kscarbel

The Mack CH was the modern and vesatile replacement of the R-model. Like the R-model, the CH had no special aerodynamic features. Remember, an appreciation for aerodynamics was developing amongst America's truckmakers during the 1980s to help on-highway trucks improve fuel economy (The Kenworth T600, introduced in 1985, elevated the trend). The Mack CA was the company's answer to the stirring demand for aerodynamic on-highway tractors. And it was breathtaking in appearance, a truly revolutionary and modern design. So altogether, Mack R&D had three options on the table for the sales group to consider for production: CA - aerodynamic tractor for the ninties CH - modern replacement for the industry-leading R-model DH - modern replacement for the industry-leading DM

When the CH was being developed, it wasn't alone. The DH was being developed and tested to replace the DM. The DH used a CH-style cab. Like the CH, the DH was a sharp looking truck, a genuine leap forward in heavy vocational truck design. I remember the DH going through the paces at Mack Truck's Allentown Engineering Development and Test Center. I can't tell you why the DH didn't enter production. You'd have to ask former Mack President John Curcio. How many people know what a CA is ?

Yes, the steel hood was always an "option" on the R and DM (never the U-model). Not to change the subject, but how many people here have heard of the Mack DH ?

The DM-690 series with CMCAC came out in 88. I recall we had a problem with the vendor supplying the grilles as the tubes would detach. So in 1987 we were informed that with the DM's switch to CMCAC (chassis mounted charge-air cooling), a steel hood option would no longer be available. Then dealers complained and the Ward '79 converstion was offered. I never saw a truck in person with the Ward '79 steel nose and it certainlty didn't look attractive in the sales marketing letter. Having said that, we continued to build and sell steel-nose R-600s for export. Many had tip turbines with the distinctive hood scoop rather than CMCAC. And as you can see in the Iran pictures, steel-nose Macks were fitted with CMCAC, but not in the US market.

Stuttgart / São Bernardo do CampoOctober 28, 2013 On the occasion of the 19th “Fenatran” International Transport Show (October 28 thru November 1) in São Paulo, Brazil, Daimler Trucks is announcing a new US$459 million investment package for the commercial vehicle plants of Mercedes-Benz do Brasil. The investment will be principally focused in research and development of new products and innovative technologies, as well as in process optimizations and modernization of the two production plants São Bernardo do Campo (Federal State São Paulo) and Juiz de Fora (Federal State Minas Gerais). This financing is part of an extensive investment project of Mercedes-Benz do Brasil, equipped with a total budget of around US$1.15 billion across a 6-year term extending from 2010 to 2015. To date, US$688 million has already been invested in the production of trucks, buses and components at the Brazilian locations. Stefan Buchner, Head of Mercedes-Benz Trucks Europe and Latin America, emphasized at the Mercedes-Benz press conference on Sunday in São Paulo: “Today, Brazil is the most important sales market for our trucks worldwide. We have faith in the further growth potential of this important market. Therefore, we will continue to invest in new products and state-of-the-art production facilities here.” Philipp Schiemer, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Mercedes-Benz do Brasil, adds: “With a total volume of US$1.15 billion and a term of 6 years, we have put together an extensive investment package. These investments will increase the competitive power of our company on this competitive commercial vehicles market.” Daimler has been represented in Brazil since 1956 and established itself as a leading commercial vehicle manufacturer in the country with a market-specific product range of Mercedes-Benz trucks, bus chassis and vans. Fifty seven years after the opening of the plant in São Bernardo do Campo, the two-millionth locally produced commercial vehicle rolled from the line in June of this year. This number is made up of around 1.4 million trucks and 600,000 buses and bus chassis.

FYI When Mack Trucks discontinued the steel steel hood option due to declining demand, some northeast dealers were upset. From Mack's position in 1988 with the launch of the dramatically different DM690 with CMCAC (chassis mounted charge-air cooling), there wasn't enough demand to justify engineering an all new CMCAC-compatible steel hood configuration. Instead, Mack arranged for Ward '79 Limited to supply a steel hood. The Ward 79 design was different from the Mack steel hood, but it was hoped that this would appease the dealers.

