ThaddeusW

Hmmmm.... After a little math The I found that the ratio fo torque to horse power for the E9 was about 3.32:1. That means that the 610 HP Australian E9 would output about 2025 ft/lbs at 1300 RPM. And as for why the E9 was discontinued I think it was because of Volvo. Just before Volvo bought out Renault/Mack Mack started there Mack power program to provide their engines for marine and industrial applications. After Volvo purcahed them they shutdown the Mack Power division because it would compeat with there own engine production. Renault even used Mack engines as well because for a while the Renault Magnum came with the Mack E-tech engine and the E9. The new 2005 Magnum model was replaced with an angine based on the Volvo D12 block. I think Volvo wants to kill the Mack engine line and replace it with there own. That or I am paranoid .

wonderful pictures! That B model makes me dizzy with all the accessories, what a ride! The Cat V8 is also very nicely setup. The Autocar with the setback axle has a nice interior as well as one of the Petes.

At first I realised an engine that powerful existed because on the roadranger website. Eaton had an 18speed that comes with the ability to handle 2250 ft/lbs of torque(Link). I was wondering what engine could do that so I went on google to do a search and found it. Here is the link to there page for Volvo North America Volvo VT 880. The 16 liter monster only comes in the VT 880 which is strictly an over the road tractor, no vocational offerings.

This reminds me, who here has the actual specks for the E9? At 500HP it would be nice to know the peak torque at which RPM, bore/stroke, governed RPMs, weight dry etc. If anyone has the numbers for the E9 500 HP or the Australian 610 HP please put them up to give a better idea of what she can do.

WOW! Beautiful B you have there. Cant wait to see the chrome on black!

I have just taken some more pictures of the truck. Since it is parked on the street I walked up to it and opend it up like I owned it . Well the transmission is probably a 6 speed maybe even a 5 but for such a heavy truck of that year? The interior is in good shape with little or no rust. It has a double frame, PTO w/hyd tank on the passanger side and camelback suspension. The Engine is a mack turbo engine of some sort possibly not the original. I have no clue as to what the engine model is but in the pics there are 2 numbers as follows: Just below the upper radiator hose where it meets the coolant manifold - 439Gb3101 On the larger part of the coolant manifold - 1076C47066 (the last 3 or 4 digits I am not shure of, too little light and cant tell from the pics.) Engine: Plate: Interior: Model LFSW Chassis # LF2D2327D The name plate has only the model and chassis number. The horse power and GVW/GCW is blank. Oh and I was right the dump body is held on by chains bolted to the frame using makeshift brackets. Not even on there strait.

Would this be a 673? MAck 673 in an M54

1988 It is a ride truck. It has the original 1964 half moon swing ride body on it. The original Chassis was an IH R-something model that fell appart due to neglect by my uncle. If I had the chance I would swap the GMC for a B-6-something. A B model with the old ride on it would be a sure hit at truck shows (especially with the kids!)

Yea the new 625 HP c15 Cats have 2050 ft/lbs. The Volvo 625HP 16liter can put out 2250 ft/lbs, quite a bit of power if you ask me. As for todays engines, Mack vs. Cat is very close. But Mack has nothing to compeat with the C15 today which is kinda sad (Mack today is sad enough as it is under Volvo). The Cummins ISX tops out at 565HP at 1850ft/lbs offerd in the CL. After the new emissions laws went into effect Cat discontinued the C16 and cummins did the same with there signature 600. Cat managed to get 625HP and 2050ft/lbs using there new acert technology. Maybe Cummins could reintroduce the signature 600.

As soon as I have time I will try to aproach the owner with an offer. And yea I thought it was a tractor too. You can even see in the front picture the dump box isnt even strait. In the full size side view I can see a chain passed over the dump subframe to the truck frame to hold it on. I wish the frame was able to hold that dump box but the heck with it. I would put a 5th wheel on it. As for the engine/trans I will see. I am not into gassers (have a GMC 6000 gas and it stinks) and if it is gas then I would rather a diesel, Mack diesel that is. What Mack diesel would be a good fit? The older the better all mechanical no electronics.

Hello all! My name is Thaddeus and I am from New York City. I am only 24 but I have been in love with the trucks especially older macks as far back as I can remember!

Hi all, I have just found this L model tucked away near by and I was wondering exactly what model it is. The owner bought it to restore but so far it has been sitting there for about a year. It looks to be in good condition and if he is willing to sell it I might buy it. The only thing is what engine and transmission could be in that beast? One worker told me that the engine is shot and might need replacing alltogether. Which brings me to my next question; what do you guys think about classic macks with modern engines and transmissions? Some people say it detracts from the classic appeal of the truck and some say its the looks that count not what is under the hood. Is it worth it to replace/restore the original engine/tranny or go with a more modern setup? I would love to spend my spare time fixing this old dog. Oh and does the dump box look to long? I dont even think it was ment to be on that short a wheel base.

I herd that Mack used to get there engine designs from Scania. Is this true? It would make sense since Scania still to this day makes a 16 liter V8 which is what the E9 would have been based on. And if it is would any of the parts form the Scania V8's fit the mack E9? Since the V8 parts are getting hard to come by this could be an alternative.