GearheadGrrrl

My understanding is that a few years back Volvo/Mack set up both plants so they could build either highway or construction/refuse trucks. This was done to balance plant workloads due to the seasonal nature of both types of trucks.

The awesome E9 reminds me of the day when I was driving for Continental Baking back in the mid '80s. I was driving a single axle International with a 318 and with the light load of bread I doubt the whole rig weighed even 50,000 pounds. Coming up on a red light, I noticed a heavily loaded flatbed in the right lane so I got into the left lane. Only when I got alongside did I see that the tractor was a Superliner with a V8 emblem. Despite the heavy load, that E9 stayed with me throught the first couple gears and then left me in the dust. Worse yet, I had the boss riding with me!

Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option. That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.

Thad, you make some good points- Navistar's new MAN diesel sounds interesting, but the details so far have been kinda vague. It's announced home, a Navistar's medium duty cab with a stretched sleeper, should be good for at least 200,000 miles. None the less they'll probably undercut DCX on price and the fleets will buy 'em by the thousands. Now with Navistar bragging up their new diesel and Paccar calling DAFs newest engine a "Paccar" diesel, Cat and Cummins must be sweating a bit. Of course, Navistar and Paccar may just be bluffing- I bet Navistar execs would love to goad Cummins or Cat into buying them out so they can make a juicy profit on their stock options... As for the automatics, Eaton has been playing with theirs for 3 decades now, and apparently still can't get it right. Mack should have bought Allison years ago, but Volvo's automatics should fill the bill, providing Volvo will let Mack have them. According to Volvo's world website their automatic is already an option on the 16 liter engine and will be coming to america in 2007. Given that the Mack and Volvo conventionals pretty much share the same chassis, one would think that Volvo could at least build one with the 16 liter motor, plop the "Mayflower" cab on top, and call it a Granite...

Maybe because Wasted Star would build them an on/off road truck with a sleeper... The marketing clowns at Volvo can't seem to get it in their heads that oil float drivers need a sleeper so they can grab 40 winks when they can, given that oil rigs are often far from the nearest motel. Now obviously Mack's integral sleeper will bolt right onto a Granite, so why not make it a factory option instead of chasing those customers to Wasted Star, Kenworthless, etc.?

Say what you will about the 2007 engines and their Volvo heritage, but compared to the rest of the industry they don't look so bad. The best seller DCX 60 series has been cut back to 515 horse and weight is up to 2600 pounds. Despite being opened up to 14 litres, the 60 series toque curve is anemic- 90% of peak power is only available down to 1400 RPM at best, and some of the power curves fall off even at 1500. It's thus no surprise that the 1800 RPM governed "economy" ratings have disappeared, with governors now set to 2100 RPM. Cat managed to keep their 625 horse C15 alive, but like DCX the torque curve is anemic and it weights over 3000 pounds. Again, governors are set for 2100 RPM and Cat is recommending at least a 13 speed transmission. Mack's MP engines put out over 90% of peak power as low as 1300 RPM, so Mack is still able to offer economy ratings with 1800 or 1950 RPM governed speeds. With no need to rev up their engines to get any power, it looks like Mack will have a significant fuel economy advantage over their competitors. With the torque to use transmissions with as few as 6 forward gears, Mack drivers will have a lot less gear stirring to do also...

I think those wheels were called "Uni-Mount 8" and the suppliers tried to push them back in the 90s. I think a few big fleets bought them, but for most of the industry it was too much of a hassle to stock two types of wheels and they stuck with the 10 hole wheels.

You guys have sharp eyes, catching those tube type rims on the legend! I doubt that Mack or anyone else offers tube type tires anymore, and certainly not with split rims. Thusly I suspect that Mack factory tow truck was built from a glider, or perhaps from a test mule or truck damaged in production or delivery that couldn't be sold. On second thought, tube type tires on big 24 inch wheels aren't totally obsolete, and I confused lock rings with split rims. I guess I've been spoiled by tubeless tires for too long! None the less, another possible explenation is that this truck is an older RD with a new style RD hood. Then again, it may be a whole collection of whatever surplus parts were laying around the factory... but it's still a thoroughbred Bulldog! BTW, used RDs seem to be going for premium prices...

