Vladislav

I wish you guys good luck!

Spraying is not very time consuming. When all the prep works are done right.

15 hours ago, BottleHauler84 said:

@FarnorthMN I was looking at my 1988 MH613 with Neway air ride. It has this style rear cross member on it which is also a very popular crossmember Mack used for rear,  mid and at the cab. The part number is 9QL4551M. Mine has 2 of those back to back. They are 1/2" thick steel. 

You can find these used pretty easy. PG Adams also make these exact crossmembers and the quote i got from them was $257.05 a piece. 

 

Here's a couple internet pics of the 9QL4551M crossmember 

Worth to point out these do exist of different width. I have two R-models (which are originally differerent to a RW/MH) with those and the truck with double frame has them shorter than the single rail unit.

BTW my R-model with Neway has particulary this style for the rearmost crossmember. With shock brackets attached to it. 

Looks like ARD-125 to me (the setup in my 1988 R-model)

When I was taking my old iron apart a tag was found riveted to the RH (or LH?) airbag support plate down side (seen from the ground).

17 hours ago, FarnorthMN said:

I am struggling big time finding part numbers 

Check out PAI FKT-4736 and FKT-4737.

I've got a trouble with one rod though when PAI bushing was found loosy in the hole. Another rod pressed in Ok. So seems like there could be different vendors of rods with differences in internal specs.

A couple add ons.

There's a variation of that cross member as a double style when two similar webs are welded together for more rigidness (the 2nd pic). You can use it too paying attention to the shock brackets (using spicers again or so).

And if you find a trouble locating a used part you may contact PG Adams in Vermont. Those folks specialize in fabrication of frame rails for trucks and also offer variety of crossmembers of different styles.

What you have at the rear is a common style Mack chassis crossmember. They were used on many trucks with Camelbacks and other rears in the central portion of the chassis. Just were put upside down overthere. More correctly, the very rear crossmember on your truck put upside down to clear up the trailer pin for coupling (and that's a common practice). Those "common" crossmembers may have holes for the shock brackets. If no you just drill them. There's one point though you need to keep in mind. Frame width is different between RW and earlier Mack model such as R, U, DM, F etc (which used to use those members) Those are narrower so you need a parts from a RW2 (after 1985) or MH Ultraliner (similar chassis). Or you can use a R-model part adding spicer plates.

P.S. CH and later models have different distance between the rails too.

Drool, drool, drool!  

Outer bearings are 45280/45220 (set 413 as mentioned above)

Inners are HM212049/HM212011 (set 409)

Stemco seal either 383-0139 or 383-0239.

There's a wear ring of 4" OD the seal works against of but you don't need refreshing it if use unified Stemco seals.

My guess is the outside plate is aftermarket (repair-reinforcement). I saw many Superliner chassis and also R-models with Neway and have never seen any arranged that way. The inner plate (spicer) is the most probably factory. To compensate possible use of the inner rail. My 1988 R-model Neway arranged particulary. Single frame rail with two holes for the rod bracket attachment and 1/4" plate at the inside. ...With hard cracking near the bolt holes. So I'm looking for options for a "nice" fix. Probably will also fabricate an outer plate but less in size to look smoother. And I don't plan to carry loads by the truck.

Welcome to the group!

The truck looks very nice!

I'm pretty sure a little bit of touch up and she'll be a bomb!

Vlad

What a great look of the roads was in those days!

Now the times are different, different rigs.

Thanks the great for pictures mate

Congrats on the purchse!

The truck looks cool and definitely has plenty of potential!

The configuration is my taste's best. If I could chose a B-model to have in collection my top preference would be tandem B-75 with a B-model cab and factory V8 Mack engine!

Vlad

Pre-war Mack BG (or BJ or so) was interesting and in restorable condition. At least as it seemed to me by the pics. Sure you can restore the most any truck no matter how hard it was ruined, just depending on the efforts and expences. But particulary that rig is quite rare and of not very complicated design.

Mack changed the crank and other heavy loaded parts when they went to Maxidyne from ENDT673. Which was of Thermodyne family which was introduced to the market in 1938. Much higher torques produced by Maxidyne required much more strength of the engine components. I don't know when Econodyne was put on the scene, probably is was a kind of mod of Maxidyne engines but with more common fuel settings. 

The difference was mostly achieved by different governing in the injection pump. Thinking about the shapes of the governor inside parts it looked to me like the governor had ability to push fuel rack at low revs so the engine would pull. Ok, I'm not almost sure on the physics but if you want torque, actually - forse, for a vehicle to pull load you need fuel to be burned. There's no magic in the world. So that fuel must be delivered into the cylinders. And if you don't tread the gas pedal hard but the truck pulls well it means fuel is supplied in sufficient quantity some how. To me it seems the governor is making the trick while you hold the go pedal relatively steady.

The second big point (mentioned in discussions regarding Maxidyne engines) is the turbo. Definitely if you want to burn fuel you need air. More fuel - more air. So turbo must do its job. It was said Maxidynes had different turbo than Econodynes. Possibly. As of me I'd like to know what was principally different in them and how big that difference was. Since I read someone's posts from time to time when a certain common turbo was installed onto Maxi engine and against expectations of experts of the community the truck gets driving fine.

Injectors could be different (and they're different) since the combustion process goes at different revs so optimal spray pattern is different too. Which could be achieved by different crack pressure. There also could be difference in the shape of cams of the pump cam shaft. Initial plunger speed may be different in different engines and the injection stroke may be longer or shorter providing different intensity of combustion. Timing angles are items from the same basket. So when you want a certain engine to be set for a certain specific performance many aspects may be performed. 

Just now, cruiseliner64 said:

Our Cruiseliner has an EM6 300 HP.  I thought I read somewhere on BMT they went to 350HP or am I mistaken?

Paul

Mack went up to 2 valve E6-350 indeed. But those were not Maxidynes. Low torque curve was sacrificed for higher HP. And a bit higher highway fuel efficiency. I have that kind of engine in a MH of 1984.

21 hours ago, Mackman686 said:

Hi Vladislav,

Yeah not much we can do about the people in the world who stuff it up for the rest of us!! yes the twin steer axles and tandem drive axles (8x4) is very very common here and has been for a lot of years in every part of road transport with being able to get a decent payload with axle weights. that MH was on logs and towed a 3 axle and or a 4 axle trailer pull trailer which is still a combination that is still an everyday use and in the last 10 or so years they've added a 5th axle to the trailers for more payload.

cheers Keegan  

Two thumbs up!

Sorry to hear. Not only the trucks are getting older. Hope and wish the fix will work out well.

Thanks for posting the show pictures!

Looks like the day was great.

That V12 RS is impressive. Wonder how many were built?

And it looks like a Big Horn was parked to the right of it, no?

And... I re-read the whole thread - was that MH with V8 really assembled as late as 1999?