Jump to content

End Of The V8 And Increased Titan Sales


Recommended Posts

I figured the devout V8 following out there might be interested in some details on why the engine offering was killed, plus some good news on the performance of the MP10 and improved Titan orders! Taken from Mack's SCR blog...

From Kevin, 7/15/2010: Thank you for all the enlightening information you have provided on SCR. I'm wondering why Mack doesn't offer a ClearTech SCR-equipped EPA2010 V-8 engine? Mack Truck's legendary V-8 powerplants have been a long-time signature Mack product. Wouldn't an SCR/EGR/particulate filter combination (or SCR/EGR/DPF) combination) allow Mack to offer an EPA2010 V-8 engine?

I'm a Mack man thru-and-thru, but given the positive experience I had with Scania-powered Mack R-487Ps, I've kept an eye on Scania, who recently launched a new V8 range with 500, 560, 620 and 730 horsepower ratings, with max. torque up to 2,581 ft.lb (3,500 N.m), that are designed to meet Euro-6 EEV standards (enhanced environmentally-friendly vehicle), which is very close to EPA2010.

Scania's V-8 developments catch my attention because Mack Truck's legendary E-9 V-8 had a very loyal customer following (actually still has), not unlike Scania's 16.4-liter V-8, Mercedes-Benz's 15.9-liter V-8 and MAN's 16.2-liter V-8 engines sold today. Although the V-8 might be called a niche market, Scania, Benz and MAN have continued to profitably meet customer demand for V-8 powertrains while also meeting evolving emissions standards. Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-6 and I'm confident that Benz and MAN will as well.

Why doesn't Mack take advantage of its decades of V-8 engineering expertise and introduce a "pedigreed" Mack-designed EPA-2010 V-8 engine? If stricter EPA emissions standards indeed killed Mack's E-9 V-8, how have Scania, Benz and MAN been continually able to upgrade their V-8 engines to meet tightening emissions standards?

I'm confident that Mack customer demand for a pedigreed V-8 powerplant both in the North American market and Australia would be very favorable. In the U.S. market, Mack would be the envy of the competition, having the market all to themselves.

Hello Kevin -

Since you and I have communicated about this a number of times, you know I have a BIG soft spot in my heart for this product. Ever since I was a teenager, the sound of a Mack V8 is literally music to my ears. As an adult (although some may debate that point), I had the opportunity to be the Branch Manager of Capital Mack (1991) Inc., located in Ottawa ON. The V8 was a hot seller in that area, primarily for logging and heavy equipment hauling. I remember us selling a few RD822SX models that were strictly for use in the bush. After we had done all the local work and the engine was tuned up by the best V8 man in Canada, Jean Claude Strasbourg - the ground shook when the trucks were running! That's something I'll never forget.

Let's fast forward 8 years... EPA 1998, the V8 at any HP output could not meet the new emission regulation -- and it would have cost a small fortune to make it compliant. We also knew that in 2004 there would be an additional reduction in regulated tail pipe emissions. Little did we know that it would end up being 2002! So in simple business terms - we could have "electrified" the V8 and spent a fortune to meet 1998 and 2002. Based on the number of V8's sold in a good year, there was just no commercial business case to be made. I was there, I watched this, I didn't like the decision then and frankly still don't like it now. But facts can be brutally factual.

Zipping ahead another 11 years (and seemingly countless emission regulations) and we launch the Mack MP-10, a 1,000 cubic inch behemoth 6 cylinder, in a new model, the Titan by Mack. To be honest, being somewhat biased toward a V8 configuration, I was not expecting too much. I was wrong. Completely wrong. This engine is a monster! It has what I call all power all the time. My opinion is one thing, but customer buy-in is what truly matters. We just got a follow up order from an old Mack customer in Quebec, for an additional dozen MP10-equipped Titans! This was after testing an one for almost a year, hauling >300,000# of logs every single load!

So I can tell you without any reservation, we are not going to reintroduce the V8. I would suggest that all the tooling is gone as well. When I visit Hagerstown, I always walk by the engines on display. The V8 there has my fingerprints all over it. I hug it every visit!

