TeamsterGrrrl

Most CHs were built as road tractors with 12k and 40k axles on the tandems. Thus this is probably a converted tractor with possibly a stretched wheelbase. With the weight limits in most places limiting the rear axle load to 34k it's effective GVW is only 46k and there's no point in licensing it for more unless you need to pull a trailer. This truck will work OK for on highway use as intended, but for anything more severe you need a proper vocational truck like an RD, DM, or Granite.

Still looks like the VW LT cabbed truck they built for Paccar back in the 80s.

Old Superdog, got some questions for you- Is the MP8s 505 horsepower enough for Canada's 63.5 metric ton maximum weights? Is the Titan too long to fit a sleeper and still comply with Canada's length limits?

I was in Montana for a BMW motorcycle rally last week. New BMW bikes were dying all over the place with computer problems and failed final drives, etc. and keeping the towing services busy. In fact, so many BMWs and other new bikes are failing that the going rate for a one way U-Haul truck rental out of the mountain states is $1000 and up! Meanwhile my club, the "Airheads", that specialize in the old aircooled BMWs built up until 1995, set up under a tent with simple hand tools and repaired several of these old bikes and they were ridden home. Besides a lot of minor repairs, carb and valve adjustments, etc. we replaced a head that had dropped a valve and got a bike running that came in a U-Haul and left under it's own power after we fixed it's ignition system. The only bike that stumped us was one with a failing transmission for which we didn't have parts... The rider left early with the bike in the back of a borrowed pickup he had to return, next day a guy showed up with a working spare transmission and other used parts for sale!

This is the same auction outfit that did the Nebraska Chevy dealer, They promote their events well and will turn out lots of bidders... Expect ridiculously high prices, even for the junk!

Would you buy a new Scania truck in North America if they were available? Wouldn't be cheap, but would options like V8s to 730 horsepower, twin steering axles, a single drive tandem that really works and a cabover configuration tempt you? Would the lack of a conventional cab be a deal killer?

Amazing what poor taste a lot of americans have... They don't even haul anything with their $60k pickups! For that kind of money they could be enjoying a 'Vette or a lot of other damn nice cars.

IIRC, wasn't the Kerax originally a Sisu design?

Was in South Dakota today, saw three 17 axles doubles sets and musta been at least a dozen 13 axle grain hopper doubles sets. Legal gross on the 13 axle doubles is around 145,000 pounds and 170k on the 17 axle doubles... That's the highest regular highway weights in North America, even higher than Michigan. Was behind a loaded 17 axle combo for awhile, took forever for it to get up to even 40 MPH... These things beg for more power. Scania, bring that V8 to South Dakota and show 'em how it's done!

That may be the problem... Sometimes a dealer will to delay an order in hopes you'll buy the truck they have in stock instead.

Fitgerald Gliders is already exempted in the proposed EPA regs, Congressmember Black is just grandstanding.

One gets the feeling there aren't many enginners left at Mack... Remember how long it took them to take the Titan from concept to production?

You're complaining because they didn't buy Macks?

Ok, I've got the solution: For a mere $20k upcharge, we slam the cab and hood of a Titan smack down on da frame. That means a bunch of stuff like air cleaners will have to move to the cowling, so you can show them off. Take off the black fender extensions, trim the fill-in panel behind the front wheels, lose the fill-in panel under the doors, and add the sleeper of your choice. 'Course, the radiator's gonna have to get shortened, so the keep the engine from meltdown we'll cut it back to the 500 HP "super economy" programming they sell in Canada, with the automated manual the only choice... "Cowboys" can't shift worth a damn anyways, and their fingers are too busy texting anyhow. But even though it's got no more power than a 13 liter MP13-505, you can lift that long hood in the truckstop parking lot and show off that huge engine... For a mere $200k it can be yours, financing available, and we should have plenty of late model used repos on the lot too shortly!

Problem is that OOs are a small and shrinking market. What is needed is more options for the Titan to accomodate users in the states that allow heavier weights. For example, South Dakota allows around 145k pounds on 13 axle doubles, that's more than a the CX and CH's 13 liter engines can be expected to handle. But South Dakota is 400 miles across so at least a small sleeper is a good idea, but to get the 16 liter engine needed for those weights you have to get a Titan, which ain't available with a sleeper.

