67RModel

It would help to know what year and engine model we are talking about here. Also what engine control system if known VMAC I, VMACII, VMAC III, etc. 

Yes Mack owned Brockway at this time. Mack purchased them in 1956 and kept them an independent operation up until the were dissolved in 1977. 

17 hours ago, tjc transport said:

my old 99 R model

This is sadly an accurate but scary statement. A 99 is technically getting old now. Time has been flying by......

1 hour ago, Mark T said:

Live tandem twin screw.

That is kind of nuts when you think about it. Could you imagine the carnage if you flipped the switch to engage Husky Drive and for whatever reason only one of the differentials went into high range? Were they air operated or electric 2 speeds? All the 2 speed Eaton "Double Duty" axles I drove in medium duty ford F700s were electric and I remember several 2 speed motor failures. 

Was the tandem axle option a single drive 2 speed rear with a "dead leg" or a live tandem both having 2 speeds?

16 minutes ago, oldspwr said:

They had a factory branch in Pittsburgh, it's listed on the first page (but its hard to read).  The address was 4367 Campbells Run Road, 15205.

Hidden to me in plain sight. Thank you for this. Interestingly I know where this is and is only about 15 minutes from where I live. The exact location is now a Hunter Peterbilt/International dealer now. What was the difference between the factory branches and dealers? I assume the factory branches were owned by Brockway corporate (Mack)? Was there a difference in what was offered (inventory, service, etc.) at factory branches vs. dealers?

I have always wondered who/where the local Brockway dealers were in Pittsburgh, PA. I have asked may old timers and nobody knows or seems to remember. I now understand why: It looks like there weren't any. This is hard to believe considering how large of an industrial complex Pittsburgh and the surrounding areas were at the time of this publication. I always though Brockway had a much larger presence than they apparently did. What were their total yearly production numbers compared to Mack?

I am having a similar problem with my mechanical E7. It’s most likely a problem in the pump and in my case some people think it’s probably the governor, which makes the most sense in my case

2 hours ago, h67st said:

That looks like a nice truck...if it runs good then $15k is a great price.

That is what I was thinking. From the other pictures the interior looks just as clean if not cleaner than the outside. The description says 95% restored so it probably is turn key. For someone who wants a collectible Mack and doesn't want to or cant do the work to restore one this one is tough to beat. 

Just curious what is the actual cost to get one recast if you know? I did not know there were companies doing this.....

Also, I guess it depends on how long you plan to keep the truck whether or not doing all the fabricating for the Eaton is worth it. Plus I think on resale (if you ever decide to do so) you will appeal to a much larger group of buyers if it has an Eaton transmission in it.....

My anecdote on this is a friend of mine owned a trucking company up until he sold out a few years ago. He had about 35-40 trucks (all Mack mostly Granites) in vocational and short line haul applications. He would generally buy used trucks and the transmission was always the wild card of the spec. They usually had Eaton 8LLs or some variety of Mack T310 or T310M. Most of the trucks got abused some more than others. He is a die hard Mack guy but never had anything good to say about the Mack transmissions from his experience. He said he could get a Fuller rebuilt for less than half of what a Mack unit costs and could get a reman Fuller unit the next day for half the cost or less of a Mack reman. Plus the Fullers could take the abuse - they just keep  going. The Mack transmissions had significantly more failures in his fleet. I know we are talking 18 speeds here but I think the overall consensus on this site and just about everywhere else is its really hard to beat and Eaton Fuller transmission and its almost impossible to economically justify a Mack transmission over an Eaton. 

18 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

I never realized that finding a government web site made you a expert on that countries electricity production

One does not have to be an expert to find basic information such as this. I used that link out of convenience and due to its credibility. I trust your government's published data as peer reviewed research done by actual experts point to an almost identical set of percentages.

18 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

My personal opinion has little weight if any in the grand scheme of things as does yours

This is the correct take. Policy makers will do what they do. The dollars and cents will follow the decisions of said policy makers and the world will continue to exist long after any of us are gone regardless of what the facts or our opinions are.

As for the rest of this I will do as the old proverb says: Let sleeping dogs lie. Or with a site specific twist> let sleeping Mack bulldogs lie. 

Why are Mack's so difficult to retune and/or add horsepower to? Is this a case of how the ECMs are designed or Mack/Volvo's corporate policy? Can't one of the aftermarket gurus crack the ECM? Sorry my newest Mack is a fully mechanical E7. I had a 12.7 Detroit with DDECII ecm and it was nothing to get more power out of it. You could have it done and an aftermarket guy or at a Detroit service center for very little money and almost no hassle. I think this could be done all the way up to the 14.0 liter series 60 with DDEC IV engine controls. You could also fairly easily have it reprogrammed after blocking off the EGR, although you have to go to an independent shop for this.

