GearheadGrrrl

Those F models bring back fond memories. As for finding an F with a V8, it appears many were canabalised. Here in Minnesota an International dealer was even putting Mack V8s into International glider kits. Fallen flag carrier TCF had a whole fleet of F models single axle nonsleepers set up to pull double trailers. Reputadly they bought a lot of them from unsold dealer stock with V8s, then swapped out the V8 and replaced it with a Maxidyne 6 and sold off the V8s. Another fallen flag, Murphy Motor Freight, had a bunch of single axle nonsleeper Fs set up to pull doubles too- but those 1973 models had the 325 horse V8 Maxidyne. Murphy couldn't pull doubles in much of their area of operations in the 70s, so they didn't put many miles on them. Thusly the company I worked for back in '78 got a good deal on three of them, but one was stolen before we could even put it to work. The Mack V8 was truly a legend in those days...

Nice prototype- sure would be good to see Mack get the contract instead of Freightliner or Navistar.

The Argosy is still on the Freightliner web site, so I assume it's still available. The Condor low cabover is hiding though- it's not listed with the other models but if you do a search you'll find it. Not sure if the Condor is discontinued or the DCX legal department is just hiding the Condor to make it look like Volvo corporation has a monopoly on that market.

With the Mack and Volvo versions of the MP7 engines being so similar, it wouldn't be hard to do. It still amazes me that Volvo North America isn't offering FM/FH cabovers here- there are some big fleets that still need cabovers for some of their operations and Volvo is losing them to DCX with their Argosy. For example, Interstate Bakeries uses conventionals for most of their operations, but they still need cabovers for the Northwest where they use drom boxes and for turnpike doubles in some states. The twin steering axles would work well for droms and truck and trailer combinations too.

Even the 6 cylinder KTs were too heavy for normal highway haulage, weighing in at 3500 pounds, some 600 pounds heavier than the Mack E9 V8 and 1300 pounds heavier than the Mack 6 cylinder engine. The Cat 1693 and 3406 and the Cummins 855 were also hundreds of pounds heavier than the Mack 6, and were more competitors for the E9 V8 that clearly outclassed them. The 6 cylinder Macks competitors are really the M11, the 11 and 13 litre Cats, and the 50 series Detroit. In that competition Mack offers several exclusive features like the Maxidyne, etc.

The KT was used mostly in construction equipment, industrial applications, and even the occassional locomotive- thusly it's not a good engine to compare to Mack's.

IIRC, towards the end of the F models production in the U.S. Mack announced the availability of a set back front axle option and a high roof double bunk sleeper option too. I remember one U.S. trucking magazine tested the set back axle F, but I've never seen one on the highway. I have seen pictures of them in Europe- perhaps they were all exported? As for the MH with set back front axle, the british "Truck" magazine had a photo of one parked at the Macungie plant, but I've never seen one on the road either.

KWs and Peterbuilts were designed to be lightweight showtrucks. Freightliners were designed to be lightweight, period. IH, Ford, etc. were designed to be cheap trucks. All of the above were designed for nice smooth highways that barely stress anything. Macks are designed for the worst roads, and even no roads at all. In some ways a Mack is wasted on the smooth, flat interstates that are the natural environment of other trucks. As the old Mack ad showing an R model storming down a desert dirt road says: "Where only the strong survive, Macks thrive".

I think there is more to this than just the new tighter EPA regs- the layoffs are starting now and the regs don't take effect until the 1st of the year. None the less, I think the tighter emmissions requirements, though needed, were poorly handled. The pain would be a lot less if the requirements were phased in over several years rather than all at once.

It's a seller's market for oilfield trucks... Mack needs to bring back the 800 series heavy haulers!

A Volvo cabover with a Mack powetrain sounds to me like one hell of a truck!

That one may already have an intercooler.

I'd prefer the old cab too, and I wish they'd go back to putting the V-Mac electornics in the cab- we found our Postal Service MRs would ford over 30 inches of water without missing a beat. That said: I'll take a Granite tractor with MP7 Maxidyne @ 405 horsepower, 8 speed extended range Maxitorque, 14k and 44k Mack axles on Camelback, and a 3/8th inch single rail frame to go...

That's reassuring to hear- that Renault cab the new Volvo FE and FL are getting would be OK for the suburbs, but for inner city operations you need the heavy and easily patched flat panels of an MR. How well does the MP7 engine fit under the MR cab?

