There are a few Macks around my neck of the woods but I don't know enough about them to focus my search. I would like to figure out what Mack truck would best suit my needs if I decide to go that route. Is there a place to look at all the different models and configurations to better get an idea of what might have been available? I'm looking for - an all Mack configuration - pre-2011 (and way older is fine as long as parts availability isn't an issue) - tandem axle with power divider would be great - I don't need a super long chassis or to haul too heavy but ample gear selection and even twin sticks are fine. \ - Looking for something where the entire engine is available to work on via the hood (minimal doghouse configuration) and decent turning radius.- One piece wheels are also important (don't know what year those became standard). I don't haul too much weight and this would not be a truck that gets worked every day. Appreciate recommendations or a site where the models are all laid out. Thanks O.
I'm not a Mack guy, but a little more info on your application might help. Dump truck, flat bed, log truck, semi tractor, roll back, etc? What are you hauling and how much weight? On road only or on/off road? City, back roads, or highway? How long of trips? Towing a trailer? Just a few things that might help you get a better response.
The E7 engine is good, but it came out in 1988 didn't hit the market till 1989 and in 1990 Mack started with electronic engine controls. So IIRC the prior engine would be E6 mechanical. The R series 686 would be a good choice but those will be used up.
If I found a dump truck that would work. If it was the right semi, that would work too. On-road, some highway. Mostly short trips, definitely pulling a trailer (nothing massive, my heaviest machine weighs 10K lbs). O.
Bought an '06 Mack Granite with MP7 and Allison auto new. It was set up as a tri-axle dump with an OX round Hardox bed. Great truck. Pre-emissions engine with plenty of torque mated with the Allison. It was fun to drive and pulled like a team of mules.
I'm not sure why you want "all mack" the eaton are a easier to shift transmission, and much cheaper to repair. You could make the case that the triple shaft transmissions (mack) are stronger, but they are much more expensive to work on. And harder to shift. Plus there are eaton parts and reman's everywhere- mack not so much. The same can be said about the rear ends. If you want "all mack" then you're getting top loader rears, which are more expensive, and less available. Eaton or rockwell is much more common. For suspension, "all mack" is usually a camelback spring suspension, which is going to ride rough with only 10k. I'd go for air ride, which there's Mack labeled air suspension. But I think those are actually hendrickson. Pre 2011 - parts availability is always going to be a problem, if you want dealer parts. The dealers aren't interested in much over 5 years old. Aftermarket, and used, there's a lot of old macks around, but you better be handy, because you will need to do a lot of it yourself. And its going to take some work on the phone and internet to find what you need. I have no idea why you would want twin sticks, especially if you have never driven one. They are a pain in the rear. For your weights, it doesn't matter a bit what you have for a transmission. For that matter, I guess the twin sticks would probably be fine, because you would likely never need the compound. Any mack hood should give you room to work, but they are all a little under the cab, because of the short nose. The superliner would have the long hood, but then you are loosing turn radius. Turn radius on the older macks is pretty good, unless you add float steers, then the wide frame rails up front limits turn radius. Mostly anything after 1980 should have one piece wheels, If it doesn't, it isn't difficult to change. You'll find a lot of dayton wheels yet in the 80-90's, which are getting hard to find some brake parts for, but most of those will not be two piece wheels any more, because tires aren't as available, so most will be swapped to 22.5's. At 10k, is this just a toy hauler? or antique stuff that you want the look of a Mack? Because otherwise, with only 10k for weight, you're much better served with a pickup based chassis. You certainly don't need a semi or dump truck. As far as the various mack trucks available, they made a lot of different configurations over the years, but the base "R" cab is pretty standard, and they used it from the 60's to the 2000's. The CH are the newer cabs from the R and then Volvo purchased Mack, and those trucks are totally different. Listing all the possible mack configurations would fill a book. I own a E-6 mechanical with mack 9 speed RD, that has been a bulletproof tough engine. I have a 2000 mack CH with 454 E-7 mack with eaton 18 transmission, and its been good also. I have a 2011 Mack Titan with mp-10 and mack 18 speed, that I haven't driven enough to tell you if its good or not. For driving everyday, I would take the CH over the R, because my CH is air ride, cab and suspension, and R is camelback. And the eaton is easier to live with vs the mack 9 speed. I don't mind the mack 9, but it is easier for a new driver to run the eaton vs the mack.