Kevin, my friend, that is it on the V8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

G'day everyone.

I'd just like to add my bit about the mighty v8 mack engine , while I will agree to some of the comments made about EPA regulations the point is that it could have been achieved , but I don't think Volvo wanted to at the end of the day the new mp10 is just a Volvo engine it is NOT a mack engine you can paint it red call it mp10 say that it is a monster of an engine but it still a Volvo engine maybe I wrong but here in Australia the so called new breed mack are just rebadged volvo's and yes there will be guys that say I'm wrong but you can see the chassis is all Volvo and etc etc etc I believe that this volvo's way of destroying the brand just so they can use the mack name to push there product, if I wanted a Volvo I would have bought one I DON'T LIKE THEIR TRUCKS and I couldn't care how good they are Volvo now that if the v8 was to continue to be produced that people would still buy the V8 I know I would like the guy before said Scania m/Benz and man can do it then so could have mack they are just making excuses to justify their decision not to . This is only my opinion and I mean no disrespect to anyone's opinion it's just sad that they believe (mack ) this was their only option

Cheers 525

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question was addressed to Dave McKenna, Director Powertrain Sales & Marketing.

The answer was Volvo political. Dave's a Mack man that loves the V-8 product. However his new Swedish boss said the V-8 IS going to be terminated and the Volvo D16 IS going to be the new big power for Mack-branded trucks. What's Dave going to do? Argue with Olof (Persson)?

But Dave did get in, " I didn't like the decision then and frankly still don't like it now". That says it all.

The fact is, Mack had planned to relaunch the E9 V-8 in 2003 with Bosch electronic unit pump (EUP) injection. Revisions allowed it to meet the latest EPA standards while delivering superb power and fuel economy. However, Mack engineering was snubbed by Volvo Group. Volvo cancelled the pedigreed Mack E9 in favor of the upcoming Volvo D16 (renamed MP10).

But the Mack-Scania V-8 lives on......at Scania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

about the mighty v8 mack engine......about EPA regulations......it could have been achieved.....but I don't think Volvo wanted to.

the new mp10 is just a Volvo engine - it is NOT a mack engine

the so called new breed mack are just rebadged volvo's

this is volvo's way of destroying the brand just so they can use the mack name to push there product,

if I wanted a Volvo, I would have bought one

if the v8 was to continue to be produced......people would still buy the V8

Cheers 525

I couldn't agree with you more about this signature Mack product that was an essential to the brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scania and MAN could push a V8 Mack could of. But I see the point in the United States they weren't selling enough of them. Not like in Europe where Scania sells a ton of V8's and Scania is considered a Cadillac of trucks especially in the UK.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scania and MAN could push a V8 Mack could of. But I see the point in the United States they weren't selling enough of them. Not like in Europe where Scania sells a ton of V8's and Scania is considered a Cadillac of trucks especially in the UK.

Rob

While Scania does sell an impressive number of V-8s (because they promote this signature product), their in-line engines are the mainstream. The V-8 isn't just produced and marketed for profit, and to meet the needs ot the high horsepower segment. It's also an extremely important "halo product" for the brand.

Mack and Scania for years shared some of the production costs of the V-8 (the block), to realize economy of scale for both companies. But Volvo is a bitter rival of Scania, so they killed the Mack-Scania V-8 at Mack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question was addressed to Dave McKenna, Director Powertrain Sales & Marketing.

The answer was Volvo political. Dave's a Mack man that loves the V-8 product. However his new Swedish boss said the V-8 IS going to be terminated and the Volvo D16 IS going to be the new big power for Mack-branded trucks. What's Dave going to do? Argue with Olof (Persson)?

But Dave did get in, " I didn't like the decision then and frankly still don't like it now". That says it all.

The fact is, Mack had planned to relaunch the E9 V-8 in 2003 with Bosch electronic unit pump (EUP) injection. Revisions allowed it to meet the latest EPA standards while delivering superb power and fuel economy. However, Mack engineering was snubbed by Volvo Group. Volvo cancelled the pedigreed Mack E9 in favor of the upcoming Volvo D16 (renamed MP10).

