Vladislav

I see you didn't surrender without a fight. Self fixing is not only a money save but a huge time save in many cases. Not always though and we can't go beyound our possibilities. I guess the issue was the starter. Or even just the control power supply to it. If the engine was stuck and the starter was trying to force it to spin you would hear a click and observe extreme drop of voltage in the instrumen cluster.

Good point, girls are more worthy than goats in the most cases. I found a way to smallarize pics on the phone when really needed that. I was posting from my trip the recent time having no computer handy. What I did was sending a pic via Whatsapp to myself. Found that possible, probably had to make a contact in the phonebook with my own number, don't remember already. Than further after recieving overwhatsapped images I had to save them in a folder in a gallery since they didn't go to "Whatsapp images" for some reason. Than had them taken from that folder and uploaded on the site. They didn't go in a certain preferred size I would like to but became being something like 300Kb. Pretty reasonable in relation to 6-7Mb my (crazy or stupid?) phone uses to make.

Sounds very promising. All the community is highly intrigued! BTW have you collected the grille opening trim? It was avalible from PAI, at least recently.

Sounds (and looks) good. There were also Western Contractor style hoods, with a different grill, actually a net. As I recall there was a talk of they were shorter.

I have done a bit more complicated job in the past. I didn't want to rest my old posts with illustrations removed completely. But got to the limit on the attachments. So I copied those files on my computer, re-sized down to some tiny size (50-100kb) and uploaded them back deleting the originals. But I didn't post really great amount of pics during the times. Starting from that point I try upload already resized images. But can't smallarize pics in a phone, probably need some software I don't have.

Sorry for the starter fail. I guess the truck is automatic. Could be push started if it's a stick. And even driven for a few days that way just by parking on a grade. Also nice to see the progress over the new place. The BBQ shed looks well built. And I really like the squirrel. It's seldom to see one with a water hose.

P. S. Inner rails are 1/4" thick, each one. Same thick as the main rails in many cases. 1/8" is too thin for that application.

I didn't work with B-models but noted such a fact on a R-model. Ok, R and RD. Transmission mounts looked pretty similar, I'm even sure the casting was the same. But those off a RD were milled off more over the mounting surface to compensate the thickness of the frame inner rail. My R-model has a single frame and its original tranny mounts had that "excessive meat". So I couldn't use RD mounts or would need to add spicers as DCW mentioned above. Also I got a trouble using a rear crossmember off a single axle R-model to be installed into a double frame, also R-model. Just couldn't fit it in since it was wider. At the same time some spots utilize spacers, that's true. For example a bracket for a torque rod attaches to the frame rail with a spacer. Looks like you don't need it if use that same rod and the bracket with a double frame. I talk regarding a R-model again, to be clear.

I would also think so. Or better to say I just don't see any other reason. Grease overfill is excluded. May be normal in very theory but I wouldn't like such way of things definitely. So seems like setting some reasonable minimum play is the way. Speaking the terminology I also use to have that feeling of getting more and more complicated the more I try to say clearer. I admitted on the forum a few times that American technical terminology is a kind of mess in many cases with plenty of terms of slang origin. I can state this relating to terminology used in Soviet Union design documentation. Although the most Russian technologies of 20th century were based on Western (mostly US and German) designs local engeneers made large job investigating and systemizing the info which followed by designing and establishing strict industrial standards. Those also conteined standartized names for certain parts, units, assemblies etc. Also it was prescribed of what should be called as a part, what is a unit or a assembly etc. Very important point when you read a (good) book of those times and you see a name (a term) used for a certain part that exactly same name would be used all over the book including text in pics, schemas and specifications. Unfortunately modern literature doesn't follow those standards being translated (inprofessionally in many cases) or just written by undereducated specialists.

Ok, figured. When you mentioned a "carrier bearing" I got thinking of a bearing in a carrier, a pinion bearing. I always surprized the fact the axle reducer unit is called a carrier (and we even spoke about that on here). The "diff" term also doesn't sound technically correct since there are gears in the carrier also, not a diff only. But the things are as they are. I think determining pre-load in a press or a vise is the right way to go. To my understansding for the particular task you have very light pre-load is needed. Fat or oil used in the original bearing was of much lower standards than modern materials so a bit of pre-load wouldn't make damage. At the same time play may give space for potential vibrations. And I doubt you need extensive pre-load having no plans for really big milage.