Yea so true. I work in physics/engineering for a living and study public policy as it pertains to the energy sector. I could go deep down into all the rabbit holes you got on this subject.....I think I will use the site to talk about my three Mack trucks and other trucking related topics from here on out. 🤐 LOL.

All good comments and thoughts. However, no, I am not assuming that all the leg work and analysis has not been done on the pros and cons of EVs. It has but to decry they are better for the environment and/or reduce overall CO2 output in markets like the USA or Australia is foolish. This is why I say the EV sector (at least here in the US) is driven almost exclusively on emotion, image, and perception. They do not reduce overall CO2 emissions and the dollars and cents side of it, as you say, does not remotely add up to being the cheaper alternative. People either do not understand or do not care to factor in every single input and output of the equation. The gargantuan cost of a massive paradigm shift to EVs is just spinning our wheels. All that effort should be laser focused on renewable electricity generation, which unfortunately it is not.

13 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

Already Australia produces nearly 50% of our power from renewables

This not remotely true. Per the Australia federal government's own website: https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation the percentage of renewable generation is only 24%. Give it another 20 years and you might be close 50%. Fossil fuels may be on their way out (albeit slowly) in places like the US and Australia. However, they are increasing in use in many areas of the globe, which leads back to one of my original questions.

My final thought on this topic is Duracell cars are not the answer to our (USA) immediate or intermediate term problems, to which we have many. In countries like France where they will actually have a major benefit they are an excellent option.

As a side note from looking more into Australia's domestic energy policies I was very surprised to learn the country / continent does not have a single nuclear power station while at the same time having over 1/3 of the world's uranium reserves.

On 12/23/2021 at 6:56 PM, mrsmackpaul said:

I can provide you a lot of the answers but have found every time I try and offer factual answers that apply to Australia people just want to argue so I tend not to enter into the conversation and put all of this in in the corner with the other tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists

I'd be curious to hear more on this considering how dependent Australia is on fossil fuels for electricity production. Using electrons obtained from burning fossil fuels to power cars does not necessarily equal less CO2 emitted. See 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Also, I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories nor do I wear hats made of tin foil. I agree people generally end up arguing over the political and economic sides of issues like this. There really is no "side" to be on when it comes to the science of the issue. Science is what it is, and the physics around any issue is inflexible. There is a very obvious distinction. Unfortunately issues like these are ultimately driven by political and economic decisions made by a incalculable small representation of the population, who are rewarded for using politics instead of science.

On 12/23/2021 at 6:56 PM, mrsmackpaul said:

However I can tell you that most of your questions have been well and truely thought out and the answers are pretty simple however most people just want to pick holes in tue answers and, well I just dont have that much effort to give trying to explain relatively simple answers to your questions

Sorry but no. The answers to my questions are not at all simple and require a tremendous amount of work and research across many different industries and markets to conclusively answer. Also, the actual answer to some of the questions is always a moving target because of how quickly public policy and market forces can shift.

Look I really could not care less what my daily commuter vehicles are powered by. But if the goal is to reduce net CO2 emissions then you need to look beyond a shift to EVs. If your goal is to become a market disruptor and profit heavily from peoples' emotions then a shift to EVs is an excellent path to pursue. EVs do make scientific sense at reducing net CO2 emissions in certain countries, unfortunately, the US nor Australia are not currently one of them (see France Et. al).

I have been browsing through all the albums in the BMT Member photo gallery and noticed the last 10 pages of albums have some kind of error that doesn't allow any of the pictures to show up. There are 62 pages of albums in total and the problem starts halfway down page 53. Basically all the albums on pages 53-62 have nothing in them. At one time I remember looking at these but they are gone now. Anyone else have this problem?

Sold for $3,340.00 . Doesn't a R611 have a thermodyne ENDT673C engine? Seems kind of strange you could still get a 673 engine in 1973. From the pics it looks like an excellent candidate for a restoration.

The sad thing is this will probably get bought by an exporter, shipped over to Africa, Haiti, or Jamaica, and get flogged for the next 20 years

15 hours ago, Mark T said:

Waste Management uses capped 315s on drives.  I've seen lots of roll offs and packers from The City  like that too. 

I assume you mean Erie, PA. I wonder why they would do that considering dual tandem rears running 11R22.5 tires and a drop axle are legal for the gross weight the truck is registered at. My experience with Waste Management is they are crazy budget conscience and always looking for a way to lower operating costs. Capped 11R22.5 drive tires have to be way cheaper than 315s although I have never bought 315 tires.

This is assuming the truck is not speed limited by the computer with rpms to spare.....

From what I could locate on an Allison HD4560P it has a mechanical ratio (torque converter clutch locked) of 0.67:1 in top gear. I assume the AI-350 engine is governed at 2100rpm? I have never seen or heard of using 315 rubber on drive axles but I guess its possible. If so Goodyear lists their 315/80/22.5 tires at 484 rev/mile. With all that being said, on paper your top speed would be between 72 and 73 mph in top gear at 2100 rpm.