wiserfrombud

I have a 16 CXU. I ordered mine with the twin Y.  I think it rides decent and my drives wear well.  I'm not sure what the "experiment gone wrong" part is all about.  I inquired about disc brakes and yeah back in the fall of 14 when ordering the truck it was a major deal to get disc brakes from Mack.   It was something like 5 thousand more and I seem to recal something about not being able to do them on the steer axle....I got fed up and just opted for the drums.   It was getting silly.   I opted for a 13 spd Eaton.  I have a 505 C+  very happy with the performance, fuel economy, and overal reliability up to this point with the truck overall.  If you have any other questions, I'll help if I can.  

Without a ton of info there is no way to predict a truck will get x MPG.  Even with a ton of info, 2 identical trucks running the same conditions will still vary from one another.   IMHO however as much as I appreciate a CH if you are truly after fuel economy, you should be kicking tires on a CXU.  The faster you like to run, the further from 7 mpg that square hood/bumper will put you as well.  

Tell us more about the spec's on the truck.  What kind of tires on truck trailer?  Pressure etc....   all of that stuff adds up to the final number.   I'd be shocked if the shop can do anything for you.   I'm  certain their skin crawls when someone comes through the door with a fuel economy issue. If the check engine light isn't on, they have no clue where to start.  Btw 1 or 2 trips doesn't tell you much.  You need a 30/60/90 day average.  Miles divided by gallons.  Now we have some solid numbers to make a decision on how bad things really are or if it's just a matter of a bit of tweaking required.  

Before I ordered my CXU I had every intention of getting the gold doggy on the hood.   I did a bit of research before my purchase though and from what I found, the Mack transmissions were having some synchro issues and Mack was not standing behind these things.   I'm sure there is much more going on behind the scenes as far as driver abuse, neglect etc......  Regardless, I opted for an Eaton 13 speed.  I owned 2 in my previous trucks and they never missed a beat.   I DID however get the S 38 Mack rears (gotta love the lay down diffs) and they have been great so far!  On a side note....I was at my dealer a few weeks ago and took a stroll around the lot just checking out inventory and set ups and stuff.   My truck was the only one in that parking lot with Mack rear ends. A shame.

3.90 for 70+?   What size rubber? And what is the final ratio on the transmission?  

I have never heard the term bun before.  Are you talking about foam?   Yeah these seats are gonna go in the dumpster before too much longer.  It's a real shame. Not only did they cost 1200 bucks, they LOOK really good.  They are just terrible to sit in.  

Could be a lot of things obviously but the first thing that comes to mind is fuel.  When the shop forced it through a regen, they should have been watching what was happening via the laptop.  I would have started by observing if the 7th injector was functioning or not.  No fuel = no heat = failed regen.  You can watch the dpf filter temp as well from the software.   

I will chime in on this because I have a 2016 CXU with the Grand Touring interior, 70" condo, 505C+ engine (with the "old" fuel injection).  I have now had the truck just over a year.  It has 160 000 miles on it.  The truck runs phenomenally.  I run up and down the I15 corridor.  I am always 80 000 lbs gross.   My 30 day mpg is 7.77, 60 day 7.85, and 90 day 7.90.  I have been idling a touch more in the warmer months here.  Anyways, From my experience the old injection system performs well, and I have had ZERO problems with the truck since delivery.   I am very happy with my Mack.   

P.S.  My two previous trucks were a 2010 KW T660/86 Studio/485/1850 ISX, and a 2005 379 Peterbilt 63" bunk C15/475/1850 (both ordered new). My Mack is by far my favorite truck of the 3.  

My 2016 has been fantastic!  It just had its one year birthday.  125 000 miles and I have had the check engine light come on twice, neither of which were serious and was able to wait to get back home.  Otherwise ZERO issues. The truck runs great and gets outstanding fuel economy.  That being said....if you didn't NEED an emissions truck for compliance purposes as I do (California ) then I think a 2003 or older would be a more reliable truck overall.  As stated above a 2007 is pre DPF. Not pre emissions. 2004 was first year of Egr which had its own issues.  

I would be curious to know the differences the dealer is warning you of??   Besides a metric speedometer and day time running lights, I'd be surprised if much else was different.  

I don't know about Ontario but I'd imagine it's similar to Manitoba. Manitoba just revised their safeties.  They are now annually instead of every 6 months.  They also threw in a nifty new requirement.  Emissions systems must function on that truck exactly how they came from factory on the year of the unit.  So for eg an 09 would need a functioning dpf and Egr system.  No functioning emissions, no safety.  

Oh yeah, there ya go!

Haha. I have posted pics on here. Go back through some of my posts. I have to post pics from my laptop. My phone says I don't have enough memory or some bs. Pita.

I have the Mack diffs as well.....significantly cooler then anything Volvo offers. Haha.

No it lifts and gives you access to both cubbies and all the hvac stuff.

My MP8 certainly has a Holset VGT.

Yup, it performs well, I am quite happy with it. Something to keep in mind however, I don't set the cruise and just steer it down the road with a finger up my nose while the cruise pins the boost gauge to 40 on every overpass. I really have to watch what I'm doing to get that. It's rare this truck makes the 505/1860 it's rated for.

Ok since I have bought my Mack, I have a lot of inquisitive people most places I go. I am surprised how many people ask "Is that a Cummins or what kinda motor is in there?" Obviously I reply "no its a Mack motor", but then feel inclined to say we'll really a Volvo motor with some Mack finishing touches. Besides the obvious color difference and valve cover, what else is the difference? Please tell me it's more then that or I might be forced to sell my truck on principle alone. Hahaha. I don't honestly think Volvo makes a bad truck. Just not my taste personally. I thought I read somewhere the ecm on a Mack is 12v and a Volvo is 24? I'm sure Mack has their own software....anything else? Different cam or anything?

That's great MPG!!! What do you pull and how heavy are you usually.

What trans and rear end ratio and how fast do you run?

Fair enough. None of the other brands are any better though.

A bigger fridge would be nice. I just bought a cooler as well. As for the microwave, I rigged up a nice clean set up. I used 2 small pieces of angle iron, and 4 lengths of threaded rod. I drilled holes through the bottom of the passenger side cabinet and hung my microwave from under that cabinet. I don't lose that desktop above the closet, the microwave isn't going anywhere, and it's eye level. It's perfect.

I fear that when Mack does finally do their revamp, they will go full out Volvo with the elimination of that sub-roof over the seats, and very automotive style gauges and switches etc....yuck. I hope they don't go that route, however I feel they might.

When I was in the market for a new truck last fall, I went to Peterbilt first and spec'd out a 579. I think they are a nice truck but I find them to be very "automotive" inside. Personally I found the Macks little more rough around the edges and that's what I like about it. Its just enough that it still feels like I'm driving a semi, yet with all the creature comforts and then some.