Transport Topics / October 28, 2013 Navistar International Corp. has issued a recall for more than 16,000 tractors to correct a potential problem that could cause a trailer to release unexpectedly from the fifth wheel. The recall, posted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website, pertains mostly to International ProStar models built between February 2008 and July 2013 and equipped with an electronic fifth wheel jaw release system. The action also includes a small number of TranStar and LoneStar tractors built during the same timeframe. Navistar estimated that 25% of the identified trucks could have the defect. Because of an assembly error, the air lines at the isolation/vent valve may not be oriented correctly, which could cause the fifth wheel jaw to release in the event of air leakage at the valve, according to the recall notice. “Navistar is making every effort to ensure the safety of our vehicles and is cooperating fully with NHTSA throughout the recall process,” spokeswoman Elissa Maurer said. “It is important to note that this air line routing condition does not affect normal operation. The company is notifying customers and International dealers will inspect vehicles and conduct any needed repairs.”

Auto Review / Issue 6, 2013 http://trucks.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=130353&SECTION_ID=7346

This is an argument for the abandonment of America's "drop and hook" system, and a transition to the European system of marrying one specific truck to one specitic trailer so that aerodynamic aids can be optimized to extreme levels. What they fail to realize (or admit) is that operations in Western European are quite different from the United States. What works superbly in Western Europe is NOT necessarily applicable to the United States market. (I do support U.S. adoption of the Euro emissions standards, dropping EPA2010 in favor of the near equivalent Euro-6. Then the entire world will finally be under the same emissions regulations).