All mack so you dont have this rediculas shift knob!
I ran a 1990 R model. It was a 350 mack with electronic controls. 8LL transmission mack rear ends with the air lock, not the peanuts. Camel back suspension, set back front axle. I got it new, and it ran off road 90 percent of the time. It had issues the first month. It would starve for fuel. Come to find out. Some type of a heavy paper tag that hangs inside the fuel cap from the factory was never removed during assembly and had fallen inside the tank. L71-838. Not sure why i still remember the plate number. It was a great truck
Bigmacktrucks.com best Mack forum i have found. For me anything up to 2003. After that Mack had to comply with the emissions mandates at the time. From 04 on the E7 Etech was altered to conform until the MP7 came out a few years later and the E-7 was put out to pasture. R, RW, RD are and you could get a CH axle set forward. Like TS said E-6 was replaced with the E-7 around 1990. E-6 is a good motor- all mechanical HP up to 350. E-7 was the best ever IMO. Could get one fully mechanical up to 98. IIRC VMack I came out around 92 and started the throttle by wire and it went from there. Progressed to II, III. 300, 350, 400 and 454 HP. I believe 98 was the beginning of Etech- 275, 300, 350, 350-388, 400, 427 and 460HP. Etech motors are great. Biggest problem at the time were the cams. By now it would be hard to find one that hasn't been replaced. Im all Mack except the transmissions. Mack transmissions are a triple countershaft design. Expensive to repair, heavy, and not as smooth as a Eaton. Mack Camelback Rears most common weights: 38, 44, 52. Two problems: Hard to find any of this vintage not wore out, and like wise with the guys who can work on them. I have the shop manuals for my 2001 RD, still can get parts from Volvo and I did buy the old Pro Link with all the cards or cartrages of the day including VMack and Etech applications.
Facebook www.facebook.com
That one is worth a look! Full mechanical engine, low miles. May have started out as a tractor, has the blue tractor supply and the air tank configuration is similar to what a tractor would have had. Can't see the axle ends to tell what the rear capacity is. Single steering box. Not a deal breaker just have to work with in the limits if it works for the user. Could be 38 rears 12 front. Straight 9sp, can't tell if double frame. Looks like room for a lift axle.
Exploded view it has a nice double frame, Mack drives on camel back. If typically spec'd as many 688's, 44,000 rear suspension with a single steering box 16 to 18,000 lb front
If that's the case I'd be looking at medium-duty trucks.
Only get the mack transmission if you need 3 ptos, otherwise the $10k plus special jack or special person transmission pulls that are needed for them. I drove a e7 460 and a mp8 and both are really good engines, e7 is old school power while the mp8 has power nearly all the time. The camel back suspension requires grease that nobody greases, so it will be worse out. The model numbers of the trucks hurt my head, I just know the granite cabs were super common around here and they are a little tight to work on.
The question is any mack guys on here, a Mack Guy here, checking in if attendance is being taken. Experience with Granites, R-Models and SuperLiners. All the above information is good, Mack transmissions are more difficult to drive and twice as expensive to fix. Mack engines just run, you are not going to pass anyone on the highway, and there exhaust brakes suck, but every load will get there, and they are good on fuel. Every manufacturer has its fans and Mack is no different, being from Northern New England I have customers that wouldnt think of anything but a mack. And with the quality of new trucks I know multiple companies that are re railing their 90's mechanical trucks.
drove a 1980 rl-600 (value liner) with E6-350 a bit, hauling logs was quite impressed with it- would pull good down to torque peak,excellent mpg's mack rears,but eaton 13speed trans.
I have always been a Mack fan. Back in about 1983, I bought a small fleet of macks for the aggregate company I worked for. As I recall, I bought 6, Mack R600 tractors with the 300 Mack engine and a 6 speed transmission. We used these to haul pit-run sand and gravel through a river bottom on dirt roads. Each had a belly dump trailer, were loaded with a dragline, hauled about 5 or 6 miles through the river bottoms, and dumped in a drive-over hopper. At the time, I felt the Macks were the only truck that would survive that type of use day in and day out. And they did a great job. They hauled for about 5 years before the property was mined out. The trailers fell apart, and were all replaced under warranty, but those Macks never missed a beat. When done with that assignment, I had them reconditioned as needed, put end dump trailers behind them, and used them for over over the road deliveries for another 5 or 6 years. Great, tough trucks.