kscarbel2

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 Penalties Drivers and carriers would be subject to Federal civil penalties if they are determined to have operated CMVs in interstate commerce when the speed limiting device is (1) not functioning, or (2) set at a maximum speed in excess of the maximum specified set speed. They would be subject to Federal civil penalties of up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000 for employers who allow or require drivers to operate CMVs with speed limiting devices set at speeds greater than the maximum specified set speed. .

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 Retrofits? In addition to the new vehicle requirements included in the proposal, NHTSA is considering whether to require commercial vehicles currently on the road to be retrofitted with a speed limiting device with the speed set to no more than a specified speed. The agency notes that a retrofit requirement is not included because of concerns about the technical feasibility, cost, enforcement, and small business impacts. However, DOT is seeking public comment to improve its understanding of the real-world impact of implementing a speed limiting device retrofit requirement. As an alternative to a retrofit requirement, the agencies are also requesting comment on whether to extend the set speed requirement only to all 26,000-lb. CMVs that are already equipped with a speed limiting device. The filing does note the previously expressed concerns of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Assn. (EMA), which pointed out problems retrofitting vehicles manufactured from 1990 to approximately 1994 to 1996, frequently equipped with mechanically controlled engines and mechanical speed limiting devices. EMA indicated that it would be impractical to retrofit these vehicles with modern ECUs and estimated that it would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per vehicle. Given the agencies’ concerns about technical feasibility, cost, enforcement, and impacts on small businesses, DOT seeks public comment to improve its understanding of the real-world impact of implementing a speed limiting device retrofit requirement on existing vehicles and whether it is appropriate to have different requirements for these vehicles. .

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 New vehicle To determine compliance of new vehicles with the operational requirements for the speed limiting device (i.e., that the vehicle is in fact limited to the set speed), NHTSA is proposing a vehicle-level test that involves accelerating the vehicle and monitoring the vehicle’s speed, similar to the validation procedures currently used in Europe. However, NHTSA is not proposing requirements to prevent tampering or restrict adjusting the speed setting as part of its portion of the proposal. Instead, to deter tampering with a vehicle’s speed limiting device or modification of the set speed above the specified maximum set speed after the vehicle is sold, the proposal calls for FMCSA to require motor carriers to maintain the speed limiting devices at a set speed within the permitted range. NHTSA also is proposing to require that the vehicle set speed and the speed determination parameters be readable through the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) connection, and that the two most recent modifications of the set speed of the speed limiting device and the two most recent modifications of the speed determination parameters be readable and include the time and date of the modifications. .

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 DOT estimates, for 68 mph setting: Lives saved: 27 to 96 Serious injuries prevented: 30 to 106 Minor injuries prevented: 560 to 1,987 Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $376 million Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $206 million Annual total benefits: $684 million to $1.469 billion .

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 DOT estimates, for 65 mph setting: Lives saved: 65 to 214 Serious injuries prevented: 70 to 236 Minor injuries prevented: 1,299 to 4,535 Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $848 million Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $514 million Annual total benefits: $1.564 to $3.281 billion .

Fleet Owner / August 29, 2016 DOT estimates, for 60 mph setting: Lives saved: 162 to 498 Serious injuries prevented: 179 to 551 Minor injuries prevented: 3,356 to 10,306 Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $1.534 billion Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $848 million Annual total benefits: $2.695 to $6.522 billion .

What did Watts say on availability ?

I'm unfamiliar with that for Oz.

