XT made quite a name for itself.

The E-Tech EUP (Electronic Unit Pump) version of the Mack E7 engine featured Boschs widely used PLD electronically-controlled high pressure (up to 1800 Bar) unit injector pumps. Fuel injection is controlled by a high speed solenoid valve controlled by the engine control module.

A Bosch supply pump (ZP6) is gear-driven directly from the engine camshaft. To meet the EUP fuel flow demands, fuel flow (454 liters/hour) and pressures (6.2 - 7.5 Bar) are much higher than previous systems. The additional fuel flow helps to cool the EUP while the higher pressure ensures the gallery is full.

The nozzle and holder assembly is similar to past engines, but has a more robust 22mm design to withstand the higher fuel pressures involved, and has a non-return valve at the inlet.

The E7 E-Tech is an E7 with unit pump injection. The adoption of EUP wasnt a Renault influence. From 1995, the whole industry was migrating to Bosch unit pump injection. Just as, from 2007 to reach Euro-5 (near EPA2007), the industry migrated to higher pressure common rail, and extra-high pressure common rail for Euro-6 (near EPA2010).

My only regret is that common rail injection wasnt yet available in the 1990s. The Euro-4 (near EPA2004) engines sold today in year 2014 (many countries today are Euro-4 or less) utilize Bosch common rail with SCR, a very straightforward, trouble-free and high-performing solution.

FYI: While we say EUP, Bosch refers to it as UPS (Unit Pump System).

Little Known Facts: The Mack E7 E-Tech, when installed in the Renault Magnum tractor, carried the Renault engine designation MIDR 06.24.65.

http://renault-magnum.ru/manual/2-1.pdf

http://renault-magnum.ru/manual/2-2.pdf

* http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-SB213034.pdf

http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-sb213006.pdf

http://hr.mckenzietank.com/maint/Bulletins/45-sb213033.pdf

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/7734-e-7-lifter-h-ring/