Jump to content
Munnon

2019 Mack MP8 Injectors-fuel system

Recommended Posts

I am in the process of purchasing a 2019 Mack Pinnacle.   I was told by the shop manager that the 2019 injectors are on a common rail fuel system.  Salesman is telling me that it is not a common rail system.

Any ideas on how I can verify this myself.  I would like to be on a common rail fuel injection system.   Any feedback on the 2018/2019 Mack/truck/Pinnacles is appreciated in advance.  I will be using this to haul crude oil here in South Texas.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An observation ! There is a spacer under the valve cover with two wiring harnesses  entering mid way LH side of the engine  on a common rail engine just above the ecu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t it REALLY a make shift common rail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's a crappy Delphi , more difficult to diagnose, warmed over Volvo crap wanna-be common rail set up....

Volvo started rolling them out in early 2018 models. Mack was 8 months behind i believe. We see more Volvos then Macks here. Started seeing some issue on a few 6 months in.Got to love the new mile long injector trim/cal codes when replacing them.

Don t worry, we are already seeing issues with them in both the injector and injector cup failure departments.

Nothing but making things more complicated has been improved with this setup.

20180515_181347.jpg

Edited by bbigrig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bbigrig said:

It's a crappy Delphi , more difficult to diagnose, warmed over Volvo crap wanna-be common rail set up....

Volvo started rolling them out in early 2018 models. Mack was 8 months behind i believe. We see more Volvos then Macks here. Started seeing some issue on a few 6 months in.Got to love the new mile long injector trim/cal codes when replacing them.

Don t worry, we are already seeing issues with them in both the injector and injector cup failure departments.

Nothing but making things more complicated has been improved with this setup.

20180515_181347.jpg

That’s just pitiful. How many miles was on the truck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1965 said:

That’s just pitiful. How many miles was on the truck?

Which one?.....lol.  We have had several all under 1 year old. A few team driven so between 60,000 And 250,000kms.

Nothing has changed. Same issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well that’s predictable ! We haven’t had a lick of problems so far however we only got a few running here so far! Nice heads up thou !

all low kms so far!

Edited by fjh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, fjh said:

Well that’s predictable ! We haven’t had a lick of problems so far however we only got a few running here so far! Nice heads up thou !

all low kms so far!

Also, keep an eye out for low power/chugging, low fuel pressure or codes for fuel restriction.

We have had 2 with a fuel "flapper" check valve in the intake of the primary fuel water seperator filter in the housing that goes for a crap.

Apparently if you put a Donaldson primary water separator filter on that was made for the none common rail engines it may cause this valve to be damaged. The common rail engines have no Donaldson primary fuel filter crossover available.

The Flapper valve is serviceable separately from the fuel filter housing assembly.

We have also had a couple of the new AHI moduals that are part of the fuel filter housing go for a crap already 

22 hours ago, 1965 said:

 

Edited by bbigrig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the world of concrete show out in Vegas this past January. Mack was there and had some beautiful trucks as part of the show. On of the representatives was there telling me about the common rail MP  saying how good it is bla bla bla. All I can think of in my head is “this engine wasn’t really designed for it”. It really is a shame a company that has had such a long/strong history of building tough products can be held down like this. 

My question is how do you guys think the common rail mp8 stands against say the Cummins x15. I understand one is a 13 liter and one is a 15 liter so obviously there’s going to be a power difference. But as far as design and reliability go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, RobM626 said:

I was at the world of concrete show out in Vegas this past January. Mack was there and had some beautiful trucks as part of the show. On of the representatives was there telling me about the common rail MP  saying how good it is bla bla bla. All I can think of in my head is “this engine wasn’t really designed for it”. It really is a shame a company that has had such a long/strong history of building tough products can be held down like this. 

My question is how do you guys think the common rail mp8 stands against say the Cummins x15. I understand one is a 13 liter and one is a 15 liter so obviously there’s going to be a power difference. But as far as design and reliability go?

