doubleclutchinweasel

Loving it so far. Need for it to quit raining every weekend, so we can get out and enjoy it more! Typical summertime in the southeast, I guess.

IIRC, the 250 HP ENDT-673C Thermodyne did have the same head bolt pattern as the 237 HP ENDT-675 Maxidyne. I believe it was the first (only?) Thermodyne to have that pattern. I'm sure one of the guys on here will know for sure. I HAVE heard of a 673 being "converted to Maxidyne". But, as I recall, there were a LOT of things to change to do this...like crank, rods, cam, pump, etc. That picture does look like it has 675 oil filters. Maybe even the 675 oil cooler. Again, there are guys on here who are a lot more familiar with the details than I am. Maybe they can help. A lot of them can identify manifolds and such on sight. There IS a lot of commonality and interchangeability among the various 672" engines through those years. Regarding that particular piece, is it possible that somebody put the gear case off a 673C on a 675 Maxi? Or a 675 Maxi valve cover on a 673C? Just throwing out ideas for somebody to hook into. You say the "engine number" identifies it as a 673C. Which/where number? Might help somebody ID it for you. Anyway, welcome to the Pound.

Bunch of chicken-f#@&ers!

Well, this is not truck-related, but it proves that idiots are, literally, everywhere. Recently got a new Harley. Rode it the first 1,000 miles, and took it back to the dealer for the initial service. I hate having other people touch my stuff, but thought it might be nice to have their people go over it the first time. They did their thing, and I rode it some more. They used the oil of their choice in the engine. Immediately, I did not like the sound as much as with the break-in oil. Not "bad", just a little "different". Something told me that I needed to change it out. So, I ordered some of the oil I personally think is a better lube. I am NOT turning this into another "which oil is best" thread! Too many of those out here already! Anyway, my gut just kept telling me to dump the oil. Could not really explain it rationally. Just a feeling, more than anything else. So, the other evening, I got it good and warm, and pulled it into the garage. Slid the pan under it. Slipped the ratchet on the drain plug, turned loose of the ratchet...and the plug turned! Took off the ratchet, and could turn the damned plug with my fingers! It was snugged-up against the O-ring, but was not tightened. I changed the oil and filter. Then, I decided it might be a good idea to check the plugs in the primary case and transmission, too, as they had changed those as well. The primary was probably OK. The plug in the transmission took several "bites" to hit the torque setting. Wow, 2 out of 3 loose. Called my son and told him to check his, too. Same thing, just not quite as loose on the engine oil drain. Primary OK, but trans and engine NOT tight. And, to think, I paid them a lot of money to leave these oil drain plugs loose! Idiots...everywhere.

Kinda off the wall here, but... An engine with badly worn rings can sometimes be harder to start hot than cold, because of the heating/expansion of the cylinders causing more pressure leakage in the cylinders. This is particularly noticeable if one or more of the rings is broken. Have seen this before, but USUALLY is more likely in a gas burner than a diesel. But, a compression check should rule that out pretty quickly. Do one cold and another one hot, and see if there is a difference. Dying when hot and not starting back...still sounds like fuel supply to me. A silly question; if you warm it up and it dies, and won't start back, can you put the air pressure on the tank right away, and see if it starts back? If air pressure forces enough fuel into the system to start it, that might indicate something. I tend to agree with whoever said it before; it's probably something so simple that it's getting overlooked. Or a pump.

I always liked the idea of the frame mount for the stack. A little better isolation from the heat and vibration. A little more hand clearance at the door handle. Pipe doesn't have to move just because the cab moved. Structure can be as strong as you like. Yours looks really clean, and sturdy. I like it!

What he said. The "right" color is the one YOU like in there.

I rode in many an old Mack with my dad when i was a kid. Even then I noticed that there were variations in the interior colors. And, these were original trucks at the time, not re-painted ones. Glad folks on here recognize this and don't claim to know the one-and-only "right" color!

Been there. Done that. It can happen.

And, it'll have 2 sticks, just like God and Zenon C. R. Hansen intended!

Think I got mine from PAI or somewhere like that.

I didn’t see it listed on the ATHS calendar, so I just wondered.

One of my books shows a tri-axle B53S. The caption says “Mack introduced the B53S concrete mixer chassis in 1963. This tri-axle version became available that year and incorporated many weight-saving features.” They also show a B576S all-wheel drive mixer. The 50-series seemed targeted at that mixer market, didn’t it?

Heard anything about Brad’s show yet?

Being so close, I need to ride over there and see this thing in person! Looks great!

That does sound familiar. I'd say the tri-axle setup was to lower the weight per axle so it didn't sink in soft ground. 3 axles float better than 2.

Somewhere on here, there is a chart showing the different dimensions of the different models. And, in general, the B50-series will be lighter (GVWR) rated than the B60-series. B70- and B80-series are even heavier. B20- and B30-series are the lightest.

When Matt Pfahl gets done with that thing, it will look better than when it left the factory. Can't wait to see it.

I just saw this thread. Great advice from everyone, as usual. And, an easy one to find/fix. Like Glenn said, I hope he didn't try to disassemble that hand grenade!

It's important to keep the bird's nest too! I think that one looks like a "Factory Original".

Yarnall might know!

Wasn't the EN-540 the 185 HP (or thereabouts) version used in the B60 series???

Maybe these will help a little.

And, of course, improperly mounted Daytons can have BAD wobble to them. That wobble CAN have better or worse bounce at certain speeds. They can also go in and out of phase with each other as they get rotated to different positions relative to each other. The '67 I used to drive would smooth out, start bumping a little, get progressively worse, then shake like the world was coming apart...then smooth out again. It would repeat this cycle over and over. Was particularly bad on concrete roads with expansion joints. I took the time to true-up all the rims on the spiders, and it acted like a whole different truck. Very smooth. Well, as smooth as the 55K rears would let it be! Somebody here will undoubtedly be able to steer you in a good direction.

Shouldn't he get some kind of award from all of us?!