Jump to content

A Question For Our Friends Down Under


Recommended Posts

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.

"Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

"Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :unsure:

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES MACK TRUCK INC. UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT

Company Charged With Illegal Emissions From Diesel Engines

WASHINGTON The Justice Department, on behalf of the

Environmental Protection Agency, yesterday sued Mack Trucks Inc.,

one of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heavy duty diesel

engines, for violating standards designed to limit emissions of

dangerous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

"The American people deserve clean air to breath," said Lois

Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment

and Natural Resources Division. "Those who break the law will pay

a high price. This lawsuit is another example of the federal

government's determination to ensure full compliance with the

Clean Air Act."

On Monday, the Department filed suit in U.S. District Court

in Washington, D.C. to respond to the company's termination of

settlement negotiations by filing its own lawsuit against the

federal government.

The suit alleges that Mack has been selling unlawful heavy

duty diesel engines equipped with devices that defeat the

engines' emissions control system, resulting in the emission of

illegal 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 engines

are used in tractor trailers and other large trucks.

The suit asks the court to prohibit Mack from selling

engines with defeat devices, to order Mack to recall and fix

those engines currently on the road, and to require Mack to take

additional steps to offset the harm caused to public health and

the environment. The suit also seeks civil penalties for the

violations.

"Mack's use of defeat devices had and will continue to have

a significant adverse impact on the public, resulting in an

estimated 700,000 tons of excess harmful nitrogen oxide emissions

and more than $1 billion in extra health care costs over the life

of the engines," said Steve Herman, EPA Assistant Administrator

for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "By filing the lawsuit,

we are taking action to ensure that the company does not

compromise clean air and the public health now and in the

future."

"There simply is no excuse for circumventing federal laws

aimed at protecting and preserving our natural resources," said

Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney for the District of

Columbia. "This lawsuit is the result of a collaborative effort

among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental and

Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice and the

U.S. Attorney's Office, and demonstrates our continuing

commitment toward enforcing the Clean Air Act."

According to the charges, the company's engine software

controls the timing of fuel injection into the combustion

chamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOx

while the truck is running on the open road. However, the

company's engine software is designed in such a way so that these

emission levels do not show up on the federal test. Changing the

timing of fuel injection can increase fuel economy, but at the

expense of much higher emissions of NOx.

The suit also alleges that these engines are not covered by

EPA's certificates of conformity, which all engines must have to

be lawfully sold in this country.

Under the Clean Air Act, a manufacturer is prohibited from

selling or offering for sale any new motor vehicle or motor

vehicle engine equipped with any device designed to defeat the

engines' emission control system.

The government estimates that the affected engines, if not

fixed, could result in total increases in NOx emissions in excess

of 700,000 tons over the life of the engines.

Oxides of Nitrogen combine with volatile organic compounds

in the presence of sunlight to form ozone, one of six criteria

pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. An abundance of ozone near the earth's

surface is harmful to humans, agricultural crops and plants. In

addition, oxides of nitrogen can cause acid rain, which is

harmful 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 American

Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Ford Motor Company violated the Clean

Air Act by selling vehicles with disabled emission control

diagnostic systems and illegally installing defeat devices,

respectively.

Mack's failure to disclose to EPA the existence of these

defeat devices on its engines obstructed the EPA's ability to

protect public welfare and the environment before the engines

were sold.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html

gallery_133_137_10125.jpg

Thanks for hearing me out.

You can have the soap box now---------JIM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :unsure:

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES MACK TRUCK INC. UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT

Company Charged With Illegal Emissions From Diesel Engines

WASHINGTON The Justice Department, on behalf of the

Environmental Protection Agency, yesterday sued Mack Trucks Inc.,

one of the leading U.S. manufacturers of heavy duty diesel

engines, for violating standards designed to limit emissions of

dangerous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

"The American people deserve clean air to breath," said Lois

Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment

and Natural Resources Division. "Those who break the law will pay

a high price. This lawsuit is another example of the federal

government's determination to ensure full compliance with the

Clean Air Act."

On Monday, the Department filed suit in U.S. District Court

in Washington, D.C. to respond to the company's termination of

settlement negotiations by filing its own lawsuit against the

federal government.

The suit alleges that Mack has been selling unlawful heavy

duty diesel engines equipped with devices that defeat the

engines' emissions control system, resulting in the emission of

illegal 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 engines

are used in tractor trailers and other large trucks.

The suit asks the court to prohibit Mack from selling

engines with defeat devices, to order Mack to recall and fix

those engines currently on the road, and to require Mack to take

additional steps to offset the harm caused to public health and

the environment. The suit also seeks civil penalties for the

violations.

"Mack's use of defeat devices had and will continue to have

a significant adverse impact on the public, resulting in an

estimated 700,000 tons of excess harmful nitrogen oxide emissions

and more than $1 billion in extra health care costs over the life

of the engines," said Steve Herman, EPA Assistant Administrator

for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "By filing the lawsuit,

we are taking action to ensure that the company does not

compromise clean air and the public health now and in the

future."

"There simply is no excuse for circumventing federal laws

aimed at protecting and preserving our natural resources," said

Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney for the District of

Columbia. "This lawsuit is the result of a collaborative effort

among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental and

Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice and the

U.S. Attorney's Office, and demonstrates our continuing

commitment toward enforcing the Clean Air Act."

According to the charges, the company's engine software

controls the timing of fuel injection into the combustion

chamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOx

while the truck is running on the open road. However, the

company's engine software is designed in such a way so that these

emission levels do not show up on the federal test. Changing the

timing of fuel injection can increase fuel economy, but at the

expense of much higher emissions of NOx.

The suit also alleges that these engines are not covered by

EPA's certificates of conformity, which all engines must have to

be lawfully sold in this country.

Under the Clean Air Act, a manufacturer is prohibited from

selling or offering for sale any new motor vehicle or motor

vehicle engine equipped with any device designed to defeat the

engines' emission control system.

The government estimates that the affected engines, if not

fixed, could result in total increases in NOx emissions in excess

of 700,000 tons over the life of the engines.

Oxides of Nitrogen combine with volatile organic compounds

in the presence of sunlight to form ozone, one of six criteria

pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. An abundance of ozone near the earth's

surface is harmful to humans, agricultural crops and plants. In

addition, oxides of nitrogen can cause acid rain, which is

harmful 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 American

Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Ford Motor Company violated the Clean

Air Act by selling vehicles with disabled emission control

diagnostic systems and illegally installing defeat devices,

respectively.

Mack's failure to disclose to EPA the existence of these

defeat devices on its engines obstructed the EPA's ability to

protect public welfare and the environment before the engines

were sold.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html

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.

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.

"Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

"Mebbe I'm too ugly and stupid to give up!"

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...