I'd expect to see it in production in a few years after the cab agreement with Mayflower runs out. BTW, we haven't seen any info on the 2007 MR and LE models yet...

Here's the business realities: 1) Macks have to be price competitive with their competitors to sell- If a Mack costs more than 10% above the price of a International/Sterling/Frightliner it won't sell and volumes will drop even further. 2) You need volumes to compete in this business- Mack's 30,000 a year isn't enough. By sharing components with Volvo the volumes rise into the 100,000+ a year range needed to be competitive. While the Mack axles, trannies, and bogie are safe get ready for a Mack with the Volvo cab- the contract with Mayflower for the conventional cabs will run out in a few years. And before you old timers blow a gasket about a Volvo cab on a Mack, keep in mind that virtually every cab mounted on a Mack chassis for over a decade now came from outside suppliers... the same outside suppliers that build cabs for International, Sterling, etc.. So a Volvo cab that meets the Swedish cab safety standards will be an upgrade!

First off, to survive in the truck building business today you need to build engines, cabs, etc. in 6 figure annual volumes. That means Mack and Volvo will by neccessity have to share some parts. Second, while I long for the old R model with a 300 Maxidyne with the 6 speed Maxitorque... I'd love to have a 2007 Granite with the 405 horse MP7 Maxidyne!

The best investment would be to expand the Mack and Volvo lines both upwards (heavier duty Granites, small to medium switching and passenger locomotives, powered passenger railcars) and downwards (RV and mdium truck chassis). Exporting Macks worldwide instead of considering them an unwanted competitor to Volvo would make sense too. While they're at it. maybe buy up Terberg and use their chassis for the new ultra heavy Granites? If the directors really want to go on a binge, if they borrowed 2 billion to add to their cash horde they could buy up Ford... but the indigestion wouldn't be worth the revenge!

Here in Minnesota the MRs were tolerable without air conditioning, but the CHs with there greenhouse windshield were a sauna. Other downsides to the Postal Service MRs are 3.90 gears with direct drive, only 60 gallons fuel capacity, and only 300 horses, and awful aerodynamics. For urban use of course these "drawbacks" are of little consequence. The Postal Service planned to replace the '99 Mack CHs with the Allison "World Transmission" with overdrive and programmable low hole, but management in their infernal wisdom never allowed for growth and ordered the same number of new trucks as they were planning to replace, and didn't buy enough tandems. Thusly a lot of the tandems and '99 CHs won't be sold off for a couple more years. BTW, thanks to that little 60 gallon tank and an air starter those CH tandems only weight 16,000 pounds with a full fuel tank and this overweight driver on board...

IIRC the Scania was a 7 litre or so motor putting out 210 horses with a turbo and 140 or so without- OK for light loads but it'd have trouble pulling a trailer. Neptune Moving had some of these with the turbo Scania and I remember seeing one struggling along at 40-45 m.p.h. pulling a big moving van trailer into a headwind. As for the Postal Service Macks, with the Allison automatic and 135 inch wheelbase they're great for local work. However, for use around Memphis you'd want to install an air conditioner!

A 500 mile day is no problem- just make sure you have a trailer on if it's a single axle. Also, the MR doesn't have a lot of headroom with an air ride seat- I'm 5'- 8" and had no problem, but some of the taller drivers banged their head against the ceiling. Noise isn't bad- the Mack engine is pretty quiet. Even with the windows open (no air conditioning) I could usually hear my handheld ham radio OK.

I've covered a lot of miles in Postal Service MRs, and the only complaint I've had is the rough ride on the single rear axle tractors. Though the MR cab looks low, there's at least as much ground clearance underneath as a 4x2 pickup has. In conclusion, MRs are a bargain because the used truck market prefers conventionals- I wouldn't be afraid to buy one. In fact, I'm tempted to buy one of the old Postal Service tractors.

One of my most frustrating experiences in a truck was trying to drive one of those wretched Renaults. Fortunately that rental died the next day and I never got stuck with it again. The Renaults were an embarrassment, and it's good to see them banished from the Mack lineup. All that can be said for them is that rotting away in the junkyards they will provide a plentiful source of spare Bulldogs for the real Macks

And in the Peterbull/Kenworthless tradition, it looks like it's only got 30 degrees or so of wheel lock too.

Which reminds me- did Mack ever sell any of the Renault buses they built with Mack engines in the U.S.?