GearheadGrrrl

Aaah... Triple framed! From the looks of the trailer hose positioning it must be going to pull a log trailer.

That looks seriously beefy! Is that a single rail frame, and how thick is it?

The current 6 speed Maxitorque transmission would probably not cause as many "between gears" problems as the 5 speeds did. The ratios are what they call "gathered", with a 40% split between 5th and 6th and the splits getting wider as you go down through the gears. So with a 2100 RPM governed speed you could downshift to 5th at 1500 and to 4th at around 1400 or so. I figured it out once and even with the smaller MP7 Maxidyne you could keep the engine above 1300 RPM even on a 6% grade at 80,000 pounds.

One of Mack's most successful eras was from the mid 1960s through the late 1980s, with sales breaking records year after year. One of Mack's major selling points back then was the Maxidyne engine and Maxitorque transmission. Simple, durable, and easy to drive, the Maxidyne engine paired with a 5 or 6 speed Maxitorque transmissions were unequalled in the industry. You'd never know it, but the Maxidyne engine is still around, and with more horsepower than ever to boot! It can be paired with the 6 speed single lever Maxitorque for on highway applications or 8 to 10 speed deep reduction Maxitorques for on/off highway applications. And even now, this is a combination no other manufacturer can match. So again, why isn't Mack advertising this competitive advantage?

Sounds like a good turn out of Mack fans! I might ride over- haven't decided yet where I'm going on memorial day weekend. I'm currently banned from ATHS's forum for complaining about their $10 entry fee, etc... So I may just pay up my membership and give 'em a piece of my mind at the annual meeting!

I agree... Today I'm riding an '84 BMW with a '91 Motorvation sidecar. About 110k on the bike, but heads have never been off, transmissions never been apart, etc.. Just normal maintainence, tires, and new exhaust system. The sidecar I bought used, it had seen little use so all it needed was a new tire, replace a broken shock, and rattle can paint to match the bike. Yet every day I hear of people totally "restoring" bikes of similar age with much lower mileage. An't no point in fixing what ain't broken... It's similar with Mack trucks. In fact, the Mack transmission and rears will usually outlast the truck. If they need rebuilding, rebuild them... But if not, spend your money on wiring, hoses, etc.. That's the stuff that's more likely to give trouble on an older truck.

That pretty much agrees with what I've been hearing about the LaxxForce. My neighbor is a semi retired truck mechanic who just gave up a job at a mixed Navistar/Freightliner fleet. He tells me the Freightliner Cascadias are much easier to work on that the Prostars despite the Cascadias having SCR.

I haven't seen any polling of Temasters since the last presidential election, but I've seen recent polling that shows the majority of union members supporting Obama and his reelection.

The Teamsters polled the membership before endorsing Obama, and Obama was the overwhelming favorite of the members. Sorry, Teamster brother, but you're in the minority on this one.

Retired on a Teamster Pension.

Could you guys get your talking points from somewhere besides Faux News? It's getting a little boring...

Guys, have to agree with you on much of this, save for the Obama bashing- can't expect him to undo 30 years of dismantling America in two years. Was at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting yesterday and tried to take advantage of the shareholder discounts on the company's products. Browsed through the boots section looking for some high top work boots... Didn't find a single one made in America. Only thing I could find that was American made was some low tops (already got them, union made in Wisconsin) and some nice western boots (cant fit my leg brace in them). Depressing to see us lose more jobs to China et al.

Looks familiar... Like the one I saw at the Louisville show in 2009. Did they base this on the little Isuzu so it might be street legal, or go cheap and use the Chinese clone cab that ain't DOT legal?

Not sure what you mean here- "front" and "back"? If you give us the wheelbase and maximum front wheel turn angle, we can pretty well calculate the turning radius. As for "rear" turning radius, do you mean off tracking? As for building your own tank trailer, you might run into a ton of legal hassles there- especially if you want to haul hazmat in it.

I suspect the new 3.11 rear gears are intended to mate with Volvo's mDrive tranny, which IIRC is available with a direct top gear. It'll probably work OK and get good mileage behind the Mack/Volvo 11 and 13 liter engines for highway use at 80k pounds GCW. But for higher torque engines and heavy hauling you need an overdrive tranny and deep gears to keep from destroying the driveshaft U-joints.

Why? I never had any problems with the early V-Mac systems- they cold start better than the mechanical engines and give you cruise control to boot.

Just wondering if any US market MHs or flat hood R models (R,Superliner,RB) were built with Anti Lock brakes other than the troublesome ones mandated back in the 70s? Oldest Mack I've seen with ABS was a CH built for UPS in late '92. Never seen an MH with ABS, but the newest I've driven was late '80s. Given that IIRC the MH was still sold in the US through '94 and the Superliner through '93, were any built with ABS?

I didn't notice that you were pulling a 63.5 metric ton B-train... I'd say you need at least 500 horses. Perhaps an E-9 V8 is in your future/

I agree, 5.8 MPG ain't bad for a V8 at those weights. I suspect the mileage would be about the same with a V8 in an MH- the Superliner isn't the most aerodynamic conventional, but the MH is a rounded cabover.

Mine was mounted (clamped on) to the gearshift lever right below the shift knob. Made it easy to click the unit off for a second while I made clutchless shifts then switch back on and hit the reset button.

I'd shop for a Mack with the 400 horse E7, less hassle to buy a truck with the engine instead of doing a swap.

I've been "wasting" all too much time lately reading up on "performance based" size and weight regulation and the truck stability simulation software used to see if a given truck/trailer will handle safely enough to be allowed on the road. I'm tempted to try downloading a trial version of the software to try out some concept vehicles on the computer to see how they'd handle. Has anyone on the forum used the TruckSim software, and what do you think of it?

That used to be a real common setup on the east coast... remember fondly seeing the flatbeds with "three nines" pulled by a single axle tractor. Still see 4 axle combos grossing 73,280 in Florida, with the 22k single and 44k tandem limits there the payload works out about the same as a 5 axle unit at 80k. I think the limiting factor would be the 20k single axle limits in the WI and other midwest states. But if you can distribute the load right with 12k on the tractor front axle, 20k on the drive axle, and 40k on the trailers spread tandem you'll get a 72k GCW. With a 15k empty tractor and 9k trailer you'd have a 48k payload, which is more than a lot of the bloated large cars can legally scale with 5 axles at 80k.

No point in butchering a truck unless you've got a damn good reason to do so.