bbigrig

Still could have built it on a Mack Chassis and called it your own.

You are correct, it was bad timing as Mack was rolling out the Anthem, pushed a football player etc.... Mack probably couldn't get clearance from what ever movie studio who owned the rights to Convoy related names etc to allow it's creations/ideas to be used by Mack and make money from it. It would have been cool. 

I was wondering how many CLs there were in the fleet. I've even caught an E9 powered RW in some of the shop scenes on a few occasions.

Thanks for the updates.

It was 112" until they added the 4" to the cab for the MP engine doghouse and new interior for 2006/7

14 hours ago, Prowrench said:

this is the one!!!! what is this a brochure? what year I'd like to see a side view Thank you so much!!!!

This truck is in several brochures. Thus angle is from a DM model brochure in 1980. As 41Chevy stated earlier, the side view you are looking for is in the 1980 construction line brochure. I don't have a copy of that one.

Very similar to the U model paint.

This one?

Not a great picture angle...

Up till last year you can still order the silver/grey door panels and other interior pieces from the dealer.

There was a U model inside the back cover of the brochure that was silver with red stripes. The U model brochure was green on the front. Still can't post a picture here for you because something changed on the forum site. 

Hold up....every daycab ordered Mack (Granite ) come with a single stack mounted to the cab. (AN/CHU) on a stack mount.  Ok, so it would have an emissions box under the RH of the cab....and we all know a few guys with exhausts on new Macks that have some things " re routed" with a big stack on the passenger side and a few program updates. Its totally doable. The Rubber Duck had an aftermarket sleeper, could have slapped that on any new Mack. This factory WS bunk looks out of place. I'm thinking someone was just really peeved at Mack/Volvo for a reason yet to be disclosed and went else where.

On 6/30/2019 at 4:09 PM, 41chevy said:

Can't find the thread on it but it was an interesting story how it was saved.     Paul

From what I remember (which don't mean much) that truck came up for sale in the states by owner at the time. The ad was posted by a BMT member that the truck needed to be saved. Fullfuel (the Malo family) from Joliette Quebec stepped up and saved it. They are huge Mack collectors here in Canada. One of their trucks is about to be featured on next year's Mack Calendar.

On 6/27/2019 at 3:38 PM, 41chevy said:

Isn't that unit on loan to Mack? I recall a threat on saving it here a few years ago.

Yes. That MH is owned by a couple of Big Mack collectors from Canada. 

They are on this forum. 

7 hours ago, Zx120 said:

Does a 3406 sound like a E9?

Looking at buying one in a superliner but want the throaty sound

Nothing sounds like an E9. 

Except a Scania V8,  and most know why.

A 3406 Cat has a sound all its own. 

Loved when this came out. I was a youngin then.  Mack announced it internally before it came out so my father warned me it was coming. Glued to the TV set and grinning from ear to ear after i VHS taped it. Im a big fan of 80s Macks,  but those CH and CLs were some damn good trucks back then in the 90s.

1 hour ago, fjh said:

Ahhh! another step backward for a reason thou !   Well that"s a breath of fresh air!  I thought they were being illogical for no good reason! But there is a reason for being illogical ! Thankfully  We haven't had the displeasure of working on the ( new power assist ) option yet !  Were still working patching up the other issues that haven"t been addressed 😡! Rear Engine mounts have become an issue as of late ! Thankfully we have the odd bull gear failing still  , on the older trucks so the mounts can be addressed at that point🙄!Planed obsolescence! have said it before , Its a shame these Volvo people bought a company that had some well established people and ideas that worked ! And they never ran with any of it! Having said that the front bumper on the new Anthem s we've  been selling here have a bumper 1/4 that can be removed for better access for service and repair !😁 

Its horrible to work on. With an inch or two of clearance. No changes needed to be made to the Volvo to fit that God awful design hanging off of the D13/MP8.

Well they made it easier to get at the EGR valve at least What more to ask for! 🙄

We have had to pull down a few to repair leaks behind that turbo monstrosity. One complete turbo unit failed on its maiden voyage off the lot. The removable bumper design is from the Volvo VN. We are seeing some pitiful warranty issues. Chrome bubbling off of the front grill, bunk leaks, bunk boot doors seized shut from factory.  More warranty claims on the Anthem trucks versus the VNLs. 4% market share now up here. It's going backwards. Of the Anthem wasn't $10k cheaper then the VNL, no one would be buying them here.