I've got a Ranger too, and I swear if any pickup but the Super Duty deserved the Mack name it's the Ranger. Thursday I went hiking and twisted my clutch side ankle. I hobbled back to my stick shift Golf Diesel and with careful timing of the lights used the clutch only 4 times in the 30 mile drive back home. So today I dug out my old Ranger with it's automatic for a drive in the country. Took an unmaintained dirt road back to a beautiful lakeside parking spot by a secluded lake. The rain intensified, with the temps in the high 30s. Coming in, I noticed the water was freezing to the road in the shaded areas, while turning the stretches of road in the sun to mud. By the time I left, the road out included a stretch of glare ice with a formidable upgrade. I put the Ranger into High range 4WD with the automatic in second and the Ranger walked right up that sheet of ice with barely a trace of wheelspin!

Volvo makes a great truck for cruising up and down the Interstates. But a Volvo, even their VHD "construction" series, isn't going to last as long in the dirt or perform as well as a Mack. Volvo's T- ride is only half as clever as Mack's camelback rear suspension, Eaton/Meritor axles will never last as long as Mack's double reduction ones, and Eaton trannies with their mere two countershafts will fail when a Maxitorque is just loosening up. I'm surprised Volvo hasn't offered the Maxidyne engine and Maxitorque transmission in their Volvo trucks... But that would be admitting that Macks designs were superior. I suspect Volvo's Swedish management thinks of Mack trucks as the quaint product of a bunch of hicks from the sticks. Volvo makes a great truck for cruising up and down the Interstates. But a Volvo, even their VHD "construction" series, isn't going to last as long in the dirt or perform as well as a Mack. Volvo's T- ride is only half as clever as Mack's camelback rear suspension, Eaton/Meritor axles will never last as long as Mack's double reduction ones, and Eaton trannies with their mere two countershafts will fail when a Maxitorque is just loosening up. I'm surprised Volvo hasn't offered the Maxidyne engine and Maxitorque transmission in their Volvo trucks... But that would be admitting that Macks designs were superior. I suspect Volvo's Swedish management thinks of Mack trucks as the quaint product of a bunch of hicks from the sticks.

Sad to see... But looks like a good donor for a new Pinnacle glider kit.

Amen! We need to continually remind Mack AND Volvo dealers and representatives that if we wanted Eaton or Meritor drivetrains we'd just as well buy them in an International or Sterling and save a few thousand dollars. We need to swarm over the sleeper cab Pinnacles and Rawhides at the truck shows and dealer lots, reminding the Mack folks that we want a truck that will survive a million miles of bad roads, and then some. We need to let Volvo know that while their Volvo trucks are OK for cruising the interstates, where we drive only a real Mack will survive!

I think a lot of our perferences are based on what we've experienced. I love the looks of the B, L, and H models but never got a chance to drive one. I did get a ride in a B once while hitchhiking, even pulling an empty milk tanker it was slower than molasses and the two stick tranny occupied way too much of the driver's attention. The ride wasn't bad though. By the time I started driving big trucks in the mid 70s most all the 50s Macks had rusted away, and even working Bs were rare. But the first Mack I drove, a '69 R6855ST, was a revalation- unlike most other brands it was quiet, rode decent, and all the controls were in the right place. The Maxidyne engine felt more like 300 horses than 237, and I'm still amazed at the hills it would climb without even a downshift. Another plus was the great visibility- you could see all around and actually see where the right front fender ended. During the late 70s I got to drive an RL685LST- had a huge payload and even overloaded it still pulled like a freight train. I drove a F795T with the 325 horse V8 Maxidyne for a while- it was a riot outdragging KWs and Petes with monster Cat engines with that! I then spent 14 years at Continental Baking, herding Freightshakers down the road while dreaming of Macks. Between jobs in the early 90s I temped at UPS, got to sample IMHO the best high cabover ever built, the MH613 with the low RPM Maxidyne and 5 speed. Eventually I got on full time at the Postal Service and got to drive the '84 MC686(S)Ts, '92 MR688Ts, '97 MR688(S)Ts, and 99 CH 612s and 613s. Since retiring from the Postal Service I've tempted at UPS, sampling the CH612 and CX612. Looking back at all these Macks, I'd have to say the R model is my favorite- even thought the new CHs and Visions ride nice and are even quieter, the R has better ergonomics and is a lot lighter. The R is a lot shorter climb into the cab for us old folks too. For city driving, the MR is the ulimate weapon- great visibility all around, turns on a dime, and the easiest big truck to climb in and out of. And if you have to have a high cabover, the MH is the finest ever built in North America and maybe the world. It was light years ahead of every other high cabover (I've driven all of them except for the Argosy) DCX's Argosy may have caught up with the MH, but there pretty rare so I doubt I'll get a chance to drive one... but from the looks of it all they have to offer is a set of stairs and a bigger sleeper... which might compensate for having to stir the gears more to stay within Series 60's narrow powerband.

