Jump to content

What Were They Thinking?!?!


Recommended Posts

Maybe because Wasted Star would build them an on/off road truck with a sleeper... The marketing clowns at Volvo can't seem to get it in their heads that oil float drivers need a sleeper so they can grab 40 winks when they can, given that oil rigs are often far from the nearest motel.

Now obviously Mack's integral sleeper will bolt right onto a Granite, so why not make it a factory option instead of chasing those customers to Wasted Star, Kenworthless, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more proof that common sense is uncommon these days.

Nowadays trucks are being spec'ed and ordered by white collar office "beancounter" types, most of whom have never even sat behind the wheel of a big truck, much less driven one.

These "beancounters" are dazzled by the allure of saving money, but the sweetness of the savings is quickly forgotten when it costs the company much more in premature repairs to keep the cheap P.O.S. on the job.

"If You Can't Shift It Smoothly, You Shouldn't Be Driving It"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option.

That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making the Intergral Sleepr an option on the Granite would mean changing the assembly plant(s). The assembly plant in Macungie does not produce any trucks with sleepers so the cab lines would need adjustment, and the New River Valley plant does not produce any Granites, so both the chassis and cab lines would need modification. = $$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option.

That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.

Maybe I missed something. Before Volvo, what Mack model was the twin steer, tridem, 300" wb sleeper winch truck that they sold to all their traditional oilfield customers?

Mack's previous owners -- Renault, Wheelabrator Frye, and before that the Signal companies - mainly milked Mack for its cash flow and never invested much into it. Volvo is investing more money into Mack facilities and Mack product than all the ones before did put together. What's the problem with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, up until recently twin front axles were available from the factory on the DM, and Mack also cataloged a factory live tridem. There were also DM800 and RD800 models available, and one sees these truly awesome beasts advertized for sale from time to time. As for the sleeper, I don't think Mack ever offered an integral sleeper with the R/U/DM/etc. cab. Then again, I believe I once saw pictures of integral sleeper R models built back in the mid 60s.

As a Volvo stockholder, I'm ticked off because while the market for oil field trucks has gone nuts, Volvo/Mack have been pretty much ignoring that market. You'd think with all the expertise at Mack and Volvo, plus affiliates Sisu and Terberg, Volvo could let Mack build a real kick-ass oilfield truck. But nooo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, up until recently twin front axles were available from the factory on the DM, and Mack also cataloged a factory live tridem. There were also DM800 and RD800 models available, and one sees these truly awesome beasts advertized for sale from time to time. As for the sleeper, I don't think Mack ever offered an integral sleeper with the R/U/DM/etc. cab. Then again, I believe I once saw pictures of integral sleeper R models built back in the mid 60s.

As a Volvo stockholder, I'm ticked off because while the market for oil field trucks has gone nuts, Volvo/Mack have been pretty much ignoring that market. You'd think with all the expertise at Mack and Volvo, plus affiliates Sisu and Terberg, Volvo could let Mack build a real kick-ass oilfield truck. But nooo...

Seriously, Kenworth and Western Star both offer oild field trucks with twin steer and tandem/tridem 70k SISU planetary axles. Heck Fabco Automotive the North American distributor for SISU axles, offers a 105K tridrive axle arrangement. Volvo has planetary axles and big engines that mack could offer to the oil field companies. Twin steer Granite MP8/10 engine with an 18 speed, eaton brownie, and Volvo or SISU planetary axles in tridrive and you would have a winning combination. Heck Mack Australia has a Renault planetary axle option for the Titan, tridrive option too:

(I think this beast is E9 powered, 200 metric tonne (220 imperial) GCW :D )

mack_titan.jpg

All the good stuff is down under!

-Thad

What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not be mad, but I do NOT like the looks of the Macks from "down under"(except the Vision/CXU look-alike). I would probably take a Volvo :wacko: over a "down-under" Mack. That's just my opinion though, I like all of the American Macks (CTP713/GU7 being my favorite).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not be mad, but I do NOT like the looks of the Macks from "down under"(except the Vision/CXU look-alike). I would probably take a Volvo :wacko: over a "down-under" Mack. That's just my opinion though, I like all of the American Macks (CTP713/GU7 being my favorite).

Blasphemy! j/k

Thats a pretty strong statement considering the "down under" Macks are the same thing as the Macks we have here. Their other specialized models are built by Mack to tackle the toughest requirements for hauling up to 220 tons off road. The Quantum is kinda silly but its their to fill the need for a short tractor for B train operation.

-Thad

What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blasphemy! j/k

Thats a pretty strong statement considering the "down under" Macks are the same thing as the Macks we have here. Their other specialized models are built by Mack to tackle the toughest requirements for hauling up to 220 tons off road. The Quantum is kinda silly but its their to fill the need for a short tractor for B train operation.

I kinda admire the look of the "Aussie" trucks. I'm sure most are an adaptation of ideas to get the job done as efficiently as possible. High horsepower ratings and heavy spec(s) seem to be the normal, (from what we always see in print) for all of the "road train" trucks.

Rob

Dog.jpg.487f03da076af0150d2376dbd16843ed.jpgPlodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that some of the Oz trucks look kind ugly... But in trucks, ugly can be beautiful!

The heavy loads and heat of Australia require huge radiators, which means the cab and hood has to be jacked up to make room. That throws the proportion off, and explains why those Oz monster Macks look homely compared to a handsome Vision/Pinnacle with the chrome bumper or a Rawhide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant think of any new mack that i like the look of, I like RDs but theyre not around anymore. The granites dont look terrible but the older trucks look better in my opinion. Those aussie trucks look real heavy duty. Wish i could read that brochure thing but the print is too small. What suspension would they use for a tri drive setup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option.

That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.

Good things come to those who wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I realize that to reach economies of scale Volvo has to build at least 100,000 cabs a year, and Mack sells only a third of that volume in a good year. None the less, within the same basic cab architechure, it should be possible to build a variant for Mack with features like heavier guage metal, divided instead of one piece windshield, etc. It might even make sense to give Mack a narrow, FL width cab and Volvo the wide cab. And given that typical Mack drivers climb in and out of their cabs a lot more often than Volvo drivers, a low mount cab would be preferred- every time I climb into a Mayflower cab I'm reminded how right the R model's design was! Or better yet, why not let Mack have both wide and narrow cab variants, with sleepers ranging from a modestly extended cab to condo? And of course, incorporate traditional Mack features like the inward sloping steps for safety with the cutouts in the bottom of the doors, etc..

Oops... hit "poset" before I was done!

That said, with all the tooling costs amortized, the Mayflower cab may be cheaper and if Volvo's latest and greatest is no better we may as well stick with it. And if the R model tooling is still aroound...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course trucks, like anything else are always evolving. This will be especially true as the EPA steps in and forces tighter restrictions on emissions and the like. I don't think they'll go back to R model style cabs, but I do think that we are going away from companies listening to their customers. I think they can borrow some ideas from the Volvo truck lines, but I think they need to be careful in how they do that. They can use some interior ideas to make their cabs a little more comfortable. I do like the recessed steps, and the openness of the cabs that Mack has always had, except the early R's, those were kinda tight.

Mack- Built Tough to Ride Rough!

Driver and operator for Bertils Gravel and Excavation

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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