kscarbel

Marcel67 bought one from TMI in Chesapeake, VA a few months ago. Watts Mack helped him locate it. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/30691-widows-needed-for-mh/page-2

Scania provides customers with a wide range of headlamp options incorporating the latest technologies. http://www.scania.com/images/wkr0006_tcm40-302058.pdf

Fleet Owner / November 11, 2013 Complications are never a good thing in trucking, especially when they involve routine maintenance tasks such as changing engine oil. That’s one of the reasons lubricant makers struggled mightily over the years to craft engine oil blends that not only met strict chemical limits related to exhaust aftertreatment technology, but also to make them backward compatible so they could be used in new and old engines alike. Going forward with Proposed Category 11 (PC-11) oils, however, that won’t necessarily be the case. There’s not one but two new blends being created in the category to meet federal greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for heavy trucks being phased in between model years 2014 and 2018. “Unfortunately, this trend is a sign of the times,” explains Mike Wyant, technical services manager for Universal Lubricants. “It’s very possible that an end user will need to carry multiple engine oils to cover the requirements. We’ve seen that occur in automatic transmission fluids and other lubricants.” The GHG rules jointly announced by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Dept. of Transportation back in 2010 cover three distinct sets of trucks, each with their own compliance timeline. For tractor-trailers, those engine and vehicle standards begin with the 2014 model year and establish a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. The rules for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans call for separate gasoline and diesel truck standards to be phased in starting with the 2014 model year. These standards would be expected to achieve up to a 10% reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15% reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12% and 17%, respectively, if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Finally, the standards for vocational vehicles would kick in for the 2014 model year and are targeted to meet up to a 10% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by the 2018 model year. Performance metrics Meeting such fuel economy mandates necessitated change across numerous truck components, systems, and materials, especially engine oils, notes Dan Arcy, OEM technical manager for Shell Lubricants. “The PC-11 performance category is being developed with targeted improvements in several performance areas,” he explains. Such changes include:High-temperature oxidation control, as some engines will be running up to 18 deg. F hotter.Protection from adhesive wear, as a move to low viscosity or “thinner” oils requires good protection against wear and metal-to-metal contact.Improved aeration control, as it will boost the ability of engine oil to release air that can get trapped within it. This requirement may necessitate the replacement of current aeration testing procedures.Boosted shear stability, as the mechanical shear of polymers used in current oil can result in the loss of viscosity, meaning the oil becomes too thin. That may also require changes to current shear stability tests.In addition, the new PC-11 designation will feature two “subcategories,” says Arcy, with one featuring oil viscosities much like what exists today and the other formulated with lower (thinner) oil viscosity geared to provide improved fuel economy and reduced CO2 emissions. “At this time, I cannot comment on the new components or chemical that may be used in PC-11 engine oils,” Arcy stresses. “But if you look at the performance improvements targeted for PC-11 oil, we will need new or additional oxidation inhibitors, new or improved anti-wear components, and a different mix of base oils, to name a few of the changes.” All of that may impact the backward compatibility of the new PC-11 oils, especially the lower viscosity grades, he says. “We will need to look at PC-11 a little differently since we are looking at two subcategories,” Arcy explains. “The heavier viscosity grades are targeted at being fully backward compatible. For example, a PC-11 SAE 15W-40 will be able to be used in applications that call for a CJ-4 performance SAE 15W-40. In addition, the PC-11 SAE 15W-40 will provide the additional benefits listed above.” Yet the second subcategory, or lower viscosity, PC-11 oil may not be backward compatible, he warns. “These thinner oils may not provide the protection in older equipment,” Arcy explains. “At this time, the engine manufacturers have not provided details on which of the older engines may or may not allow the use of PC-11 low-viscosity oil.” Not backward Still, Arcy believes it may be a little too early to tell whether a one-oil-fits-all engine oil strategy is definitely a thing of the past. “This really will be determined by what happens with the backward compatibility issue,” he says. “It may be that for a period of time, a year or two, a fleet may have to carry two different oils, one for legacy engines and one for the new lower CO2, more fuel-efficient engines. More information on this will be forthcoming.” Universal’s Mike Wyant thinks it’s unlikely the new low viscosity PC-11 oils will be backward compatible. “PC-11 will be unprecedented,” he says. “The new category will be the first of its kind to establish two new subcategories, initially being identified as PC-11A and PC-11B. The PC-11A will be a traditional robust subcategory with typical viscosity grades like a 15W-40, 5W-40, and 10W-30. But the PC-11B will be more of a ‘fuel economy’ version, with lower viscosities and lower high temperature/high shear (HTHS) values. The viscosity grades will drop down to 10W-30, 5W-30, and perhaps even lower.”In short, “the PC-11B subcategory will not be backward compatible as the viscometrics and base oil combinations will be too light to sufficiently protect former engines,” explains Wyant. Mark Nyholm, technical product manager for Amsoil, points out that the reason the PC-11B formula most likely won’t or can’t be backward compatible is because gaining better fuel economy is the main research goal. “It is industry known that lowering the HTHS number can improve fuel economy; however, it can also reduce wear protection,” he says. “Some engines [from the] past were not designed to operate on lower HTHS and viscosity numbers. Additionally, older engines still on the road [using] lower viscosity oils may not get the proper wear protection