Jump to content


Puppy Poster
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

1,925 profile views

dexter860's Achievements


Contributor (5/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Just bought another truck , 2014 small sleeper Mack with mp7 an M drive , still have my 95 small sleeper with E7 350 and 4:17 rears , it is getting 6.7 to 6.8 pulling a flatbed mainly in Ohio . I'm hoping this new truck gets better mpg but bobtailing home empty the gauge seemed to move more than I expected. Is it reasonable to expect to outperform the 95 on fuel economy, or not? If this thing burns more fuel it will probably be finding another home. The 95 has been a very economical truck to operate.
  2. Thank you for the reply, that's good information , I wonder how much better fuel economy the v Mac II vs the mechanical pump of the same engine then would be?
  3. I would start off as low debt as reasonibly possible , try to get an emergency fund aside , even if you have to get a truck that's not as fuel efficient , doesn't matter , main thing is reliability starting out , once you get the ball rolling and are able to save up then upgrade.
  4. Ecm went out of my 95 Ch 613 , E7 350, borrowed an ecm from shop to get home , found a place in Texas that "thinks" they can repair mine , but most places have never seemed to work on these older ecms. Mine only has one big box on passenger side under glove box , we took the one out of our 96 and it has the big box and a smaller box that says Bosch on it , and they have different connections, so that didn't work. Can't find any used ones anywhere my part # is 12MS54M5, the one I'm using is 12MS54M7. I find alot of the ones with the number ending in M7 but no M5, I wonder what the difference is , the one I'm using now is an M7 , it seems ok but my speed is off and truck seems to surge a little more at idle, I think mine is a vmac 2 , but not sure , can I swap a box out of a 427 , into a 350? Dealer says new one is nla.
  5. Looks good! We're about a week away from running beans.
  6. I don't know how much longer I can hold my 95 CH together, can frame rails are rusting out under sleeping, bottom of sleeper is about shot too, rest of truck is decent. Looking at a 2000 vision with the 427 in it, little disappointed in condition, no rust though, just a lot of minor issues. The engine also surges when sitting at an idle. Truck has a little over 700k on it. How's this engine compare to mine? Didn't seem to have much more power, but was bobtailing.95 has the E7 350.
  7. Oh, I typically run 63 on the freeway, that puts me around 1600 RPM, about 56 on 2 lane , I think about 1500 RPM . I'm pretty light pulling my 48 ft aluminum flat with chains and tarps I'm a little over 27000lbs. Those Mac frameless sure look nice but pricey, I'd love to run one for a couple days.
  8. Yep, Ohio , probably just kinda day dreaming, I see alot of 39' tandems, then see some shorter 34' tamdem with a single wheel lift in front of them, then some tri axles. Then you got frames, frameless, some post and sheet, some round bottom, etc. So many different variations I just wonder about.
  9. Ok, yeah , I could probably haul some grain on the side for a local elevator, but man the rate is pretty cheap, and the guys around here don't mind paying overweight tickets. I have no idea what kind of rate dumps are getting hauling sand , gravel , salt , etc.
  10. I'm getting bored pulling flatbed all the time, I know nothing about specing dump trailers, we grain farm also and have straight trucks to haul grain. I was thinking about buying a dump trailer to haul grain, and maybe I could get some side business also, I'd have to put a wet line on my CH, it has 4:17 rears so I think I'd be good coming out of the field, 9 speed. Frame trailer, frameless? 39ft , or 34 ft tri axle. So many different specs Wondering why they are speced the way they are, thanks.
  11. My truck is 95 E7 350, 4:17 rears , I run probably 50℅ two lanes and the rest interstate, run 55 on 2 lanes and about 62 on highway. At 62 I think I'm around 1600 rpm, I have a scan gauge that measures mpg, it's not 100% accurate so I still calculate every tank fill. The rpms don't bother my truck that much , the main thing I found is boost , if I can keep boost low, regardless of rpm I can get good fuel economy, of course this is an older engine, may not relate to MP 8s . I'm still hoping I can get this thing to avg over 7. You would think it's only 11.9 litre engine, and I'm lightweight, maybe possible.
  12. I'm curious how much the fuel additives help in older engines, was told once the improvement in fuel economy wasn't enough to offset the cost of additive?
  13. He has a radio show, he's big on fuel economy, talks about rolling resistance, aerodynamics, slowing down to 55, etc. I enjoy listening to him, I guess it's all common sense though really, he brings in guest from Pittsburgh power, I've listened off and on for years and only heard them mention Mack one time. He said he did accounting at one time for drivers and noticed Macks in the late 90s to early 2000s got excellent mpg, he actually called drivers thinking they were losing some fuel receipts, but all they really promote is 12.7 Detroit for fuel economy as the best, seems like Cummins second. Pittsburgh power won't even work on a Mack or Volvo engine.
  • Create New...