Licensed to kill

On 2/25/2024 at 1:05 PM, Vladislav said:

One thing I can tell for sure CH frame rails stand wider from each other than a B.

True but will only be an issue if using the rear from the CH as the locating dowel pins would need to be moved inboard. If just using the suspension and putting the original diff under it, shouldn't cause any issues in that regard. 

20 hours ago, Vladislav said:

That's how the parts on my truck are installed (they're not in place yet though).

Ok, an idea. Didn't you remove the shaft the pedal fits onto? As I remember two key slots in the shaft are not in line. So if you put it left side right the key slots went off the correct place. 

Yes I did remove the pedal from the shaft to powder coat it. However, the only way that reorienting the pedal lever to make it contact the clutch lever would be to rotate everything forward so the levers are nearly horizontal (or at least on a 45) and the clutch leer would hit the bell housing. I am pretty sure that they are su[posed to be vertical when at rest. I wonder if there was a change up to these levers later in production to shorter ones?. My trucks are all pre-1960 and I have no idea what year the clutch lever is. If there was a change, the first 4 digits of the casting numbers were the same and I don't know how likely that would be. 

21 minutes ago, Vladislav said:

Is the roller supposed to be pushed down? Mine (in 1945 NR) goes forward being kicked by the pad from the back side.

I am not sure I follow but both levers are pretty much vertical and the one on the pedal shaft is keyed so it can only be installed in one position. 

Here is the pic. 3” too long might have been overly pessimistic , 2” more reasonable but still, the entire pad that the roller is supposed to engage is above the roller. Thankfully, yes, the cab is off. 

34 minutes ago, Vladislav said:

Did you also use the original rear engine mounts for all the assembly?

I honestly don't remember all the plated ways you was figuring how to set up the truck the best but IF the chassis is the same, the engine is the same and the tranny is the same... the lever must fit. I can't imagine you put it upside down or someone came into your garage, stole the original one and put something else in place of it.

That is a valid question. I am using the original trans that came in the truck (triplex) and the original mounts. The motor is different but the same (E-6 in place of the 673). The lever for the clutch pedal actually came out of another B-61 and the lever that I was initially questioning came from another B-61 from a guy that has several and is restoring one of his own. Based on the casting number, comparing it to what is left of the casting number on the one that came with mu truck, and now with the measurement Larry gave me, I am confident that it is correct so that leaves the lever on the pedal shaft. I took a pic but, of course my computer won't let me download pics from my phone these days. Basically, the "pad" that the ruler on the trans lever engages is fully above the roller so the pedal lever appears to be too long by +-3". 

Thank you Larry. Much appreciated. That is what mine is also. My problem must be with the other lever on the clutch pedal shaft. This has me REALLY baffled since al the parts I have came of a B-61 and I am using the same transmission and same clutch pedal arrangement so everything g SHOULD work....but it doesn't. In. your picture, it looks lie the lever on the clutch shaft is rather short, MUCH shorter than the one I took out of one of my trucks. I will put it all back together and post a pic. Hopefully someone will recognize what the problem is. 

No hurry. If it is easy to see, a rough measurement from the shaft centre to the roller centre would be helpful. Doesn't have to be exact. Thanks

Thanks Larry. 

I fond myself lacking the clutch linkage for the stock triplex when I switched out the maxi torque trans. I was able to locate two of the three pieces but was still in need of the lever that goes on the trans cross shaft that has the roller on it. I found one and had the guy send it to me and when I received it, it looked awfully short but it apparently came from a B-61 so I figured "OK". Well, today I got around to powder coating the lever and installing the linkage and, you, it's too short by about an inch. The casting # is "4RU2158" what is left of the casting number on the one that I had (and modified to use with the maxi torque) is "4RU2_____" so I "assumed" that it was the same but apparently not. Does anyone know if there was more than one clutch linkage configuration or why this piece is not working or have a proper one that they would part with?

Don't know much about photography so maybe this is not unusual but it seems to me that the shutter speed (or whatever you call it with digital cameras) was quite fast as it captured the propeller as if it is stationary. Maybe this is just how fast all digital cameras take a "frame" but I don't recall even seeing that before.

2 hours ago, Keith S said:

 

I'm going to rebuild the transmission - hopefully nothing requires crazy torque numbers. 450ft-lb will be tough.

The nice thing about that is then you KNOW what you have. 

38 minutes ago, terry said:

the six speed is a direct trans. would not work good with the older rear ratios, the right model of the old style trasmissions are overdrive in both boxes.   terry

Excellent point. I had forgotten about that as I changed out the diff as well to one with a MUCH faster ratio. 