Keep in mind that there wasn't much good reason to create the Superliner back in the 70s to begin with- For hauling at the then 73k and 80k limits the ordinary R model conventional and F and Cruseiliner cabovers worked just fine. The Superliner was created to woo in a sliver of the market- guys who wanted a "show off" truck, and were willing to pay extra for it. For the real heavy haulers that needed the power of the mighty Mack V-8s the 800 series RD and DM worked better. That sliver of a market is even smaller today, and simply not worth chasing, especially with the EPA about to retire the high nose conventional anyway.

If you want a 16 liter engine to run reliably at full load, the cab will have to be jacked up to allow adequate cooling and space for servicing the engine.

Good luck getting a reborn Superliner through the upcoming EPA fuel economy standards. By the late 2020s the flat hood trucks will largely disappear, being too un-aerodynamic to meet the standards. Same with the 15 and 16 liter engines, too much friction to meet the standards. By the late 2020s almost every truck will have to use every aerodynamic trick in the book, and smaller engines, single drive axles, and automated dual clutch transmissions will be the norm. The only chance of survival for a flat hood tractor will be a separate standard EPA is proposing for "Heavy Haul Tractors", and IIRC they're required to have at least a 150k GCW rating, 20M RBM frame, and 57:1 gear reduction... Kinda overkill for 80K GCW.

Instead of reinventing the Superliner, Mack needs to fix what's holding the Titan back. Add some options like an axle forward for bridge law states, a further back axle for Michigan trains, a full line of sleepers for the truckers out west who can legally run across several states and mountain ranges at 129k pounds and more, and a shorter BBC for the Canadians who need a sleeper but have to fit 20 meters of doubles into a 25 meter overall length. Add some dress up options and the Titan would be the first choice for heavy weight haulage and sell in the thousands!

Not a big enough market to justify it. Owner-operators and small fleets buy only 15% or so of new trucks these days, and the fleets aren't going to buy 600 HP trucks for our low 80,000 pound weight limits. It would be easier to just offer some sleeper options on the Titan which should satisfy the Canadian, Michigan, etc. operators and Billy Big Riggers who want an overpowered truck to show off.

The MPG you're getting is impressive, especially given that the truck has a "performance" rather than "economy" specs!

That's my theory- no reason they couldn't design a single countershaft transmission as durable as a multi countershaft transmission, but it would end up bulkier and heavier. Volvo claims a weight of only 723 pounds for their automated manual which includes the clutch, Eaton claims 850 pounds with clutch for a fleet model 10 speed with a lower torque rating. IIRC, the Maxitorque's 9 to 18 speed transmissions weight around 650 to 800 pounds without the clutch, and Scania's manuals run around 800 pounds... They ought to last longer than Volvo's lightweight?

I'm looking for some arguments to use in the debates I get into with defenders of the Volvo, Daimler, etc. automated single countershaft transmissions. My strategy is to argue the longer life of the multi-countershaft transmissions such as the Maxitorque and Eaton's. I had a Daimler engineer reply that the multi countershaft transmissions were built to get a shorter overall length for the short wheelbase trucks common when we had overall length limits prior to the 1982 STAA. He claimed that because length requirements were now relaxed, they could use wider bearings in their single countershaft transmission and get the same life expectancy as a multi countershaft transmission. I don't have any truck transmissions around here to measure, but found online that Scania's single countershaft transmissions had bearings in the range of 40 and 46 millimeters (almost 2 inches) wide by 70 mm. inside diameter. That struck me as bigger than the Eaton double countershaft bearings I've seen, never seen a Maxitorque apart so I don't know their bearing dimensions. Haven't been able to find any bearing dimensions for Volvo or Daimler's automated manual transmissions, both seem to have that data sewed up pretty tight. So anybody who has seen the bearings on these transmissions or better yet has specs on them, how do they compare?

Agreed, I come from a Ford family and have a Ranger pickup. Bought it before dad passed away and he was tickled with it! I'd be driving a Ford car too if they'd have brought over the Focus diesel, so still got a couple VW TDIs in my garage.

Like Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act this is a done deal- All the involved parties have already signed on. You're of course free to complain at the fuel pumps for the next few decades because your're not spending enough $$$ there...