Steve’s second home Scania Group Press Release / August 27, 2016 Steve Pope spent 20 years driving trucks for the British Army in Bosnia, Iraq and Kuwait. For the past year, he has tested and lived in one of Scania’s new generation trucks under real life conditions. “This represents a completely new level of heavy truck,” he says. Field-test driver Steve Pope has used a masked vehicle from Scania’s new generation of trucks to conduct long-term testing along his regular transport runs across the United Kingdom. He has spent four to five nights per week in the new cab and now calls it his “second home”. “I work and sleep here, cook all my food here, and it’s also my office,” says Pope. “Even compared to the Scania R-series that I previously had, everything I’ve experienced represents a big boost. All the new technology makes life so much simpler for me. I don’t need to do much; the truck does it all for me. Sometimes it feels like all I need to do is push a button and point it in the right direction.” Asked to rank the improvements in Scania’s new truck, Pope thinks for a second before listing: the field of vision, the driving experience, the general level of comfort, and the bed! The forward- and outward shifted driver position and narrower A-pillar have given Pope a whole new perspective of the area around the truck. “The advantage with these narrower A-pillars is that you get a much wider view between the A-pillar and the rear view mirror,” he says. “Together with the new, lower dashboard, the slimmer door panels and this larger surface area of glass, you have a completely new experience in terms of passing pedestrians, cyclists and passenger cars in the roundabouts. It’s a big boost for traffic safety!” “Much better field vision” Pope describes the driving experience as “very much Scania”. “It’s the same feeling that I had in my previous Scania, but with a much better field of vision. I love the design of the new dashboard. When you sit behind the wheel and drive the truck you have everything you might need around you.” Pope continues, “The level of comfort in the new cab in just wonderful. The seats are adjustable in every way and the spaciousness in the cab beats anything that I’ve seen or experienced.” “It’s like sleeping at home” For Pope, who sleeps in the cab four or five nights a week, the bed is of utmost importance. “The mattress is much thicker in the cab and this has meant that I now sleep much better,” says Pope. “And it’s a firmer mattress, which is great if you, like me, have a bad back. For me personally, it’s like sleeping at home on a special mattress.” Pope sees his year as a field test driver for Scania as a high point in a very action-packed life. “It’s a fantastic feeling to be involved in developing tomorrow’s truck,” he says. “Sometimes when I’m drifting off to sleep in the cab, I think about how good it will feel a few years from now when I see this new truck out on the roads. I got to be involved with developing it.”

Scania Group Press Release / August 27, 2016 For field test drivers like ­Steve Pope, dealing with ­secrecy and spies is a part of everyday life. The field tests for the new generation Scania truck represented a major challenge. Advanced masking techniques and far-reaching organisational preparations were required to keep the vehicle’s identity, styling and new features under wraps. “We have used more heavy duty masking than with previous launches,” says Anders Karlqvist, who is responsible for Scania’s extensive field testing activities. “It should be possible to drive past one of our field-test trucks and, maybe, wonder what kind of truck it was. But it shouldn’t immediately draw attention to itself.” For Steve Pope, security around the vehicle was one of his most important day-to-day issues. The assignment was particularly sensitive, due to the United Kingdom’s large population, heavy traffic and numerous truck spotters constantly on the look-out for new trucks. “I have to plan all my runs very thoroughly,” says Pope. “When I park for the night, the first thing I do is draw black curtains around the entire cab so that no-one can see in or take pictures of the new interior. The same applies when I stop to fill up or to eat. I can’t stop all the curious people, but then the truck is quite ingeniously masked.” Occasionally Pope got questions from other drivers about the strange truck he is driving. The masking have given some people an impression of heavy ”armour”. “I tell some of them that I’m driving a special vehicle for the Royal Mint,” Pope says. “Others have been told that the truck is equipped with radiation protection or that it’s equipped with sensors for filming and digitising footage for use within different TV and computer games…” .

Cummins' New Little Brother: X12 Today’s Trucking / August 26, 2016 Are smaller displacements the engine trend of the future? Cummins seems to be hedging its bets on that question. The Columbus, Ind.-based global engine manufacturer now has very capable product at both ends of the spectrum: the 14.9-liter X15, and this new engine the 11.8-liter X12. Recent engine introductions from other engine makers suggest there's an appetite for smaller block engines that can deliver Class 8 power for regional and urban applications as well as the vocational market. With ratings up to 475 horsepower and 1,700 lb-ft of torque, the X12 will be running with the big boys. The X12 is also nearly 1,000 lb lighter than the X15, so weight sensitive fleets will be looking very closely at this engine. The X12 is derived from the ISG platform first introduced in 2013 as global engine platform. It made its first appearance a year later in a joint venture with the world’s largest independent engine maker, Beiqi Foton Motor Co. Ltd. of China. Foton now uses the ISG diesel in a new truck series developed with Daimler of Germany. Cummins says the engine in ISG trim already has more than 1 billion miles under its belt, and is ready to take on North American truck fleets. The X12 will be ready for market here in 2018. We got a close look at it and brief test drive in July when Cummins launched it 2017 X15 lineup. From what we saw, it looks like Cummins will have a full slate of orders for the X12 in no time at all. .