they need for continued service. That or their oil consumption may increase significantly, resulting in cost increases from additional oil as well as increased emissions out the exhaust pipe from burnt [engine] oil.” According to Len Badal, commercial sector manager for Chevron Products Co., a fleet may have to stock two engine oils if it decides to use high temp/high shear products to gain higher potential fuel economy performance. “In a case like this, the fleet may only be able to use the new oils in newer engines and with ones that the OEMs are comfortable with recommending these lower HTHS products in their engines,” he explains. “If a fleet also operates older engines, then the fleet may have to use a second oil with normal HTHS to protect those engines and ensure they perform appropriately.” Natural gas Universal’s Wyant adds, though, that the adoption of truck fuels such as natural gas complicates the development of future engine oils to a degree as well—and may force the need to use multiple engine oils. “Testing will be required in not only conventional diesel fuel but in alternative fuels as well,” he says. “Always consult the owner’s manual when determining what engine oils to use when faced with alternative fuels.” Wyant points out that natural gas engine oils, in particular, occupy an unusual spot as they are somewhat of a hybrid between diesel fuel and gasoline oils. “They are formulated differently to handle the different issues associated with the combustion of natural gas,” he explains. Chevron’s Badal thinks most alternative fueled engines—even in the natural gas space—should be able to use the new PC-11 formulation, though important caveats remain. “PC-11 oils will be able to handle all the fuel types that fleets may opt to run, from biodiesel blends (assuming a maximum 80/20 mix of petroleum-based diesel and biodiesel) to dimethyl ester,” he says. “Fleets should not worry about utilizing these fuels with their diesel engines, assuming they use premium PC-11 diesel engine oils for lubrication.” Badal emphasizes that it is a little more complicated with natural gas, since it depends on the type of engine technology being deployed. “If a spark-ignited CNG (compressed natural gas) engine is being used, then an approved CNG oil should be utilized to prevent spark plug fouling, valve guttering, and ash buildup on the piston crowns,” he explains, as such deposits “are detrimental to CNG engines and can cause early potential engine failure.” But Badal points out that if the truck engine has been adapted for dual-fuel engines running on both liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel or just pure LNG, then a fleet may be able to use PC-11 oils depending on engine configuration. “If a fleet has a mix of diesel and CNG engines, the fleet will most likely have to stock two oils to provide optimum performance,” he says. “But if the fleet has a combination of diesel and pure LNG or diesel/LNG dual-fuel engines, then it may be able to use one oil—PC-11—for both.” Amsoil’s Nyholm explains that one reason for the differences between pure diesel and natural gas engine oils is the difference in the by-products of combustion and the additive package components, such as detergents and dispersants. “For example, diesel oils have chemistry to combat the negative effects of soot, a by-product of combustion, in the engine oil,” he notes. “By contrast, natural gas engines do not have these same chemistries, as soot is not a by-product of natural gas combustion.” Understanding the different by-products of combustion also requires lubricant manufacturers to study their interaction in the engine’s oil sump and modify the additive packages to protect the engine from wear and corrosion. “Different fuels burn at different temperatures, exposing the lubricant to varying temperatures,” Nyholm adds. “Oxidation resistance is an important aspect to controlling viscosity creep over time due to high and higher engine temperatures.” Still, Nyholm believes that the concept of a maintenance facility stocking a couple of different engine oil products won’t be too outside the norm, as this process is already in play today among diesel-only engines. “With the rapid advancements of technology, engine OEMs are further specifying lubrication requirements, making it increasingly difficult to satisfy all of them with one product,” he says. “And it’s likely to get worse before it gets better.” Lubricant makers confess the real struggle will be to get the end user to accept the lighter-weight, low-viscosity oils themselves. “While there is certainly a noticeable trend of lighter viscosity engine oils entering the marketplace, there is still an adherence to heavier weight engine oils,” says Universal’s Wyant. “There are end users convinced that lighter weight engine oils won’t perform adequately for engine protection [thus] there will tend be that stigma of the lighter weight oils not meeting the needs of the engine.” That view is echoed by Amsoil’s Nyholm. “As long as there is the belief that my application is more severe than yours, SAE 40 viscosities will not go away,” he says. “There are people today who still do not budge away from the old 15W-40.” Shell’s Arcy points out, however, that there’s been increasing use of lighter viscosity oils such as SAE 10W-30 grades simply because they offer improved fuel efficiency and pumpability versus SAE 15W-40 blends. “Most of the Class 8 truck/engine manufacturers either factory-fill with SAE 10W-30 or offer it as an option for factory-fill,” he adds. “And most of the Class 8 truck/engine manufacturers allow SAE 10W-30 as an option or primary recommendation for service-fill.” Over time, Arcy expects to see an increase in the use of light viscosity oil and a decline of the heavier viscosity oils. “Fleets are always looking for ways to reduce their operating cost and/or maximize operating efficiencies of their fleet,” he explains. “There will continue to be movement in the direction of products, operating condition, etc., that can help improve fuel economy, driving a reduction in operating cost. Improved efficiency by optimizing maintenance intervals and improving uptime will continue to help improve the bottom line.” Looking to the future, Arcy says there will be a continued push towards lower viscosity, synthetic or semi-synthetic lubricants that will provide improved fuel economy benefits and help reduce CO2 emissions. “Those issues are big in the engine oil industry,” adds Universal’s Wyant. “End users desire longer drain intervals and better fuel economy. Thus, future categories will continue to optimize and further improve engine oil quality in those directions.”

