GearheadGrrrl

When the Volvo+Renault(+Mack) merger was first proposed, It seemed to me like a marriage made in heaven. I bought a few shares of Volvo, which have since more than tripled in value. In fact, if one had bought $100,000 in Volvo stock back then instead of spending $100,000 on a Volvo Integral Sleeper, you would have made more money. Then again, if you'd spent that $100,000 on a Mack, you might not have made as much money as you would have on Volvo stock, but you'd still have a great Mack truck! In their scandinavian isolation Volvo top management doesn't understand Mack. They sorta understand Renault as a low price model line they need to keep, and maybe the source of a lot of historic pride in francaphone markets. They seem to view Mack as the odd old father in law that they got in the marriage, the one who spends all his time back in the shop perfecting his old truck. They forget that it's that old Mack that builds and plows the smooth roads their Volvo's run on. Thusly we find that in Mack's natural markets like developing third world countries Volvo is trying to pitch their cabovers which are largely unsuited for those environments. One especially notices this in the middle east, where old Mack, Mercedes, and even Berleit conventionals seem to soldier on forever. This is the market where a Granite with the parts availability of a Volvo engine would kick butt, and could easily be sold and supported by the Volvo dealers. But Noooo... the best they can hope for is a Brazilian style Volvo conventional. So I'm tempted to start dumping my Volvo stock- if nothing else it's gone up to the point where it's too big a chunk of my portfolio and screwing up my diversification. And deep down I get the gut feeling that Volvo has lost touch with their customers.

I was trying to figure out the origins of that truck- looks like it could have been an REA Express tractor, but I think they we're gone by 1975. If you're looking for a cabover that won't rust, hold out for a Cruiseliner or Ultraliner. I saw a Cruiseliner in California with a Maxidyne 6 go cheap a few months back, it may have been an ex Advance-United tractor.

Let's imagine for a moment that rather than getting merged into Volvo, Mack had been taken private or spun off as a seperate company around 2000. Things would have gone pretty well for a couple years, with profits coming in despite the aging model line. Heck, Mack would have even gotten throught the 2004 emissions standards OK. Then comes the 2007 emmisions standards, which require a lot more cooling capability to meet as well as particulate filters and a lot of expensive software and hardware development. And without Volvo's help to develop the Granite, Mack's bread and butter construction lineup would still be using the R/DM cab. That's a great cab, but their's simply not much room under that hood to fit a bigger cooling system, etc.. Mack would have been lucky to kluge together a CH cab on a double frame to barely meet the 2007 emissions requirements. Then comes 2010, with even tighter emmision requirements, and the 20 year old CH cab is due for replacement. Good luck getting Wall Street to fund a billion dollar bond issue to fund both a new engine and a new cab. Mack would be forced to vendor engines only, which in the old CH cab wouldn't prove popular. The Mack drivetrain is built in the same complex as the engines, and a cash strapped Mack would soon sell the whole mess. With a Mack pretty much carrying the same vendor components as a Navistar selling for thousands less, Mack sales would plummet and the death spiral would accelerate. Fact is, you need 6 figure volumes to survive in the truck building biz today. Volvo can spread the cost of developing engines over 3 truck brands and construction equipment as well. You can see this all over the industry, with DCX putting the same engine in the MB, Freightliner, Sterling, and Western Star brands. Paccar is sharing their DAF engine with KW and Pete, and Navistar, MAN, and Scania are looking for partners. Sorry, but that's 21st century truckbuilding... I don't like it either!

It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to engineer and tool up to build a completely new engine. That's why even the big volume builders like the car makers, Cummins, Navistar, etc. will keep an engine around for decades. How long has it been since Cummins introduced a "new to the last washer" engine? The reality is that without Volvo's volumes we never would have seen a new Mack engine- they would have to switch to Cummins, Cat, etc. after the old Mack engine became completely uncompetitive. By sharing an engine block with Volvo, Mack gets a hand in the engine design and the engine is still built in the USA.

And 21st century Volvo engine architecture is way better than the best of the 1930s! Honestly, I wish people would be a little more open minded about "crossbreeding". Mack has seldom built the entire truck- besides the brakes, wheels, electrics, fuel system, etc., Mack has used vender cabs for a long time- I've seen R model cabs being trucked to Macungie, the MR cab was first seen on a Diamond Reo, the MH was made by the same company that made the fiberglass White 5000, and a lot of Mack axles are made by Spicer. In fact, until recently the CHs were literally "assembled" trucks, with oftentimes the only Mack components being the engine and bulldog. None the less the customers seem to be happy with the CH and keep coming back for more, despite the cab being one of the oldest in this market segment. Despite being built by a vendor, there's plenty of decade old and more CHs running around the rust belt, and I've yet to see them showing any signs of "cancer". Even some of the most cross bred Macks ever built- Continental Baking's mid 60s Mack Western F cabovers with Detroits- were still hauling bread in the early 90s, long after newer Freightshakers had rattled out their rivets.

