Vladislav

By very simple reason my "bet" the engine is E6-350 Econodyne. I have one in a 1988 R-model with similar injection pump. The "bet" is due to the 9-speed transmission used. Mine has the same. You don't need 9 speeds behind a Maxidine since its torque curve works well with just 5 speeds. I have another R-model also 1988 made which has T2070 7-speed transmission. Its ratios are similar to T2050 5-speed but have two "low holes". There's a similary rated T2060 6-speed and T2080 8-speed. All trio has first 5 gears spread much wider than "multispeeds" T2090, T2100, T2110, T2130 and T2118. Wider gear steps are aimed to serve with Maxidyne low torque curve engines. Ok, that my other R-model has its engine stamped as EM6-300L. Almost as Keith described regarding his DM. It's a bit easier to identify R or DM since E6-350 would be R/DM688 model and EM6-300 would be R/DM-690. That's what I have on the door tags. RW's are all 613 or 713 with Mack engines so no clue up.

Happy B-day D-Day!

Sounds strange. Those drums I had for 4" shoes had a track for 4" shoe exactly. There could be some exceptions sure but more looks like someone put incorrect drums in the past. The reason of using narrower shoes is to minimize the unsuspended mass of the axle. But lesser drum would split weight even notably. Same for possible savings of materials in the production.

The heads are interchengeable. The only point you have is a small tube between two heads connecting them (fuel drain?) and there's a plug with Allen head at the corresponding end of each head. So you might be needing to change the tube fitting with the plug if the particular head was mounted in the different position on engine previousely. No info on the peened seats from my side. Looks like a rocket technology of someone who provided a seat swap in a shop with hope to secure them better. Wouldn't make any help as it seems to me.

As Bob said above. And the same method M-A-C-K letters attached to the front of the hood.

It seems better to have low beam in outside lights just by prcatical reasons. Lights are closer to the sides of a vehicle to play a marker role and light pattern on the road is wider.

That's what I needed for. And Google said "sh*t" as the straight answer. But deeper investigation brang more. Oh, better to get back to the Cruiseliner deal.

Hi Ken, Just a point. Swap of a bumper and visor are much less job than rearranging the rear axles. You could even put such big bright parts up for sale when still on a truck. Very good advertizement way when people see the look they'd get. The rig looks cool on the pic. Sure might be found in poorer condition when up close. Speaking convertion 613 to 612 I'd consider airride for that. Keeping the FR in place cutting off the RR with the rear frame portion. FR diff would need attention though since there's a power divider in it. Would need RR carrier to be swapped into.

Couldn't they be of different thickness? Visually they're one style indeed. Would be interesting to check out the parts lists.

Wow! Interesting. I used to see a different setup on RW2.

Yes, we are all busy minding our own businesses. Happy B-lated B-day Paul!

Uggh! Italians have stolen a Mack color! What a shhhame!

Yes, this crossmember is supposed to be on the rear. I have a similar one on the rear of my MH. With spicers at the sides and put with the dish up. Very probably you have a similar part as the cab support but I expect that to be a single beam. If that one is double like the one in the pics I'd like to see your cab air ride setup. Good luck on the fix and future plans!

Sure it does qualify! Happy Birthday Linda!

This sounds right since R-model frame is a bit narrower than RW2/MH. I have the crossmembers off the R apart sandblasted and painted. So can check out the stampings if needed. Interesting point of using shorter crossmember with spicer plates on the single framed RW/MH. One of my MH's (I have them two) has the very rear beam arranged that way, with spicers at the ends. It's a single frame 1/4" chassis. But it's two stamped shells of the style the original discussion was about, welded together. Also remarkable point is the 2nd MH has the crossbembers off a R/DM. It's Camelback with single 1/4" rails. Sure those parts are wrong for the truck and the rear engine mounts are put on the chassis brackets using spicers to elevate them a bit (for an inch or so). Originally I was surprized seeing the engine lifted up that way but the owner couldn't say anything on that. And later I found the rear of the chassis became narrower than it should so the engine mounts couldn't fit right and somebody in the past arranged the spicers to clear up the edges of the frame rails they would interfere otherwise. Thank you for the part ##.