During World War II, Mack Trucks' Plant 5C, at the time the company's municipal bus manufacturing plant, switched over to aircraft production. The factory produced Consolidated Vultee TBY "Seawolf" torpedo bombers for the U.S. Navy.

Given the obvious load capacity and weight distribution (road friendly) advantages of the 8x4 configuration (and the 10x4 configuration with a rear-mounted steerable tag axle, it's unbelievable that these configurations are not the norm in the US. They allow for more productive and profitable business, and fewer trips (again, less road wear).

No. I believe the Mack/Oshkosh tie-up ended when Volvo bought Mack.

The Scania museum is one of the most impressive of its kind in the world. Scania (then known as Scania-Vabis) received the bulldog award from Mack Trucks in commemoration of Scania’s 75 anniversary, in appreciation of the high quality of the Scania D8 (normally aspirated) and DS8 (turbocharged) engines that Scania was supplying to Mack, and in respect to the work being carried out together by the two companies towards the joint production of V-8 engines (The fruits of that cooperation of which were seen three years later in 1969, in the form of the ENDT865 and DS14 V-8s).

No doubt the Scania V-8 is a premium product. But a US truckmaker would have to make a firm commitment to Scania in order for the company to justify the expense of re-engineering their Euro-6 engines over to EPA2010. Certainly, Scania would welcome the interest. This all comes back to the lingering question: Why doesn't the US join the rest of the world and use the Euro emissions standards? It's a costly nightmare for engine makers to have to design and build both EPA2010 and Euro spec engines. Just about every nation in the world has seen the good sense to standardize with the Euro emissions levels. Navistar has their MAN 11L and 13L engines, with the Cummins ISX now as their heavy hitter. Paccar is using their 12.9L DAF MX engine, again with the Cummins ISX now as a heavy hitter option (Is the DD15 and DD16 even offered by Paccar?) And that's about it. Volvo Group's Volvo and Mack brand trucks run Volvo engines, and Daimler's Freightliner and Western Star brands run Benz (DD) engines. So Scania would only have a real chance at possibly getting in the door with Navistar or Paccar, as Volvo and Daimler are bitter rivals.

