rhasler Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 It seems like you guys in Australia keep pretty close tabs on who owned certain trucks and what became of them, so I'm hoping someone will be able to help with my questions. Do any of you recall seeing a CLR chassis with a high horsepower VMAC II EA9 engine produced somewhere around 1998-1999? What exactly does the CLR chassis look like? I'm really curious about the chassis' that you guys get down there. My understanding of the reasons for the E9 engines being discontinued was that Mack did not want to blow the money to "electrify" the engine. I have also heard that the engine, even with electronic injection controls, would be unable to meet US emissions regulations. Somehow I feel like we aren't getting the whole story here, like maybe there are some other reasons for discontinuing the engine. If anyone can produce any information on these engines/chassis it would be terrifically appreciated. Quote "Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack4ever Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 hello rhasler.i`m not from down under but here`s my twocents.could it be at that time the renault company and vulva made an agreement on the engens they would use in the future trucks of all the brands.so all the renault and mack engens had to make place for the engens they use now,so the costs of developmant could kept lo.mack4ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffbyrne Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 rhasler, A CLR around 98/99 would be a Titan I think. the 1st CLR's were like a CHR but longer bonnet/hood, the cab sat higher but the bonnet sat the same height, so there was a pronounced slope to the bonnet. Mack replaced this CLR with the Titan and the Trident. CLR, CHR, MHR they are all on R model chassis rails. The Titan, the early Superliner, Cruiseliner and MCR all used R model chassis. In the Mid 90's Mack announced that the CH chassis was now available. The R chassis continued to be used on the Titan. Someone else might be able to clarify these details. As for the E9, I've beleived that emissions killed it. Jeff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhasler Posted November 7, 2010 Author Share Posted November 7, 2010 Thank you all for the replies. I have seen some of the details for an EA9 with VMAC II electronics recently. I believe they were probably installed in 822SX chassis. Is it possible that these are something like the M series trucks here in the States, used off road only? Quote "Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 rhasler, A CLR around 98/99 would be a Titan I think. the 1st CLR's were like a CHR but longer bonnet/hood, the cab sat higher but the bonnet sat the same height, so there was a pronounced slope to the bonnet. Mack replaced this CLR with the Titan and the Trident. CLR, CHR, MHR they are all on R model chassis rails. The Titan, the early Superliner, Cruiseliner and MCR all used R model chassis. In the Mid 90's Mack announced that the CH chassis was now available. The R chassis continued to be used on the Titan. Someone else might be able to clarify these details. As for the E9, I've beleived that emissions killed it. Jeff.Sounds like a CLR might be a CL with right hand drive. The CL has the superliner frame and the CH cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackcl96 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 If I do remember,, Europe or France,,,had the Vmack 2 on the E9.And if I do remember Mack U.S was having problem with EPA with Vmack 1 and 2 ITS BEEN A WHILE I DONT REMEMBER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES MACK TRUCK INC. UNDER CLEAN AIR ACTCompany Charged With Illegal Emissions From Diesel Engines WASHINGTON The Justice Department, on behalf of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, yesterday sued Mack Trucks Inc.,one of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heavy duty dieselengines, for violating standards designed to limit emissions ofdangerous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. "The American people deserve clean air to breath," said LoisSchiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environmentand Natural Resources Division. "Those who break the law will paya high price. This lawsuit is another example of the federalgovernment's determination to ensure full compliance with theClean Air Act." On Monday, the Department filed suit in U.S. District Courtin Washington, D.C. to respond to the company's termination ofsettlement negotiations by filing its own lawsuit against thefederal government. The suit alleges that Mack has been selling unlawful heavyduty diesel engines equipped with devices that defeat theengines' emissions control system, resulting in the emission ofillegal amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx is an air pollutant that contributes to smog, acid rain,and increased levels of lung disease. Heavy duty diesel enginesare used in tractor trailers and other large trucks. The suit asks the court to prohibit Mack from sellingengines with defeat devices, to order Mack to recall and fixthose engines currently on the road, and to require Mack to takeadditional steps to offset the harm caused to public health andthe environment. The suit also seeks civil penalties for theviolations. "Mack's use of defeat devices had and will continue to havea significant adverse impact on the public, resulting in anestimated 700,000 tons of excess harmful nitrogen oxide emissionsand more than $1 billion in extra health care costs over the lifeof the engines," said Steve Herman, EPA Assistant Administratorfor Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "By filing the lawsuit,we are taking action to ensure that the company does notcompromise clean air and the public health now and in thefuture." "There simply is no excuse for circumventing federal lawsaimed at protecting and preserving our natural resources," saidWilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney for the District ofColumbia. "This lawsuit is the result of a collaborative effortamong the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental andNatural Resources Division of the Department of Justice and theU.S. Attorney's Office, and demonstrates our continuingcommitment toward enforcing the Clean Air Act." According to the charges, the company's engine softwarecontrols the timing of fuel injection into the combustionchamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOxwhile the truck is running on the open road. However, thecompany's engine software is designed in such a way so that theseemission levels do not show up on the federal test. Changing thetiming of fuel injection can increase fuel economy, but at theexpense of much higher emissions of NOx. The suit also alleges that these engines are not covered byEPA's certificates of conformity, which all engines must have tobe lawfully sold in this country. Under the Clean Air Act, a manufacturer is prohibited fromselling or offering for sale any new motor vehicle or motorvehicle engine equipped with any device designed to defeat theengines' emission control system. The government estimates that the affected engines, if notfixed, could result in total increases in NOx emissions in excessof 700,000 tons over the life of the engines. Oxides of Nitrogen combine with volatile organic compoundsin the presence of sunlight to form ozone, one of six criteriapollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient AirQuality Standards. An abundance of ozone near the earth'ssurface is harmful to humans, agricultural crops and plants. Inaddition, oxides of nitrogen can cause acid rain, which isharmful to fish, and high levels of nitrates in drinking water,which is a human health hazard, especially for infants. Last week, the Department settled allegations that AmericanHonda Motor Co. Inc. and Ford Motor Company violated the CleanAir Act by selling vehicles with disabled emission controldiagnostic systems and illegally installing defeat devices,respectively. Mack's failure to disclose to EPA the existence of thesedefeat devices on its engines obstructed the EPA's ability toprotect public welfare and the environment before the engineswere sold.http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html Quote Thanks for hearing me out.You can have the soap box now---------JIM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Or maybe their CL looked like this......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffbyrne Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 As David said, a CLR was the equivalent of a CL. If it was a CLR822RSX it would be a Titan but using the R model chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhasler Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 If I do remember,, Europe or France,,,had the Vmack 2 on the E9.And if I do remember Mack U.S was having problem with EPA with Vmack 1 and 2 ITS BEEN A WHILE I DONT REMEMBER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES MACK TRUCK INC. UNDER CLEAN AIR ACTCompany Charged With Illegal Emissions From Diesel Engines WASHINGTON The Justice Department, on behalf of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, yesterday sued Mack Trucks Inc.,one of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heavy duty dieselengines, for violating standards designed to limit emissions ofdangerous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. "The American people deserve clean air to breath," said LoisSchiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environmentand Natural Resources Division. "Those who break the law will paya high price. This lawsuit is another example of the federalgovernment's determination to ensure full compliance with theClean Air Act." On Monday, the Department filed suit in U.S. District Courtin Washington, D.C. to respond to the company's termination ofsettlement negotiations by filing its own lawsuit against thefederal government. The suit alleges that Mack has been selling unlawful heavyduty diesel engines equipped with devices that defeat theengines' emissions control system, resulting in the emission ofillegal amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx is an air pollutant that contributes to smog, acid rain,and increased levels of lung disease. Heavy duty diesel enginesare used in tractor trailers and other large trucks. The suit asks the court to prohibit Mack from sellingengines with defeat devices, to order Mack to recall and fixthose engines currently on the road, and to require Mack to takeadditional steps to offset the harm caused to public health andthe environment. The suit also seeks civil penalties for theviolations. "Mack's use of defeat devices had and will continue to havea significant adverse impact on the public, resulting in anestimated 700,000 tons of excess harmful nitrogen oxide emissionsand more than $1 billion in extra health care costs over the lifeof the engines," said Steve Herman, EPA Assistant Administratorfor Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "By filing the lawsuit,we are taking action to ensure that the company does notcompromise clean air and the public health now and in thefuture." "There simply is no excuse for circumventing federal lawsaimed at protecting and preserving our natural resources," saidWilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney for the District ofColumbia. "This lawsuit is the result of a collaborative effortamong the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental andNatural Resources Division of the Department of Justice and theU.S. Attorney's Office, and demonstrates our continuingcommitment toward enforcing the Clean Air Act." According to the charges, the company's engine softwarecontrols the timing of fuel injection into the combustionchamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOxwhile the truck is running on the open road. However, thecompany's engine software is designed in such a way so that theseemission levels do not show up on the federal test. Changing thetiming of fuel injection can increase fuel economy, but at theexpense of much higher emissions of NOx. The suit also alleges that these engines are not covered byEPA's certificates of conformity, which all engines