GearheadGrrrl

I wouldn't go near 'em- the new owners have never run a bakery and have no idea of how to run a bakery. The actual "bakers" are being supplied by temp agencies, and they have no distribution system to speak of. The new owners should have done like Franz baking did- bought the whole company in the Pacific Northwest, including trucks and many of the workers. They've been back in production for over a month now with no problems.

Given that a new one like that would run close to $200k, you might want to consider rebuilding. How's the frame and cab?

Neither one of them is a totally an American company- They're both owned by shareholders who can be anywhere in the world.

Gettin' hard to define an "American" company- Most of these companies are owned by shareholders, who are mostly big institutional and investment funds. As such, you might find that what appears to be an "American" company is majority owned by a european pension plan and chinese investment fund! As far as Cooper goes, they've previously bought Avon, a british firm that for all I know has factories in India as well.

Could try switching to a low back seat... Trucks fitted with the high back seats tend to have their rearward travel limited so the high back doesn't knock the back window out!

I own Cooper stock so I'll make about a 40% profit on the deal, but still sad to see it happen... Even though Cooper wasn't totally an american company since they bought Avon tires a few years back. Both companies produced some excellent tires, Cooper for light trucks and Avon for classic cars and motorcycles.

To give you an idea of the V8's power, I was doing the shuttle run between Hostess (CBC)'s Minneapolis and Rochester, MN bakeries back in 1980 with a '79 IH cabover with a Detroit 6V-92TT at 307 HP and a 9 speed. Pretty fast accelerating truck, especially that day because this was the last shuttle of the day and only half full, so the total weight was maybe 40,000 pounds at most. So I come up on a red stoplight and there's a flatbed ahead of me with a load of structural steel, obviously loaded to the 80,000 pound legal limit, so I get into the left lane. Surprise! I could only stay even with him up to 30 MPH or so, and then he pulled ahead. Shoulda known better than to try to pass a Superliner with an E-9 V8, even though he was pulling twice the weight my truck was!

But if it wasn't ugly, the customers wouldn't know it's a Renault! But look on the good side- It'll probably sell for a few thousand Euro's less than it's Volvo twin. Customers like my distant relatives that used to own Sluyter Logistics would buy the Renault instead of the Volvo version of the F series and save a bundle!

Good move- the airhead BMWs are like old Macks- a good one is a bargain, but a busted up one can cost more to repair than the selling price of a good one.

Last weekend's BMW selection was an '07 F800S with 53k miles, got over 60MPG with every tank. Also available in my garage are a '92 R100GS, '84 R65LS, '83 R80ST with sidecar, and '00 Moto Guzzi 1100 Quota with sidecar.

Rode a thousand miles over the weekend to a BMW motorcycle rally in Iowa. 370 miles down there on thursday, a hundred miles each friday and saturday around the Iowa City and Anamosa area, and 450 miles today riding home via Minneapolis/St.Paul.

Until Volvo took over, Mack conservatively rated their engines power- for example, the 2004-2006 Maxidyne E7 at it's highest rating was rated as 370 HP, but that was at governed speed- it actually put out 405 HP at a more usable 1600 or so RPM. And yes, they did pull that well- I've driven 237s that ran with the competitors 300s and 285 and 300 horse Macks that ran with the competitors 350s. And the E9... Nothing could touch it!

Rode a bit over 500 miles on the Moto Guzzi with the sidecar to the SKUNKs (SideKars Up North Klub) rally in Wisconsin. Got there just as the rain started friday, rained most of the time 'til we broke camp sunday morning... Had a great time anyways!

Your talking payload, I'm talking gross weight. First question- do your customers have a preference for a certain type (tri-axle, quad, etc.) of truck? Then unless they're being unreasonable that's probably what you should get. Second, if you're customer has no preference, are you getting paid by the ton? If so, you want to run at the legal 40 ton weight gross limit with a tractor-trailer or truck and pup combination.

IIRC, Ohio weight limits are pretty much determined by "formula B", so the quad axle will give you about a ton and a half more payload. But even with a long wheelbase you'll be limited to about 32 tons GVW or so, I've driven an E7-300 at those weights and it was no slouch. In fact, it was only when loaded up to 80,000 GCW that the 300 felt a bit underpowered.