But the Mack-Scania V-8 lives on......at Scania.

Besides being a really nice guy, Dave Mckenna is one of the few true "Mack Men" left under the Volvo regime. Good for him speaking up about the fate of the E9. My Father worked with Dave at Mack Canada and speaks very highly of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love the v8 but i find it hard to believe that it was to be relaunched in 2003. the 98 emission standards were much more easier to meet then the 02/04 regs. also why didnt volvo start putting d16/mp10 in the mack CL series instead of just putting cummins engines in them after the v8 was discontinued. i think theres alot of animosity towards the mp10 from v8 fans that is unjustified, also mack would have had to improve the engine brake in the e9 if it was to reamian competitive the dynatard was a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an engineer yet in the 1990's when dodge when to make a bigger gas engine instead of a large displacement V8 they went to the V10 for emission control. They said you can control emissions better with smaller cyl " Easyer to burn all the fuel in a small area then a large area" so even if the E9's a larger eng it has better burn control then a large 6 cyl. So I would say it was all political. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tell me if im wrong but i think the last mack v8 was made in 98 and volvo didnt aquire mack until 2000 , so mack/renault killed the v8 first not volvo . if mack would have updated the v8 during the 90s and it was still in production in 2000 when volvo took over maybe the v8 would have survived well into the 21st century. i blame mack for not electrifying and updating the v8 in the early to mid 90s when the vmac electronic controlled e7 came out. volvo allowed mack to run the etech and ac/ai series legacy 6 cylinder engines until 2007. again tell me if im wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tell me if im wrong but i think the last mack v8 was made in 98 and volvo didnt aquire mack until 2000 , so mack/renault killed the v8 first not volvo . if mack would have updated the v8 during the 90s and it was still in production in 2000 when volvo took over maybe the v8 would have survived well into the 21st century. i blame mack for not electrifying and updating the v8 in the early to mid 90s when the vmac electronic controlled e7 came out. volvo allowed mack to run the etech and ac/ai series legacy 6 cylinder engines until 2007. again tell me if im wrong

Fact 1: Hagerstown produced the last E9 V-8 engine in 2003.

Fact 2: It would have continued, had Volvo agreed to put the revised E9 V-8 with Bosch electronic unit pump (EUP) injection into production.

Volvo just wanted the Mack nameplate. Volvo shut down Mack's engineering development and test center in Allentown because they planned to "take it from here". From 2000 thru the present, Volvo has systematically replaced Mack content with Volvo Group global components. Today's Mack-branded truck is a Swede.

Meanwhile, the Mack-Scania V-8 lives on at Scania rated at Euro-6 (EPA2010) with the global standard SCR/EGR combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think the E9 was made for USA emissions or sale the last few years but rather for other markets and export. i beleive the decision, hurt as it may, to kill it was pre-volvo.

I'll take a wild guess here and say production near the end was sub 250-300 units per year but i bet some of the guys with the model history can say more accurately what the numbers looked like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think the E9 was made for USA emissions or sale the last few years but rather for other markets and export. i beleive the decision, hurt as it may, to kill it was pre-volvo.

I'll take a wild guess here and say production near the end was sub 250-300 units per year but i bet some of the guys with the model history can say more accurately what the numbers looked like

In 2003, three years after Volvo had acquired Mack, the Swedish company terminated the design program to relaunch the E9 V-8 as a U.S. market on-highway engine (accomplished by upgrading the engine to Bosch electronic unit pump (EUP) injection.

Genuine Mack engineering snubbed by Volvo Group, because Volvo planned all along to integrate Volvo global components (i.e. the upcoming Volvo D16 engine) into Mack-branded products (e.g. chassis, engines, transmissions, suspensions (Mack-badged mRIDE = Volvo T-Ride), fuel tanks, ect.).