must have tobe lawfully sold in this country. Under the Clean Air Act, a manufacturer is prohibited fromselling or offering for sale any new motor vehicle or motorvehicle engine equipped with any device designed to defeat theengines' emission control system. The government estimates that the affected engines, if notfixed, could result in total increases in NOx emissions in excessof 700,000 tons over the life of the engines. Oxides of Nitrogen combine with volatile organic compoundsin the presence of sunlight to form ozone, one of six criteriapollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient AirQuality Standards. An abundance of ozone near the earth'ssurface is harmful to humans, agricultural crops and plants. Inaddition, oxides of nitrogen can cause acid rain, which isharmful to fish, and high levels of nitrates in drinking water,which is a human health hazard, especially for infants. Last week, the Department settled allegations that AmericanHonda Motor Co. Inc. and Ford Motor Company violated the CleanAir Act by selling vehicles with disabled emission controldiagnostic systems and illegally installing defeat devices,respectively. Mack's failure to disclose to EPA the existence of thesedefeat devices on its engines obstructed the EPA's ability toprotect public welfare and the environment before the engineswere sold.http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1998/June/281.htmlYes, this did happen, but I thiink it was more a matter choosing to make it non-compliant. All of the major engine manufacturers (except International if memory serves) got hit with the same accusations. As a result there are low NOx kits that must be installed on the non-compliant engines when certain cylinder components are replaced, depending upon mileage and the items that are replaced during a rebuild (at no additional cost to the customer), and emissions regulations were moved up, meaning that 2004 emissions had to be met by 2002. These "inproprieties" may also have had something to do with the sell off to volvo. Yes, the emission move up probably resulted in the E9 being unable to meet certification requirements.Or maybe their CL looked like this.........That is one helluva truck right there.As David said, a CLR was the equivalent of a CL. If it was a CLR822RSX it would be a Titan but using the R model chassis.Do you know the final disposition of any of these trucks? I would imagine that they would still be in service, perhaps with a different engine, as they would only be somewhere between 10-15 years old. Quote "Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjh Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Yes, this did happen, but I thiink it was more a matter choosing to make it non-compliant. All of the major engine manufacturers (except International if memory serves) got hit with the same accusations. As a result there are low NOx kits that must be installed on the non-compliant engines when certain cylinder components are replaced, depending upon mileage and the items that are replaced during a rebuild (at no additional cost to the customer), and emissions regulations were moved up, meaning that 2004 emissions had to be met by 2002. These "inproprieties" may also have had something to do with the sell off to volvo. Yes, the emission move up probably resulted in the E9 being unable to meet certification requirements.That is one helluva truck right there.Do you know the final disposition of any of these trucks? I would imagine that they would still be in service, perhaps with a different engine, as they would only be somewhere between 10-15 years old.All but appox 4 of those CL350 's were sold here in BC as log trucks All but 2 were born with V12 detroits and allison trans. The other 4 went to various places apex moving has one not sure who else got em!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackMann85 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 You guys hit on the right answer related to emissions killing the E9. Volvo didn't have anything to do with the decision as it was made in 1998ish and Volvo did not buy Mack/Renault until 2001. One important reason was left out and that is the volume of V8s produced. Could the E9 have been made compliant? Of course, anything can be done given time and money. The unfortunate part is that the astronomical costs to do so would never have been offset by the number of E9s that were sold. A couple hundred in a good year, sometimes much less. I agree that the E9 was a monster and has a following like no other, but a bad business case doesnt lie and just like any other company big or small, you have to only make the decisions that can make you money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhasler Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 You guys hit on the right answer related to emissions killing the E9. Volvo didn't have anything to do with the decision as it was made in 1998ish and Volvo did not buy Mack/Renault until 2001. One important reason was left out and that is the volume of V8s produced. Could the E9 have been made compliant? Of course, anything can be done given time and money. The unfortunate part is that the astronomical costs to do so would never have been offset by the number of E9s that were sold. A couple hundred in a good year, sometimes much less. I agree that the E9 was a monster and has a following like no other, but a bad business case doesnt lie and just like any other company big or small, you have to only make the decisions that can make you money.True, but regardless of why the E9 was "put down", I have seen listings for EA9 Australian emissions engines with VMAC II electronics. I do not care to be drawn into a debate on emissions regulations and their impact on E9 engine production (though I don't mind reading about the subject), as Dave McKenna has stated, the engine is gone and won't be back. My question is concerned more with what ever became of any of these chassis and the actual history of some of these trucks. I wonder if there is any possibility that these were sent to Europe? Quote "Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.