Fleet Owner / October 11, 2013 The arrival of integrated tractor-trailer aerodynamics is only a matter of timeIt’s been 40 years since diesel fuel was last viewed as cheap and 50 years since the first federal Clean Air Act was passed. In the decades since, a vast whirlwind of societal, political, economic and technological change has remarkably recast trucking into a solidly green industry. Yet reducing fuel consumption by integrating the design of highway tractors and trailers to drastically slash their wind resistance remains the holy grail of aerodynamics for commercial vehicles. The reason why has not to do with the laws of physics, but with three simple facts of life about over-the-road trucking: If the vast majority of van/reefer trailers did not need to be uncoupled from tractors over and over, then their manufacturers could easily design them to be aerodynamically “married.” If they existed, such marriages would be doomed to frequent divorce—as tractors cycle out of fleet service far more quickly than trailers. While truck builders have demonstrated through various projects that aerodynamic integration is worth pursuing, the business dynamics of the trailer industry have precluded many of those manufacturers from investing heavily in the requisite research and development.Such marriages of efficiency may eventually occur. But given those three hurdles to overcome, they’ll be driven more by the shotgun persuasion of federal regulation, not the desire of the marketplace. Nonetheless, truck and trailer OEMs have not been waiting for a mandate to be issued to get cracking on how integrated aerodynamics can deliver substantial fuel savings. The biggest example is the involvement of truck builders in the Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Super Truck program. This joint public/private partnership seeks to significantly boost commercial-vehicle fuel efficiency while maintaining current exhaust emissions levels. The project’s goal is to demonstrate a 50% improvement in overall freight efficiency on a Class 8 tractor-trailer measured in ton-miles per gallon. According to Roland Gravel, head of the DOE Vehicle Technologies program, 40% of that goal will come from engine efficiency improvements and 60% from other improvements, including aerodynamics. To be clear, trailers are not covered at all under the existing rules to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of commercial vehicles by improving their fuel efficiency, measured in miles per gallon (MPG). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), the two agencies that promulgated the current GHG/MPG rules, trailers have not yet been addressed by a rulemaking because of “the first-ever nature of this program and the agencies’ limited experience working in a compliance context with the trailer manufacturing industry. “However,” the agencies added unequivocally, “because trailers do impact the fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from combination tractors, and because of the opportunities for [carbon dioxide] reductions, we intend to include them in a future rulemaking.” “EPA and NHTSA are currently developing the next phase of GHG/fuel-efficiency rules, which are unlikely to take effect before 2020, due to the rulemaking processes and mandated lead-time requirements both under the Clean Air Act and under the Energy Independence and Security Act,” advises Sean Waters, director of regulatory & product compliance for Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA). “As part of that development, the agencies are studying the means of regulating trailers.” Trucks at work DTNA does extensive design and development in our in-house wind tunnel and with other tools including computational fluid dynamics and on-road testing, focusing on the interaction between the tractor and the trailer,” relates Waters. “For example, the Cascadia Evolution’s 20-in. side extenders and chassis side fairing improvements were designed to optimize air flow around common trailer configurations. “Also, the Super Truck program is taking a longer view through theoretical and applied research for improving aerodynamics on both the tractor and trailer,” points out Waters. “The program started by conducting a ‘basic shape analysis’ to determine the most aerodynamic form for a conventional tractor-trailer,” he continues, “while staying within basic tractor and trailer constraints (dry van volume, boat tail length, conventional cab dimensions).” He says that basic shape has evolved into a “practical and functional tractor-trailer design while maintaining a low drag value. The aerodynamic performance of Super Truck can only be achieved by taking a combined tractor/trailer approach, since the strategy for optimizing airflow across the tractor greatly influences how air behaves downstream on the trailer.” Despite all the work DTNA has done on integrating aerodynamics, Waters advises that “trailer aero equipment is currently available in the market and at this time, we do not have plans to develop or distribute a proprietary system.” According to Wade Long, director of product marketing, Volvo Trucks’ “ongoing work to refine the aerodynamic properties of our vehicles considers the whole combination, tractor and trailer. Computational fluid dynamics and wind-tunnel testing help us develop features that will work in concert to improve aerodynamics of the combination. “In recent years,” he continues, “we’ve introduced a number of aerodynamic enhancements to help improve the flow of air around the tractor and trailer. For example, in early 2011, Volvo Trucks introduced advanced aerodynamic components for VN model highway trucks. New exterior [aerodynamic] components included redesigned mirror heads with aerodynamic shrouds and arms, redesigned hood mirrors that also increase visibility, as well as additional ‘ground effect’ features below the bumper and side fairings. And a more aerodynamic roof fairing and sun visor were also added to VN day cab models.” Looking ahead Navistar continues to look at improvements in aerodynamics, and this does take into consideration the tractor as well as the trailer,” advises Elissa Maurer, manager of external communications. “Our Project Horizon [demonstration-vehicle] initiative is considering a number of new technologies, which include advanced powertrain, ergonomic and aerodynamic technologies that we intend to introduce in the next 24 to 36 months. “Earlier this summer, President Obama announced his Clean Action Plan, which said his administration will partner with industry leaders to develop post-2018 fuel economy standards,” Maurer notes. “Navistar continues to be actively engaged in providing solutions for improved fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but we do not have any timing yet for GHG rules specific to new trailers,” she advises. “And we’ve not yet made any announcements