daveigou

Yes. 3.94 is original, that's also the tip-off that it has 200 series carriers. A pedigreed CXN is rare. I also thought I saw that it had a 70" sleeper. Dave

For the vin you posted, 20002, it was originally built with a T313LR, 13 spd trans and had 22.5 tires. That would be a plus if somebody already changed it over to 24.5. Dave

Ask the dealer to pull a fuel mileage report out of the ECU. I believe it should have a 13 spd (T313LR). All current Mack & Fuller 13 spds & 18 spds are all OD in the top two ratios. It looks like this truck has 22.5 tires. With 3.94 ratio my gut tells me its legs are a little "short". Also has 200 series carriers. I don't know how & where you run, but for OTR fuel mileage may be marginal. But you as the driver can do a lot to make it or break it when it comes to fuel economy. Dave

Mileage is right, price is a little strong, must be a nice one. 97 is last year for E7 (pre E-tech) engine. Hope the trans is a 9 speed Fuller, I'm just a little less warm & fuzzy about the Mack T2090 trans. Go for it, 97 was a good year for the Bulldog. Dave

It's been a long time since Mack actually built their own drive axles. Dana used to build them until recently, now Meritor builds them, from Mack designs to Mack specs, and warranted by Mack. Dave

Interesting question Rob, I'll try to find out. Dave

Mack has just introduced their first driver controlled locking differential. The new series will be called 150/151 series, and production will begin in the first half of 2010. 92/93 series and 112/113 series will be phased out. At the last dealer meeting, dealers were encouraged to sell more Mack components. Should be interesting to see how that goes. 130409 document set1.pdf

Not too long ago a guy from Pitman Pa. had a pair of similar trucks on evilbay and on his own web site, he was down to $3,500 ea before they disappeared, they were chassis with no fifth wheels, but in the pictures and descriptions they seemed very nice, way above average. Yes, I think you're on the right track, but that's only my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Dave

Here's another picture of an "E", maybe an "EH". This truck started out much worse than the one you have. Check your email Dave

Works good

Did the electronic malfuntion light come on at all?

In this economy about the last thing I would invest in is a new truck. The cost to replace your CX with a new comparable would be about 110 - $120k depending on equipment, plus the cost per mile to maintain goes up about 300%. You pay a lot of money for two thing you don't want, Federal Excise tax, and all the emissions add-ons. Right now the first years depreciation on a new sleeper truck in some cases is probably getting up to 25-30%. We're seeing a lot of owner-operators & small fleets buying used pre EPA 2007 equipment, even pre EPA 2004. Dave

Re-sale is probably a wash here. From a dealer standpoint, even though your CX looks to be in outstanding condition, the fact is the mileage and the configuration hurts the value. If the RW and the CX were sitting side by side, I'd rather have the RW on my used lot. I also think whatever you may lose in fuel economy, and some creature comfort, will be off-set because the RW is so relatively easy to maintain yourself verses going back to the dealer every time the dreaded "lightning volt" appears on the dash. The RW has no lightning volt!! And after that all said, you can have a really good day looking out over hood of an RW. I agree with the rest here that an RW is about as good as it gets. Dave

#48 Only two more to go.

OK #50 it is! thanks Barry

Barry, It looks to me like you cannot post PDF files on the forums. Am I just not doing something right or is that by design? I think it would be very beneficial if members were able to share sales literature and bulletins and what not. I would also like to see the size limits on pictures that can be posted in the forums increased. Dave

Another thing you can do is put a 6" slope on the tailgate. It makes the loader operators keep the center of the load front more, and the gate stays a little higher off the ground when you dump, and closes a little easier when the body comes down. A 16' body on a tri axle is just too short, no wonder the truck handles poorly. Probably a proper weight distribution with the pusher axle down would show the end of the body should be about the center of the rearmost axle, or even farther front than that, and of course you can't do that. As far as moving the axles back, with a Mack camelback you can probably move the axles back about 20-30" and still be in the original frame rails, but then you also need to move the pusher back, and add to the frame rails for the body hinge, and I have mixed feelings about that. Nothing takes the place of gettin it right the first time!

I don't know the reason for the 16" gap. Sounds like a screw up to me. We like to set dump bodies with about a 10 -11" gap,and a 22 to 24" max overhang at the back for dumping into a paver, less if you can get away with it. In our region, operators prefer a 17'6" body. I think they should think about going to an 18 or 18 1/2' body in the future. Don't give up on the Mack. Every brand is going to have their challenges. I've heard Kenworth & Peterbilt are sitting on a pile of Cat engines, and are pretty aggressive on pricing, but the GU Mack's with MP power are fine products. Specing a new truck is more difficult than ever, do your homework.

The vision has the "AC" engine verses the "AI" in the Granite. Two drastically different engines. There is no comparison. The "AC" is a much better performer.

Published BOC (back of cab) interference for GU's is 9" for trucks equipped with Mackcap DPF (under RH cab door) & single exhaust, and 11" with dual exhaust. Add 2 more inches for body clearence. Penn DOT trucks use a vertcal back of cab DPF so they can mount wing plows, and that leaves about a 2-3 foot space between body and cab , which looks pretty dumb. A 10" or 11" space between cab and body is the best you can do. Watch your weight distribution on a straight truck! Starting in 2011 model year (EPA 2010), the big problem will be frame space for fuel tanks, hyd tank and so on. I hope your salesman knows what he's doing. Mack is building some EPA 2010 (model year 2011)(SCR) trucks now, and I believe all the EPA 2007 (model year 2010) line slots are sold out, and full EPA 2010 priduction will start in April 2010. Dave

An RW6 has 1/4" X 9" frame rails, an RW7 has 3/8" X 11" rails. Both frames were available with an optional 1/4" inner liner. An RW 653 has the small frame & and should have had a yellow motor. Dave

A fleet owner could convert his "obsolete" B models to state-of-the-art current looking R models for a fraction of the cost of a new R model!!! Dave

No orders were accepted after March 31st 2006 for production before the end of 2006. Trucks built during calender year 2006 were model year 2007. Dave

To expand a little bit on what Trent said, the Thermodyne designation came about around 1953, with the introduction of the "B" series, and when Mack re-designed the END 672 "Lanova" pre-combustion style engine to open chamber direct injection. The engine came to be called the Thermodyne END 673, and variations followed. The Thermodyne name also followed the gas engines in the same period, going from "Magnadyne" to "Thermodyne" I'm not sure, but I think the Thermodyne designation probably ended with the introduction of the "Maxidyne" engines, and the change over to chassis mounted charge air coolers and the "Econodyne" designation. Trent is also correct in the original Maxidyne engine came to market in late 1966, with it's relatively constant horsepower over a much broader operating range. The "Maxidyne" designation continues to this day. The three configurations of the MP engine family are "E" Econodyne, "C" for Maxi-Cruise and "M" Maxidyne. Dave