Oso2

It's a scraper. The front plow is designed to ride on top of hard surfaces and not take out things like curbs, speed bumps and the like. The bottom plow is like a grader blade. It will dig in and either remove or scarify any ice surface (i.e. to make the surface rough and provide traction).

Americans floor me every time. There is NO wing plow on that truck! The State spends all that money on a hurkin' big Mack with a 450hp engine, and then fails to spec a wing plow, thus making it half as effective as a regular plow. BTW, a friend of mine owned a couple of Ontario Ministry of Transportation snow plows. They were tiny trucks compared to this: two single axle Fords - an L-9000 with an L10 Cummins and a L-8000 with a 225hp 3208 Cat. Both had wings. P.S. Upstate New York has some nice plow trucks. I'm sure other parts of the States do too.

That's what you wanted to hear - but that sounds more emotional than rational to me. Maybe I'm wrong. (Hey, we all want our favorite truck - no shame there.) Think about proven specs, and again, look at the conditions you are operating under. Southern Ohio just isn't as hilly as Vermont. I've stated that Ontario is a good comparison. And around here, two of the players in the heavy haul/oversize/low boy field are GM Smith and Active Transport. And guess what they run? Yup, Pinnacles. And at greater weights than your operation. And they will run across the continent. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/bluejaysfan/Freight%20Hauler%20Fleets%20-/ACTIVE%20TRANSPORT/activetransporttractorline1-22-12.jpg~original https://www.gm-smith.com/ Also, around here we have waste haulers who pin to 5 axle walking floors who always gross out at 139,000lbs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but dumps are usually muddy, difficult spots. JE Culp is one fleet that runs around here; and they don't run Titans. Verspeeten is another, and they run Volvos with the D13 (which is a repainted MP8). The point that I'm trying to make: the only people who need and run Titans are loggers in Northern Ontario, where conditions are truly rough.

CXU's turn very, very well. They are light years improved from the 90's CH that I drove. I've never driven a modern CH, but I would imagine that they'd have the same wheel cut as a modern CXU. But your local dealer should be able to provide you with a turning radius as part of spec'ing a truck.

1. Driving through it! The I90, I75 and I71 are flat,flat,flat. 2. Yes, the only way to switch to manual mode is through the dash pad. But at 6' I found the reach to be comfortable and natural - no harder than reaching for a stick. I haven't heard any complaints from others. Personally i never had a problem with the mDrive/iShift, and never had it choose a wrong gear on me - but then again, I drive on pavement and don't often go above 80k. All of our other drivers seem to prefer the 505hp Macks to our Cascadias - and they pull a lot of 90,000lb loads (139k gross). BTW, I prefer the (standard?) horizontal arrangement, which should give you a little more dash space to play with. For what it's worth, i'm just a company driver, so take it all with a grain of salt. Speaking of grains of salt, here's a promo video of a 505 mp8 Pinnacle loaded to 139k in British Columbia (where the hills are somewhat big!)

Different conditions, logtruckman: Ohio doesn't have your hills.

A Pinnacle also has much better sleeper options. I'd also guess that more shops are familiar with the mp8/d13 than the mp10, which is kind of a rare bird. A few other pros: Visibility will also be better with a cxu. That cxu/mp8 will be more versatile, in that it will enable you haul regular 80k loads more efficiently. The truck can also be easily repurposed into a freight hauler (roof fairings, etc.) should your lowboy work dry up. With modern emissions, I've heard that the best bet is to buy new and sell it just before the warranty expires. As for the mDrive/IShift, they're been around forever, and I haven't heard anything bad about their reliability (I've worked for 2 companies that ran them). Which doesn't mean that nothing bad will ever happen. They won't be as cheap to work on as a manual though. I don't know if they are better or worse with clutches.

I second this. 125,000lbs is not a big deal up here. Why don't you look at some Canadian dealers sites and see how they spec their trucks? I see you're in Ohio, which is pretty flat: Southern Ontario would be the most similar. Hint: most of the Ontario Macks are CXU's 505/1850 mp8's with 14,600 + 46,000 axles and suspensions, 18spd or mDrive, and often geared around 3.73, 3.91 or even 4.11 (although I've only seen the latter on Western trucks.) By law we all have speed governors set at 65mph. Only if you were in the mountains every day would I suggest a 500+hp 16L. BTW, I used to pull 125,000 daily with a 400hp c15 Cat. It did the trick. When I recently chatted with a Mack salesman, he recommended not getting the mDrive HD for "such low weights." I can't see how it would hurt. I guess it depends how much these things cost.

Volvos are great trucks. They've had the best cabs and amt's in the business for over 10 years now. Paccar has only recently caught up with the T680/579. A lot of the things that are great about current Pinnacles (great steering, nice powertrain) are Volvo trademarks. P.S. And yes, every manufacturer has had their EGR/DPF/SCR issues.

Thanks! I probably should have specified: what Mack parts were offered back then? What about transmissions? Did Mack build an air suspension back then? What else did they have besides the camelback? Also, was the ENDT the same engine as an E6? Would you know the torque ratings? So far I've been consulting this: http://www.dwclutch.com/D&W/D&W%20Clutch%20&%20Brake%202/MACK%20TORQUE.pdf

What engines, transmissions, suspensions & axles were available on a Mack truck in 1977? Would anyone out there have brochures or specs? Thanks in advance.