specific to combined tractor and trailer aerodynamics.” According to Peterbilt’s chief engineer, Landon Sproull, the OEM partnered with Utility Trailers in the DOE Super Truck program to develop a tractor and trailer designed in combination to achieve “even higher” aerodynamic performance. “Last year, we built our first-generation Super Truck using our Model 587 [tractor], which proved to exceed all of our aerodynamic performance targets,” he relates. “This year, we are testing and evaluating our second-generation Super Truck, which includes a Model 579. Both of these vehicles are equipped with advanced technologies that are helping optimize fuel economy and aerodynamic performance with a truck-trailer combination in real-world conditions.” In addition, Sproull says that Peterbilt is “complementing those efforts with discussions with many other trailer manufacturers to improve overall aerodynamic efficiency to benefit the industry as a whole—for both current and future product offerings.” Sproull hastens to add “that the trailer market is quite different than the truck market in that the trailer-to-truck ratio is, at a minimum, 4 to 1. That makes it more expensive for fleets to upfit trailers with aerodynamic components simply due to volume. Additionally, trailers are often not pulled by the same tractor or brand of tractor. With that said, there are elements that can benefit fleets and we continue to explore the best options to accomplish this. “We have a good sense for what is possible, based on the DOE Super Truck project,” he adds. “However, as with all new technologies, the trick will be bringing these new systems and components to market with the best possible ROI [for fleet owners].” Sproull notes that the GHG Phase II [trailer] regulations are only now being researched by the two agencies. “Until the preliminary ruling is published, it is uncertain when the content and effective [enforcement] date will be known.” Dick Giromini, president & CEO of trailer maker Wabash National, speaking at a Heavy Duty Manufacturers Assn. seminar held this spring, advised there is growing recognition that “trailer makers can help improve fuel economy, too.” He specifically cited the ability of trailer builders to optimize total vehicle weight, including the weight of aerodynamic devices added to help save fuel. But Giromini also said more work will be done to minimize the tractor-trailer gap to improve fuel efficiency and that he expects more buyers will move, of their own accord, to spec full-trailer side skirts to enhance aerodynamics. Fine print The handwriting as to where EPA and NHTSA are eventually headed with a truck-trailer rulemaking has actually been on the wall for some time. Per the agencies’ draft regulatory-impact analysis, “Trailers for use with HD [heavy-duty] tractors are an important aspect of the GHG emissions performance of combination tractors and are estimated to be responsible for 11 to 12% of fuel consumed by Class 8 combination tractors. Optimizing the tractor and trailer as a system allows designers to take full advantage of the GHG emissions reduction opportunities.” And the final regulatory-impact analysis the agencies issued declared that “NHTSA and EPA agree that the regulation of trailers, when appropriate, is likely to provide fuel efficiency benefits. We continue to believe that both agencies must perform a more comprehensive assessment of the [capabilities of the] trailer industry, and therefore that their inclusion at this time is not feasible.” The key words in that statement being “at this time.” “Until that time,” the agencies went on, “the [EPA] SmartWay Transport Partnership Program will continue to encourage the development and use of technologies to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from trailers.” From there, the impact analysis points to how the SmartWay program has “demonstrated that adding aerodynamic features to van trailer designs and the use of low rolling resistance tires can substantially reduce fuel consumption from tractor-trailers.” But the agencies also admitted the challenges inherent in writing an effective GHG/MPG rule that would encompass trailer design: “The ratio of the number of trailers in the fleet relative to the number of tractors in the legacy fleet is typically three-to-one. At any one time, two trailers are typically parked while one is on the road. For certain private fleets, this ratio can be greater, as high as six-to-one. This characteristic of the fleet impacts the cost-effectiveness of trailer technologies because a trailer on average will only travel one-third of the miles traveled by a tractor.” The upshot The kicker is that EPA and NHTSA then remarked that “we have strong reason to believe that these [GHG and fuel-consumption] reductions would not occur absent regulation as noted in the recent NAS [National Academies of Science] report.” The agencies then quote that report’s essential finding: A perplexing problem for any option, regarding Class 8 vehicles, is what to do about the trailer. The trailer market represents a clear barrier with split incentives, where the owner of the trailer often does not incur fuel costs, and thus has no incentive to improve aerodynamics of the trailer itself or to improve the integration of the trailer with the tractor or truck. In other words, trailers affect the fuel efficiency of shipping, but they do not face strong uniform incentives to coordinate with truck owners. In principle, if truck owners had the ability to choose what trailers they accepted, they could require trailers with fuel-saving technologies; in practice, though, truck owners have limited practical ability to be selective about what trailers they accept.” In other words, the view from Washington is that to truly advance the state of the art of tractor-trailer aerodynamics, a federal rulemaking is in order. It’s true that it will take some time for EPA and NHTSA to come up with that rulemaking. As noted earlier, it’s unlikely any such rule will come into effect sooner than 2020. But truck and trailer makers are certainly on notice that it is only a matter of a relatively few years before a rule will be issued. The big question, then, is not when, but what? What a GHG/MPG rule for trailers will require remains very sketchy, especially given that EPA and NHTSA jointly admit to the everyday facts of life about trucks and trailers that will make coming up with a workable rule difficult, to say the least. Will the rule perhaps only go so far as to mandate a certain minimum aerodynamic performance for trailers? Or will it somehow require tractor builders and trailer makers to aerodynamically “fit” their vehicles together in some sort of integrated manner that’s hard to imagine today? Time will tell. And soon, which is why heavy-duty vehicle designers seem to have integrated aerodynamics all over their drawing boards.