That's an easy one....in comparison to the Bosch fuel system used by Cummins, this Delphi "wanna be" common rail I think will be a bit of a let down.  It's more difficult to work on, more difficult to diagnose, full of issues that came with the last engine design and still more expensive to repair in both labor and parts then the Bosch/Cummins common rail.

The fact that the plunger injectors are pulling double duty now not only injecting into the cylinder as usual,  3 of them are also responsible for building up rail fuel pressure when not firing into a cylinder shows they are doing double the work...(for those that are scratching their head on this comment Macks YouTube channel has a video that may help on the fuel system) instead of a pump that in some cases has a high and low pressure pump on an external to valve cover pump or a high pressure pump with an electric lift pump feed from the tank.

I was hoping this engine was a bridge engine (a band aid fuel system on an old engine before a better design is released) I'm told by Volvo engineer people it's not...

Cummins however took a step backwards with the release of the X15's new exhaust after treatment set up. Like the medium duty engines Cummins builds, it's going to be fuel dosing in cylinder only and doing away with the 7th injector after the turbo. It's bad for the cylinders and has wiped out many a ISL and ISB over the years where high idle time is part of the engines duty cycle.

I wish these engines would get more simple with every release. Sadly, They are not.

Edited by bbigrig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your bro there is the lucky one !  You drew the short straw for sure!(  If I were to " like any of them"  ) I would  say the MP8 Design over  MP7   MP10  for less "complication"  THE lesser of 3 Evils! can't comment on the CR yet had the valve cover off only one for a sensor change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mackpro said:

The MP engine really makes me appreciate the ETECH family of engines on how simple they were. Right now I'm overhauling a MP7 with 176,000 miles on it . My buddy in the next bay is overhauling a ASET . We started at the same time and he's going back together with his and I just got the head off on mine. They are a very time consuming to strip down or do major repairs to. 

I use to call E-techs "E junks" when comparing them to the E7 PLN engines. I'm now eating my words comparing MP to Etech...cant win.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mack Technician said:

IMO..... In terms of brilliance, oh yeah, very smart. Using what they had....... to get to where they needed to be........... without breaking the bank to get there.

But......Start taking apart any European design (taking into account E-7 platform is French) and you will know in the first 4 hours of work that "this is European". I spent two weeks in Japan and same mindset. They grow up in a small house, on a tight street that only a cabover truck can turn onto, with 2' sidewalks and learn that longing for personal space is a greedy, anti-social, vice. When they go to engineering college they sleep every night in a capsule bed on top of a fellow student. They drive a sub-compact to class and learn to build O'so small, tight and tiny.

While back I was swapping a German Head for a swallowed intake valve. Got the new head bolts and they were converted from hex head 18MM to a female torx socket. Why? Saved space? Nope.......redesign!?Nope.....New torque spec?.....Nope, Nope and Nope.....Just a nice "tighter" design so the engineer can call mom to bolster her pride. 

E7 platform was French?

Are you referring to the E7PLN or E7 E tech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bbigrig said:

E7 platform was French?

Are you referring to the E7PLN or E7 E tech?

Yea ... Renault 

renault was involved with Mack since the 80’s till 2000-2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe even since the late 70's?

The French were both feet completely in after 1990 so they were on board for PLN and E-Tech, Vmac I, Vmac II, Vmac III.

 

Volvo ate Renault in 2000, squatted in nearest bush and grunted out the Aset AI/AC debacle and then the 2007 MP emissions aftertreatment debacle.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 9:41 PM, bbigrig said:

That's an easy one....in comparison to the Bosch fuel system used by Cummins, this Delphi "wanna be" common rail I think will be a bit of a let down.  It's more difficult to work on, more difficult to diagnose, full of issues that came with the last engine design and still more expensive to repair in both labor and parts then the Bosch/Cummins common rail.

