Vladislav

Best wishes!

Neat scenaries. Especially I like the way the orange truck is parked Any relations of the WW2 Dodge and the park area? A military memorial? Thank you for spending your time sharing that. And I hope we will find girls at another place trouble-free.

Taking to account your experience with the ink the counterbore is in squareness with the bore. And making it parallel to the top deck would be mistake. On the other hand that fact states that the whole bore is not perpendicular to the crank shaft. But the imparallelnes is 0.002, so the total imperpendiculatness along the length of the piston travel must be about twice more (as more as the stroke length larger than the liner ID). And this figure to be count is less than the gap between the piston and the liner wall. So looks like not a big trouble. As for the imparallelness to the deck (what means to the head surface) I suppose the firering would compensate it easily. The liner insquareness to the crank could rest some traces on the piston walls and compresson rings. Something like uneven wear. I would look over the piston and both check out the gap of the rings being put into the original sleeve and relate it to the other cylinders.

Me either.

I would try to measure up the imparallelness, or more correctly to say, the rightness of the angle between the deck and the bore wall. Might be done by some common tools. You said 0.002 on the lower step. But the bore's (and the liner's) heigth is much more than ID of the bore, so the measurment along the wall would be more visible. A friend of mine has Scania with D14 engine, which has a similar block with Mack 865 or 866. He had nearly 2 millions km on the clock when got a trouble with a liner set down. The matter was a worn (or pressed down?) lower liner seat. From talks he learned it's a common issue with those engines. Repaired it together with some other bores using counterbore tool and shims. Not sure he had that lower bore step out of parallel.

Cost seems reasonable and the pics would help selling them for sure. Any Lund's for a MH Ultraliner?

Nice area wievs. The copper mine is impressive. And looks like a hot day. Thank you for sharing this part of the world.

I like that red model. Upps, I mean red R-model! And the eight legged cow. Again, I don't mean red legged cow.. A question. How much time does it take to plate such a meat loaf having just a pack of beacon slices?

Welcome to the forum!

The rivets are made of low-carbon soft steel. To be shaped up by pressure. That's why you (and me either) drill them easyly. When re-riviting my frame I ordered making new rivets in a machine shop. Had to buy a stock of sutable steel for, being guided by general recomendations on that matter. https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/29254-frame-is-ready/#comment-155896

Wow! Looks like a very nice day you had there. All those animals are really attractive. And it's nice to see the MH actioning.

It's not a bumper to bumper traffic. You had a gap of almost 8 yards

Looks like a great environment for a vacational trip. Just drooling on cruising such roads with a truck. Not sure the weather is that beautiful all the time though. Thank you for sharing this part of the world.

The B is B e a u t y!

Welcome on board! And also what they said about pics !

One extremely rare beast. Thank you for sharing. Once some long while back AC Mack of the same company showed out on here. Was in a very good shape for its age either.

On a side note - why did you need a wrecker to work with asphalt ??

So does this means a Vision of 2003 had Mack frame rails and of 2005 Volvo ones? Or had they been produced in parallel for some while being offered as an optional choice?

Starting from which model? Pinnacle with MP engines?

That's a really cool story! Paulk, thank you for posting it on here. I sure saw those images on the net since they were NR-related but haven't read the article.

If you check evil bay there's plenty of repair manuals for CRD92/93 carriers which should be installed on your Superliner if the axles are Mack.

Hope no damage excepting your wife's sleep termination

I would say you have everything about Ok. Actually your alternator gives 14.8. What I would say is a bit much. As I remember from theory the optimal charging voltage is 13.8-14.2. To explain the matter of your issue I have to lay out some theory again. Any current goes over a circle. Here we speak about the charging current. Starting from "+" pole of the alternator it goes to the "+" of the battery terminals, than passes both batteries (parallel), passes "-" terminal, follows through the negative cable to the chassis and the engine block to the alternator's body where alternator's coil provides it to the "+" pole again. And from this point to the next circle. So you noted the current passes every cable and connection included. Every part of the cycle has some resistance. The current passing a particular part affects loss of voltage. By Ohm's law I=U/R, so U(Volts)= IR.. As you can see the loss would be more if the resistance is greater. Or if the current is greater also. Taking this to attention we have: If you measure the voltage at the alternator's pole (and it's body) on a test bench you see 14.8V. In this case the current from alternator goes through your tester only and is minor. The voltage loss is minor either so you see full volts. Than you attach the alternator straight to the batteries. The resistance of the circle consists of those straight (and good) wires. So there's a drop from 14.8 to 13.2. I'd say the cables you used in that case were not fatt enough. When you tested your truck originally with the stock wires (and long unserviced connections) you got 12. Than when you disconnected both the batteries (and interrupted current through them) you saw 14.8. About neither current went through the alternator excepting very small which passed the gauge coil so you saw almost all what alternator could produce. There's one more point (if you still have some power to follow my brain-burning tale). Your tester shows voltage (or a loss of voltage) exactly between the points of the circle you put test wires to the ends of. What this mean. When you put your tester onto the alternator you see the alternator's voltage (actually including its internal loss on it's coil). But it produces so you see all it produces. When you check on battery(s) you see the voltage loss on it (the part of alternator's produced voltage which actually PROVIDES CHARGE). Talking formally this voltage is also a loss. Just a useful loss. If you put your tester between the battery pole and alternator pole you would see the loss along that part of the cables. Interesting question is where the stock gauge is attached to. Usually closer to the battery poles to show how batts do. But if you pretend to know WHAT IT ACTUALLY SHOWS you should learn the points it is attached to. One more side of the story. If you look again at Ohm's law you can see voltage (loss of voltage in our case) depends on current either. This explains for example why you see a drop on V gauge when batts are discharged. Alternator produces more current to charge them up and they're "hungry" to accept. But all the charge circle has its own resistance of cables and (poor) connections. Having existing resistance and higher current at the same time the voltage loses more on those resistance. As a follow you see lower Volts at the batteries - the rest of what alternator gave minus those increased losses. Sooo... If you'd like to see higher number on the clock check out all the wire connections along the charging circle. Including connections of the alternator to the engine block. Minor but important note. If you noted I mentioned battery's internal resistance. As long as the current goes through a battery, there's some voltage loss in it. And it gives some drop in what gauge shows. So you will always saw less Volts on your gauge with batteries connected (and being charged) as on a "naked" alternator. Now on a positive note (from which I started) - there's not such hard matter of the issue. When you batteries are good (and being not deeply discharged) they don't require strong charging current. Less current means less loss of voltage. So as higher the batts are charged as less meaning in the low voltage you observe. Hope you haven't damned me seven times reading all that this can help

Might be missmatch of hoses. You should look well over the piping diagramm to count out the issue.