Maxidyne

The Transit Custom and 7 liter gas V8s are already announced and sound like done deals, but we've been fooled before. The Taurus has been a slow seller with even the police fleets mostly migrating to the Explorer, but kill the Fusion when it's selling well over 100,000 a year? But the diesel is a pleasant surprise after all the electric car BS we've been hearing from Hachette lately, perhaps there's more good news to come?

Looked at the Transit Connect about a year ago, damn nice little truck- Boxy in the back like a van should be for lots of useful space but built low with front wheel drive for car like handling. Ended up getting another new TDI when the EPA finally approved a fix, but if Ford can't provide a diesel Ranger I may buy a diesel Transit Connect instead.

Nice lookin' Super B Train ya got there, and excellent MPG for running at Canadian weight limits! We've been having a discussion in another thread on the wisdom of using 13 liter engines at 60+ ton weights, and you've given us a useful data point. Here's a link to that discussion: https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/52439-little-engines-that-can-big-power-from-small-displacements/?tab=comments#comment-391481

There's also engine braking to consider, given that 60+ Ton rigs are downhill rockets that pick up speed on even slight downgrades. Engine braking is pretty much directly a function of engine displacement, and a 15-16 liter engine has a lot more engine braking than a 13 liter. This is why other than in flatlands like the Red River valley the MP8 can in no way do the job of an MP10 at the 60+ Ton weights of Canadian Super B Train rigs.

A lot depends on the terrain- For example 300 HP or about 8HP/Ton works fine at 36 metric tons (80,000 pounds) for cruising on flat roads with little traffic, but will all but lay down and die in the mountains. Most of the turnpikes, prairie provinces, and other places that allow GCWs in the range of 60 tons or so are flat too, and 500 HP there from a 13 liter engine gives about the same 8HP/Ton and similar acceptable performance. But as the article says, get into the mountains and you'll need a 15/16 liter big block with 600 HP and want for more.

Good arguments for the Maxidyne, guys! Given that NC has an 80k pounds weight limit and the rig is probably running empty one way, best strategy would be to stick with the 300 Maxidyne and swap in a 6 speed low hole transmission if more gear reduction is needed.

With the wide ratios of the 5 speed you have 300 gross HP at peak power, around 1600 to 1800 RPM, dropping down to around 270 HP at the bottom and top of the engines operating range. With a 9 or 10 speed close ratio transmission you can stay closer to peak horsepower so you'll drop down to maybe 290 HP at the shift points, but on average you're gaining maybe 10 HP for a 3 percent increase. That increase is negated by the additional power interruptions of the extra gearshifts, so really nothing is gained in acceleration with more gears.

Sorry if I was a bit too direct and sounded harsh. The 300 Maxitorque with a 5 speed works fine doing what it was designed for, but if you need more power or deeper gear reduction you'll need to swap the engine and/or transmission. That can be done, but it's questionable if it's worth the time and cost on a 28 year old truck. That said, if you just need a deeper low gear, the 6 speed Mack transmission isn't that hard a swap and will solve that problem. You could swap in a 350 HP Mack engine, but it'll need a close ratio transmission to work. Swapping in a close ratio transmission with 9 or more speeds won't accomplish much, as the 300 HP Maxidyne produces over 90% of full power clear down to the RPM you downshift at.

Your truck was designed to haul at weights of 80k pounds or less on flat to rolling paved roads. Above 80k pounds you need more than 300 HP and you need a lower 1st gear to start even 80k loads on steep hills and off road. You could swap in a 350 or 400 with more gears, but it makes more sense just to swap trucks.

A lot of this is Walmart's own doing- They won't hire enough staff so merchandise sometimes takes days to get from the dock to the shelves. The suppliers don't make much selling to Walmart, so Walmart gets their deliveries last, and the carriers hauls to Walmart aren't that profitable either. Thus Walmart becomes a logistics loser and gets the slow service they pay for.

Other than maintaining experimental controls, there was no need for the experiment- There are indoor loading docks, train stations, and fire halls where the levels of diesel exhaust are probably higher than used in the experiment. Just measure the NOX levels and long term health effects and compare them with a control group and there's no need for an experiment.

"American" investors don't exist anymore- A wise investor diversifies their holdings, and owns equities in several areas of the world. And buying Volvo to save Mack? Volvo's got a total stock value of 34 billion $$$, what billionaire can risk half that just to split off Mack? And even if someone bought off Mack, what's left... Mostly just the bulldog.

I'd think long and hard on this one- Done right, it'll cost at least $20k for a start. To get your money's worth out of the truck you'll have to run it another 20 years or so, and parts for R models, E6 engines, etc. are already getting scarce. And you'll still have a 30 year old cab, engine, etc.. On the other hand, you'll have a truck that's easier to maintain than the current models with more payload, and as it becomes rarer it may become a rolling ad for your business.

To Volvo and Geely Mack is not a truck, it's a brand to be exploited and then discarded.

These days, sometimes the best news out of Mack is no news...

Had a rental one once, it drove bizarre too- The 5 by 2 transmission with the weird shift pattern put off many drivers, but fortunately we didn't have to drive it much because it was usually broke down.

IIRC, they've got a 7 axle mixer that should be able to bridge 80k pounds. Unlike milk trucks, no 10% overload permit available though...

What we're seeing here is mass insanity in the automaker's executive suites... While trucks are top sellers and electric cars struggle to get a 1% market share, these executives are betting everything on electrification. And self driving vehicles? They need a whole next generation of 5G infrastructure that's barely ventured out of the labs and connected everything that won't be everywhere for decades if ever. Meanwhile, other automakers are concentrating on simply building better cars and trucks... They will survive and outlast Tesla, Ford, GM, and the rest of the purveyors of "bleeding edge" self driving electric disasters on wheels.

For reference, the 14 liter Cummins is about 57" long and weights around a thousand pounds less. That Cummins won't fit in the 105" BBC R model, it needed the long hood R700.

IIRC, the CH and CX were never designed to fit a Series 60- It's a longer engine and wouldn't fit in the doghouse and maybe the firewall too. Mack built the CL for that, with a longer hood to accomodate Mack V8s and "vendor" engines.

Ford is also sure the heck doing a great job of losing a lot of the current Ranger owners who have been longing for a new Ranger for too long. As the owner of a late 90s Ranger I was expecting diesel power and at least a 6' bed. Other Ranger owners want manual transmissions, serious off road capability, and some work truck capacity. But compared to my current Ranger (4WD 3.0 7' bed), looks like the new Ranger will give me a few MPG better at the loss of a useful sized bed and probably payload capacity too. I suspect a lot of other Ranger owners join me in saying "Why bother, I'll stick with my old Ranger!".

Given that Ford's PR hacks described the F750 tractor as a "trailer towing truck", I suspect anyone at Ford USA that understands big trucks long ago retired.

IIRC, the MC/MR low cabovers were designed to be built to be driven from the left or right side. And given that a right side steering MH was photographed around the time the model was introduced, I suspect the MH was designed to be built either way too.

sorry for the repeat post. Perhaps the Ranger is a victim of the new Ford CEO's recent announcement that Ford would simplify the model range by reducing the number of model variations and options?

I'm underwhelmed... Good to see the Ranger back, but with such limited powertrain options and cargo capability, I won't be buying one.