41180

we did spec a granite but it was only about 10 grand cheaper. and my brother wanted the big power and engine brake. the titans engine brake has 565 braking horsepower vs the mp8 only has 425 braking horsepower. to me buying the granite over a titan is equivalent to buying a RD over a superliner back in the day. we have always ran the long nose macks superliners and CL's so to go back to a short nose granite would be a down grade in a sense.

no that one has round tanks.

what was funny was we looked at the weight differance and its only about 800 lbs actually according to the spec sheet its the same frame and transmission and rears so the weight is only in the engine and air cleaner set up. we haul heavy loads over steep terrain so thats why we go with the titan

nice ride. does he like it ? my other brother is getting this titan so i keep the CL for now. but now im in line for the next one

thank you mack3p . that is going to be a sharp truck.

depends on what your using the truck for. a triaxle dump truck i think the granite is deffinately the better deal, but if your hauling 100k and above then id go with a titan . the 505 mp8 can handle 100k lb loads easily though. we speced a a granite with a 505 18spd and 20front and 46k lb rears it was 149k . a titan speced the same only with the 555hp mp10 was 159k , for us the extra power and engine breaking is worth the 10k more.

i mean size .. i looked on truck paper you can buy a brand new chu with a 505 for between 105 and 120k depending on the options a titan costs about 140 to 160 depending on the options . the 2012 titan at mcdevitt has 90000 miles and was selling for 135k thats still 10k more than a new chu with all the options. i dont see your point here. that titan probably sold for 152k or so and its two model yrs old . i dont see your point

no they dont. a titan is a full siae truck a granite and chu are smaller trucks . thats like saying a superliner with a e9 has worse resale than a rd or a r series .

i just looked at truckpaper and found a 2013 chu 445 hp mp8 sells for about 120k new and a 2012 with 93k miles for sale for 93k so thats 27k dollars less than new

how could 135k for a 2012 that probably sold for 145 or 150 be low resale value ? its a used truck its not going to sell for the price of a new one. the one at nuss has almost 200k miles so its not even close to being a new truck . as for a chu holding its value better than a titan i disagree. you can buy 2012 chu for about 80k or less

theres one on truck paper now at nuss mack in minnesota a 2011 lowboy tractor with 185k miles asking price is 124900

i called on a 2010 2 weeks ago that had 100k miles it was a tractor and mcdevitt trucks in n.h. wants 135k for it.

i doubt mack would be the number one seller of heavy haulers if they had the v8 still. they were not the best seller before so why would they be now ? some people loved the e9 and a greater majority would not even consider buying a mack v8 powered truck. they had a bad reputation from the 865 and 866 v8's it was unfounded but thats the case. when my dad bought his new superliner in 89 he wanted to buy the E9500 and the salesman talked him out of it. he said they did not hold up and was not worth the 10,000 dollars extra. of coarse later he found out the E9 engine was a great engine and put one in his superliner in 97 only it cost him 25000 instead of 10000.

so all of the other european truck makers make great trucks except for volvo ?seems like a little bit of sour grapes.....if i remember right the mack mp engine series was touted as being a mack and volvo joint venture. i doubt was much of mack engineering, but i also doubt detroit diesel had anything to do with the new mercedes dd 13 and dd15 and 16 as well. illl take the mack over the freightliner anyday.

i was talking about north american trucks with E9 engines ended in the 99 model year. and you didnt answer the fact that mack could have made the E9 an electronic engine in 92 or 93 when the E7 vmac engines came out and maybe they could have kept making them until 2008 when the mp engine series came out. also the E9 needed a descent engine break to be competitive . the E9 in our superliner was a test engine that was in a CL test truck that fabian earth moving in west rutland vermont bought directly from mack trucks. he lost the cam shaft in it soon after and made mack give him a new E9 crate motor , state line truck service ended up with the test engine and put a new cam in it and my dad bought it and put it in his superliner. My dad was told that the engine was a test engine for a jake brake equiped E9 . i always wondered why mack didnt put a jake brake on a production E9 ?

tell me if im wrong but i think the last mack v8 was made in 98 and volvo didnt aquire mack until 2000 , so mack/renault killed the v8 first not volvo . if mack would have updated the v8 during the 90s and it was still in production in 2000 when volvo took over maybe the v8 would have survived well into the 21st century. i blame mack for not electrifying and updating the v8 in the early to mid 90s when the vmac electronic controlled e7 came out. volvo allowed mack to run the etech and ac/ai series legacy 6 cylinder engines until 2007. again tell me if im wrong

i love the v8 but i find it hard to believe that it was to be relaunched in 2003. the 98 emission standards were much more easier to meet then the 02/04 regs. also why didnt volvo start putting d16/mp10 in the mack CL series instead of just putting cummins engines in them after the v8 was discontinued. i think theres alot of animosity towards the mp10 from v8 fans that is unjustified, also mack would have had to improve the engine brake in the e9 if it was to reamian competitive the dynatard was a joke

mack is making a comeback in my area too. i think they got this round of emmisions right for a change. and the power seems to good

i was talking front load meritor and eaton vs mack top load as far as i know meritor/rockwell hasnt made a top load in a long time. mack is currently pushing there rearends. they have new 300 series carrier i think they call it. full locking is now available. they still make the 100 and 200 series carriers as well

we have a mack titan with the def setup and we have had it for about 9 months abot 40k miles and 1800 hrs and its only had to regen 2 times so far. we run it on and off highway. its a mp10 engine . i know 2 guys with chu and cxu with def equipped mp8 505 hp engines and they like them .

we've had several macks with 44 and 50k lb mack rears and the front rear always blows up around 300k miles on a new truck after we put a new rebuilt in they only last 150 to 200k miles. the meritor/rockwell and even eaton rears we have in western stars and macks we have never had to do a rearend job on. and some of them have over 500k miles. the back rears on a mack top loader seem to run longer as much as 700k miles.

our experience i hate to say meritor/rockwell 46k lb rears hold up better than mack 50k lb rears. the mack ones only last about 300k miles and we have rockwell front load rears with over 500k miles on them without being rebuilt.

my uncle drove a ccc off set cabover dump truck . he said it was rugged but not fun to drive . it had a 220 cummins i think.

ive heard of guys putting a plate in front of the egr valve thus blocking the whole egr system , i dont know for sure