Popular Post bbigrig Posted March 8, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2017 Not my picture just passing it along to those who havn't seen this yet. A picture taken by a kind insider at the plant and posted on Facebook of a Canadian Armed Forces Mack Titan tractor. He went on to say it's one of the last ones being built. Nice to see they finally engineered a 60" midrise bunk on a Titan with what seems to be a tri- drive planatary rears. Most likely a tank hauler. A day late and a dollar short. Let the parent company bashing begin.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 The "original", the Australian market Titan, looks so much better, without for example the tacky US market gray plastic fender extensions, chrome grille and headlamp trim, and front bumper. Volvo visibly decontented this truck for the US market. Ref. https://www.macktrucks.com.au/trucks/titan/ . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamsterGrrrl Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 With that sleeper, the Titan would have been a big seller in South Dakota, a state over 400 miles across with no gross combination weight limits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fjh Posted March 9, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 9, 2017 Yup only our Forces would order a truck with DEF ! TIME OUT Guys stop the war For an hour I have to do A REGEN! OH make it two I have to do two regens and a crystal sub ! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 2 hours ago, fjh said: Yup only our Forces would order a truck with DEF ! TIME OUT Guys stop the war For an hour I have to do A REGEN! OH make it two I have to do two regens and a crystal sub ! I've got 8k hours 160k miles on the titan I drive and never had to do a parked regen. That is a awesome truck IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I don't see a complaint with the splash guards on the fenders. I drove a 93 RW 713 that rubber splash guards from the factory that faded with time. The CL' s I drove all had big fender guards. The ones on the titans look fine. There alot better than the huge ones on the granites that take up half the fender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtymilkman Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Over 200,000 on my Titan. Zero parked regens, only after treatment issue I had so far was a nox sensor. If I could eliminate the dpf, egr and cooler I'd be fine with keeping the scr. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I was talking to a guy from Michigan who has 5 titans. He's also pissed at mack. He said he's picked up some big jobs because of his titans . People want his trucks onow the job because they look rugged and strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 Buddy just posted a rear end picture. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bbigrig Posted March 9, 2017 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think these will haul tanks like the Western Stars they have now. Below is a picture of a broken down Star unit getting a tow. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamsterGrrrl Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 A sleeper option would have made the Titan a sales success. I go by the Mack dealer in Sioux Falls every couple weeks, and every South Dakota spec 4 axle tractor I've seen there had a sleeper. But 17 axle double trailer rigs running at over 75 tons gross weight are routine in South Dakota, and a 13 liter 505 HP engine just doesn't have the starting torque or HP to handle those weights. In a northern state where a blizzard can show up unannounced and strand your for days a sleeper is a necessity, and the lack of a sleeper doomed the Titan from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TS7 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Titans are rare in Michigan. But there are many RW 753 and CL 753 Michigan Specials still around. I drove a DM 800 with a 335 Cummins and moved Cat 235C's and D8K's in the 1990's. DM 800's like that were pulling 50 Ton trains at that time. There are many GU 813's with 505's here also, pulling trains. But dropping the CL 700 was a mistake. Titan needed more power choices, I think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mrsmackpaul Posted March 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 10, 2017 3 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said: and a 13 liter 505 HP engine just doesn't have the starting torque or HP to handle those weights. Dont know how my little 320 coolpower lifts off with grossing over 100 ton ok ???? Paul 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamsterGrrrl Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Gearing. What's the top speed at that weight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtymilkman Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, TeamsterGrrrl said: Gearing. What's the top speed at that weight? How fast would you wanna go at that weight? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41chevy Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 6 hours ago, bbigrig said: I think these will haul tanks like the Western Stars they have now. Below is a picture of a broken down Star unit getting a tow. Impressive. The M88 Herc weighs in a bit uder 155,000 pounds! Quote "OPERTUNITY IS MISSED BY MOST PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS DRESSED IN OVERALLS AND LOOKS LIKE WORK" Thomas Edison “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’” P.T.CHESHIRE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmyb Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said: Gearing. What's the top speed at that weight? You said it sister, if you gear an mp8 right then it could easily pull that much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mrsmackpaul Posted March 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 10, 2017 9 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said: Gearing. What's the top speed at that weight? in the old money 55 MPH. And to be fair it ain't gonna get to the other end as quick as 600 hp or 505 but it will still get there just fine. But I do wonder in today's high HP world with M drive, are we breeding less competent drivers ??? Or maybe the skill levels have changed so much that I'm living too far in the past. Paul 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Underdog Posted March 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 10, 2017 20 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said: in the old money 55 MPH. And to be fair it ain't gonna get to the other end as quick as 600 hp or 505 but it will still get there just fine. But I do wonder in today's high HP world with M drive, are we breeding less competent drivers ??? Or maybe the skill levels have changed so much that I'm living too far in the past. Paul Not a bad place to be, Paul. In my observation nowadays, too many people are generally in a big hurry but don't even know where they're going. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamsterGrrrl Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 A 400 HP engine is plenty and even 300 HP will do the job at the U.S. federal maximum weight of 36 metric tons (80k pounds). But double that to the 75 ton or more weight of a Michigan train and 600 HP is needed and 700 HP would be preferred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 13 hours ago, Underdog said: Not a bad place to be, Paul. In my observation nowadays too many people are generally in a big hurry but don't even know where they're going. The problem is finding drivers that would drive a 300 or even 400 hp on longer steeper trips when there are oodles of 550 and 600 hp trucks running the same roads. I know of some companies that ran 400 and 427 macks and the drivers complained so much that the companies switched to other makes with 500 and 550 hp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The problem is finding drivers that would drive a 300 or even 400 hp on longer steeper trips when thereshe oodles of 550 and 600 hp trucks running the same roads. I know of some companies that ran 400 and 427 macks and the drivers complained so much that the companies switched to other makes with 500 and 550 hp It's going to be even more of a problem when electronic logs kick into effect. Guys try to make up their time while driving to counteract all the wasted time otherwise on-duty not driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chu613 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 11 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said: A 400 HP engine is plenty and even 300 HP will do the job at the U.S. federal maximum weight of 36 metric tons (80k pounds). But double that to the 75 ton or more weight of a Michigan train and 600 HP is needed and 700 HP would be preferred. We used to pull 63.5 tons with 12L 460hp Macks up here in Alberta. Right now I do the same thing with MP8. From 63.5 to 75 tons you are looking at just over 10 tons difference. 600 hp isn't necessary let alone 700. There's a difference between need and want. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamsterGrrrl Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 First off, Mack underrated their engines, so a 460 HP Mack is pretty much the equal of a 505 HP Volvo. The measure of performance we need here is HP/Ton, for example the minimum requirement in the EU for decades has been at least 8HP per ton. Using that formula at 63.5 tons the 505 HP Volvo engine is adequate, but using the same 8HP/Ton formula we need 600 HP at 75 tons. In terms of real world performance, years ago I did a regression analysis on dozens of Truck magazine road tests as they used the same route for every test and controlled well for other variables. I found that under 8HP/Ton performance measured in time to complete the route really fell off, performance pretty consistently improved as HP/ton increased up to 10HP/ton, and any increase above 10HP/Ton produced diminishing returns. This jives with research Cummins did around the same time that showed that at 33 tons performance improved in the flatlands when the truck was upgraded from an NH250 to an NTC350, but a KT450 improved performance little beyond that unless the truck was running in the mountains. So in conclusion, 8HP/Ton is adequate if your run flat roads with low speed limits, but 10HP/ton is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dirtymilkman Posted March 10, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 10, 2017 So my pickup with 420 HP and weighs 2.5 tons is overkill? Haha 3 Quote 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.