IIRC, the E7 had it's roots back in the 1930s. It was a great engine and had one helluva good run, but times change. The new engines are as much Mack as Volvo- the basic architecture is Volvo, but to the driver they feel like a good old torquey Mack, and they're made in a Mack plant. As for losing Mack's identity, if their is no sharing of parts their's no way Volvo could survive on their 30,000 or so unit a year production. To justify investments like the new robotized assembly line you need six figure volumes. You see this throughtout the industry- Navistar standardizing on one cab, Paccar building their own engine, DCX dumping Detroit Diesel for a Brazilian made "modular" diesel. Fortunately in Mack's and Volvo's case the new engine is an improvement over it's predecessor.

Mad Max would almost be a good driver training film for drivers operating in urban environments. Back when I worked at the Postal Service, we had a couple accidents where the Postal Service was at fault, but the drivers of the vehicles we hit tried to drive or run away!

Perhaps Schwing has an even bigger concrete pumper in the wings?

Well, I suppose- after 30 years, we can tolerate a little spiffing up of the MR... Especially since they kept the round headlights. The new dash was probably a cost saving move, and an adjustable steering column would be a good thing. That said, they shoulda raised the roof a bit while they were at it- with an air seat the taller drivers will still be banging there head on the MR's roof. The MP8 engine opens up some new possibilities though- The MR may be crude, and there's no sleeper option, but with well over 400 horses it could pick up some of the customers DCX abandoned when they deported the Argosy.

I think that's a Farr air cleaner, they were quite popular on the west coast and available with just about any engine. I've seen them on KW, Pete, and Freightliner as well.

A lot of the dislike of cabovers in the US is the result of myths that have become "old trucker's tales". I've heard newbie truckers who have never even driven a cabover declare with bravado that they'll quit before they drive a cabover. They repeat the whole mantra of mythology they heard in the truckstops- rough ride, dangerous in an accident, etc.. The root of these myths was the experience that old timers had driving fleet cabovers with rock hard spring suspensions bouncing down the road with balloon freight versus owner operator conventionals with air ride and a heavy load if not overload. Throw in the rare fatal truck crash in a cabover they saw where the driver died because he wouldn't wear a seat belt, not because of the cabover design. In response to such narrow minded attitudes every single manufacturer in the North American market has given up and dropped their high cabovers. One would think that at least Volvo would take advantage of this opportunity to have the only high cabover in this market, educating owners on it's advantages in much the same way they sold American truckers on the integral sleeper two decades ago. But Noooo...

The Freightliner Argosy has finally disappeared from Freightliner's US webpage. And here we thought Volvo was bastardizing Mack... Portland should put out a warrant for the arrest of DCX top management for the murder of Freightliner's trademark product and legacy, the cabover. If anything could pry me from the cab of a Mack, it'd be an Argosy with an Allison. But nooo... Instead of building a market for the Argosy, DCX has sent the Argosy into exile in the colonies. There's still a market for a high cabover here, in little niches like the western hay haulers, turnpike doubles (UPS bought a bunch of Argosy), bakeries (IBC has a good sized fleet, and just about every wholesale baker in the Northwest runs cabover tractors with big drom boxes). Here in Minnesota a truck and trailer combination or tractor with drom pulling a semitrailer can stretch out to 75 feet. With a 90'' BBC sleeper cab and a 3 feet gap between the boxes that leaves 64 feet of length for carrying the load. That's 20% more space than a 53 foot trailer and over 10% more than 28 1/2 foot doubles. Is there enough of a market here for Volvo to bring in a cabover shell and offer it on the Advantage or MR chassis with the added value of a Mack nameplate on the front?

I've put many a mile on both the Maxitorque and Allison, and too many miles on Eaton's RoadWasteers. In tortureous city service at the Postal Service, both the Maxitorque and Allison rarely fail in the Postal Services 10 years/500,000 miles/20,000+ hours ownership cycle. The RoadWaster isn't quite so reliable, but the rebuild kits are cheap... Thusly the Allisons only extra expenses are higher initial cost, while in city and off road driving the manual transmissions will cost more in clutches and productivity will suffer. So if you can get an Allison for the price volume buyers like the Postal Service gets them for and your operating conditions are as rough as the Postal Service's, the Allison is a good investment. But in no way is the Allison a POS, and if you can get one at a good price I'd grab it.

