New Mack Logo

[Eastcoastdiesel]

I for one have to say I like the video, the music in the background especially. Anyone who owns a mack and is proud of it should see it that way. I love mack

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mackboy]

those Mack Bigfoots are not built any longer and only 32 built.the mining company's wanted bigger trucks and development for only 32 trucks is to expansive

[Eastcoastdiesel]

I for one have to say I like the video, the music in the background especially. Anyone who owns a mack and is proud of it should see it that way. I love mack

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bullheaded]

#1 Titan IS available with a sleeper in North America, albeit a 36"flat top. If you want bigger you order it from your dealer and they have Mik-Mak in Canada build a very nice one for no more than factory sleeper prices.

#2 You really think Volvo cares if a Mack outsells their own truck?? It's all profit in their bank. I'm sure they're quite happy with sales no matter what name is on the grill.

#3 CL wasn't popular?? Hahaha. Come to Canada. They ruled logging in Ontario and Quebec. There are many hauling freight with 70" mid rise bunks and E9 V8's. I see all kinds every day. E-9, E-7 and Cummins powered. Loggers, dump trucks, highway tractors, tankers, etc.

OK....now your turn to reply with more Volvo/Mack hate LOL.

[Bullheaded]

Logtruckman........on behalf of Volvo I would like to thank you and your brother for "lowering" yourselves enough to drive such beasts Hahahahaha. It must really suck to have all that power and wonderful ride quality. LOL.

[bullhusk]

#1 Titan IS available with a sleeper in North America, albeit a 36"flat top. If you want bigger you order it from your dealer and they have Mik-Mak in Canada build a very nice one for no more than factory sleeper prices.

#2 You really think Volvo cares if a Mack outsells their own truck?? It's all profit in their bank. I'm sure they're quite happy with sales no matter what name is on the grill.

#3 CL wasn't popular?? Hahaha. Come to Canada. They ruled logging in Ontario and Quebec. There are many hauling freight with 70" mid rise bunks and E9 V8's. I see all kinds every day. E-9, E-7 and Cummins powered. Loggers, dump trucks, highway tractors, tankers, etc.

I think # 2 sums up how Volvo does business ....LOL

BULLHUSK

OK....now your turn to reply with more Volvo/Mack hate LOL.

[james j neiweem]

I didn't mean CL I meant CH. No over the road big power. CL was a great workhorse. My only point was that Mack failed in the 90's under their own management and they can't blame Volvo for that.

[Bobby Covert]

Most of us on this site are definitely Old School Mack lovers.We aren't going to embrace the changes Volvo makes to The Mack Truck. We have seen what Volvo did to the Autocar. and White Truck Group and we don't like that either.

It does make me think of how Mack almost went out of business with a fine product like the B-model Mack that we love so much. If it hadn't been for Zenon Hansen the Mack truck would not exist today. I will be looking for that new logo on a t shirt at the truck show in Louisville. I will be glad they are still in business. But when it comes to the Mack truck I will think of my B-model first and then all the others. There is going to be a superfine Red B-61 at the Pride and Polish show. Look for it, Vote for it. It is beautiful. Lets make an old Mack win this year and not a 1 year old Peterbilt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The truck is not mine, but it is of museum quality.

[james j neiweem]

The B's , R's, Brocks and A-cars were all metal. What did Paccar ever make on there own? Sheet metal, fiber glass and now plastic.

[kscarbel]

You blame everything on Volvo. Where were the Mack leaders when Volvo was making all these back door deals? Someone was sleeping at their post.

Complacency kills

Please allow me to explain, in further detail, how we came to arrive at this point today.

I’m not for a moment going to tell you that the executives of America’s truckmakers were/are all angels (although Zenon C.R. Hansen was), but I will bluntly tell you the business culture today at most of Europe’s truckmakers is altogether different from the United States. The word ruthless doesn’t begin to describe it. Frankly, we Americans aren’t accustomed to the underhanded way they execute to get ahead, and it puts us at a business disadvantage.

To Volvo and Daimler, they are engaged in a global battle. The American truck industry has never known such a business environment. And this has much to do with why European truckmakers now dominate America’s truck industry.

In our great country that once led the world in industrial might and innovation, foreign truckmakers have now proven to be savvier in America’s truck industry than our own manufacturers. The sadness of this irony is, from the very beginning of trucking before World War I to the late 1990s, America’s truckmakers were always superior to their European peers.

Mack was never asleep at the wheel, but we did miss in 1989. We had an 11 month distraction named Ralph Reins. Without any experience in the heavy truck industry, this short time Mack president left behind a real mess. He represented the new younger executive that changes companies every few years.