Mack purchased Savage Manufacturing Corporation in 1989, making it a Mack subsidiary, Mack Trucks of Utah. The resulting Mack FDM-700 model was available in both mid-engined (behind the cab) and rear-engined versions (replacing the camshaft on a mid-engined model was a hassle). Faced with a variety of challenges, the FDM did not become popular. Shifting gears in 1998, Mack decided to cooperate with Oshkosh and offer a Mack-powered version of the Oshkosh S Series front-discharge mixer (with a McNeilus drum - Oshkosh owns McNeilus). Oshkosh would assemble the trucks utilizing Mack powertrains. The new Oshkosh S-Series based Mack-badged truck was called the FCM (Front-discharge-Concrete- Mixer) The original FDM name more logically stood for Front-Discharge-Mixer) As a result of the Mack-Oshkosh agreement, Mack discontinued production of the FDM in Utah and closed that plant, with production ending in September 1998.

I don't care for the Navistar website either but at least they are attempting to do more globally. Yes, the 9800 of course is dated, being based on the 9600/9700 that launched in mid-1981. If you see the 9800 in person, you'll think it has aged quite well though with the various upgrades. Navistar says they plan to sell it in South Africa up to 2017. It's a proven and rugged design. When you're driving throughout South Africa, it's very interesting to see hundreds of Freightliner Argosies and International 9800s mixed in with the Scanias and Mercedes-Benz trucks on the highways. While I think it's great for Navistar to have a purpose-designed garbage truck chassis, I was extremely disappointed in every aspect of the LoadStar's cab design. It looked like poorly thought out engineering. Navistar last month announced they completed transitioning all their models to SCR. They listed every model.......except the LoadStar. I think it has quietly been cancelled, or delayed, due to a lack of money. Navistar had to prioritize its financial resources, given the unexpected expense of re-engineering their trucks over to SCR. Below is the most recent news. Navistar is keeping developments off the radar.. _________________________________________ Navistar’s Plans On Hold The Times Daily / December 17, 2012 BARTON, ALABAMA — The waiting continues at Barton Riverfront Industrial Park. Navistar International Corp.’s plan to produce its LoadStar refuse truck at the plant was stalled this year. The plant, which could create 2,200 jobs, would provide a major economic impact. But problems arose this year when the Environmental Protection Agency did not approve Navistar’s EGR emissions technology. Some activity is occurring at the plant, which has more than 150 full-time workers. Karen Denning, director of communications for Navistar’s truck division, said fabrication operations are going on at the Colbert County facility. Denning has not commented on how long it would take until truck production gets under way. The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) is providing financing for Navistar’s operation at Barton. In March, Navistar announced it would build its International LoadStar truck at Barton. In June, company officials announced the truck’s body also would be built at the plant, meaning everything but the engine would be built at Barton. The engine would be manufactured at its Huntsville plant. The Barton facility was constructed after the July 2007 announcement that the National Alabama railcar plant would operate there and bring at least 1,600 jobs. A weak economy and other problems thwarted those plans, causing RSA, which invested more than $600 million in the project, to take over ownership of the plant. Navistar took over the nearly mile-long plant in Barton Riverfront Industrial Park on January 1. The Shoals Industrial Development Committee unanimously agreed Sept. 26 to transfer the incentives committed to National Alabama to Navistar. The action allowed Navistar to qualify for up to $23 million in incentives if the company meets specified employment thresholds. The company has about three years remaining to meet those thresholds. Navistar must reach and maintain 900 workers before qualifying for any incentive money, which would be $7.67 million at that level, according to the Shoals Economic Development Authority. The company will have until December 31, 2015, to reach 1,800 workers to qualify for the full incentive package. Company officials never confirmed the amount of workers who would be at the plant, but Gov. Robert Bentley said in September it would have 1,800 workers. Officials said the plant could produce as many as 2,200 jobs when spin-off jobs are taken into account. State officials who helped put together an incentive package for Navistar said as many as 2,200 workers could be affiliated with the plant within four years.

