Big Mack Truck

1 hour ago, Joey Mack said:

E-7's ? short blocks from Mack???  Hell,  I tried to get an E-Tech re-man and was told to  send my engine to the re-man center and IF they can rebuild it it would be 6-9 months...  because they didnt have that engine in stock...  Its no mystery why I use PAI parts,, 

In the last 2 years I was quoted between 18,000 ans 19,000 for a rebuild in the Salt Lake city area. You think it could have different answers based on location?

6 to 6.25 is a very agreeable economy, I am a huge numbers guy. I calculate my fuel costs by 100,000 miles annually and average the price at $4 per gallon. Thats an achievable goal of 65,000 dollars fuel cost if everything else is reliable with the motor. I would rather have the ability to keep trucking than save 7 to 8 mpg

1 hour ago, Mark T said:

'04 MP7 was an excelent engine. About the biggest issue was injector cups, and there's no update on them (like going to conicals) also, wirinharnesses were no where near life of chassis. Power wise, they were way more driveable than the last of the grey engines. Very good throttle responce and off idle torque.  Remember, compared to the ASETs and AMIs.... a good running Briggs and Straton seemed powerfull.  They aren't a powerhouse , like an old E7 427 or a Etech 460 would smoke them on a grade.  Fuel wise, came down mostly to the right foot. At @ 73000/75000 pounds in the 6 to 6.25 MPG was realistic.  I had 2, they both had a long life with minimal needs. I actually have a brand new one sitting here in my shop too. (yes, brand new Remack on the skid).  All and all, by no means the worst engine choice I ever made.  

Mark this is extremely relevant. Thank you so much for your input. I would like to add that I had an e tech 460 which I really loved but I got it at the end of its life expectancy. Did you run with 460 e techs? My ultimate goal is overall owner operators ease of use. I want to take the truck and run it at around 65 mph typically. Down time has been my most expensive factor during my time as an owner operators. I once spent a month in a hotel in Tulsa awaiting repair and I learned to fear the emissions equipment. Which engine is more economical? E tech vs mp7? I just assumed the mp7 was going to be the next piece in the puzzle therefore more economical. But I do understand it has some limitations, I dont mind being slower up the hill, which is more economical? My engine brake was the most useless thing with the E tech and that is a very big deal to me. Is the mp7 better with Jake braking?

I would be interested in your mp7 are you entertaining selling it?

You say the d12 is better than the mp7? Im gonna have to check into it. I never weighed that option. 

Does anyone have real world numbers that they can throw in with comparison between it and the old engines? Mpg averages and weight that they haul at typically with said mpg?

I feel that the improvements in fuel efficiency and low end torque over the e tech make it a good candidate. I feel as an owner operator the downtime would be minimal with just an egr failure to worry about compared dpf and scr in addition to the growing cost of def. 

The MP7 is an 11-liter engine available in the three Mack engine families — Econodyne, Maxidyne and MaxiCruise — in six horsepower ratings between 325 and 405 hp, with torque ranging from 1260 to 1560 ft/lb. In 2006, the MP7 will be offered in the company's new Pinnacle and Granite models in an EPA'04-compliant configuration. Additionally, the base design has the key elements to bring it into compliance with the 2007 standards.

I would like to know if anyone here has experience working with this engine. I have a question centered around updating a 2006 MP7.

This article boasts about some improvements in the overall efficiency of the engine.

https://www.macktrucks.com/powertrain-and-suspensions/engines/mp7/

Is there anything that you have seen being done with these engines during rebuilds where I could incorporate the best parts of the new improvements?

Only reason I know it went 98 was the eld said its record top speed and my wife yelled at me. Ahahah

I think youre onto something. My last mack had a 3.73 ratio and it felt like a real racecar compared to the 2.64 international that I got up to 98 once in that long stretch of nothing in Wyoming. 

5 minutes ago, Joey Mack said:

I also use PAI for transmission repairs as well,  Rear ends got rebuilt at another shop, also with PAI parts.  

That is something I find quite comforting. 10 trucks using those kits is quite the level of field testing and confidence 

1 minute ago, Joey Mack said:

Have you searched for the kits from PAI?

Yes, I have. They are super low cost! Is that what you guys here are using nowadays? My thought process is I can't afford to be cheap because it costs more typically.

On 3/5/2024 at 3:37 PM, The Heinz said:

Hey ya'll, I've been lurking long enough I figured it was time to make an account. I've been a parts salesman at a Mack dealer for 3 years now with 3 years of Mack fleet technician experience prior. For the past 3 years I've been working as the shop parts salesman here, which flowed nicely with my previous experience, and has enhanced my knowledge and love for old Macks. Sadly, the oldest truck we've had so far has been in the early 90's, but my love for the days of semis long past keeps me invested in the field. That and my ever-increasing hatred of Volvo and the bastardization of the Mack name. Yes, a 26 year old is allowed to have good taste. 

