Timothy Maikshilo Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I take back what I've said about the new trucks. Reading up on the granite specs I think it's a pretty rugged truck. 23,000 lb front X with permanently sealed hubs with synthetic grease and different frame rail thickness makes it a competitor,Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullfuel01 Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I agree Tim. but do you think the 460 will do the job? pretty sure that no. heavy axle but nut enough power to carry the load... Mack must do something with their engine. MP10 soon!!! and wish that it sound like a Mack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Maikshilo Posted December 26, 2005 Author Share Posted December 26, 2005 I agree Tim. but do you think the 460 will do the job? pretty sure that no. heavy axle but nut enough power to carry the load... Mack must do something with their engine. MP10 soon!!! and wish that it sound like a Mack...←I think that all in all the small blocks have proven themselves and the 460 is a good engine in my opion but a true Mack big block we would all like to see. I don't think that will happen especially after Volvo,Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twostickmutt Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 I think that all in all the small blocks have proven themselves and the 460 is a good engine in my opion but a true Mack big block we would all like to see. I don't think that will happen especially after Volvo,Tim←clean up the E-9 a little and go back to them. all the power you need! jj Quote and remember "PREFORMANCE COUNTS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Maikshilo Posted December 26, 2005 Author Share Posted December 26, 2005 clean up the E-9 a little and go back to them. all the power you need! jj←I couldn't say it better JJ, but I'm sure Mack has tried for years to do just that. Just like the N-14 was a great engine but didn't meet goverment regs.,Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 clean up the E-9 a little and go back to them. all the power you need! jj←If Scania can clean up there 16L V8 then Mack could have too. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 We will probably soon again see a 16 litre engine in a Mack... But It'll be a Volvo 6. It's costing Volvo a fortune to build that small volume 16 litre 6 that shares almost nothing with the new 12/13 litre 6. It would have been much more cost effective to build a 16 litre V8 sharing the 12 litre's parts and development costs. Given that 16 litre 6s tend to be long, tall, and heavy beasts a V8 of similar size would be a lot easier to fit under the hood or cab too, as well as providing a bit more payload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I passed the engine plant in Hagerstown today. From I-81 you can see the water tower. It now has VOLVO painted in larger letters than Mack. The begining of the end is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twostickmutt Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I passed the engine plant in Hagerstown today. From I-81 you can see the water tower. It now has VOLVO painted in larger letters than Mack. The begining of the end is here.←hate to agree with ya' partner but i think you're pretty close. Quote and remember "PREFORMANCE COUNTS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granite 05 Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 the specs are nice but if your lugging or working in the low end of the rpm spec my new 400 sucks compared to the old 300 in my 96 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Maikshilo Posted December 31, 2005 Author Share Posted December 31, 2005 the specs are nice but if your lugging or working in the low end of the rpm spec my new 400 sucks compared to the old 300 in my 96←Probably Because of these new laws, engine builders are forced to work and rework these engines to meet goverment regs. and we all lose out on power and dependabilty.The local fuel hauler in the area has new 475 and 550 twin turbo cats and is having problems with them(they have 10 problems). The local milk hauler has twice as many trucks with cummins isx and are having problems too,Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack 3P Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Here is a photo of the new Granite AF with the MP7 engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Maikshilo Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 Here is a photo of the new Granite AF with the MP7 engine.Well that looks like a pretty heavy truck. I like the look of a axle forward alot more than set back,Tim 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.