Russia - http://www.internationaltrucks.com/russia/ South Africa - http://www.internationaltrucks.co.za/NC2SouthAfrica/ (Note the 9800 COE) Middle East/Northern Africa - http://mena.internationaltrucks.com/ Latin America - http://www.internationalcamiones.com/LatinAmerica/ Mexico - http://www.internationaltrucks.com/mexico/ Note the Chinese JAC light trucks rebadged as the Navistar "CityStar" (no relation to the original CF-Series CityStar and Ford LCF with the Mazda-sourced cab)

1984? The only "half cab" Mack produced was the HMM, from 1973 thru 1979. Located on the driver's door, what was the model number on the vehicle identification plate?

If you want to increase your profits and reduce operational costs (keep more money in your pocket), you really should consider AMT. The latest generation Eaton AMTs are impressive. And only Eaton offers an AMT range specifically tailored for the construction segment. Penske, a shrewd businessman never shy to complain, runs thousands of Eaton AMTs. And, Eaton AMTs have been THE transmission of choice in the demanding Australia/New Zealand and South Africa markets for years. Compared to the Allison, the UltraShift PLUS AMT is a much easier installation with better chassis integration, has a lower maintenance cost, better fuel economy and good shift quality (equal to the Mercedes-Benz “PowerShift 2” and Volvo “i-shift” AMTs). Allison has its place in the stop-and-go segments (refuse trucks and municipal transit buses), but in vocational construction, regional and long haul, AMT is generally now the way to go (because of the fuel economy benefits). You’re going to be seeing the impressive Mercedes-Benz “PowerShift 2” AMTs more and more (rebadged as the Detroit DT12 AMT in Freightliners). Allison’s new TC10 twin-countershaft hybrid is very heavy, costly and somewhat less efficient than Eaton’s UltraShift PLUS AMTs. To get good braking from an engine brake, you need to keep the engine speed up. This is why Allison talks about early downshifts with an engine brake because that’s how they keep the engine revs high. If you compare an Allison 4000 with the current generation of 10-speed Eaton UltraShift PLUS AMTs paired to a Cummins ISX, the performance will be similar at higher road speeds. But at low road speeds, the limited ratios of the Allison make it harder to get high engine speeds in braking. With the torque converter in lockup, you only have a few gear ratios in the transmission to get the highest engine speed during braking (e.g. 3.51, 1.91 and 1.43). Gear ratios in the UltraShift PLUS AMT allow for faster engine speeds at lower driveline speeds using similar axle ratios. Also, with similar axle ratios, the startability with the UltraShift PLUS AMT is almost two times better than the Allison. In summary, high speed braking is similar, but low speed braking favors the Eaton AMT. Eaton UltraShift PLUS AMTs are more fuel efficient and reduce heat load on the truck’s cooling system. The Allison’s purchase costs, operating inefficiency and service requirements are its detriments (in applications like mining, those higher costs are not an issue). One of the challenges with Allison's torque converter-type automatic transmission is when the torque converter is active, there is a lot of slipping and heat generation. When the torque converter locks up, the slipping ends and heat generation is largely gone. If the truck application requires a lot of slow speed driving, the Allison automatics can get hot. However the Eaton AMT in the same application has no such heat problem because UltraShift PLUS AMTs don’t use a torque converter. If you could order a Mack T300 AMT, you’d have the best of all worlds. At the time Volvo acquired Mack Trucks, Mack was designing an AMT version of the Mack T300 transmission. But Volvo shunned Mack engineering and terminated that project, favoring their single-countershaft i-shift over the superior triple-countershaft Maxitorque transmission. Volvo wanted to use their weaker single countershaft design (even ZF, like Eaton, uses a double countershaft design for their AMTs).