I'll try to browse the Parts Wanted section to see if there's anything I can help with, but unfortunately my resources only cover trucks that are so old. Anything to help the cause! 

Would like to know what the deepest youve gone into the 90s with mack parts availability. I have been creeping around on marketplace and thinking about buying a truck with an E6 in it, does mack still have rebuild kits for them?

I had an international with an isx15 and an automatic transmission that I wouldn't dream of trying to haul anything in the mud with. I had half of my axle in the asphalt and I had to call a tow truck because I couldn't rock it out of the little tiny bit of mud. Still love that auto transmission in traffic so I'd happily pay the 500 for the tow but it was very discouraging knowing my 13 speed would easily be able to escape the same thing

Never operated a mechanical mack, I did have a mechanical cummins but it was the 8.3 in an RV. I liked the simplicity of it, I get excited about the thought of making this machine work hard and efficiently. But I also love my speed, how am I supposed to reach interstate speeds and run this thing!? Unless I run that strip of Tennessee where its 55mph for trucks. Anyone manage to make the e6 run fast and get good mpg? What i am asking for is I want to make 6mpg. Anything extra im happy anything less is not very cost effective. 

9 minutes ago, fjh said:

Its impressive ! By the way we had A customer years ago that bobtailed his dump truck to from Vancouver Island to Oregon ! And achieved 9 MPG! E6 Super high rears 3:87 ratio I believe! We also had A customer that Achieved  7-8 mpg with a  440 V8 long haul Both these guys really worked hard at it thou ! focus was on fuel mileage!  

I was looking at the V8 and i see that they are harder to find parts for and squeeze fuel efficiency out of. I want to limelight as a trucker in my free time and be able to pull decent fuel economy with it, but I've been spoiled by my modern trucks and the speed of an etech 460. Speaking of the 460 isn't it the same thing as a e7?

I want to mention that I have an ENTIRE donor truck. The computer modules are running and everything is alive and well for the most part. My question is how expensive could a custom harness and programming possibly get if I already have everything off of a running truck?

10 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

If you're interested in swaps and conversions I'd look into getting one of those Edison electric kits when they come out. Sure you'd have to wire in the engine and hybrid system but then you'd be getting a truck that'll get 10+ mpg and a ton of power and torque. 

I know some purists would kill me but I'd really be interested in seeing an Mh with the Edison system. Coolest looking thing on the road and getting the best MPG would be a dream!!

That sounds like a VERY cool suggestion. I am jumping straight on the web to creep about this conversion idea.

10 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Programing electronics will be a nightmare! Those computer modules cost a fortune and then you need to figure out or find someone to tune them. MH's are known for having some wiring gremlins as are most fiberglass construction vehicles, but it's ok when they have the mechanical engines. Just to have an engine harness made that could reach all the way into the cabin of a cabover (unless maybe you can find a euro cabover harness) would be at least 5-10k.

I'll go slow and take the old E6 engine any day! 

I was looking at an old forum about the e6 and e7 efficiency vs their rivals (mainly cummins) and it boasted that the mack gets between 5 to 6.5 mpg and I was impressed until i saw how slow they had to go to reach those numbers!

There's absolutely no contest vs cat engines you either get speed of a cat or efficiency of the bull dog.

The MP7 makes more horsepower and torque and it has parts support from Mack, so that would be a pretty big deal for me. The engine it currently has is running perfectly fine so it would have to be something that i could justify, and also the floor is open to suggestions if you have a "better" engine suggestion that is more practical or would like to present a huge hole in my plan that could derail this idea.

Ok guys, I have been creeping around on marketplace and ive fallen in love with an MH613. Its reasonably priced and it has the E6, I know its a great engine, but hear me out... I want to put the MP7 in it. Its roughly the same displacement AND AAAAAND!!! ive seen someone stuffed a 3406 Cat inside of one of these.

I dont know if any of you guys are still here but i am once again revisiting this topic. I obsess over this engine. Thank you all for the great input. I was referring to this article Mack Introduces Fuel Efficient 2017 MP Series Engines | OEM Off-Highway (oemoffhighway.com) it would be really nice to get a little more efficiency out of this wonderful engine. every penny counts during this freight recession and if i can get a little more power and efficiency come rebuild time i want to have it. I am going to mention it when the time comes at the dealership but I am glad that you guys talked me off the ledge in the beginning. Very grateful for all of the input you fellas gave me.

46 minutes ago, Onyx610 said:

04 epa mp7?

They made it for the first year of production in 2007