Jump to content
dexter860

95' CH 613 E7 350 7 mpg?

Recommended Posts

Was looking at a 95' 613 with an E7 350 in it. Truck has 22.5s 9 SPD tranny mack 4.17 rears, will be pulling flats are these trucks capable of 7 to 7.5 mpg? Will be second truck, have a t600 with C 15 accert , gets mid to upper 6s. I had a mack just like it some years back , think I was getting mid 6s?, it was kinda weak though.tired of emmision engines, like how simple old mack is , run pretty local anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are getting 6.5 with a CAT, you should be able to do as good or better with the Mack. The 4.17s will pull good, but may affect MPGs. The CAT most likely has faster axles.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you run 60 theres no reason you wont get 7. I had a '94 ch E7 350 with 9spd fuller and 4.11. Pulling a tanker at 80,000 we'd consistently get 7+ running 65mph

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truck is my dads truck, been sitting for a couple years, 850k miles, he'd sell it to me for 4k, if I could get over 7mpg I'd probably sell the T600, and run the mack, hate to in a way, but could sell T 6 and get out of debt, divorce has kinda squeezed me (she got the bigger half).

Edited by dexter860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You be hard pressed to beat (besides E6 R series combo) the reliability, fuel mileage and comfort of a CH with an E7PLN engine. I'm starting to wish we just refurbed all of those up to 1997 trucks we had. Even if you sink so money into paint and engine rebuild, you will get it all back 10 fold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope your right, I think I'm gonna give her a try!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can give you a bit of a comparison. We have a 6nz c15 and one one job we were doing coming home empty I would get 3km per litre.

My dads Mack with a e7, and 12sp and 4.17's got 3.5km per litre. It's about the only time the two trucks were loaded the same (empty, single trailer) and the Mack was far more economical.

Just our own experience...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...