I suggest you consider an AMT. It will reduce your fuel bill, maximize performance and increase the truck's resale value. In your case speaking of a Granite, I'm talking about the dedicated vocational range of UltraShift Plus AMT trannies. The 10, 11 and 13 speeds have 3 reverse gears. The 18-speed has 4 reverse gears (with AMT, you don't need quite as many gears). And unlike the single countershaft Volvo i-shift (rebadged as Mack M-Drive), the UltraShift Plus AMTs have Eaton's time proven twin-countershaft architecture. http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/public/@pub/@eaton/@roadranger/documents/content/ct_243345.pdf

My friend, you are absolutely right. I stand corrected. I'd forgotten about the DAF F-Series. Saviem used the cab on the J and HB-Series. After Saviem and Berliet merged into Renault in 1978, the cab was used on the S and G-Series. And again, it was used on the conventional cab C series, and Mack Mid-Liner range. DAF used the cab for the F series, and Magirus offered the cab on trucks from 6 to 13 tons. Volvo initially used the cab in 1975 for the F4 and F6-Series, and later the F7. When you speak of recent cabs, we're talking about the Renault Premium-based Midlum medium truck cab that is used today by Volvo Group on Renault and Volvo brand trucks, and sold to Paccar's DAF unit.

If those aluminum fuel tanks are original, then it's a B-75LT. Maybe you should share the model and serial number with everyone.

He's located in Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia.

Magirus was until 1975 the truck manufacturing unit of Klöckner Humboldt Deutz AG, known to this day for their diesel engines and also a partner with Mack Trucks and Garrett AiResearch in the development of gas turbine engines (http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/32014-the-gt-601-gas-turbine-powered-macks/). These trucks had the "Club of Four" cab (officially known as the Euro Truck Development Group), which had been jointly developed by Saviem (merged into Renault), DAF, Magirus and Volvo. The Renault-produced Mack Mid-LIner featured this cab. Iveco purchased Magirus from Klöckner Humboldt Deutz AG in 1975. In 1977, Mack veteran Ray Reardon* left his position as vice president of international operations under Jack Curcio to form Iveco Trucks of North America in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. He began importing Magirus trucks and sales started off well. He contacted other Mack dealers and they were thrilled with the idea of having a medium truck offering. It was common to see Magirus trucks on the road in the northeast. But then Mack itself launched the Mid-Liner in 1980, an equally good if not better truck, and all the Mack dealers quickly migrated to that product. Iveco Trucks of North America did live on thru 1990, selling Iveco's Z-Series low-cab-forward light truck. *Mr. Raymond Reardon, a genuine Mack man and person of the highest caliber, passed away in 2006 and is sorely missed.

No, the Mid-Liner was produced by Renault. Mack and Renault were exploring synergies. Mack was entertaining the thought of re-entering the medium duty market segment and Renault had a great truck. Renault also wanted to utilize Mack's V-8 engine in Europe because they did not have a heavy hitter powertrain (and Europeans like V-8s).

Mr. Pearson, I think you are reading more into this than is there. I cropped the pictures so as to present the best image of the trucks themselves (with less distracting peripheral area around the trucks), what people on this forum are the most interested in. We all appreciate you taking these photographs of stunning examples of American heavy truck engineering.

Mr. Pearson, It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance and I’m sorry to have upset you. Given that you intentionally put these wonderful pictures of America’s trucking history into the public domain, I’m at a loss as to why you are upset that someone thought to share this pictorial history with the wonderful members of this forum who value our country’s truck history I’m sure as much as you.

The Mack Mid-Liner began as the U.S. market version of the Renault S-Series (utilizing the same cab, the J-Series was lighter, and the G-Series was heavier). And with the introduction of the M-Series, it merged some of the weight ratings of the S and G-Series. (The Renault C-Series conventionals used the same cab) The Freedom was based on the Renault Midlum.

Yes, I believe the DH cab was offset. It was of Maxi-Glas construction, like the CA and CH (and MH). Like the R and DM/U, the DH and CH were variations of the same style and construction theme. No, I don't know what became of the prototypes. Naturally, they were put through the wringer to reveal any possible design shortcomings.

I will gladly post them if I still have them. While Mack R&D was endurance testing the prototypes, the regional factory sales representatives were sharing details (and pictures) with the Mack distributors. I remember the DH going through the endurance course as if it was yesterday. And the front end of the CA, it was sharp. UPDATE: I haven't been able to find the CA/CH/DH pictures. Surely there must be other Mack veterans on the forum that can scan and post those pictures.

Of course there were, but I'm not sure whether or not I still have mine.