Okay - so what's with the smaller grille: the square within the grille look? Like so: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s2MCu8tHtr4/T3IjBApy--I/AAAAAAAAHIs/yJ14W4-eRe4/s1600/7938%2BMack%2BMO%2B529.jpg http://www.cheki.com.ng/plugins/p300_autotrader/image.php?imageurl=db_1_inventory30500_1355945094.jpg BTW, here's the info from Wikipedia. But I'm not sure when and where they were produced, and what the major differences were. Model numbers & lettersRB - Axle back (except in New Zealand - see NZ Mack RB)RD - Heavy Duty RRM - 4x4 Municipal/maintenance chassisRMM - 6x6 Municipal/maintenance chassisRS - Western R series, S stands for steel frameRL - Western R series, L stands for Aluminum frameRW - Western series, replaced by the Mack Super-LinerChassis numbers (GVW Rating):4xx -6xx -7xx -8xx -Note: the xx is the place holder for the engine code. Suffix letters:T - TractorS - Six wheel chassisL - Light weight componentsX - Extreme duty

Is there a webpage out there that describes all the various R-models, as well as when and where they were built? The wikipedia page is good, but I was hoping for a bit more. For example: what's a Western truck? What were the options on the various R's? Cat? Cummins? When was the R-700 produced?

That I couldn't tell you. It was in a (then) 4 month-old 2011 Prostar. As far as I could tell it shifted a little better than the older prostars that I drove, but it was pretty clunky when bobtailing or lightly loaded. It had a tendency to run through ALL the gears at take each one up to 15-1600rpm. This was okay when heavily loaded. Bobtailing across the lot at 1500rpm? Not so much. My 2009 Volvo iShift was light years ahead it. It occasionally revved up a little higher than I would have - particularly in the lower gears, but it wasn't anything to write home about.

I've driven the Ultrashift plus and the iShift. The iShift was heads and shoulders above the Eaton in terms of smoothness and proper gear selection.

Then let's bring it back. Tell me more about the quality that goes into a Mack truck as compared to others. There must be something there. Let me turn it another way - what's Mack's competitive advantage? How any why do they continue to sell trucks?

As far as I know, IH Prostar and 9400 production was moved from Chatham Ontario to Mexico.

Try being a Canadian and looking at a Western Star. Navistar and Sterling left a few years ago. Mack had a plant in Oakville from '66 to '93. I believe that the last Canadian truck plant is the Kenworth medium-truck facility in Sainte-Thérèse, QC.

It wasn't meant as a personal comment in any way, shape or form. Just an observation that cab sizes and the lifestyle expectations of truckers have changed over the last 30 years. Look at it this way: at one time a telephone was considered a luxury. But times change. Also, we could argue about professionalism in truck drivers all day long. Or not - I might agree with you. But professionalism doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with cab size. BTW I do find it a bit disconcerting that you refer to old time truckers as "clean." I tend to think of cleanliness in professionals as a given. I've never heard any one say, "I just got a new lawyer/acountant/financial planner. (S)he's very clean and professional." Just sayin'. (And yes, I've been in enough truck stops to know that these days cleanliness is not a given in the trucking industry).

To each his own. Some people bring CD's, books, extra clothes, dogs, microwaves, coffeemakers, guitars - whatever floats your boat. Things have changed since the 70's. The norm is now a 70" full-width condo. KW and Pete will soon be getting rid of their narrow cabs (sometime around 2014 I heard.) Good design accommodates different types of drivers and different layover requirements. Perhaps we can get back on track and talk about Mack trucks & components. How's the wiring and build quality compared to a Volvo VN? Durability?

Yeah, I've been in a couple of new Pinnacles. The ergonomics & space are fine, but it feels like the windows are mounted too low. I imagine that it would be hard(er) to see traffic lights and anything else that is high up. Also, the base Volvo has more storage space around the dash, headliner and doors. If nothing else I really wish that Mack would adopt the Volvo 'lip' on top of the dash - it makes for a really useful place to store things that you need to grab in a hurry: pens, snacks, customs papers, etc. I do like that new headliner that I've seen in the daycabs - I wonder if it's available on the sleeper version? But overall I think that Mack should have put a little more thought into driver amenities. It would make a world of difference.

Yeah, but as I said, the cab is the weakest part of a Mack (as a tall guy I'm not impressed with the visibility.) Mind you, KW and Petebilt have managed to share parts without losing identity. I see no reason why Volvo/Mack shouldn't do the same.

I'm new to this forum, but from what I've seen there's not a great deal of love for Volvo here. In particular, no one's crazy about shared parts. But my question is this: in what ways do Mack and Volvo's differ? They share the same engine (but different programming - which is important), the same auto transmission, and from what I've read, 60/% of the frame. So what does Mack do differently - or better? The one big area is the cab. I've never driven a Mack, but I have sat in them. I have driven a Volvo, and I consider it to be one of the most well thought-out driver-friendly cabs on the market. Ergonomics, visibility, storage - the Volvo does pretty well. I still prefer the look of the Mack dash though. BTW, I once went shopping for a truck at a Volvo/Mack dealer. The salesmen told me that, dollar for dollar, you get more out of a Volvo. (i.e. driver-side airbag.) So tell me - where does Mack shine? Build quality? Toughness? Engine programming?

Mack rear ends? I recently talked to a dealer about a new heavier-spec Pinnacle. I suggested Mack rears for fuel efficiency; he said that he preferred Meritors - longer lifespan than the Macks and about $3000 cheaper to boot. And he was a 15-20 year Mack-man to boot. BTW, I've never used a Mack transmission; I hear they behave differently than a Roadranger... Can anyone explain?

Thanks. I guess everyone else agrees with you. I've done some digging around. Have you found that the lower torque e454 pulls better than the larger e460?