We also talked about Ford's A-707 engine, indeed a reliable and high-performing gas turbine engine. So at the time "Big Red" was purchased, it was fitted with the A-707 and still is to this day? If so, what is the running condition of the A-707? Do you plan to bring this this historical American treasure back to the public view? http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/32060-the-ford-w-1000-gas-turbine/

Thank you so much for posting and bringing us up to date on the status of "Big Red". Do you have any current photographs that you can share with us? If the Ford gas turbine was removed by Ford prior to the sale to Holman-Moody, is the chassis thus without a powertrain at this time?

Bloomberg / October 25, 2013 Volvo reported a surprise drop in operating profit, sending the stock down the most in a year. Earnings before interest and taxes fell 18 percent to $380 million (2.4 billion kronor) from $462 million (2.92 billion kronor) a year earlier, Gothenburg, Sweden-based Volvo said in a statement today. Profit was less than the $499 million (3.15 billion-krona) average of 12 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. In response to the declining profit, Volvo outlined plans to eliminate 2,000 administrative jobs, or 1.8 percent of its workforce, under a program announced in September to generate annual cost savings of 4 billion kronor through 2015. Volvo reported 7.5 percent growth in third-quarter truck orders, lagging behind jumps of 29 percent at local competitor Scania and 33 percent at industry leader Daimler. Volvo is “unlikely to be forgiven for the miss this time, especially as it looks like they are trailing peers in terms of orders and the margin improvement plan has shifted two years to the right,” David Arnold, a London-based industry specialist at Barclays Capital, said today in a report to clients. Third-quarter net income fell 0.9 percent to 1.39 billion kronor, Volvo said. Sales slumped 4.9 percent to 64.9 billion kronor. A 1 percent drop in truck-division revenue contrasted with a 4.1 percent increase in deliveries to 43,248 vehicles. Orders amounted to 44,224 trucks. Volvo shares fell as much as 7.4 percent, the steepest intraday drop since Oct. 24, 2012, and was trading down 6.3 percent at 88.45 kronor at 1:12 p.m. in Stockholm. That pushed the shares to a 0.4 percent decline this year, valuing the truckmaker at 186.3 billion kronor. The company’s truck brands include Volvo and Renault in Europe, Mack in North America and UD in Asia. Currency effects reduced third-quarter operating profit by 1.07 billion kronor, Volvo said. Gains by the krona and the euro hurt third-quarter sales and profit across Europe’s manufacturing sector, including at Scania and Renault, the former owner of the namesake heavy-vehicle brand now held by Volvo. Volvo said on October 16 that it will scale back production in Europe as part of the earnings-improvement project, shifting manufacturing among plants in different countries and affecting another 900 employees, including 700 in Sweden. Volvo hasn’t specified whether those workers will be dropped or transferred, saying it’s in talks with unions on their future. The reorganization is “the largest change in the European manufacturing system ever done” by Volvo, Chief Executive Officer Olof Persson said today at a Gothenburg press conference. Business in the quarter was “tough,” he said. The efficiency program is starting to show its first positive effects, with research and development spending and variable costs per truck declining, he said. Earnings were held back by spending on new models and by simultaneous production of old and new generations of vehicles, Volvo said. The FH product line was updated starting last year, and new versions of Renault trucks were presented in June. During the third quarter, UD began production in Bangkok of the Quester, the brand’s first model developed and produced in Southeast Asia specifically for that region. The phase-in of production to only new models will be completed in the first quarter of 2014 at the Volvo brand and by mid-year at the Renault division, Persson said. Scania said on October 23 that third-quarter orders and deliveries were helped by truck purchases in Europe in advance of pollution regulations taking effect in 2014. Net income fell because of the krona’s gain and vehicle-price pressure. Daimler said its truck division’s Ebit in the period rose 4 percent as deliveries gained because of the so-called pre-buying in Europe and a market recovery in Brazil.