Looks like some of the holes I've had to back into working for Continental Baking and later the Postal Service. The Postal service was the worst, had some places that had to be blindsided and/or backed in off a busy street. The dock in the picture wouldn't be so bad if the alley wasn't so narrow- with a conventional with a sleeper you need some width to swing the tractor around.

Actually, just asking at the Post Office garage is sometimes the best way to find out what will be coming up for sale. IIRC, the local Post Office garage where the big trucks are maintained is in the same complex as the Memphis Main Post Office. The local Post Office garages sell off trucks in different ways- some have their own "used truck lot" with prices posted on the windshields, and the price is lowered every month until the truck sells. Some sell their trucks at dealer only auctions, and some post them on ebay themselves. The Post Office bought over 400 new Macks this year, and the old trucks have been gradually sold off. The original plan was to replace the '99 as well as the '97 and earlier Macks, but the Post Office forgot to allow for the growth in mail volume, so their hanging on to all the '99s and even some of the '97s. The '99s are similar, but have the 6 speed Allison with electronic controls with the "low hole" electronicly blocked off. A simple reporgramming will make the low hole available. Hopefully the Post Office will buy some more Macks and make those '99s available!

Bulldog Man, good to see you're still involved in trucking despite the CP. I've had MS for going on 20 years now, but my legs are still pretty good. None the less, my coordination isn't perfect and the Allison automatic is a big help. I've managed 10 and 13 speed Roadrangers with some gear grinding, but if I have to drive a stick I prefer a Maxidyne which cuts the shifting in half. So keep at it, and if your looking for a truck with an automatic you can't go wrong with a Postal Service Mack. Besides the automatic, the cab is nice and low and real easy to get out of. You can also reach stuff like the keys and light switches from the ground, so you don't have to climb back up just to turn the lights on and off, etc.. BTW, the test administrator was completely wrong in not letting you take the test. The DOT doesn't even care if you have legs, never mind how well they do or don't work. Even if you can't pass the DOT physical, you can apply for a waiver and still drive. I had to do that in 1991, but the last few years I've been able to pass the DOT physicals OK so I don't have to renew the DOT waiver anymore. So don't give up!

I suspect something was wrong with the demo truck with the Cat & Allison. The Postal Service Macks with the HT740 Allisons get 5-6 MPG with mixed loads in primarily city traffic. The trucks we've had with manual trannies did about the same. The only tractors that did better was some FL70 "toy Freightliners" with 6 liter Cats and a 6 speed- but they were so underspeced for the job that they'd only do 45 MPH with a loaded trailer and neaded regular engine, clutch, and tranny repairs. Our transportation manager, who knows nothing about trucks, thought they were a good deal when a contractor (Emery) gave up their contract and stuck us with them. When the new Macks came in this year the "toy Freightliners" were the first to go!

Well after 30 years, we finally get a minor restyling... My faith in Mack is renewed! Heck, they even kept the round headlights. Good to see that they didn't have to raise the cab any to fit the MP7 engine- easy access is one of the MRs endearing features. However, as long as they were spiffin' up this old Diamond T adoptee, why didn't they raise the roof a bit? At 5'-8" tall I haven't had a problem, but some of the taller Postal Service drivers have gotten head and neck injuries from banging their heads on the MR's roof. It wouldn't have been that hard to give it a new roof pressing.

I've been kicking around the idea of buying a new Mack. I'm looking for a tractor with the beef to do construction, but not so heavy that I can't haul a decent payload. Here's what I'm thinking of: Granite with set back front axle MP-7 Maxidyne @405 horsepower with 10 speed deep reduction Maxitorque 13.2 front axle and 46 rear on air ride Mack axles 9 millimeter single channel frame Holland air slide 5th wheel Automatic chassis lubrication, air starter, LED lights Mack's literature is pretty much glossy pictures and tells me little if this combination of components is even available. Compare that with Kenworth, Peterbuilt, and Western Star that will let even a one truck owner operater spec exactly the truck they want. Even Sterling, who undercuts Mack on price, gives you a pretty good idea of what's available with what. Suffice to say, Mack's vague literature temps me to skip their products and either go to their competitors or by a used Mack close to the specs I want. Any opinions?

