You guys have been great telling me all about the cummins. Ive recently come across a 81 mack with a 300 mack 280 hp. It has a 10 speed behind it. So far the only thing I do not like about it is the fact that it maxes out at 95 km per hour. Can a guy do anything about that so it could do 110 or so? For what I want to use it for I dont need it so low geared. It has no rust on it whatsoever, and tires and everything are in really good shape. What do you guys think it would be worth?
I have a 1991 DM 690SX. 300 E6 engine 6 speed with 58000 rears and an 18000 front axle. She does about 67MPH. Here in Mass we can certify for 73000lb on 10 wheels (12.00R24 Tires). Believe me it is more than fast enough for me. I don't care how many wheels you have on the ground or what make truck you have the faster they go the harder they are to stop. Think about that the next time you have a person (aka idiot) that is talking on the phone, drinking a latte' and either reading the newspaper or putting on her make up pull out in front of you. In the late 80's I had 2 Autocars with 425 hp Cats & 15 speeds that went 80+ mph and a R600 Mack that had a 300 and a 12 speed that topped out at 68 mph . The Mack did the same work the Autocars did:beatsme. The Drivers in the Autocars would stop twice every round for coffee and the driver in the Mack stopped twice a day. The Autocars averaged 90 gallons per day ointhead and the Mack was about 65. The Autocars had brakes every 8 months and the Mack once in 2 years . As to a value I could not tell you except that the R's are worth more than the DM's.
Mack trucks were the best the old r model series. Never died. You could probably put a 350 in it, but why bother. You don't want to fly with a ten wheeler laoder with gravel, like Camara said 68 m.p.h is fast enough. I have a few Mack R-models never had any problems with them, they helped me get to where I am. These new junks will put you outta business. A sensor goes wrong and your truck is down. Those Macks didn't have any stupid sensors to go wrong.
We recently put a Mack engine in an 88B Bucyrus-Erie dragline! WOrks great.
I agree. Stay with the older mechanical trucks and engines. My friends in New Bedford bought 7 brand new Macks last year. 5 Roll offs (Granites) and 2 Front Load (cab over) Rubbish trucks. All with Allison Automatics. The day after they were delivered 2 of them would not start......and one of them the PTO would not work. Some thing about a bad link between computers. Anyway 2 brand new, not even lettered, $210,00.00 trucks TOWED out of their yard. I don't know about you but I would have been purple over that one! Those 2 trucks were out of service for over 2 weeks. At least with the older trucks if they break down on the side of the road you can get them running one way or the other and get home. Seems like you would need a computer geek to ride along all day with a new truck. :bash
hey camara is that abc, just wondering
Yes it Was ABC! I have known the family for years and they are some of the best around!
We have a 1986 RD685sx with a 300 six speed, 18000 fronts, 58000 rears and 12x24 rubber, its reg for 75,600. Top end only about 68 MPH , but on the jobsite it will do whatever or go wherever you want it to. The R models and DM's of that generation were built like tanks. Blows away our 2004 granite, dont get me wrong the granite is a nice truck and very driver friendly but loaded with typical "NEW" truck issues. We actually have started swithching our fleet to peterbilt based on dealer issues.
The more i hear about the older macks on here, and from everyone I ask, makes me think I should maybe get this one. I know its a little more heavy duty then i want, and I would like it to be able to go a little faster, but all in all it sounds reliable, and a good cheap first truck.
Only bad thing, Trucks that are built like a tank, weigh in like a tank, ours with a 14' steel body, with a steel over oak floor weighs in at almost 32000 lbs.
Yeah I know its heavy, way to heavy duty for me. Its the nicest shape one I have found for under 10 grand though, and for the first truck, that is a factor.
On thing to remember that when that truck was made the "national" speed limit was 55mph. The only real way to speed her up is to change rear end ratios. If the rears are OK I'd live with it! If they are making noise then I would up grade to something a little faster. These things very expensive very fast......or the faster they go the more money you dump into them.
I have a 2001 Mack RD690SX triaxle, coming home brand new from Mcdevitt Mack, an injector let go. I've had every injector replaced on it before 40,000 miles. Jake brake doesn't work all the time, canvas ripped off 6 months after I bought it, starts hard in the cold, while the 80's Macks will fire up. I have a fancy Peterbilt that I'd smash to pieces if someone would bring back the old Mack series.
I was kind of thinking of swapping the rears if I get it camara, but my father was telling me to keep them in there, and that in the 80's mack had one of the toughest drivelines, includng the rears. Ahh I might just have to suck it up and drive a little slower! Thats funny what you said about smashing the pete mike. I have heard a few guys say that about the earlier macks.
I'd live with it. I don't know if this is your first truck but I'd leave it alone. They were very tough. A buddy of mine runs a 85 dm600 with a 285, 6 speed & 58 rears and it does 57mph. He bought it used in the early 90's and it just keeps going & going. He finally did Rod & Mains last summer. His "new" truck is a 96 R690 with a 350, 6sp and 50 rears. Does 77 mph. He likes his 85 better. Sometimes there is nothing like old technology.
Back in the '60s our DM800s with a 12 cy mixer topped out at 46 mph on the governor.250s with a quadruplex.The leaves in the rear springs were made of 1 1/4" stock and they had 12" brakes on them.Ron G
I drove a '79 DM600 for two years in construction, hauling either 15 yards of bank run or 21 tons of asphalt. I drove that truck over 70,000 miles on and off road and suffered one minor break down, the hose clamp off the intercooler blew and I lost boost pressure. 20 minutes and a $2 clamp later I was back trucking. The brakes went at 75,000 miles, not bad considering the weight we hauled. That was the most reliable truck I ever drove, but it was pretty uncomfortable too. A truck like that will make you money.