As a result of Ralph Reins being chosen as Mack new president, a justifiably upset Joseph P. Rossetti resigned on November 14, 1989 from his position as executive vice president of marketing at Mack Trucks. He was a Mack veteran going back to 1964.

While one might not have ticked all the boxes when considering Joe for the head position, he was a dedicated and dynamic career Mack man. Joe could certainly have done a better job as president than Ralph Reins and I wish he’d been given a chance.

Note: Joe Rossetti went on to head Northeast Truck Group based in Rockaway, New Jersey.

While I could accept the board’s thought process for looking “outside the box” for Mack’s next leader, as Ford more recently did when selecting ex-Boeing man Alan Mulally, Reins was no Mulally.

Unknown to many Americans (but certainly no secret), Volvo's ability to acquire Mack Trucks has its roots in the failed merger between Renault and Volvo. Renault became extremely disgusted with their would-be partner Volvo and cancelled merger discussions, however Volvo was able to use that platform and acquire control of RVI (Renault Vehicles Industries) and hence Mack Trucks.

Thus, Mack Trucks was a victim of a European struggle between Renault and Volvo. Mack Trucks itself committed no wrongdoing.

It was entirely because Volvo wanted to buy up more US market share that the Swedes set their sights on Mack Trucks (having already acquired the market share of White, Autocar and GMC).

Nobody at Mack was sleeping at their post. Volvo’s ability to acquire Mack Trucks has much to do the Swedish truckmaker turning a high level Mack executive into a Volvo spy, in return for a future position as CEO of Volvo Trucks North America,

Volvo played dirty pool to get their hands on Mack Trucks from the beginning. Volvo met with Marc Gustafson, Mack’s vice president of sales and marketing from 1992, and paid him off to be a traitor for the Volvo cause. Gustafson plotted with the ruthless Swedes at Volvo to conspire against Mack Trucks, telling Volvo everything Mack was planning from 1992 onward.

Gustafson abruptly left Mack in 1996 to become CEO of Volvo Trucks North America.

Marc Gustafson betrayed Mack Trucks and shared his privileged insider company knowledge with competitor Volvo. The secrets that Gustafson passed on to Volvo were instrumental in allowing this foreign truckmaker to takeover America’s Mack Trucks.

Mack won in court, but realistically the Gustafson damage was irreparable.

And note the time period, 1992-1996. This is when Mack lost momentum and direction.

Do you want to complain about Mack product offerings in the 1990s? Do you want to know why Mack didn’t launch a third generation U.S. market Super-Liner in 1996, same as the Australian market*? Then you should all ask the traitorous Marc Gustafson, Mack’s vice president of sales and marketing from 1992 thru 1996. That was his call.

With the promise of becoming the president of Volvo Trucks North America once having served his purpose as a spy at Mack Trucks, Gustafson took marching orders from Volvo and set Mack up to fail.

* The Macungie-produced RWI600/700 Superliner II, utilizing the advanced Ultra-Liner chassis, was built from 1984 thru 1993. However the legendary Super-Liner’s story didn’t end there for those “down under’. Mack Trucks Australia introduced the third generation Super-Liner in 1996 and it’s been a hot seller ever since.

Ironically, after just four years as CEO of Volvo Trucks of North America, Volvo Group fired Gustafson (traitors get what they deserve in the end). He then headed Freightliner subsidiary American LaFrance for just one year. If he’d been a man of integrity rather than a self-serving traitor, the United States might still have Mack Trucks today.

Renault-appointed Mack President Pierre Jocou responded quickly and took a hard stand against Gustafson’s defection*. But Volvo then used its relationship with Renault (the result of their merger negotiations) to ease the legal battle against Gustafson. Volvo succeeded in replacing the pro-Mack President Pierre Jocou with the pro-Volvo takeover Mack President Michel Gigou.

This is why Pierre Jocou's tenure as Mack president, which began in March 1995, ended suddenly in November 1996. From December 1996 thru July 2001, Jocou's replacement Michel Gigou was just floating along while the Volvo takeover of “the greatest name in trucks” was being finalized.

Renault’s Gigou was the other traitor orchestrating Mack’s fall into Volvo’s hands, taking marching orders from Volvo in return for a high position at the Swedish truckmaker. Gigou was generously rewarded, becoming president and CEO of Volvo Trucks North America from 2000, and senior VP of Volvo Group from 2004.