The cab mount was changed to accommodate the ridiculous space the new HE MP8 engine takes up. The second turbine housing would hit the old cab mount design. The cab mount had to be changed and was implimented on all chassis. It was changed and put into production this time last year.

I would post pictures up of the differences, but once again this site has changed for the worse. I've only used 30% of total posting allowances but I guess my 5 year old Samsung takes to high tech of pictures.

I took pictures of the change over at the plant last year. It is only to accommodate the turbo arrangment of that engine. Its horrible to work on. With an inch or two of clearance. No changes needed to be made to the Volvo to fit that God awful design hanging off of the D13/MP8.

12 hours ago, Bullheaded said:

Oakville was still going when the CH came out? I didn't realize that.

Yep. They used the excuse that the paint dept. Needed a complete revamp to accomdate painting newer units like the CH. Between the 3 truck plants 1 had to go. 2 were US plants. There were even costed out plans to build knock down Midliner kits and CMs at Oakville to keep things going after Winnsboro fired up. They were building mostly RDs near the end.

Shutdown was in 1993. 

They built 20 CHs as a test run on the Oakville Canada line. I know who has 1 and they wont give it up. 

Most underrated Mack ever built. We Still use them today.

We have 2 CLs here....

1 1994 CL753 3406C Cat Elite interior with a 60" mid-rise.

1 1993 CL613 Elite Limited Edition E7400 Eaton powertrain 60" Highrise.

Love them both.

Still can't attach photos...meh.

To this day....i found it stupid offering the front disc hydraulic brakes on those 200 series Midliners.  They caused more problems then saving anyone, anything.

53 minutes ago, turckster said:

When you torque the inj. hold downs to 15 ft/lb, 180 deg, back off to 7-8 ft/lb, torque to 18 ft/lb and torque turn to 90 deg that averages 45-50 ft/lb. Therefore there is no way when backing off a bolt that you are going to get 60 ft/lbs. Several years ago there was a recall that require retorque/check of MP8 injector hold downs and the torque spec was 45 ft/lbs.

It may be that is the problem, not tight enough. But, what do I know, I'm not an engineer, just a dude that fixes their mess ups. 

About, close to, around, whatever.....we have fooled around with a few and found some have been torqued as high as just under 60ft lbs. Like it or not that's what we have seen. With age, temps,materials, mating surfaces and heavy versus light use duty cycles/applications of the engines, it almost seems the cup design is just not meant to last. 

On 5/1/2019 at 10:34 AM, fjh said:

Yup we just did another set the other day 6 months in  checked the torque while removing them( mid to low 30's on the bolt coming out) I'm sure the tech followed the torque procedure in his mind it was correct ! I could be wrong but These bolts should have seen at least 50-60 ft pounds coming out! Quite honestly  Its a piss poor way to hold the injectors down to start with and  to add to the already compromised situation the bolt is in my opinion Maxed out for its size and  for what engineering is asking it to do .That is why they have all these torquing procedures that may or may not be helping the situation  to start with trying to get by with a design flaw that that should have been addressed years ago! they have us applying magic paste then not applying the paste And so on  !Bla bla 

FIX the fucking thing! These engines has decent potential if not for the flaws they seem to be unwilling to redesign!  JUST KEEP  Patchin!  

Yes...about 60lbft coming out on the hold downs is about right. 

On 4/29/2019 at 10:19 AM, fjh said:

 

Please describe what  Procedure and tooling issues are you speaking of Bud I'm interested in your incite here! 

Using worn swedge tools, improper torque procedures, using stretched hold down bolts, not sucking oil out of the injector hold down bolt bores, techs in a rush, oh....and just a poor design that really has yet to be updated. 60series had a similar combustion gas to fuel system issue so meh....

Job security 

11 hours ago, fjh said:

So have any of You guys that have been seeing repeat failures on cups and injectors  been trying anything different to hold the dam things in?

Don't want to start any wars here how ever the installation procedure could be part of our issue?? just fishing for some thoughts here! 

Usually find failures to do with procedures and tooling on the replacement side. From new, Most needing to be done at least once in 600k miles. We've had OEM (Mack/Volvo) reman heads with failed /poorly installed cups. 

Same with my Samsung S6. It's an older phone. I was able to post any pictures up until about 1 year ago. Something has changed with the site. Not your phones.

So many stories and tech info I can't post because there is a picture to go along with it. Maybe has something to do with the hosting costs?

Was it the PPG CH they had for a little while?