The fact that the plunger injectors are pulling double duty now not only injecting into the cylinder as usual,  3 of them are also responsible for building up rail fuel pressure when not firing into a cylinder shows they are doing double the work...(for those that are scratching their head on this comment Macks YouTube channel has a video that may help on the fuel system) instead of a pump that in some cases has a high and low pressure pump on an external to valve cover pump or a high pressure pump with an electric lift pump feed from the tank.

I was hoping this engine was a bridge engine (a band aid fuel system on an old engine before a better design is released) I'm told by Volvo engineer people it's not...

Cummins however took a step backwards with the release of the X15's new exhaust after treatment set up. Like the medium duty engines Cummins builds, it's going to be fuel dosing in cylinder only and doing away with the 7th injector after the turbo. It's bad for the cylinders and has wiped out many a ISL and ISB over the years where high idle time is part of the engines duty cycle.

I wish these engines would get more simple with every release. Sadly, They are not.

There's no such thing as Bosch/Cummins common rail.

The superb "XPI" high pressure common rail fuel injection system on ISG and ISX engines, and the entire Scania engine range, is design and produced by a joint venture between Cummins and Scania.

The high pressure common rail fuel injection system used on Mercedes-Benz/Detroit Diesel engines is Bosch, and it's quite good.

The medium duty ISB and ISC use Bosch-sourced common rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

There's no such thing as Bosch/Cummins common rail.

The superb "XPI" high pressure common rail fuel injection system on ISG and ISX engines, and the entire Scania engine range, is design and produced by a joint venture between Cummins and Scania.

The high pressure common rail fuel injection system used on Mercedes-Benz/Detroit Diesel engines is Bosch, and it's quite good.

The medium duty ISB and ISC use Bosch-sourced common rail.

I was referring to the system on the ISB...its a Cummins/Bosch system..

The only real difference common rail design wise between the ISX and the ISB is mostly pump related. 

I know you feel the need to split hairs on here to make your day complete, but i was refering to when comparing ANY of the common rail fuel systems available on ANY Cummins engines, it's far superior on all levels to the Delphi Volvo/ Mack fuel system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mack Technician said:

I think maybe even since the late 70's?

The French were both feet completely in after 1990 so they were on board for PLN and E-Tech, Vmac I, Vmac II, Vmac III.

 

Volvo ate Renault in 2000, squatted in nearest bush and grunted out the Aset AI/AC debacle and then the 2007 MP emissions aftertreatment debacle.     

May want to quote your sources on this one....to my knowledge, the only engine Renault really had a lot of input on was the Etech.

The platform of the E7PLN was basically a Metric beefed up version of an E6. The E7 was in development years before Renault had controling shares of Mack.

Fill me in....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bbigrig said:

May want to quote your sources on this one....to my knowledge, the only engine Renault really had a lot of input on was the Etech.

The platform of the E7PLN was basically a Metric beefed up version of an E6. The E7 was in development years before Renault had controling shares of Mack.

Fill me in....

Renault bought 10% share in 1979

20% 1982

Almost half (41%) by 1983

Renault sealed the deal 1990 about time of E7 line introduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mack Technician said:

Renault bought 10% share in 1979

20% 1982

Almost half (41%) by 1983

Renault sealed the deal 1990 about time of E7 line introduction.

Well aware....so tell me about Renault being involved in the design of the E7PLN. Share ownership doesn't directly involve them in the design of the engine.

As a Mack technician, I'm sure you've seen some subtle differences in their engine designs.

The E7PLN engine is one Renault never used in any of their own production trucks globally.

They used the E9....someone else on here will tell you that another European truck maker was hip deep in that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Welcome to BMT!

...The world's best antique, classic & modern Mack Truck support forum! Founded in 2000, BigMackTrucks.com is the place to go for everything related to Mack Trucks!

BMT!

BigMackTrucks.com is owned and operated by Watt's Truck Center, New Alexandria, PA. This forum and it's contents are not affiliated with Mack Trucks, Inc. or Volvo Trucks North America.

×