Mack Presidents Tenure

John M. Mack 1900 to 1905 / 1909 to October 17, 1911

Otto Mears April 29, 1905 to January 9, 1906

Jacob Sulzbach January 9, 1906 to January 8, 1907

Thomas Rush January 8, 1907 to December 8, 1908

Charles P. Coleman October 17, 1911 to June 13, 1913

John Calder June to October 1913

Vernon Munroe October 22, 1913 to May 23, 1917

Alfred J. Brosseau May 15, 1917 to September 24, 1936

Emil C. Fink January 28, 1937 to January 1, 1943

Charles T. Ruhf August 5, 1943 to June 6, 1949

Edwin D. Bransome June 6, 1949 to January 11, 1955

Peter O. Peterson January 11, 1955 to December 31, 1958

Christian A. Johnson 1958 to 1962 (acting President)

Nicholas Dykstra July 20, 1961 to September 1, 1962

C. Rhoades McBride September 7, 1962 to January 6, 1965

Zenon C.R. Hansen January 7, 1965 to January 28, 1972

Henry J. Nave January 28, 1972 to January 1, 1976

Alfred W. Pelletier January 1, 1976 to July 21, 1980

John B. Curcio July 21, 1980 to October 23, 1989

Ralph Reins November 23, 1989 to October 11, 1990

Elios Pascual October 18, 1990 to March 1, 1995

Pierre Jocou March 1, 1995 to November 29, 1996

Michel Gigou December 1, 1996 to July 1, 2001

Paul Vikner July 1, 2001 to April 1, 2008

Dennis Slagle April 1, 2008 to January 1, 2012

Kevin Flaherty January 1, 2012 to September 5, 2013

Stephen Roy Present

* Mack Trucks Sues Former Executive, Says Marc Gustafson Took Company Secrets With Him To His New Job

October 01, 1996 | by ELLIOT GROSSMAN, The Morning Call

Mack Trucks Inc. has sued the new president of rival truck manufacturer, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., accusing him of taking company secrets when he left Mack two weeks ago.

And Mack has won at least a partial victory in Round 1 of the legal battle involving Marc Gustafson, a former Mack executive vice president.

Chief Judge Edward Cahn of the U.S. District Court in Allentown issued a temporary restraining order Friday, forbidding Gustafson from participating in any Volvo sales and marketing activities or from disclosing any Mack sales and marketing information at Volvo.

But Mack wanted Gustafson blocked from working for Volvo -- or any Mack competitors -- for at least a year. Mack also asked for damages to be awarded at a trial.

At a hearing next Tuesday, Cahn will more deeply delve into the case so he can issue a permanent order.

Gustafson served as Mack's executive vice president for sales and marketing for four years until he resigned Sept. 19, effective that day. He then went to work at Volvo GM Heavy Truck headquarters in Greensboro, N.C.

Mack sued him last week in Lehigh County Court. But he asked that the case be heard in federal court, and Mack did not object.

Mack claims that Gustafson is violating his contract with Mack. In the contract, according to Mack, Gustafson promised to not disclose any confidential Mack information outside Mack.

"It would be impossible for him to ignore his knowledge of Mack's business plans as he considers Volvo's business plans and its competitive strategies," according to Mack's lawsuit.

For example, the suit claims, Gustafson has knowledge of Mack secrets about its costs and pricing structures. This information, which Mack uses when bidding on large orders of trucks, is known only to select individuals at Mack.

Since Mack and Volvo often compete for such orders, Volvo will have an unfair advantage, according to Mack.

Also, Gustafson's knowledge about products being developed by Mack will enable Volvo to take steps to respond to Mack's new products before the products are announced publicly, Mack claims.

Before filing the suit, Mack President Pierre Jocou sent a letter to Volvo's chairman, asking him to not employ Gustafson, at least until the two sides resolve Mack's concerns.

[mackdaddy]

I had always thought that Jack Curcio was the longest reining President of Mack but it appears Brosseau was. And didn't Zenon serve as chairman longer than 72?

[kscarbel]

Don't know where you get your info kscarbel.....but every industry publication I've ever read had the E9 terminated before Volvo came into the picture. And it was written that it was the price to develop it to the new emissions standards that killed it.....not that it couldn't be done. It was cheaper to shelve it and go Cummins at the time.

But if you know different than maybe you are correct. After all everything we read on the internet is absolutely true,

My friend, I know for a fact that Hagerstown was building E9 V-8s thru 2003. And so does Volvo.

Please note page 17 (http://www.marketingstrategiesandsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Volvo-Hagerstown-50th.pdf)

I hope you will now trust me when say that, after acquiring Mack on April 21, 2000, Volvo terminated E9 production in 2003.