So in your opinion's what happened to Mack that took them from "toughness and reliability" of a decade and more past to the newer problematic models of today?
They always want to try and get fancy and make things fast. It's kind of like when your wifes cooking dinner she said it looks perfect but leaves it in for a few more minutes and it gets burnt. Mack ruled the construction world. Those old macks would climb up over mount everest. These new ones can't climb over a bag of potato chips.
I think myself it has to do with two things. "keeping up with the jones's", and emissions laws getting tougher.
I read at the Volvo sight that Mack was bought out by Volvo in 2001, is this true? "Volvo Trucks (sv: Volvo Lastvagnar), a Swedish truck manufacturer, owned by Volvo, is the World's second largest heavy-duty truck brand. Founded in 1927, in 2006 Volvo Trucks employed about 35,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden, Volvo manufactures its trucks in 17 countries. In 2005, 103,696 Volvo trucks were sold globally. Volvo Group also owns the following truck makes, Renault Trucks, Mack Trucks & UD Trucks."
Yes it is true, and was bought out by renault to some degree a while back also. Thats when the old "Mack trucks, McCungie PA." technology of Mack engine, drivetrain, camelback suspension started to go away. An old mack is a real interchangeable nut and bolt kind of truck. Like Steve said, not the most comfortable, but will make you money.
We used to have a 72 Mack with a 237 5-speed and then a 85 Mack with a 350 10-speed. Tough as nails. Reminds of the video below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYyP5VIcKOs
It seems like Mack has been swallowed up by other companies that did not have Macks best interests at heart.I think they were originally bought by Ashland oil and it seemed as though they continued to do R&D and produced some fine products as those were the years that people look back on when they acknowledge the quality and robustness that Mack was known for. Since Renault got involved and now Volvo it appears that the corporate strategy is to sell Volvo and maybe use Mack for their R&D and they are running them into the ground in the process. I grimace when I hear the stories that are told today about Mack but they are not alone in the new economy these days.Look at DeWalt and Rigid,they are only a shadow of their former stature as quality tools having been bought out to use as their economy line by the current owners.Ron G
grandpa had several macks 60's and 70's models drove like a two horse wagon. :notworthy:Banghead:Banghead but they were fairly tough. just make sure if the beds over 14 ft that it has a double frame some of the old road tractors that were converted to dumps conveniently forgot to get double framed.
I just moved a 64,000# link belt hoe today. Did I hook on with the '00 CH or the '86 R686? Heres a hint, my kidneys are a little sore. 44 rears on camels,double frame, twin stick 6 and a souped up '300'. If only the pig wasn't so smelly and rough it'd be hard to beat. If yer looking at an older truck in such good shape what the hell that truck been doin all its life? Under used or Under spec'd.
waah. at least yer workin.
Here's another vote for an older mechanical powered diesel. They start so easy and hey're so cheap to maintain. Older Macks were as tough as it gets. Old IH Paystar dumps were good older trucks, too. I passed up one buying one with a KTA Cummins 600 HP in it. 60K rears!
My ol 59 B model is still truck'n! Not pulling anything heavy anymore, but still running the highways every weekend. Not bad for just under 50 yrs old! BTW, don't use a drop of oil and gets great fuel mileage too.
There's a beautiful 1962 MACK B61 in Truckpaper this week. Bit pricey at $40,000 (if your not working it).
What kind of fuel mileage do you get? I would think the one Im looking at wouldnt be that great cause of the fact you can only go 95km per hour and I would imagine the engine would be revving pretty high for that.
Back in the mid 80's, my ex-father in law and I had nothing but Macks. I had a 86 Superliner with Gallity tubs, E9 V8@ 500hp, 12 sp Mack trans, Camel Back, air ride cab.. This truck was awesome! 12th gear @ 1200 rpms got you 65mph. Thanks to some pump work, it put down over 550 hp and red lined at 2200 rpms. 6.5 mpg's was easy to do. The only problem was my light weight...31,000 lbs The Superliner with the Likens boxes had a Mack 350, 10 sp Mack trans. The DMM's had a 237 Mack, 5 sp trans, Fabco front, disk brakes and a 4000 gal tank. These H2O trucks would haul a load of water at 70 mph...easily :thumbsup For construction/dirt trucks, you cant beat the older ones. The newer ones...I wouldn't know. The ex-dad in law ended up loosing it all in his 4th divorce.:OMG Guess he had a problem keeping his zipper up :ban
Very cool pictures Pete. That mack with teh ten speed that you guys had, was that a 5 speed tranny with a high/low rear end type deal, or how did that work?
It shifted like a Fuller 10 speed. 1-5, hit the selector and do it again. The 12 speed had the compound low on the dash. The reverse switch was on the gear selector. You split every gear. 1L, H 2L, H and so on.. If I remember right, the gear selector was R N L H from the left to right. The PTO was operated in the N position. 1st gear N would raise the hoist real slow and 5th gear N would raise it in a hurry.
And with those 12 speed trannys you could back up real fast or really slow. Hey pete did you have a dynatard on that superliner? They made shifting alot faster on the splits.
Yes I did. All of the trucks had engine brakes.
I'm familiar with that truck. I saw it at Syracuse show couple years ago.
The yellow LTL looks to be Mack Sheesly's(sp?). I really like them LTL's! Sounds really great with a supercharged cummins in them! Polished Mercury sleeper......NICE!
Well the RL700L I hauled logs with isn't as pretty as those but for a logger it looked pretty good. 335 Cumins (opened up to a 380) Mack Quadrplex, Mack rearends, rubber bisket suspension, Priece trailer, Williams air scales. Ran like a scalded dog, favorate meal was the then new 350 HP 8V71T's, used to get along side them and hit the jake before driving off in a cloud of smoke.:drinkup