Head to the IAA show in September and see for yourself. You'll look back on the trip as perhaps the most eye-opening in memory.

When you called Watt's Mack (provider of the BMT website) toll-free at 1-888-304-6225, what did they say about E9 remack water pump availability ? The part number should be 316GC274DX. http://www.wattsmack.com/parts-department/

Suggesting 60-68 mph, FMCSA, NHTSA propose truck speed limiters Fleet Owner / August 26, 2016 A long-awaited, much-debated proposal for requiring speed limiters on heavy trucks was released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). While the 118-page proposal suggests that speed limits of 60, 65 or 68 mph would be beneficial, the agencies will get public input before setting the actual number, according to U.S. Transportation Sec. Anthony Foxx. The speed limit would be a physical one accomplished by a speed-governing device and would apply to all newly-manufactured vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 26,000 lbs. (11,793.4 kg). The rule comes from both NHTSA and FMCSA to broaden its applicability. According to the proposed rule, NHTSA would require speed limiters for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and school buses, while FMCSA would require them for commercial motor vehicles. "Based on the agencies' review of the available data, limiting the speed of these heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. We expect that, as a result of this joint rulemaking, virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed," the proposal reads, with "that speed" yet to be determined. In a release, Foxx argues that the proposed rule would save lives and more than $1 billion in fuel costs annually, making it "a win for safety, energy conservation and our environment." Foxx has referred to this rulemaking as a top priority for the Department of Transportation, and the proposed rule originally was due to be published in March 2014; the idea behind it dates back nearly a decade. NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind calls the proposal "basic physics" in the same release. "Even small increases in speed have large effects on the force of impact," he states. "Setting the speed limit on heavy vehicles makes sense for safety and the environment." And FMCSA Administrator Scott Darling contends that the proposal "will save lives while ensuring our nation's fleet of large commercial vehicles operates efficiently." The proposed rule has been submitted for publication in the Federal Register, and once that happens there will be a 60-day period for public comment. One group that's sure to have something to say will be the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which has long been opposed to truck speed limiters and makes almost a polar opposite argument regarding the devices as the government does. On the heels of the proposed rule's release, OOIDA issued a statement calling it "dangerous" not only for truck drivers but for passenger vehicle drivers as well. "The government's proposal to mandate speed limiting devices on large trucks would be dangerous for all highway users," OOIDA states. "Such devices create speed differentials that lead to more crashes and promote road rage among other motorists." Todd Spencer, executive vice president of OOIDA, further states that "highways are safest when all vehicles travel at the same relative speed."