You say that it was never written that evolving the E9 to meet future emissions standards “couldn’t be done”. You’re half right. Volvo (and MackLegacy) would like you to believe it would have cost “a small fortune” to create an electronically fuel injected E9 so as to meet EPA1998 (near Euro-3), and they avoid discussing EPA2004 (near Euro-4).

Of course, the truth is that with high pressure unit pump (or common rail) injection, the E9 could have, with the same evolving emissions technologies all global truck makers have been utilizing, gone all the way to EPA2007 and Euro-5.

And with extra high pressure common rail injection that all truck makers have used since 2010 to further reduce emissions levels, the Mack E9 could easily meet EPA2010 paired with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and a light to heavy EGR rate of 18-20% to 28-30%. With their DC16 V-8, Scania rather clearly validates this point.

Was the cost to evolve the E9 V-8 forward prohibitive? No, of course not. No more than developing the D16 was cost prohibitive for Volvo. In fact, as Scania has proven, a V-8 can share many components with your 12-13 liter engine, actually reducing costs by increasing economy-of-scale. A high output engine is a necessary product, and its development expense is the cost of doing business.

Scania engineers chuckle when they hear Volvo's official company line excuse that the Mack E9 was terminated because it couldn’t meet future emissions and/or evolving the V-8 forward was cost prohibitive. Volvo simply wanted to use its upcoming Swedish D16 instead.

When Volvo tries to paint a dim picture of low E9 production volumes as another reason for terminating this powerhouse, there are two important aspects to realize. First, like the V-8 is for Scania, the Mack E9 V-8 was a halo product as well as a high-performer. The brand value that a legendary halo product brings can not be measured by normal standards. And second, as the average Class 8 truck’s horsepower level has incrementally risen over the last 15-20 years, the percentage of high horsepower engines sold annually in heavy trucks has inherently swelled dramatically. Thus, like the Scania DC16 V-8, an EPA2010 Mack E9 would have a significantly wider customer base today.

The fact of the matter is, it would have been cheaper for Volvo to evolve the Mack E9 into an emissions-compliant EPA2010 engine than to develop the D16 from scratch. But Volvo wanted to go their own way, as they always do.

Volvo arrogantly prefers their own engineering (which is fine…..when the nameplate says Volvo), and planned from day one to terminate Mack-engineered trucks and move over to the Volvo global components platform. Hence Volvo’s closure of Mack World Headquarters and the Mack Trucks Engineering, Development and Test Center; and Hagerstown becoming a Volvo Powertrain facility.

2000 DC16 04 500hp Euro-3, intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 03 580hp Euro-3, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

2004 DC16 06 500hp Euro-4, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 05 560hp Euro-4, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 08 620hp Euro-4, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

2009 DC16 19 500hp Euro-5, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 18 560hp Euro-5, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 17 620hp Euro-5, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

DC16 21 730hp Euro-5, Intercooled, Scania PDE Unit Injection

2013 DC16 101 520hp Euro-6 (near EPA2010), Scania XPI* Common Rail Injection

DC16 102 580hp Euro-6 (near EPA2010), Scania XPI* Common Rail Injection

DC16 103 730hp Euro-6 (near EPA2010), Scania XPI* Common Rail Injection

* Cummins-Scania XPI Manufacturing LLP, a 50/50 joint venture, designs, develops and manufactures next generation fuel systems.

http://www.scania.com/products-services/buses-coaches/safety-technology/engine-technology/xpi/

http://www.cummins.com/cmi/navigationAction.do?nodeId=7&siteId=1&menuId=1001

[kscarbel]

Your gonna say Mack had a etch v8 planned for 2003. Ive heard it before. It was to little to to late as Mack had already lost the heavy haul market by the time the v8 would of been relaunched.

My friend, thank you for having a sense of humor.

As far as you and your trucks, I couldn’t possibly argue with a gentleman who is completely satisfied with his Volvo (rebadged as Mack MP) engines. I’ve posted several times that Volvo today makes an acceptable truck and engine (while not in the same league as Scania, MAN or Mercedes-Benz).

I have nothing against Volvo. I simply don't want this Swedish truckmaker owning America's most iconic truckmaker, Mack Trucks, and joining Daimler in dominating our country’s truck industry.

I do NOT feel that the acquisition of Mack Trucks by a foreign truckmaker was good for the United States of America.

I do NOT feel the dominance of America's truck industry by foreign truckmakers is in the best interest of the United States of America.

