bts-4120

my only real trouble has been with the plastic radiator I replaced it with a steel one

pretty big demand for older Mack dumps with manual motors over seas I give the truck 90% chance it gets exported when you sell it

what about running about 80% bio diesel in the truck for the smoke test yeah I know less power but its going to burn alot cleaner than pump fuel

Whats a safe spot to increase it to without causing any future damage or horrible fuel loss?

Loaded question there all that is more dependent on who is running the truck than how much you crank it up I would first see if Mack would uprate it to a 460P 480hp program see if that doesn't suit you if not its either shell out for the new blixtion box, or put in some over spec injectors. on a side note Pittsburg Power should be coming out with there box in the near future my 427 does everything I need it to do with ease, but I if I was going to bump it up about a 100hp more I would call it quits

ETECH'S was rated for 750hp in a Marine application, but everyone seems tight lipped on what pistons, injectors, turbo, compression ratio ect. to build it but for a on road application around 490-510 would be all I would want to push one If I was going to use a tuner the new Blixtion box might be the way to go adjustable on the fly and its plug and play

bts, Why do they do that? I don't own any newer Macks. Only one older Computer V Mack 400 in a CH an a R mod mech. E6 350 all my newer trucks have Detroit Series 60's why does Mack do something like that? Ernie BULLHUSK

Maxi cruise programming was made for fleets looking for fuel economy not performance 350,400,427 ect. are econodynes totally diffrent hp curve's but the Maxi cruise has very high torque rise

truck is geared right, programing is the problem motor makes 380hp at 1400-1500, and something less than that at any other rpm, and I doubt there is any uprate from Mack with out cam and injectors 380/410 would be a better program but I bet its a no go on a 2000, so that leaves aftermarket, blixxton 200 would get you hp but fairly expensive, or you could swap some hotter injectors

dump trailer would be a good option 24-28ft 28ft quad would let you legally scale the wt. but they aren't cheap lots of 24ft's on the market 26-28ft are always hard to find in any configuration due to so many people can use them

be interesting to hear how it does performance, and fuel economy wise 3.58 gears pulling a bull wagon

I wouldn't worry to much about the refuse industry its looking like they are going to be running everything on Landfill gas (Methane) it burns clean and its free (I would have converted years ago you can't beat free fuel) I've heard some of the coal mine's have there trucks running on it with good sucess

Grab it Rob! Don't let it get away!

728 C.I.D. vs 672 C.I.D.of the E6.

Other than the air to air out front, I don't think it would be a tough swap, Block is pretty much the same dimensions as an E6.

Mack added 1/2" of stroke to get the cubes the block should be very close E7 Manual hands down

.

to bad Mack did away with the glider kit option

yes my rawhide has a mack 13

that would be a double over box .71 hi gear, I would think fuller 13 and 3.70's and 3.94 with a Mack 13 would be geared pretty close to the same as far as rpms in high gears, but I could be wrong

if its a B series Fuller it would have a .86 OD in high hear roughly the same as a half gear down in a A series, pretty rare, I was under the assumption your Rawhide had the Mack 13

yeah I seen them in action on SPEED a few weeks ago armor plated Paystar vs. armor plated Granite with 525hp still no contest for me

got anymore info what are you pulling, pre egr? other specs of the truck?

that was luck did you pull the air filter out too and look for any extra parts someone might have dropped in

with 7.49 gears you will have to use a aux. box to get close to 55mph t-2070 and 6.34 tops out at 55mph thats a .60od alot taller gear than the .71 I like the t-2090 but it's like HK said trouble with the sycro's and they are not cheap

book says 1660lb of torque (can we say underated) I know any other motor rated at that level that even come close to the performance of a E9

Transmission wise the older ones had air shift 12spds some of the later models had Mack 18 spd's best combo to me would depend on what the truck was going to be used for and rear ratio

oh yeah first time it happened 3am in bfe with the cruise set at 75

i have really been babying my ch after the cx nightmare, but was running behind on sleep and delivery time, loaded,unloaded,and drove over 1,000 miles, oklahoma city and back hyway 44 lots a hills, in less than 18 hours, havnt trucked like that in years, believe it or not it gets better mpg at 70 mph, than 60 mph. i would have been scared to even attept that in my cx, not to mention mpg would drop to nothing.

i guess the ch is more suitable to days of thunder, but i did have to get a gell seat cushion about half way through. maybe my butt didnt get tired in the cx because of constant checking and adding coolant.

its a good i have a windshield because my teeth would be covered in bugs from smiling so much.

mine gets about a mpg more running 68-72 over 55-60, mine pulls hard at 1200 but is not as efficent when its turning 1400-1500rpms I've avg 7.0 all winter non-egr motor though I would have thought the rawhide would have ridden better than a vision due to being a set forward axle

my 01 did this once or twice then quit never happened again

What are you getting fuel mileage wise with one of those? I want something as fuel efficent as possible. At the moment I get 6.7-7.5 with my W-900

what are you pulling cardboard to get that kind of mileage with a hood?

If I had my choice I would go and get another Pete like the '94 I had with a 3406C CAT but I can't go that route. I am trying to figure this out and so far from the different OTR trucks I have looked at the Mack Vision has had the most space for my driver. My W-900 is great for me, but with a driver that is over 6 foot and 300 pounds it is really difficult to find a truck that he will be comfortable in.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you only have the option of a Mack motor in a Mack truck right? Is it possible to order one with an ISX Cummins?

the CL series could be ordered out with a ISX myself I would just as soon trust the E7 ISX is having tons of problems with EGR valves turbo

I have seen things like this done on a ASET engine and then brought to me to program, it can be done, but how much HP lost in the process I dont know. I have seen an ASET AC block/heads/cam/intake manifold and injectors with a 2002 CCRS exhaust manifold/turbo/EUP's/ wiring harness and engine ECM. It ran and ran smooth, I programed it to 460HP but did it put out 460 HP. I dont know, probably not.

what makes you think that combination would not make 460hp and after all that trouble why not the 460p file?