2 minutes ago, terry said:

Have to comment on the trans. Statement about how many gears are needed, you do need more gears with a single counter shaft trans behind the 237 or 285 engine that series of trans will not take the lugging down them engines can do.   Terry

Would that not be dependant on how much weight one intends to pull with it?. Fortunately, the triple countershaft 6 speeds should be easy to source and cheap to acquire so if that is a concern, should be easy to just go that route. 

7 hours ago, Keith S said:

So Mack-to-Mack engine to transmission bolt pattern is fairly consistent? Transmission input shaft length is generally not an issue with Mack-to-Mack swaps?

Just pulled the transmission drain plug - no oil, but gallons of water! Not sure what the plan was!

Replaced the water with mineral spirits and with lots of scrubbing got everything moving. I guess I didn't take a before picture of the transmission (just the duplex).

Personally, I would never consider running that trans without pulling completely apart and, at the VERY least inspecting if not just outright changing all the bearings. The comment was made that those tranny's are not made for the HP that the E-6 produces and that is correct. However, unless you intend to pull HEAVY loads or maybe race it in the 1/4 mile, it shouldn't matter. I would think that a good, serviceable duplex should be easy to find and cheaper to buy than rebuilding what you have. If you DO Intend to pull relatively heavy loads, heavy enough that you want a dual disk clutch, being a 283, that engine should be a Maxidyne (EM-283) and if so, a 6 speed Maxitorque was designed for the torque curve generated by that engine and should also be relatively easy and inexpensive to find. I have all that stuff, twin stick 6 speed, dual disk clutch assembly and bell crank setup for converting the linkage BUT, the shipping would probably be pretty steep and then there is crossing the boarder from Canada which may, or may not create issues (it SHOULDN'T but we are taking about Govt so). Kinda too bad, if you WERE interested, I just came back from Oklahoma and could have taken it with me and shipped it from there. BTW, I also have a duplex to sell but again, shipping would be prohibitive and I don't think you would have any trouble finding either a duplex OR a 6spd Maxitorque either locally or at least relatively close. They are fairly plentiful. Also, I]the reason I am suggesting a duplex rather than a triplex or quadplex should you search out a replacement is that, with the Maxitorque engine you don't NEED 15 speeds of the triplex, you don't really NEED the 10 speeds of the duplex, the engine was designed to run with 6 speeds (5 actually). Well, that is all that I think I know but I am a neophyte when to come to these Marks so I am not guaranteeing anything I had said to be "gospel", just what I have gathered in my recent and ongoing B-61 engine swap journey. All just opinions and worth exactly what you paid for it (maybe less) LOL. 

That looks like the aforementioned  673E that I took out of one of my B-61's as it has the starter high on the drivers side (like an E-6) as opposed to low on the drinkers side like the 673 in the other B-61's that I have. 

1 hour ago, h67st said:

If Paul Harvey saw the state of our country today, he'd be disgusted.

He was already disgusted 50 years ago but at least had HOPE that all could be corrected. Unfortunately all hope is LONG gone. The United States of America is in a steep dive and is way too close to the ground for ANYONE to pull out of it. It is not a question of IF the USA will crash and burn, it is simply a question of when and even that is not much in question by those that know how world finance works. FWIW, Canada is riding in the back of the plane. 

P.S. Merry Christmas

Perhaps this is a good place for this EXTREMELY powerful monologue (IMO)

16 hours ago, JoeH said:

Though I haven't factored in what happens to all the animals, maybe the EATR robot that eats bio-mass to keep charged will eat all the animals. And whatever's left of plant matter as it rots down.

🤠

Pretty straight forward actually. When the plants disappear, the herbivores disappear. When the herbivores disappear, the carnivores disappear. The only life left on earth will be in the ocean because, without CO2, NOTHING. survives topside. 

10 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

 

Ford-Otosan really hit it out of the park with the F-Max.

Looks like Scania and MANN hit the ball, Ford just went to where it landed and picked it up. 

13 hours ago, mowerman said:

Thought I would add thier pretty much comparable to any fuel tanks as far as prices thier not nessasarilly overpriced 

True. I had a couple round aluminum tanks made for my B-61 and the price was pretty much the same after dollar exchange and such as the new squares offered by Watts other than shipping. 

They appear to be known for rusting out along the bottom back of the cab so that is the first place to look. However, in my limited experience having fooled around with 4 of these cabs now, another place to look is the bracket that bolts to the lower rear portion of the fenders (just in front of the fuel tank). The bracket itself is fairly robust (about 1/8" thick) but the part of the cab that it bolts to is made of sheet metal and appears to be prone to rusting out. Of the 4 cabs that I have one was in pretty good shape there and the other 3 were all rusted out. It is not an obvious place to look and is a bitch to access in order to fix. 

WATT's sells them brand new in both sizes.