Now, let’s talk about the heavy haul market and engines availability. Initially, we felt the new-for-1999 12-liter E7-460 E-Tech (high pressure unit pump injection), offering an impressive power to weight ratio, could take over for the V-8. With 460 horsepower in front of the right tranny and axles, there’s a solid argument that this was adequate power for a majority of operators in heavy haulage.

And if customers wanted still more power, that same year Mack Trucks also launched the E7-460XT. Rated at 490 horsepower and 1,760 lb/ft of torque, it was available in pedigreed CL’s for heavy haulage, and CH’s for the owner-operator. And of course, it was backed by a 3-year/300,000 mile Bulldog warranty (100% parts and labor coverage). Volvo’s warranty today for EPA2010 engines is only 2-years/250,000 miles. Evidently, Volvo isn’t as confident about their Mack-branded Volvo engines as the former Mack Trucks was with their pedigreed powerplants.

As one operator put it, “I have a 2000 Mack CL 713 and it has a 460XT engine (487 HP @ 1800)(1760 lb/ft @ 1700). This engine is in front of a 13 speed transmission and runs like a scalded dog. I can actually outrun cars from a stop when empty. It pulls loads up the KY cut in the hill at 55-60 grossing 80,000 lbs. None of my other engines runs like this one, including CAT and Detroit.”

Despite having E7s rated up to 490 horsepower, Mack distributors were passing on customer demands to Sales Marketing in Allentown for the return of the Mack V-8. Customers knew it was good for 500 to 700+ horsepower and wanted that power.

The subject went back and forth in Sales Marketing, and the decision was later made to add Bosch high pressure unit pump injection (E-Tech) and cooled EGR.

Scania did the same through Euro-5 (near EPA2007), on their version, running Bosch high pressure unit pump injection which they called Scania PDE (Pumpe-Düse-Einspritzung).

Like the related Scania DC16, the Mack E9 V-8 could be with us today in EPA2010 (Euro-6) form if Volvo hadn’t terminated that plan, so as to make way for their own D16.

So did Mack actually lose the heavy haul market despite having the near 500 horsepower E7-460XT? That’s arguable. Certainly Mack lost the 500 to 600 horsepower customers.

However, if Mack’s legendary high horsepower V-8 had made a quick return just a few years later in 2003-2004, the company would have been firmly positioned back in that market segment in the United States, as well as Australia and other global markets.

You said that “Volvo must have some respect for the Mack name”. My friend, Volvo only respects the Mack name for its brand value. And with each passing day that Volvo is putting the Mack name on a Volvo platform, that brand value is shrinking. Mack is now just another truck on the road, no longer anything special (in fact it’s basically identical to another truck on the road – Volvo).

Volvo is merely using the Mack name on their North American market Volvo chassis (VN and VHD Series) to both make money and grow market share for Volvo Group in the US market as part of their global battle with Daimler. It all goes back to Volvo’s goal of being the largest truckmaker in the world by volume. The Mack brand is a pawn in helping Volvo to reach their goal.

Renault respected Mack and supported continuance of the company as an independent truck manufacturer (the two companies cooperated where viable synergies could be identified, e.g. E7 and E9 powerplants in Renault trucks).

Volvo on the other hand essentially closed Mack Trucks and began putting legacy Mack cabs on Volvo VN and VHD chassis. When the Mack name has out served its usefulness, it will join White, Autocar and GMC. For Volvo, the Mack brand is merely a means to an end. All their passion is for Volvo.

Mack had three engines in 2000 when Volvo acquired the company. But Volvo all along planned to change Mack entirely, integrating the brand onto its Volvo global components platform that included the D11, D13 and upcoming D16. And they did.

[kscarbel]

What was the last year the E9 was offered in a CL And what was the last year it was offered in a boat? If I recall those were the only state side options for an E9 at the end of its run. I also recall that the Aussie had them a few years longer then us? I figured it was put Down because of low sales of the CL

Why did Australia still get the E9 after US sales ended in 1998 for a time? Because Australia did not begin requiring Euro-3 (Australia emissions spec ADR80/00) or EPA98 engines in imported trucks until 2002.

U.S. market 1998 E9 sales were 1997 production year engines because the E9 (with the mechanical pump) couldn’t meet 1998 emissions standards.

Below are some outstanding comments on the subject that I have set aside:

Once again, I took my E9 at 87,000lbs gross up I-81 to I-84 from PA to Boston MA and averaged 6.7mpg. Life is good with a V-8.