DOT Finally Proposes Truck Speed-Limiter Rule Heavy Duty Trucking / August 26, 2016 Federal safety regulators are proposing that heavy-duty vehicles be equipped with speed-limiting devices set to a specific maximum speed. A notice of proposed rulemaking was issued jointly on Aug. 26 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The NPRM comes after a decade-long push by trucking and safety advocates to put such a requirement in place for trucks and other commercial vehicles. For its part, NHTSA is calling for establishing a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. This FMVSS would require that each new “multipurpose” vehicle with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds be equipped with a speed limiting device. The proposed standard would also require each vehicle, as manufactured and sold, to have its device set to a speed not greater than a specified speed and to be equipped with means of reading the vehicle’s current speed setting and the two previous speed settings (including the time and date the settings were changed) through its onboard diagnostic connection. FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation that would require each commercial motor vehicle with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds be equipped with a speed limiting device meeting the requirements of the proposed FMVSS applicable to the vehicle at the time of manufacture, including the requirement that the device be set to a speed not greater than a specified speed. In addition, carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting devices for the service life of the vehicle. However, no speed limit has been proposed yet for the proposed limiters. The Department of Transportation said only that the proposal “discusses the benefits of setting the maximum speed at 60, 65, and 68 miles per hour, but the agencies will consider other speeds based on public input.” “This is basic physics,” said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind. “Even small increases in speed have large effects on the force of impact. Setting the speed limit on heavy vehicles makes sense for safety and the environment.” The speed-limiter NPRM was initiated way back in May of 2013. Seven years before that, the American Trucking Associations petitioned the two agencies to require speed limiters on all large trucks that would be set in order to electronically limit top speed to no more than 65 mph. According to DOT, the two agencies’ review of the available data indicates that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. “We expect that, as a result of this joint rulemaking, virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed,” stated DOT in its notice. DOT said that implementing the proposal safety “could save lives and more than $1 billion in fuel costs each year.” “There are significant safety benefits to this proposed rulemaking,” said Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. “In addition to saving lives, the projected fuel and emissions savings make this proposal a win for safety, energy conservation, and our environment.” The American Trucking Associations “hailed” the NPRM “as a potential step forward for safety.” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said the lobby was “pleased NHTSA and FMCSA have, almost 10 years after we first petitioned them, released this proposal to mandate the electronic limiting of commercial vehicle speeds. Speed is a major contributor to truck accidents and by reducing speeds, we believe we can contribute to a reduction in accidents and fatalities on our highways.” Spear added that carriers that are already using speed limiters voluntarily “have found significant safety, as well as fuel efficiency and equipment lifespan benefits with little to no negative impact on productivity. We will be carefully reviewing and commenting upon today’s proposal.” Among those comments will be ATA’s position on the maximum speed setting and tamper-proofing of the devices. ATA said its 2006 petition seeking this rulemaking sought a maximum speed of 68 mph and that the association’s safety agenda calls for a national speed limit for all vehicles of 65 mph. “In their proposal, the agencies say setting the speed at 68 could save 27 to 96 lives per year; setting it at 65 could save 63 to 214 lives annually and at 60 could save 162 to 498 lives,” ATA said in a statement, “but notes that they do not have the same confidence about the data for the 60 mph alternative as the other two options.” The association also said the proposed rule “despite ATA’s initial request does not mandate the limiters be tamper-proof, instead it proposes requiring motor carriers to maintain the speed limiting devices at a set speed within the range permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.” While ATA has long been a proponent of speed limiters, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association responded to the NPRM by calling it a “dangerous mandate.” OOIDA contends that use of “such devices create speed differentials that lead to more crashes and promote road rage among other motorists.” OOID also argues that speed limiters “actually take control out of the hands of drivers in that there are a number of scenarios that require drivers to accelerate in order to avoid danger.” “Highways are safest when all vehicles travel at the same relative speed,” said OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer. “This wisdom has always been true and has not ever changed. “No technology can replace the safest thing to put in a truck, which is a well-trained driver." DOT will seek public comment on the proposed rule for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which is likely to occur during the week of Aug. 29. Comments should be addressed to these DOT docket numbers: NHTSA-2016-0087 and FMCSA-2014-008. Once the comment period opens, comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments Mail. Docket Management Facility. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Hand Delivery or Courier. 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays Fax. 202-493-2251