Scania Pressroom / October 24, 2013 With the introduction of the 2,581 ft.lb. (3,500 Nm) and 730 horsepower Scania V-8, Scania’s range of Euro-6 V-8 engines is now complete. The 520 and 580 horsepower versions were introduced earlier this year, and now the top-output V8 for the most demanding tasks enters the scene as well. The Scania V-8 is known for offering never-ending power, high productivity and a lasting value like no other engine. The Scania DC16 Series 730 horsepower V-8 is the most powerful Euro-6 (Euro equivalent of EPA2010) engine available from any truckmaker in the world. Scania offers the only Euro-6 V-8s on the market. Customers who choose a Scania V-8 prioritize features like performance, operating economy and durability. Scania’s legendary V-8 engines, first introduced back in 1969*, have established a unique market position all over the world and the market has been asking for a top-of-the-line Euro 6 version. “Sheer power never goes out of style”, confirms Christopher Podgorski, Senior Vice President Trucks at Scania. “Our customers buy V-8s for many different reasons, but an understandable need for performance is always one of them. The fact that our customers buy Scania V-8s over and over again proves that they are durable and offer unsurpassed productivity as well.” DC16-101 520 1,991 lb/ft (2,700 Nm) @ 1,000-1,300 rpm DC16-102 580 2,176 lb/ft (2,950 Nm) @ 1,000-1,350 rpm DC16-103 730 2,581 lb/ft (3,500 Nm) @ 1,000-1,400 rpm Displacement: 16.4 liters Bore x Stroke: 130 x 154 mm Injection: Scania-Cummins XPI (extra-high pressure injection - 2,400bar) common rail Emissions System: SCR + water-cooled EGR + VGT * Scania introduced the 14.2L DS14 V-8 in 1969, the same year Mack introduced the 14.2L ENDT865 V-8. It’s more than coincidence their V-8 engines were identical in size. Mack and Scania worked together on V8 development. Mack produced the V-8 engine blocks for Scania, a continuation of the long-time Mack-Scania cooperation since 1950.

Transport Topics / October 24, 2013 German truck and auto maker Daimler AG reported “significantly improved” earnings in the third quarter compared to a year earlier, including a 53.2% increase in profit and a 4% increase in sales in its truck unit. “This shows that the high investments we have made were money well spent,” Dieter Zetsche, chairman of Daimler’s board of management, said in an Oct. 24 statement. Revenue in the truck segment was 8 billion euro ($11.04 billion), a 1% decrease from the year-ago quarter. Daimler blamed this on changes in exchange rates, and said after adjusting for that, revenue increased 8%. Daimler Trucks had a profit of 522 million euro ($720.6 million), a 4.2% increase. Referring specifically to truck sales in the United States, Canada and Mexico, Daimler said “it has been possible to maintain stable sales figures despite the recent decline in demand from the market, which has led to significant growth in market share in Classes 6-8.” Daimler sells the Freightliner and Western Star truck brands in North America, as well as the Detroit brand of diesel engines, transmissions and axles.