I've been approached by more people in the last year than I ever have wanting to buy my Superliner E9. I just tell them no because there is nothing out there today that will replace it or even come close to it. Their next question is where can they get one. I just wish they had showed interest in E9's when they were in production, maybe we could still get one today. The funny thing is most of these guys are driving Ca- powered Pete's and KW's.

I had a time trying to explain to a friend he was wasting his time trying to outpull my E9 on hills. He bought a new Pete with a 475 high torque CAT- that didn’t work. Then he took it to 550 - that didn’t work. Then he bought a 625 ecm for it and I sold the truck but I doubt it would have done it either.

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.

What Volvo doesn't comprehend is the emotional draw of the V-8... Sort of like how the distinctive sound and feel of Harley's V-Twin alone sells a lot of bikes. I was in South Dakota yesterday and saw over a dozen 13 axle double trailer "road trains" and even a 17 axle one. But not a single one was pulled by a Mack, they we're all hooked to Paccar products. One of the most memorable SD "road trains" in my experience was pulled by a V-8 powered Superliner... I could identify it's unmistakable roar before it came into sight! If Volvo had allowed Mack to revive the V8 in a new Superliner chassis, Mack would be the best selling truck in the high GVW states of the west and Canada.

On my ride in South Dakota yesterday I saw at least a dozen 13 axle grain trains and the 17 axle side dump train I posted over at www.gearheadgrrrl.com. SD has no maximum weight limit or overall length limit, just Formula "B" and the trailers and dolly in a doubles train are limited to 81-1/2 feet in length. Thus those 13 axle trains can run at around 150k GCW and the 17 axle train about 170k!

So these trucks are running at twice the STAA weight limits of 80k GCW, and it's not rocket science that they need twice the horsepower and torque. Even the MP16 at SD maximum weights is going to be the equivalent of a 300 HP torqueless wonder 8 liter "midrange" engine. An MP8 isn't gonna cut it at these weights, and the Mack V8 was just gettin' warmed up at the 500 HP rating with 700 HP and higher ratings waiting in the wings. Then factor in the easier packaging of the V8..... For Canada and a lot of permit haulers the Titan is about a foot too long. Imagine if the V8 Mack was still on the market, drawing in buyers with its efficiency and power, and hooking 'em with it's lusty lyrics!

I think the last CL with an E9 is in Hagerstown at the powertrain plant. It is equipped with V-MAC technology and everything about it is computer controlled. Many people have tried to buy it but as far as I know it's still there. I have been told that the E9 was going to make a come back in 2003, it was beating the six bangers in fuel economy on the test stands and conforming to all the EPA standards but the Volvo purchase took place in 2002 and the E9 program was canned to make way for the MP-10/D-16 engine.

I have 2 E9's running right now. One in a 1987 Superliner with a E9-400 that's never been pumped up, and the other in a 1990 Superliner with an E9-500 that's pushing 600-650 hp. Every truck driver I have ever talked to has a V8 Mack story. They either tell you about one they drove and how well they liked it or how one blew their doors off. If you ever drove one that was right you don't want anything else.

I am currently doing an in-frame overhaul on mine which is the 1990 Superliner. Parts are getting very expensive but no more than any other comparable engine. I'm going to have between 6k and 7k in this overhaul not counting labor. My friend with a C15 550 CAT just spent more than that overhauling his engine. I have 2 spare E9 engines and I think while parts are still available I'm going to start building another one for the next go round cause I don't want nothing else.

Most people that I have talked to really like that E9 V8 engine. In talking with the folks at the Mack museum, some of the development stuff is still proprietary but I met someone from the Mack plant at the Macungie show last week and he will try to put me in touch the some folks in Hagerstown. Apparently, they still hand-build a few E9's per week for export only. Once I have some names, I'll make a trip down there and see what materials that might be available for public consumption.

My Dad and I both had a couple of E9's I swear by them. Once you have one it's hard to go back to anything else. The only major things we ever had was on the 94 CL E9 500 had some bad injector o-rings and she filled the crankcase right up with fuel when it was almost new. the 90 Superliner E9 400 my Dad blew a coolant hose off on a and got it a little too hot and it dropped a valve seat and cost him a head, piston and liner about 5or 6 months later. and the 92 MH E9 450 I had had a couple of pitted liners and put coolant in the oil, I did an in-frame on it and still have the engine now in my 89 Superliner.

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. Here in Australia, the so-called “new breed” Mack are just rebadged Volvos. 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. If the v8 was to continue to be produced, then people would still buy the V8. Like the guy before said, Scania, Benz and MAN can do it then, so could have Mack. They are just making excuses to justify their decision not to.

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.