U.S. Proposes Device to Force Trucks, Buses to Travel at Lower Speeds The Wall Street Journal / August 26, 2016 The U.S. is seeking to forcibly limit how fast trucks, buses and other large vehicles can travel on the nation’s highways. A new proposal Friday would impose a nationwide limit by electronically capping speeds with a device on newly made U.S. vehicles that weigh more than 26,000 pounds. Regulators are considering a cap of 60, 65 or 68 miles per hour, though that could change. Whatever the speed limit, drivers would be physically prevented from exceeding it. The proposal, which comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, doesn’t force older heavy vehicles to add the speed-limiting technology, but the regulators are still considering it. The government said capping speeds for new large vehicles would reduce the 1,115 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks that occur each year and save $1 billion in fuel costs. While the news is being welcomed by some safety advocates and nonprofessional drivers, many truckers said such changes could lead to dangerous scenarios where they are traveling at much lower speeds than everyone else. The rule has been ensnared in a regulatory maze in the decade since the nonprofit group Roadsafe America issued its first petition in 2006. The group was founded by Atlanta financial adviser Steve Owings and his wife Susan, whose son Cullum was killed by a speeding tractor-trailer during a trip back to school in Virginia after Thanksgiving in 2002. The nonprofit was later joined by the American Trucking Associations, the nation’s largest trucking industry group. Mr. Owings said he would continue to push the NHTSA to force older heavy vehicles to limit their speeds. “We are dismayed and outraged to learn the proposed rule will be for newly manufactured trucks and will not apply to the millions of trucks with which we continue to share the roads today,” he said. The NHTSA said retrofitting vehicles made after 1990 with the speed-limiting technology could be too costly, and it is still seeking comments and additional information. The NHTSA said it could cost anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per vehicle, depending on when the vehicle was made. Changes to some engines could also be required, increasing the costs, the NHTSA said. Heavy vehicles made before 1990 don’t have the capacity to add the technology. The government agencies involved will take public comment for 60 days, then determine the final limit and decide if the regulation should be put in place. To James Chapman, a big-rig driver from Spartanburg, S.C., 68 mph would be the best option and he’d accept 65. But 60 mph would be too big of a difference from cars that are traveling at 75 mph or more. “To me it would be a safety hazard unless it slowed everybody else down,” he said while refueling his truck Friday along Interstate 75 near Findlay, Ohio. The agencies said that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 60 mph could save as many as 498 lives annually. Limiting it to 65 mph could save as many as 214 lives, and limiting it to 68 mph could save as many as 96 lives. There are 3.6 million big rigs on U.S. roads. The agencies said the proposal is based on available safety data and the additional benefit of better fuel economy.

ENDT865 14.19L 325hp @ 2,100 1,491 N.m @ 1,350 Maxidyne (5 or 6-speed Maxitorque) ENDT866 14.19L 375hp @ 2,200 1,410 N.m @ 1,600 Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission ETAZ1000 16.36L 400hp @ 1,900 2,060 N.m @ 1,230 Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission ETAZ1005A 16.36L 400hp @ 2,100 2,060 N.m @ 1,230 Maxidyne (5 or 6-speed Maxitorque) EM9-400 16.36L 400hp @ 2,100 2,061 N.m @ 1,230 (55% torque rise) Maxidyne (5 or 6-speed Maxitorque) EM9-400R 16.36L 400hp @ 1,700 2,061 N.m @ 1,230 (23% torque rise) Eco-spec conventional torque-rise for multi-speed tranny E9-440 16.36L 440hp @ 1,800 2,027 N.M @ 1,300 (16% torque rise) Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission E9-400 16.36L 400hp @ 1,900 1,796 N.m @ 1,300 (20% torque rise) Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission E9-450 16.36L 450hp @ 1,900 2,027 N.m @ 1,300 (20% torque rise) Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission E9-500 16.36L 500hp @ 1,900 2,251 N.m @ 1,300 (20% torque rise) Conventional torque-rise for multi-speed transmission The 865 was a high torque-rise Maxidyne spec V-8, and the 866 was set up for multi-speed transmissions. When the E9 first came out in the early 1980s (evolved from the ENDT1000/1005) at the same time Cruise-Liner production shifted from Hayward, California to Macungie, you had the EM9-400 Maxidyne V-8 governed at 2,100rpm (55% torque rise), the "Econodyne" spec EM9-400R for multi-speed transmissions governed at 1,700 rpm (23% torque rise), and the E9-440 V-8 for multi-speed transmissions governed at 1,800rpm (16% torque rise). The EM9-400R offered maximum fuel economy in a V-8, while the E9-440 was aimed at the owner-operator segment. Then in the mid-eighties, the Maxidyne spec V-8 was dropped, and the product range became the E9-400, E9-450 and E9-500 (US market) which all had a 20% torque rise.