In 13 years driving at the Postal Service I was unable to break an Allison. We had a few failures in the medium duty Allisons in the spotting tractors, but of the 60 odd Allison HT740s we had in Macks and Whites only a handful every needed rebuilding. We even had a few lose all their ATF due to broken oil cooler lines and the mechanics would just replace the leaking line, refill with ATF, and they were good as new. That said, as another poster noted, the Allison is a very expensive option if your only buying one truck. The Postal Service gets them at a much better price because they buy them by the hundreds. Of course, if an Allison is not in your budget, you can still cut your shifting in half with a Maxidyne.

I just retired from the Postal Service, and put a lot of miles on Post Office Macks. The MRs are a bargain, and I suspect the 4 speed Allison may give enough reduction- We had no problems starting loads at close to 80,000 pounds GCW on 8% grades, so at the 50,000 pound or so GVW a dump truck would see the 4 speed is probably adequate. The Postal Service MRs come with a deep belly frame, which is very sturdy but might complicate stretching it out. The wheelbase on the tandems is only 135 inches, so despite have 12k and 40k axles under bridge formula your limited to 46k GVW. The other downside is the Eaton rear axles, althought the 3.90 ratio seems about right. So it might make sense to graft on the Mack axles as well as the dump bodies off your DM...

I sometimes wonder if Volvo top management has been snowed in too long and can only see variations on their F/N cab series cruising up and down immacculately paved highways. Out in the real world, the market for oil field service trucks is going nuts- 10 year old trucks are selling for more than they sold for new. The railroads have all the business they can handle, and are embarking on a building blitz- those Western Star and Peterbuilt "high rail" trucks are showing up on tracks everywhere. There's no reason Mack can't build a better tri-drive chassis for the railroads. Heck, Volvo could even return Mack to the rails with a Volvo powered reincarnation of the Budd RDC (Rail Diesel Car)! But Nooo...

Agreed. The only transmission that can match a MaxiTorque is an Allison, and that's a pretty expensive option. Dana-Spicer, Meritor, and Eaton has nothing that can compete with the Mack double reduction axles. As for weight, the last time I saw the numbers the Mack components are actually lighter than the offbreed stuff. I suspect the fitting of all those offbreed parts to the CH was driven mostly by cost and the popular fad of "outsourceing" components.

The CH/Granite/Vision/etc. cab isn't bad- it's comfortable and I've driven enough with over a million miles on them to know that it lives up to the Mack reputation. What soured a lot of Mack customers on this cab was Mack's "take it or leave it" attitude during the 1990s. Loyal customers were told that they couldn't buy another R model with Mack tranny, rear ends, and camel back suspension. Instead they would have to settle for a CH with cab by Mayflower, axles and tranny by Spicer, Meritor, Eaton, or whoever was offering the best price that day, all mounted on a Dana-Spicer frame. About the only thing Mack on those CHs was the engine. Quite understandably a lot of loyal Mack customers went elsewhere- the sight of a Freightliner in Matlack colors should have been a wake up call to Mack management.

As a Volvo stockholder, I'm ticked off- instead of folding their tent and giving up, Volvo management needs to offer the customers better deals and sell the benefits of the new technology. Those workers are going to be needed when the market recovers, and it's stupid for Volvo to kick them out now. Volvo is also ignoring other markets that are booming, like oilfield service trucks. Surely within the parts bins of Mack, Volvo, Sisu, and Terberg they could find the parts to build the oilfield specials that are in hot demand worldwide. Lets see- we start with tripled 9 mm. framerails from the Granite, dual steering axles from Terberg, and rear hub reduction tandems from a Volvo articulated dumper. Then the MP7 with the 10speed deep reduction Maxitorque, and plop a Granite cab on top. Or if that's too much for Volvo 3P to handle, just let the Volvo and Mack dealers carry the Terberg line- the Volvo engine already meets US emmissions standards, so the rest of the requirements should be pretty much just paperwork.