mackey58 Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I agree with Al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackey58 Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 And the rd and superliner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel67 Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Another crap looking fleet truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james j neiweem Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 I agree with Jarhead and Teamster. Companies that used to Buy Mack for heavy haul now go to Paccar. It then trickles down to the dumps. In Connecticut examples are Gateway O&G and Tommaso. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Saw a post on f@$&book from a mack dealer Inetwork Ohio that just delivered 5 brand new Titan lowboy tractors to a construction company... but yet there's no demand for those trucks. Smh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post nwfs600 Posted June 17, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted June 17, 2017 I don't see the gigantic problem for a truck to deliver some X-15's to the Mack plant. It was good enough with the CL trucks and would give us the same choice everyone else in the industry has. I asked this question at MATS after being told they were working on a longer hood/cowl. I got the company line about the MP8 being enough. Our CHU does just fine but add another 40 tons. Ask International/Navistar how the removal of choice worked for them in their 13 litre program. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lmackattack Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 one thing I will still say about Mack is that the build quality is still better than Paccar. Mack pays closer attention to fitment and serviceability. This 378 pete I drive now is a nice truck but try to remove anything off the cab and you have snapped bolts, stripped heads, or rivets that need to be removed. On the inside the dash is flimsy cracked plastic with a HVAC unit that lets in buckets of rain water . I dont know how well the latest model of mack(volvo) are but this 2001 pete I drive now is way behind the same year macks I have wrenched on. . Quote Quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 6 hours ago, nwfs600 said: I don't see the gigantic problem for a truck to deliver some X-15's to the Mack plant. It was good enough with the CL trucks and would give us the same choice everyone else in the industry has. I asked this question at MATS after being told they were working on a longer hood/cowl. I got the company line about the MP8 being enough. Our CHU does just fine but add another 40 tons. Ask International/Navistar how the removal of choice worked for them in their 13 litre program. What's the longer hood /Cowl for ? New model ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwfs600 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 38 minutes ago, logtruckman said: What's the longer hood /Cowl for ? New model ? The rep at the booth was vague but we were talking about the CHU. He wouldn't say if it was an extended hood or cowl to get more bbc length. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james j neiweem Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) Wouldn't extended hood be easier. Extended cowl seems like it may screw up the dash/fire wall area. In order to keep things simple such as the very front of the truck steering, axle, radiator etc. It seems that the cab could be moved back along the frame a bit. Edited June 17, 2017 by james j neiweem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry5332 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 10:46 PM, Lmackattack said: one thing I will still say about Mack is that the build quality is still better than Paccar. Mack pays closer attention to fitment and serviceability. This 378 pete I drive now is a nice truck but try to remove anything off the cab and you have snapped bolts, stripped heads, or rivets that need to be removed. On the inside the dash is flimsy cracked plastic with a HVAC unit that lets in buckets of rain water . I dont know how well the latest model of mack(volvo) are but this 2001 pete I drive now is way behind the same year macks I have wrenched on. . I can tell you that is still the case to this day. I ordered a new Kenworth T660 in late 2014, traded a 2012 Mack CHU FA for it in December of 14 when the new 660 came in.... Wish I'd have never done that, almost all issues were chassis related electrical issues and it took the first 20 months of ownership to get them resolved. To Kenworths credit they did stand behind the truck, I paid no repair cost out of my own pocket but time and transportation cost to and from the dealership every month as I live 72 miles one way from the dealer. Had a lot of faith in Kenworth when I ordered this truck, a T660 that has been in production for years... little did I know. Just bidding my time now to see what Mack introduces in September. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james j neiweem Posted August 4, 2017 Author Share Posted August 4, 2017 They would only need more BBC if they were going to offer a 15 liter engine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james j neiweem Posted August 5, 2017 Author Share Posted August 5, 2017 Just a guess but I would think they would drop the pinnacle name for the CXU and keep it for the CHU. IMHO new truck needs a new name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjh Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 YUP! MUT or Heinz 57!! Maybe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullheaded Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 If that is what the new model will look like, I would never want one. Those are the ugliest shaped fenders, headlights and grill I have ever seen. What a joke. That would be a great autonomous truck. That way you wouldn't have to be seen in it, LOL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41180 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 Posted On MACKS Fb Page today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Technician Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 This cannot be a mistake..... has to be prophetic and prospective? Packers takes the ring this season and that sucker sells like.... HOT CAKES!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtymilkman Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Holy crap that is an RD hood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james j neiweem Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 Sure hope it doesn't come out looking like a CS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bts-4120 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Holy crap that is an RD hood thats what I thought to when I seen the clip. how sweet to have a ch cab rd hood 60" bunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 I've only ever been in discussion with big wigs about the Highway replacement.....Because I need one! Is the RD looking hood as pointed out a replacement for the CHU or a Granite restyle? Hmmmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gicknordon Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Saw a post on f@$&book from a mack dealer Inetwork Ohio that just delivered 5 brand new Titan lowboy tractors to a construction company... but yet there's no demand for those trucks. Smh Talking to some people that work at LVO, they said that the Titan was discontinued because the MP10 couldn't meet the new emissions regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Talking to some people that work at LVO, they said that the Titan was discontinued because the MP10 couldn't meet the new emissions regulations. Volvo didn't want to spend the money to meet "US" emissions, because sales volume was low. However, Volvo will spend the money for the D16 (aka MP10) to meet Euro-7, because sales volume is high AND their global customer base demands this engine option. The technology is available to meet the new emissions, the newly revised Scania V8 a case in point. 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.