RowdyRebel Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 do these numbers sound right? http://www.dwclutch.com/D&W/D&W%20...CK%20TORQUE.pdfIf so, I'm surprised to see the E7-460 has the same torque output as the E9-500...that being the case, what would be the advantage to using the big V8 over, say, turning the E7-460 up to 490 HP? Seems the E7 would be easier to stuff into a wider range of truck projects with less body modifications........no reason in particular that I'm asking...just curiosity gettin' the better of me Quote When approaching a 4-way stop, the vehicle with the biggest tires has the right of way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 The E9 came out in the very late 70's to replace the 866/865. It reached 500 in the mid 80's before the E7 came out, at the time the most powerful 6 cylinder was the E6 350. So in the 80's before the E7 the E9 was king and Mack's big power engine. Then in the early 90's they had trouble with emissions laws and it looked as if Mack wasn't going to have any compliant engines. The E9 was their biggest engine and biggest problem. But in Europe and Australia they bumped the power up way beyond 500, 560 in Europe and 610 in Australia. Their emissions weren't as tough at the time. The European and Australian E9's even came with electronics in the mid-late 90's. Emissions prevented the E9 from breaking 500HP in the USA and Euro emissions finally killed the E9 in Europe. Demand dropped and then Volvo took over and the E9 was laid to rest. Shame really. Mack could have offered the 610HP 2050 Ft/lbs E9 in the US to compete with CAT and Cummins 600HP monsters. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Trucking Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Although the figures look comparable on paper, in the real world I don't believe a 728 cu. in. engine is going to perform equal to a 998 cu in engine.Just my opinion. Quote "If You Can't Shift It Smoothly, You Shouldn't Be Driving It" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzack Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Talked to an owner-operator who owned both and he said there was no comparison, E-9 hands down would outpull his E-7. Although fuel milaege was a different story.Just guessing but I think Mack "specs" their motors to stay within the limits of certain drive-train components like Fuller transmissions. Doesn't have much to do with what the motor is actually capable of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyRebel Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 ...so in other words, the E9 was detuned to meet government dictated emission requirements, but fully capable of being "tweaked" to do significantly more... Government mandates suck Quote When approaching a 4-way stop, the vehicle with the biggest tires has the right of way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 ...so in other words, the E9 was detuned to meet government dictated emission requirements, but fully capable of being "tweaked" to do significantly more... Government mandates suck Yup. The Australian Titan had the E9 rated to 610 HP and 2050 ft/lbs of torque! Mack was able to compete with the 600HP CAT C16 and Cummins ISX/Signature 600HP. Unfortunately that ended around 2000/2001 during the beginning of the Volvo take over. Renault Powered their AE with the E9 which was known as the Magnum AE, everyone loved the Magnum AE so much they called all AE's Magnums. The name stuck to the point where Renault changed the name to Magnum. All Magnums were powered by the E-tech and E9's. You will see many Magnums decorated with half bull dogs and MACK lettering. Here is a , you can see he has Mack lettering on the truck . Some people hate the look of the Magnum but it gained allot of respect in Europe because of the engines. For a while I think it was the most powerful truck in Europe. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bts-4120 Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 E9 was way underated on paper, if it only had 1650lb of torque Mack would had put some Fuller Trans. behind them all of them I know of either had 12 or 18spd Mack due to the Torque the motor made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackdaddy1911a1 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 O.K. after nearly pulling out my hair trying to upload some pictures of the E-9, I finally broke down and started a new album. The pictures are from some of my old BULLDOG MAGAZINES I have. Back in the nineties MACK had a 950 HP marine version of tha E-9 and a 750HP version as well as a 700 hp version built for the French army. Also there was the 610 hp truck version for the Austrailian market. Just click on MY GALLERY to the left and look for the E-9 album. The files were to large to upload here.Matt Quote THE GREATEST NAME IN TRUCKS MACK TRUCKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 O.K. after nearly pulling out my hair trying to upload some pictures of the E-9, I finally broke down and started a new album. The pictures are from some of my old BULLDOG MAGAZINES I have. Back in the nineties MACK had a 950 HP marine version of tha E-9 and a 750HP version as well as a 700 hp version built for the French army. Also there was the 610 hp truck version for the Australian market. Just click on MY GALLERY to the left and look for the E-9 album. The files were to large to upload here.MattWOW thanks for those uploads! It is depressing to see how well the E9 did in the trials and then the programs were scrapped. I can only imagine how that fishing boat sounds with two 950 HP E9's, must really growl. The military E9 looks down right mean. Too bad Mack had a falling from grace and was scooped up by Volvo, imagine if the 90's were better for Mack. It would be awesome if the E9 was still around. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackdaddy1911a1 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 WOW thanks for those uploads! It is depressing to see how well the E9 did in the trials and then the programs were scrapped. I can only imagine how that fishing boat sounds with two 950 HP E9's, must really growl. The military E9 looks down right mean. Too bad Mack had a falling from grace and was scooped up by Volvo, imagine if the 90's were better for Mack. It would be awesome if the E9 was still around.You got that right Thad. I would have loved to see even one of those 750's in my truck. Quote THE GREATEST NAME IN TRUCKS MACK TRUCKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffbyrne Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 When the Maxidyne was released in 1967, it was rated at 237bhp, 906lb.ft. torque. To get that torque from a Cummins you had to go to about a 270 Cummins of 855 cu.in. The maxidyne was only 672 cu.in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackdaddy1911a1 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Didn't know that all I know is MACK FOREVER... Quote THE GREATEST NAME IN TRUCKS MACK TRUCKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAD DOG Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 A friend of ours has an E7 460 that is turned up to a 490. My dad has a superliner with an E9 just 400Hp an with both trucks pulling 6 axle steel dump trailers grossed out at 130,000lbs doing some pretty good hill climbing , the old E9 still pulls away and leaves the souped up E7 and the E9 used about 15 to 20 gallons less fuel on the same trip. My opinion is bigger cubes are better. 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.