What kind of weight are you going to run at? Unless you run nothin' but mountains, anything over 10 horsepower per ton is wasted.

Subscription fire services are pretty rare in Minnesota- there was an incident where one up north let a house burn and that caused quite a backlash.

$250/year for our town of 39 people. Both departments are public volunteer departments headquartered in larger towns about 6 miles away. Each provides fire service for their own town and several surrounding smaller towns and townships. They ask each of these surrounding towns and townships to make a small contribution.

Well, after our old fire service provider doubled their annual fee from $247 to $500, we ended up switching to another nearby town that offered us a year's service for $250. I haven't seen their equipment, but one of the other council members is a firefighter and says their fleet is no worse than the previous providers. I hope we don't have to use their services, and if I get rich I'm gonna leave these volunteer fire departments some Macks!

Sounds like you want to race trucks rather than make money, and racing against 15 liter Cats with an 11 liter Mack you're going to lose anyways. Might as well keep it close to stock with a reliable 300 to 400 HP and let the Cat boy racers enjoy their moment of glory in the left lane while you take the right lane to the bank!

First off, this is a vocational application with presumably no aero aids, etc., so 5 MPG at 80K GCW wouldn't be unexpected. Second, are you sure it's a 370 HP rated engine? Might be only a 300 and the used truck salesman BS'd!

Not exactly a reliable source: “For half a century, the heart of every Mack truck has originated in Hagerstown,” said Kevin Flaherty, Mack senior vice president, U.S. and Canada. Says something of some of the current management that this exec managed to rise that high in management without knowing about the long history of "vendor" engines in Mack trucks that continues to this day. Given that some of Mack's top management doesn't even know the basic history or even current operations of the company, it's becoming hard to take anything that comes out of Mack/Volvo's PR operation seriously. Add in the recent flubs like putting a picture of the wrong engine in a PR, and it's getting to the point where Mack/Volvo might as well shut down their PR operations and let us run it. Granted, some of the banter in "odds and ends" might put off export buyers, but Volvo doesn't want them to know about Mack anyways...

On my ride in SD yesterday I saw at least a dozen 13 axle grain trains and the 17 axle side dump train I posted over at www.gearheadgrrrl.com. SD has no maximum weight limit or overall length limit, just Formula "B" and the trailers and dolly in a doubles train are limited to 81-1/2 feet in length. Thus those 13 axle trains can run at around 150k GCW and the 17 axle train about 170k! So these trucks are running at twice the STAA weight limits of 80k GCW, and it's not rocket science that they need twice the horsepower and torque. Even the MP16 at SD maximum weights is going to be the equivalent of a 300 HP torqueless wonder 8 liter "midrange" engine. An MP8 ain't gonna cut it at these weights, and the Mack V8 was just gettin' warmed up at the 500 HP rating with 700 HP and higher ratings waiting in the wings. Then factor in the easier packaging of the V8... For Canada and a lot of permit haulers the Titan is about a foot too long. Imagine if the V8 Mack was still on the market, drawing in buyers with it's efficiency and power, and hooking 'em with it's lusty lyrics!

What Volvo doesn't comprehend is the emotional draw of the V-8... Sort of like how the distinctive sound and feel of Harley's V-Twin alone sells a lot of bikes. I was in South Dakota yesterday and saw over a dozen 13 axle double trailer "road trains" and even a 17 axle one. But not a single one was pulled by a Mack, they we're all hooked to Paccar products. One of the most memorable SD "road trains" in my experience was pulled by a V-8 powered Superliner... I could identify it's unmistakable roar before it came into sight! If Volvo had allowed Mack to revive the V8 in a new Superliner chassis, Mack would be the best selling truck in the high GVW states of the west and Canada.

First off, the MP10 isn't cheap to produce because it's a niche product that can share few parts with the more common Volvo 11 and 13 liter engines. A V8 has the cost advantage that the cylinder dimensions will be similar to a smaller 6 and can share many parts and thus be built at lower costs. Second, Volvo's argument that the V8 didn't sell in sufficient volumes is bull- If Volvo had offered the V8 worldwide like Renault did the volumes would have been adequate, especially in markets like Scandinavia where 52 and 60 ton GCW limits are common.