farmer52

Thanks for the update. Been to the Outlets too.

Nice group of Dodges. Like the 440+6. Any pics of the engine compartment?

I see other dog is keeping watch on the wine too. Hmmm, wine in a plastic jug....first class!

Ron (39 Baby Mack) will adjust them if you visit Gerhart's. He did my MH but I am still waiting for the invoice.

Leslie, Nice "dog house". Although mine has a roof over it's head, it is not enclosed. So my winter work is limited to days when Mother Nature decides to heat it. BTW, lose the white wheels on the Superliner.

Maybe that is why his handle is...rifleman. Might be an old Martin's IH COE. They started buying them around 1993 (when Mack informed them the MH would be discontinued). My MH was in the last group Martin's purchased for the fleet.

Thanks for the pics! Background looks like shopping plaza on west side of I-81.

Checked today and the bid is at $7100 (1+ days till auction ends). More than my wallet holds. Likely not a bad price but over my "budget". Next!

Looks like a nice truck at the right price but too far away.

That is a bunch of BS since you were not breaking any driving/moving/tiedown laws/regs. It is not your fault your shipper loaded you too heavy. Citation should go to shipper but it is easier to issue to the driver. I know, you are responsible but again a bunch of governmental BS! Something more to "hold over your CDL head". Wonder how long he sat there waiting for a truck to come-by? Probably went back to the donut shop bragging. Good luck getting it dismissed and removed from your driving record.

Dodge Power Wagons and Dodge Dart are close enough for me...welcome to ______ (I am at a loss of words to describe this "illustrious" group.)

I love it when they put $1 in the asking price. Someday I am going to call one of these ja's and offer them $5. isn't that usually the case....too far away or too expensive...one or the other.

I would think some else should be responsible for the citation (shipper and/or receiver). Looks like he has a BROAD a$$, probably from sitting too much and too many donuts. Did you offer him some donuts or free hot dog certificates? BTW, nice pics.

Likely one of the wires is broken. That was the problem with mine (after I broke the TC trying to remove it and replace with a new TC). Use a continuity light to check your wires. Mine are solid core and one was broken at a sharp bend near the engine.

Yep, round headlights are a giveaway. Thanks for posting the link. Looks like the RH MH windshield is broken. Condition of interior? Too far away for a "parts donor".

Just like a fuel gauge, typically the sender is the issue. I also suggest replacing the thermocouple (TC). The TC for my EM7 was about $65 and easy to replace. There should be a plug-in connector near the TC.

Snagged this off eBay. The packet only included the base truck price sheets, spec sheets, and tire prices. It is interesting to see a CF685FAPS aerialscope listed for just over $500K...wow! A base Superliner was $67K-$74K. The MH is slightly higher at $71K-$81K. 1986 06 Mack base prices.PDF

Both look nice but the R is one "fine looking" truck!

Good one Denny!

Did you put any money in the parking meter?

but nice pic.

Looks good. Amazing what a new set of "shoes" does for the ride. X2 on the gray rims.

I like the R and CH pic....looks like it was taken at the Customer Center (aka Engineering Center) on the steep hill. Hmmmm...no black tire marks are visible.

Latest Update on new oil... Lube Report - November 20, 2013 EMA Requests PC-11 Delay By Steve Swedberg EMA, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, has requested a delay in the first-licensing date for the next heavy-duty engine oil upgrade, PC-11. EMA now wants the oils to debut April 1, 2016, giving it three more months to complete engine test development. Original plans called for the oils to be commercially available by Jan. 1, 2016, to coincide with the introduction of more stringent vehicle fuel economy and emissions limits set by the federal government. EMA now wants the launch date for the new oils be pushed back to April 1, 2016, to allow more time to complete engine test development. The request came at an early October meeting of the New Category Development Team, the group is which steering the new oil's creation under the sponsorship of the American Petroleum Institute. PC-11 will require a number of new engine sequence tests, as well as carrying over most of the tests required for the current heavy-duty category, API CJ-4, which was introduced in 2006. Among the new tests are the Mack T-13 from Volvo Powertrain, which measures oil oxidation, nitration and bearing corrosion, and the Daimler DD13 test for piston and liner scuffing wear. Caterpillar Inc. offered another two engine tests. The first is an Engine Oil Aeration Test based on the Cat C13 engine, which would replace the simple laboratory glassware test used now, ASTM D892. However, oil aeration (foaming) is more complex and is best measured by some sort of test engine, the engine builder feels. Cat also had proposed a thermal stability/oxidation resistance test based on a single-cylinder engine, but withdrew it in favor of the Mack T-13. On the slate of carryover tests, the Mack T-12 will continue to measure ring and liner wear but will have a revised merit rating system for PC-11. EMA also recommended keeping the existing 90-pass Kurt Orban shear stability test (D7109). As well, the equipment manufacturers' specifications are expected to call for 13 percent maximum Noack volatility loss, with a goal of reducing oil consumption. Oil marketers have voiced some concern about supporting data for this requirement. When it comes to market, PC-11 will split into two versions. PC-11A will cover the viscosity needs of heavy-duty engines on the road today, while PC-11B will be a lower-viscosity specification that addresses OEM demands for fuel economy benefits. The high temperature, high shear (HTHS) viscosity limit for PC-11A will be unchanged at 3.5 centiPoise minimum, ensuring it is backward compatible with earlier oil categories. By contrast, the lower-vis PC-11B oils will have a fuel-conserving HTHS viscosity of somewhere between 2.9 and 3.3 cP. Not every North American OEM is expected to adopt these oils, but EMA confirmed that Europe's association of vehicle builders, ACEA, has settled on an HTHS limit of 3.2 cP to assure fuel economy. Oil blenders also have expressed concern that there is insufficient difference between the two PC-11A and PC-11B HTHS specifications to allow for a reasonable blending tolerance when making the finished oil. The API Lubricants Group was asked to confirm this. The Daimler DD13 engine wear test is taking longer to develop than was forecast and prompted EMA's request to delay the first-license date. While this is doable, API and the American Chemistry Council (which represents the additive companies) feel that July 1, 2016, is more likely to be the launch date. On Jan. 8, the New Category Development Team will review the data and identify those tests which are critical to the category moving forward; without these tests there will be no category. By the end of January the team will decide which tests to go forward with and determine if backup methods can be established for the critical tests. Work on PC-11 has been under way for more than two years. The hope now is that engine test development can be completed in the new timeframe, so the April 2016 first-license date can be met.