glenbjackson Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I am new to the Mack world and im trying to find a manual to understand my truck better, I have a 1989 cm422. I haven't seen any service manuals online but I have seen CS200/250/300 literature. Would CS or MS info from around the same year help me ANY or are they totally different and therefore useless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 No, those other manuals are completely unrelated. You can search “CM400” on the BMT website for additional info. Glen, you’re going to have difficulty obtaining parts for that truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenbjackson Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 yes I've read that ALOT lol parts are nowhere to be found but for $800 I couldn't pass up a running truck in great shape. But still thanks though you saved me on buying a unusable manual. I did find a custom CM422 manual, although serial range my VIN doesn't fall in. I think it'll get me further then where I stand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenbjackson Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 and one more question, is the CM422 considered a Midliner Mack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 No. We built that in the US. It has an RVI cab and engine (the CM423 has a Cummins), but was otherwise a concoction of US components. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 It's crazy, but I remember the launch of the CM as if it were yesterday. There was nothing wrong with the truck, however to me, it represented the truck that nobody was asking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenbjackson Posted January 22, 2018 Author Share Posted January 22, 2018 i was in my cab today looking it over before i drive it home....and i like the cab...except for the gauges too futuristic for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 It was a truck the market wanted. Mack killed it pretty quick with a lack of options such as rear suspensions etc. Considering Mack had control of the product unlike Midliners, they let the model expire. There were city pick and delivery that needed a smaller then R model truck that was also cheaper. The CM422/423 was ok but the CM432/33 was a better idea with the Cummins 8.3l engine. It wasn't marketed very well. The CS/MS300T series was doing fine on the market then for class 7. The "baby 8" market did well when Freightliner produced FL80 to 106 in the same market with better options. In the end entering into the 90s withe the CM, The fleets seemed fine with paying a little extra when the CH came along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, bbigrig said: It was a truck the market wanted. Mack killed it pretty quick with a lack of options such as rear suspensions etc. Considering Mack had control of the product unlike Midliners, they let the model expire. There were city pick and delivery that needed a smaller then R model truck that was also cheaper. The CM422/423 was ok but the CM432/33 was a better idea with the Cummins 8.3l engine. It wasn't marketed very well. The CS/MS300T series was doing fine on the market then for class 7. The "baby 8" market did well when Freightliner produced FL80 to 106 in the same market with better options. In the end entering into the 90s withe the CM, The fleets seemed fine with paying a little extra when the CH came along. I have to respectfully disagree. The distributor council never asked for it, nor did our fleet customers (Overnite, ect.). It was more Renault's idea. Good intentions, but...... And as you said, it was poorly launched. Frankly, the dealers, who'd never asked for it, didn't know what to do with it. The MS250P, with full air brakes, was the best MId-Liner. I did enjoy the MS300T with the 10-speed splitted transmission but the big fleets wouldn't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 The market bares the proof on this one. Not opinion. The Baby 8 CM was for the in between of the 300 series Midliner and expensive R or CH. The CS/MS 300 product line lacked the in between power and larger the 34000lb gvwr. All you have to do is look at the success of the FL80 and 106 product line. Also the International 4900 series Kenworth T300 or 450, Sterling Acterra. All available in early to mid 90s and sold fairly well. Mack didn't offer a tandem lighter and better priced unit likes it's competitors. The CM was actually slightly ahead of the market need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kscarbel2 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 There was no market for a Mack baby 8. The distributor council was not asking for this product. It was, so to speak, dumped on them. Fast forward to recent years, you're right, we've seen Paccar, for example, capitalize on the baby 8 vocational market. People want a low price truck with heavy truck specs. You see them everywhere. (Volvo is the exception, having failed to gain any traction with its Mack brand Granite MHD offering). The CM never stood a chance because it was bizarre looking to American baby 8 customers. Unlike medium truck customers, they don't buy class 8 Mack trucks with French cabs and engines, and a convoluted appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxidyne Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Had a rental one once, it drove bizarre too- The 5 by 2 transmission with the weird shift pattern put off many drivers, but fortunately we didn't have to drive it much because it was usually broke down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, kscarbel2 said: There was no market for a Mack baby 8. The distributor council was not asking for this product. It was, so to speak, dumped on them. Fast forward to recent years, you're right, we've seen Paccar, for example, capitalize on the baby 8 vocational market. People want a low price truck with heavy truck specs. You see them everywhere. (Volvo is the exception, having failed to gain any traction with its Mack brand Granite MHD offering). The CM never stood a chance because it was bizarre looking to American baby 8 customers. Unlike medium truck customers, they don't buy class 8 Mack trucks with French cabs and engines, and a convoluted appearance. Customers buying any FL50 to FL106 were buying a European designed MB cab. It's how you disguise things that scare uninformed customers that sells. Ask any Mack customer from 2007 on with a Volvo engine and frame. Oh Wait, that's me...lol There are a few CMs still on the road today here. Best part, almost everything chassis related is still available for parts replacement. Edited January 25, 2018 by bbigrig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 12 hours ago, Maxidyne said: Had a rental one once, it drove bizarre too- The 5 by 2 transmission with the weird shift pattern put off many drivers, but fortunately we didn't have to drive it much because it was usually broke down. If I remember correctly, anything above a 6speed transmission was a fuller trans on a CM. CS and MS had strange 9 and 10speed Renault transmissions as options. We had 9 speeds RVIs in some CS trucks. They did well. 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.