The former superb Mack Trucks Remanufacturing Center outside of MIddletown, Pennsylvania, established by the legendary Ross Rhodes, is now a Volvo branded facility. http://www.volvotrucks.us/about-volvo/facilities/reman-center/

In the old days, if they wanted to block off the puff limiter altogether, or install a 691GC218CP6 puff limiter (the version with the least affect....there's a Service Bulletin), I had no problem with that. But I never encountered a good customer experience from turning up the fuel.

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43658-21977-over-drive-cruiseliner-report/#comment-321468 The Cruise-Liner was a big step forward for Mack Western. It was the result of west coast truck engineers that Mack had hired. In theory, they could give us a leap forward with a true west coast design. In the eyes of many in headquarters, the original Hayward designed/produced Cruise-Liner was an engineering disaster. The freedom given the west coast engineers was revoked, and the 2nd gen Cruise-Liner was created in Allentown (fixing many of the shortcomings). The MH Ultra-Liner restored Mack's reputation as a designer of well-engineered COEs. The axle-mounted steering arrangement was a huge mistake. The telescoping steering shaft wore out prematurely (we sold thousands of replacements, averaging 2-3 over the life of a truck), as did the steering gears and pitman arms, becoming strong sellers in the parts department. (the output shaft splines and pitman arm splines were constantly wallowed out owing to the nature of the stupid design). The disconnecting (ball and socket) shift linkage, specifically the gears, rails, bushings and seals in the tower, also had unacceptably short life (the average truck's shift tower was rebuilt at least 3 times over its life). It was a terrible design, whereas the shift linkage on the MH Ultra-Liner was superb. I did prefer the original first generation Cruise-Liner instrument panel over the simplified second generation, however the center console had all the aesthetics of a plastic box. It was excessively large and the top (with the vents) frequently cracked and required replacement, a problem resolved with the second generation (It's pretty embarrassing when west coast Mack dealers have console covers hanging in their show room because they're such strong sellers). And then you had those expensive rubber riv-nuts that retained the grille constantly falling out. Here it is year 2016 and I couldn't possibly forget the part number, 68RU29301P5, because it was a hot issue. The Trico pantograph windshield wiper arms and their transmissions didn't hold up. All of these issues were covered in Mack Service Bulletins.............there were more service bulletins on the WS/WL Cruise-Liner than any other single model in the history of Mack Trucks. I found the cab was "beat" less with the 10,500lb front suspension. But dealers were accustomed to ordering the 12,000 front suspension, as they had for years with the heavier steel-cabbed F-model. The work ethic of the employees at the Hayward plant was terrible. They were "California casual" about showing up for work......one never knew how many people were coming in. The Allentown people sent out there were in constant frustration. The workers would install cab screws with their power tools until the threads were stripped. They didn't care. The idea of setting up a west coast plant for west coast truck production was logical. However, there was a people problem. This is all why the plant was closed, and the 2nd gen Cruise-Liner was built at Macungie.......with significantly better quality. I believe Peterbilt closed its plant at nearby Newark, California plant in 1986 for the same reason, issues with assembly quality. Caterpillar, Ford, GM and International Harvester abandoned the Bay Area as well.

Any time one "turns up the fuel", they're simultaneously asking for trouble. If I had a dime for every time I've heard a version of this story.......

I'm pressed for time just now, but I'm going to quickly tell you, the first generation frame that, yes, shared with the RWL/RWS and WL/WS, was NOT a good design. I've mentioned before, the axle-mounted steering gear was a disaster, as was the disconnect shift linkage design (WL/WS). And, it didn't use Mack's superb "body-bound bolts" which led to the same fastener headaches of the "assembled trucks". We gave the west coast engineers some leeway......and it didn't work out. When we fired many of them and brought the Cruise-Liner to Macungie, we "fixed it" as much as we could, to get by until the MH was launched. It still had those flaws, but it was a much better truck. On the other hand, the state-of-the-art Allentown-designed frame used on the MH and RWI, and the cutting edge break-away shifter design (MH), were as advanced as any truck today. And of course, the frame-mounted steering was trouble-free. Frankly speaking, the MH Ultra-Liner was the "best" truck we ever designed.

Relax.......it's all just a show. Seriously, do you honestly believe that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would actually be allowed to run America Inc. ?