I was at a meeting with Detroit Diesel just before the DD13 thru 16 came to market and was told by the German representative that the motors were a joint venture including not only Detroit America engineers but mechanics as well from both countries. So I think that American engineering is to be respected as well. Now this is where Volvo need's to come down from there high horse and start to respect the American consumer. WE DON'T LIKE BEING PIS…ED ON AND TOLD THAT IT'S RAINING!!! Volvo never built a drivetrain like Mack and never will. But they are going to try and that will be the downfall of the “Greatest Name in Trucks”! They keep pushing aside American engineering an technology, and think their engineers are the greatest thing since ice cream.

I talked with a man in KY who had 12 in RW's and CL's. The newest was a 95 and he had already retired 8 more current trucks. All had over 500,000 miles hauling coal 120,000lbs at a time. He adjusted the valves and retorqued the head bolts every year, did rod and main bearings at 500,000 and had only had two go down. He told me one that went down only had 45,000 miles on it and Mack rebuilt it under warranty and it was still running. The other had a valve seat come out of a head around 650,000. I talked to him for hours just listening to someone that seemed to know what he was talking about. In his opinion, it was a great engine and when his trucks were finally wore out he was getting out of the business. He had tried an ETECH 460XT, Cummins N-14 525 and Cat 3406E 550, and none of them pulled the hills and lasted like the Mack E9. He told me to replace my rod and main bearings every 500k and to run the overhead and torque the head bolts once a year. And if I ever had a head off, he said to replace all the head gaskets and bolts and start with the once a year thing again and I wouldn’t have any issues. I’ve noticed driving my last E9 truck that they don’t need to be revved more than about 1600 to do anything. If you run em higher, you just burn more fuel. Just let the engine do the work (not your foot) and take care of it and you will be fine.

Ours ran 30,000 hours. It started to seep coolant into the oil and we tore it down and did a complete overhaul. All that was wrong was one liner had some pitting . We have all 8 pistons and 7 liners for spares just in case. E9s are awesome engines.

[james j neiweem]

KS Great Mack history lesson. What products did Mack have scheduled for the 90's. Vision and Granite

come to mind.

[mowerman]

It would look better if the dog was pooping on a V..lvo logo instead of the Mack! What in the hell are they thinking?

ya,,,thats just what i was thinking,,,,dont like it...bob

[james j neiweem]

KS Volvo bought White and GMC for their nationwide dealer network and the assembly plant in Virginia.

What were they after with Mack other than to knock off a competetor.

[41180]

Kscarbel that last quote is mine. Theres no denying the legendary status of the Mack e9 v8. Yes we did run our v8 30000 hrs and we still have that superliner. My only question remains is it sounds like you had some part in deciding that a 11.9 liter 6 cylinder engine could replace a 16.4 liter v8 engine ? To me that was a bad decision. The old saying theres no replacement for displacement is true in this case. My question still remains why didn't Mack put the Bosch eup fuel system on the e9 in 1998 or 99 ? It was a flawed decision to think the e7 putting out 487 hp would satisfy customers of the e9 who were used to having 500 hp and easily tuning them to 550 to 600 or more hp . Especially when in the late 90s cat introduced the 550 hp 3406e. And later the 600hp c16 and Cummins had the n14 up to 525hp and then the signature600 al while Mack was down grading in power.

[RFCDrum]

KS Volvo bought White and GMC for their nationwide dealer network and the assembly plant in Virginia.

What were they after with Mack other than to knock off a competetor.

When I worked for Mack I was told that Volvo was interested in the Mack Camelback and Mack rears. That was back in 97 I think?

Rob

[Bullheaded]

I need one of those little smiley's that is eating popcorn. this is better than tv.

[rw613]

all I can say is I work on all brands every day. anybody that knows me knows im third generation bleed mack blood mack still has the best truck they are not having the problems others are and as far as the Volvo thing goes no I didn't like it but my first trip to the mack visitor center and plant well lets just say if Volvo is keeping that open for us mack nuts then hell I love Volvo to

[Green Dash]

I need one of those little smiley's that is eating popcorn. this is better than tv.

This thread is worthy of more than just a smiley. Lots of great info and viewpoints being exchanged here.