Note that the Sherman on the Mack T8E1 is a late model with HVSS suspension (horizontal volute spring suspension) and the 76mm high velocity gun. The Shermans evolved into a formidable weapon as a result of British modifications. The Brits needed more tanks but recognized the Sherman's deficiencies that you speak of (The British were well aware of the weakness of U.S. tank design, having already suffered heavy losses with U.S. M3 "Grants" against Rommel's Afrika Korps). The most important British modification was replacement of the short 75mm cannon with a lethal long barreled 17-pounder anti-tank gun that could take on most German armor. It could penetrate more armor than the 88mm in the German Tiger. England operated 17,184 Shermans. Unlike gasoline-engined U.S. Arrmy Shermans which earned the name "Ronson Lighters", many British Shermans received under Lend-Lease had 410 horsepower Detroit Diesel model 6046 12-cylinder engines, essentially two paired 6-71 engines (Sherman Mark III/M4A2). The Russians, whose tanks were all diesels, received M4A2s as well. The U.S. Marines did receive a few M4A2s (less than 200) for use in the Pacific alongside gasoline-powered M4A3s. A small volume of Lend-Lease Shermans (M4A6) were fitted with 450 horsepower RD-1820 radial diesel engines, a Wright R-1820 aircraft engine converted to diesel by Caterpillar. Mid-way thru the war, U.S. Army Shermans were upgraded with the heavier T23 turret and a 76mm high velocity gun, giving our guys a chance (but still unequal to the British Sherman "Firefly" variant). With its early weaknesses resolved, the refined M51 Super Sherman was being used successfully against significantly more modern Russian T54 and T55 tanks as late as 1973 by the Israeli Defense Force. The Israeli "Super Sherman" mounted a deadly French 105mm Modele F1 gun in a much modified turret, with 460 horspower Cummins VT8-460Bi V-8 engines and HVSS suspension.

The leaked word is Econoline production will run thru June 2014 and medium production will ramp up in late 2014 or early 2015. But, not yet having spent any money on a move to Avon Lake, I believe Ford is deliberating on whether or not to exit the medium duty truck segment (in the U.S. market) as margins are simply too slim. Every country market has its own unique metrics. In Brazil and Turkey, Ford makes money with medium and heavy trucks. But in the US market, Ford has been dragging its feet with just one toe in the water since around the time Louisville (the former Ford truck capital of the world) stopped commercial truck production. Without a concerted effort on Ford's part in the medium segment, the downward spiral in sales should be no surprise to anyone.

Production continued, under the supervision of the Office of Production Management (later replaced by the War Production Board). For example, the government ordered 80 huge FC and NW off-highway dump trucks in 1941 for use in expansion of the Panama Canal, a vital sea link for America's national defense. Mack did continue to build some conventional buses and trolley buses until early 1943 for essential use. And Mack continued to produce fire trucks for both civilian use and the military (though final assembly shifted from Allentown to Mack's plant in Long Island City, New York) Mack built aircraft components for BT13 trainers and B-24 bombers. Mack's transmission plant in New Brunswick, New Jersey produced tank transmissions. The Mack bus plant in Allentown (5C) was requisitioned for production of Consolidated Vultee TBY "Seawolf" torpedo bombers for the navy. Speaking of military production, Mack Trucks produced over 30,000 vehicles for the United States military and allied nations during World War II. In 1942, the War Department presented Mack Trucks with the Army-Navy "E" Award for excellence, in recognition of the company's high achievement in the production of war materials. Mack Trucks also received the National Security Award friom the Office of Civilian Defense for its successful programs protecting employees, plants and production from fire, explosion, air raids, accidents and other emergencies. The U.S. Navy assigned Mack Trucks the task of designing a 400 horsepower supercharged V-12 diesel engine. Mack used a patented welded engine block design to meet the navy's requirement for this experimental engine. Speaking of another instance when the military turned to Mack Trucks for its most challenging requirements, the company In 1945 presented the U.S. Army with the T8E1 doubled-ended tank transporter.