If you want accurate figures for your model project don't use sizes measured off a diagram. They're drawn schematically and in the most cases not up to scale. Factory blue print would work but they're for a certain part or a unit, not a whole rig. Another way of scaling off is a photo taken from a big distance. For perfection it's a photo made by yourself using zoom. Sure such approach is seldom achievable so pics from the net makes the job. Look for good ones made at right angle. You need one known measurement (for example the wheel base or a tyre OD) which allows you to count out others by proportioning. You're right The Most of Mack models were offered with different wheel bases. MH was not an exclusion. BTW right at the moment I'm on a hunt for the MH wheelbase chat. Need it for my big scale project. Haven't found any so far but noted a few exact figures. Including that one pointed in the diagram you posted. That figure of 4140 mm means 163 inches. Other figures I previousely saw all were odd numbers (for RW's and CL's too). But for example R-models (along with a few other older ones) are even. This way I suspect odd number for the wheelbase is a feature for MH/RW/CL chassis. If I'm not wrong Mack used to offer a line of wheelbases to choose from with a certain step. Particulary it was 4 or 6 or 8 inches. If I know that step exactly I would be fine with what I'm looking for. Unfortunately IDK yet. Speaking the spring brackets style and other chassis components I have a bunch of pics made from under trucks. I just don't want to flood up the forum with such content which is doubtly interesting for the most of the folks on here. Also they images are heavy and upload capacity of an account is limited (ask me how I know). So PM me your e-mail and I would send what you want to see your way.

Hope for the deal to be done. So what the theory says on the crytical speed? Is it higher for fatter or heavier shaft? Or did just that "seat of pants" engineering work out well enough? And what's up the bearing temp? Do you worry on extra stress put on it by larger shaft? Or did you just serviced it and wanted to check?

I made a measurement - the distance between the rails at the very front of MH chassis is 1075 - 1076 mm. Measured over outer sides of the ends of the rails. Answering the other question that MH/RW2 chassis has its unique style and has nothing in common with a Volvo frame.

Sounds like the wind blows to the better. I was just going to ask did you have another dry cracked tyre for the swap?

Sh*t happens indeed. Sorry to see the tyre didn't hold on enough miles for you. Wonder which size a can of Fix-a-Flat is needed for the case. My guess is 33" OD 12.5" tall or larger.

A bit more of useful info

Where are you in the EU? There are a few MH's in The Netherlands and you can usually see them at a Mack day fest. It takes place in authumn though. Or you may travel to my place if such a trip is comfortable for you nowadays MH/RW2/CL chassis is wider at the front. I'm not ready to tell the exact figure, it needs to be measured. Or you can relate it to a truck width by distance between the bumper bolts. You need a good pic of a truck with a bumper removed. Frame rails keep constant distance of 862 mm (measured at the outer sides) over them from the rear end up to nearly the rear point of the tranny. Than further up front they get to the outer sides making the frame wider. Speaking the higth and thickness of the rails there were 2 options. RW600 and standard MH600 had 238-239 mm high boss with 84 mm flanges bent of 6.35 mm (1/4") steel sheet. Factory specs indicate 0.24" (6mm) thickness (meaning it was a metric frame). But actual measurements of my two MH's showed 6.35 not 6.00. One of the trucks was made in (late) 1984 and the 2nd is 1991. The 2nd option was a heavier frame of 274mm high channel with 86 mm flanges 10 mm thick (9.6mm I guess being 3/8") That was a standart chassis for RW700 and optional for MH600. As I understand MH700 has never took place along models offered by Mack. I have many detailed pics of MH/RW chassis. You may PM me for sending some of your way. Recently we discussed that same subject in another thread, you can see a few pics there too Vlad

Cool to see! Thanks once more!

Ok, the plan got a change. Not to the East coast but Houston TX.

Get the tyres off and ship the rest to NJ for the cost of them?

They look as an attractive deal indeed. Special thanks for the pics. Just quite long ways from the East coast. Acually I have plenty of troubles to import a truck from the US at the time (mostly due to known circumstances). Might jump into the fire if the stars line up really smooth. But better to avoid new entertainments and concentrate on the projects in progress.

Pretty sure that's similar setup to what was used in RD or RW. Watt's had it in the online store, not sure it's still there avalible, needs to check out.

Steel dash is welded into the cab structure so you would need a grinder to make that swap. Probably possible if you add a few steel mounting brackets plastic dash is supported with. But on my mind (and many other's on this forum) steel dash is more exotic and rare. So seems more interesting to keep it the way it is. Speaking the cab lengthes early (pre-73-?) cabs were shorter than later ones by 3 inches. Both DM and R. That more relates to the driver place though since DM cab has a kind of a dog house at the right to accomodate the rear portion of the engne. So a co-driver anyway has less leg room in a DM (off-set cab) than in R or RB/RD etc.

Yup, as said above! The DM looks very clean. And one interesting A-model concrete mixer. I see it's stored inside. Is that any museum or a private collection? Vlad

Great news!