[kscarbel]

Kscarbel that last quote is mine. Theres no denying the legendary status of the Mack e9 v8. Yes we did run our v8 30000 hrs and we still have that superliner. My only question remains is it sounds like you had some part in deciding that a 11.9 liter 6 cylinder engine could replace a 16.4 liter v8 engine ? To me that was a bad decision. The old saying theres no replacement for displacement is true in this case. My question still remains why didn't Mack put the Bosch eup fuel system on the e9 in 1998 or 99 ? It was a flawed decision to think the e7 putting out 487 hp would satisfy customers of the e9 who were used to having 500 hp and easily tuning them to 550 to 600 or more hp . Especially when in the late 90s cat introduced the 550 hp 3406e. And later the 600hp c16 and Cummins had the n14 up to 525hp and then the signature600 al while Mack was down grading in power.

Yes indeed, the last quote was yours. Thank you for supporting Mack's signature E9 V-8 product.

There was never a thought (decision) to replace the 16.4-liter V-8 with the 11.93-liter E7. Each engine had its place. It was felt that the roughly 12-liter engine should have a power range from 350 to 480-500 horsepower (a power range which has become the norm for 12-13 liter engines globally)

The delay in upgrading/equipping the E9 with Bosch high pressure unit pump injection for 1998-99 can be blamed on opposing camps. Fortunately the right one won. And, it was decided to relaunch the E9 as an EPA2004 compliant powertrain (rather than EPA98).

Unfortunately, Volvo later killed the planned relaunch of the E9.

[kscarbel]

I had always thought that Jack Curcio was the longest reining President of Mack but it appears Brosseau was. And didn't Zenon serve as chairman longer than 72?

He retained the position of chairman of the board until 1974, when he opted to follow company policy and retire at age 65.

[kscarbel]

I had always thought that Jack Curcio was the longest reining President of Mack but it appears Brosseau was. And didn't Zenon serve as chairman longer than 72?

When Zenon C.R. Hansen returned to Allentown in 1985, it caused quite a stir. He was bigger than life, and deservingly so. Though Mack already had deep roots in Allentown, Zenon made it known to the world that Allentown was the “The Truck Capital of the World”.

Hansen Returns To Allentown to Boost Bonds Drive

December 12, 1985 / by DAN SHOPE, The Morning Call

Though snow nearly canceled his flight from Dayton, Ohio, Zenon C.R. Hansen arrived undaunted yesterday at the 1986 U.S. Savings Bond kickoff reception in the Hamilton Plaza Hotel in Allentown.

Unsurprised were those who knew the former chairman of the board and CEO of Mack Trucks Inc., who retired 11 years ago at age 65. After all, Hansen once hopscotched across America while rescuing Mack from a crisis in the mid-1960s.

With the outgoing campaign chairman, former Mack President and CEO Alfred Pelletier, having his plane grounded by snow in Toronto, eyes turned to Hansen. Having retired in Florida, Hansen hadn't been seen in Lehigh Valley business circles for a decade.

"They used to have an old expression when I was young - 'Save your money,' Hansen said. "Well, that kind of went by boards to some degree. But I have to say that in retirement, I found it a pretty good slogan. The only thing that I regret is that I didn't start early enough. One of the ways to do this is to accumulate U.S. Savings Bonds."

Hansen spoke at the reception, at which Treasury Department area manager Bob Daday announced that the northeastern Pennsylvania region had sold $73,856,553 in bonds, easily surpassing the goal of $48,000,000.

But most curiosity surrounded Hansen's involvement with Mack, not U.S. Savings Bonds. He was asked, flatly, if he was brought to Allentown as an adviser for Mack management.

"As a matter of fact, I'm back here for the American Truck Foundation directors meeting which will make the allocations of their contributions for the year," Hansen said. "It's founded here in Allentown, and they contribute to Lehigh Valley charities and the American Truck Hall of Fame and the Truck Historical Society."

But Hansen wasn't afraid to openly discuss Mack's recent problems.

"All you have to do is read the daily business items, and you will find out that some businesses that existed 10-11 years ago have been absorbed," Hansen said. "Now, I don't think that's going to happen to Mack. What the ultimate outcome is of the problems, or questions, that they have to answer now. I can't tell you.

"All I know is that I had a very fine relationship when I was in Allentown with Mack employees. They were absolutely super, and also with the Mack union (United Auto Workers).

"From everything I have learned, the present management of Mack has that same relationship. But what the exact problems are, I can't say. I learned a long time ago that you don't talk about something you don't know something about.

"I can't say what (Mack directors) are doing now," Hansen said. "I've been gone 11 years. I don't have the (recent) background with Mack. Now, maybe I'll have it before I leave, but I don't have it now. As far as I can see, they're doing a fine job.

"But I have a very concrete background to compare with - the directors who were running the company before I came (in 1965). We dispensed with those directors and got others who knew something about trucks. Now, I'm not in a position to know how they work today."