Transport Topics / October 16, 2013 Volvo Group said it is planning to restructure its truck manufacturing operations in Europe in a move to improve efficiency. The Gothenburg, Sweden-based truck maker said it expects the changes to result in staff cutbacks. During the next two years, Volvo said it plans to relocate its cab trim operations to Gothenburg from Umeå in Sweden, to concentrate its heavy-duty truck assembly in Gothenburg to one line and to concentrate medium-duty truck production in Blainville, France. “Today’s European industrial structure for truck manufacturing is partly the result of acquisitions, and we now intend to use the various plants in an optimal way,” Volvo CEO Olof Persson said in the Oct. 16 statement. “This will generate more efficient truck manufacturing operations, which will improve our potential to compete successfully in global markets.” About 900 employees in Europe, including about 700 in Sweden, are working in manufacturing operations that will be relocated. The number of workers that will be affected will depend on manufacturing volumes and the results of union discussions, the company said.

Although it troubles me to remove supporting photographs from posts on the history of trucking that are being discovered by newcomers both young and old with each passing day, I did try deleting a few pictures to see if it would yield disc space and allow me to again post pictures. It did not. My available disc space went from 3.91 to zero instantly, which I find odd. And given how ridiculously cheap disc space is in year 2013, there shouldn't be any limits.

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/30466-when-mack-roamed-europe-the-middle-east-africa-and-western-asia/

Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland, outside of Baltimore, is the Army's main test, evaluation, research, development, engineering, and training location, Established in 1917, is used for testing vehicles, tanks, field artillery weapons, ammunition, trench mortars, air defense guns, the developmental testing of small arms and years ago railway artillery. The U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School there provides mechanical maintenance training for 20,000 U.S. Army personnel annually.

Glad to hear you are enjoying your Scania. The R620 Topline V-8 is a nice truck.The former Mack Trucks developed and produced their V-8s with Scania for many years to share economy of scale. In the US, 4x2 tractors are now typically used for regional hauling (UPS) and local delivery. Years ago, the house movers ran 4x2 tractors but now most have switched to 6x4s. The typical tractor-trailer is a 6x4 with a 2-axle trailer. The maximum gross weight allowed with that configuration is 80,000 pounds (36,287kg), and that ability depends on the length. The limited GVW in America is rediculous. To increase haulage efficiency in America, the government needs to raise allowed gross weight for tractor-trailers to at least 40 metric tons (88,000lb), and allow 44 tons (97,000lb) with air suspension and tri-axle trailers. 6x2 tractors have never caught on here. Volvo introduced it years ago (liftable tag axle) and it flopped. Recently, they are trying again. It does make sense for the weight-sensitive petroleum haulers. The compact 6x2 twin-steer tractors in the UK (steerable pusher axles) are an impressive piece of engineering. But of course the wheelbases of the European mainland tractors are longer.

No, it was a V-8 gasoline engine. However, I don't believe it was the 286hp 844cu.in LeRoi T-H844 V-8 used in the Mack M123 during the same time period. I'm trying to surmise what make engine it was and I'm leaning towards it being a Chrysler Hemi. IF BMT allows me to post pictures again, you'll see it has twin carburetors, each with a mushroom air cleaner and appears to have spark plug access holes with rubber grommets in the valve covers.

I tried to PM the pictures to you, but BMT is not allowing me to do so. My articles on the background of Mack Trucks only serve to enhance the popularity of the BMT website. I would assume Watts Mack finds this desirable. But obviously, there's a need to post pictures in support of the article. I'm extremely busy but am thrilled to write these articles as/when I have time. I rough drafted one article last week on the plane from Brazil and another during a layover in Dubai. I only ask for the ability to post supporting photographs.