What Volvo has done, reduce a global icon down to a mere shell of its former self, should be a crime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was talking about north american trucks with E9 engines ended in the 99 model year. and you didnt answer the fact that mack could have made the E9 an electronic engine in 92 or 93 when the E7 vmac engines came out and maybe they could have kept making them until 2008 when the mp engine series came out. also the E9 needed a descent engine break to be competitive . the E9 in our superliner was a test engine that was in a CL test truck that fabian earth moving in west rutland vermont bought directly from mack trucks. he lost the cam shaft in it soon after and made mack give him a new E9 crate motor , state line truck service ended up with the test engine and put a new cam in it and my dad bought it and put it in his superliner. My dad was told that the engine was a test engine for a jake brake equiped E9 . i always wondered why mack didnt put a jake brake on a production E9 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mack did not have enough funds to "upgrade" their E7 so they definitely would not had funds to "upgrade" the V8. If not for Volvo (or some other company), Mack would likely not be in business today. Like it or not!

I am not sure where "certain" people work but "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen" and "don't bite the hand that feeds you."

I think the thing that pisses everyone off about Volvo is the fact that Volvo keeps replacing Mack parts with Volvo parts. Now on the other hand if you look at a company like Daimler who owns Freightliner and western star they have taken the Detroit diesel engine designed and built here in the USA and are using it in their own trucks in the USA as well as Germany . In my opinion Mack truck would have been a better company today if it was part of the Freightliner western star group they probably would still be using their own engine design as well as many other of their own designs from yesteryear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is sad is the very thing that got Mack in trouble to where they got bought out is the fact they made too good of a truck,and weren't selling enough new ones.A Mack customer buys a Mack truck knowing it's good for as long as he wants to run it,and most did just that,first owner Macks would be 10,15 or 20 years old before being traded.Unlike the competion trucks that were ready for the junkyard after 4 or 5 years.Guess they don't have to worry about that anymore.I still think that Macks are superior to the competion,but with todays trucks,that ain't saying much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mack did not have enough funds to "upgrade" their E7 so they definitely would not (have) had funds to "upgrade" the V8.

If not for Volvo (or some other company), Mack would likely not be in business today.

Volvo had owned Mack for three years when the Swedish company decided NOT to introduce the new on-highway emissions compliant E9 V-8 with Bosch Electronic Unit Pump Injection (EUP), snubbing pedigreed genuine Mack engneering for Swedish design (the upcoming D16).

Volvo had the money. Volvo killed the V-8 product relaunch.

Mack Trucks is NOT in business today. It was acquired by Volvo Group in 2000. The Mack brand today seen on a North American Volvo truck produced by Volvo Group with (for the time being) a legacy Mack cab and hood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was talking about north american trucks with E9 engines ended in the 99 model year. and you didnt answer the fact that mack could have made the E9 an electronic engine in 92 or 93 when the E7 vmac engines came out and maybe they could have kept making them until 2008 when the mp engine series came out. also the E9 needed a descent engine break to be competitive . the E9 in our superliner was a test engine that was in a CL test truck that fabian earth moving in west rutland vermont bought directly from mack trucks. he lost the cam shaft in it soon after and made mack give him a new E9 crate motor , state line truck service ended up with the test engine and put a new cam in it and my dad bought it and put it in his superliner. My dad was told that the engine was a test engine for a jake brake equiped E9 . i always wondered why mack didnt put a jake brake on a production E9 ?

Around that time (1999), the sales marketing group realized the importance of the company's signature E9 V-8 as a halo product and requested it be updated. The outcome was the emissions-compliant EUP E-9 V-8, which with a combination of SCR and EGR (the current leading technology), could be EPA2010 compliant today.

When given the freedom by enginemakers to be deeply involved in engine (cylinder head) development, Jacobs has the ability to offer stunning engine braking capabilities. That is one reason why the new Mercedes-Benz OM471/OM472/OM473 engine range (known in the US as the DD13/DD15/DD16) have record-setting engine brake performance courtesy of Jacobs engine brakes. Benz actually redesigned the upper end of these new engines, at Jacobs' recommendation, for greater effect. German engineering is to be respected, but for engine braking, they call America's Jacobs. That speaks volumes about how well Jacobs is thought of around the globe. I personally would want a revised E-9 V-8 to have a Jacobs-designed brake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...