Ooops, bumped the mouse button too soon... Here in Minnesota they pretty much go by "Formula B", and you need a really stretched out truck to haul anywhere near as much as some of the eastern states. For example, you need at least about 260 inches of wheelbase to gross the maximum 54K pounds on 3 axles. Adding a tag axle with at least about 280 inches of wheelbase will give you 62K on 4 axles. Adding both tag and pusher axles with the longest wheelbase available on a Granite, 300 inches, will allow you to run at a mere 68k pounds. The only way you'll be able to be legal with the full 80K pounds in our 45 foot length limit on a straight truck is with 7 axles stretched out over 33 1/2 feet! With all those tag and pusher axles located so far from the drive axles, even lifted they'll hang up the truck a lot off road and get it stuck if they don't tweak the frame. Thusly almost no one has tried to legally gross 80K on a straight truck here. It's no surprise that tractor trailer combinations predominate here for construction trucks hauling the maximum load, with a few truck and pup combinations thrown in for good measure. Meanwhile 37 miles from me in Wisconsin you can carry just about as much weight on a lighter 5 axle straight truck grossing 73K, and they've got a better football team and more bars too. To the west is South Dakota though, with no maximum GCW and only bridge formula to limit your load. They'd laugh at the 5 axle straight truck from the land of beer and cheese there, until you hook at least a 5 axle trailer on behind. Heck, in South Dakota I've seen more than a few 15 axle combinations with over 90 feet between the outer axles. They're legal at over 150K, and at present Mack doesn't have a truck that'll pull such a combination in the dirt.

Here in Minnesota they prety much go by "Formula B", and you need a rally stretched out truck to haul anywhere near as much as some of the eastern states. Here in Minnesota they prety much go by "Formula B", and you need a rally stretched out truck to haul anywhere near as much as some of the eastern states.

OK, here's my specs for the CL's replacement: Name- I'd like to bring back the Superliner, but it doesn't fit in with the current Granite, Pinnacle, etc.. How about Quartz- symbolizing the toughest and most lustrous of granite's elements? Concept- take off from where the Granite left off. Make it a world class truck that'll move anything with wheels on it and even give the off road dump trucks and small locomotives some competition. Frame- 9 mm. thick 300 mm. tall standard, with options up to inch thick I-beams. Power- make the MP10 standard, and design the colloing system to handle up to 1000 horses. Offer the big Volvo industrial engines and vendor engines as options for off highway trucks. Transmissions- Maxitorque standard, Volvo and Allison automatics optional. Maybe Eaton or ZF/Meritor if customers demand it. Bring back the Mack transfer case if it will handle the MP10's torque. Axles- everything in the Mack/Volvo/Terberg/Sisu/Renault world inventory. Capacities should be available up to at least 20 tons/ axle. Create a modular frame interface so it's possible to put as many driven or undriven axles under the truck as the customer wants. Offer a factory "Hi Rail" conversion with load absorbing couplers, resulting in a road legal locomotive capable of up to 100 tons tractive effort. Cab- Okay, lets get it over with... time to start saying goodby to Mayflower's best effort. Upstage Volvo by giving us first shot at the new FH cab... I mean, there ain't nothin about this truck that's little! Leave the tilt mechanism in place too like Scania did- the boys in the outback will be happy to see they're getting a free transmission crane with the truck. Make the short sleeper Euro cab standard with fold up bunk and jump seats available. Hood- Offer both set back and set forward axles so this Mack can carry the most regardless of the local weight regulations. Offer flat & tall and sloping hood options. And being this truck is built with a cabover's cab, even offer no hood at all. What'd ya think?

To give an idea of the length of the engines, Mack was able to fit their six completely under the 54" BBC MH cab. A 14 liter Cummins requires a 63" BBC cab to cover, and the big Cat is if anything slightly longer.

I agree, a 12 liter or so engine is the perfect size for hauling at our US-wide 80,000 pound weight limits. But the guys who buy those long nose Petes and KWs will pay plenty extra for the biggest engine Cat can provide. Navistars "new" (really rehashed) tractor is a "cheap but cheerful" truck aimed at the fleet market.

Hmmm... KW/Pete's core customer, the owner operators, probably won't be interested in a mere 13 litre Paccar motor. Perhaps Paccar is going after more of the fleet market with their new (to America) engine?

The Paccar announcement is no surprise, given that they're slapped the Paccar name on DAF's newest engine. Interestingly, Cat's website is now featuring their truck transmissions as well as their engines. They last did that in the 1970s, and back then there were rumors that Cat was going to even build a whole truck. Could Cat be planning a counterattack? If Volvo/Mack gives up the Mayflower cab, Cat could easily pick it up or the Sterling cab if DCX gives it up, plop it on a Spicer frame with Cat engine, transmission, and axles= instant Cat truck!

Thanks for the hints 3P, and I suspect the replacement for the CL will look a lot like the Oz Macks. Certainly Volvo isn't going to let us have the new Volvo FH before Volvo NA gets it. And god forbid they give us the current Volvo conventional cab- it'd be pretty much a Volvo with Mack badges. On the issue of the Swede's failure to understand why anyone would want something other than their favored component... Consider that Paccar's Pete and KW are doing quite well building trucks out of other company's parts. Of course their Euro brand, DAF, does quite well with a vertically integrated truck, but that's the Euro custom and it works there. Meanwhile, DCX tried to turn Freightliner into an integrated truck, and lost more money than Freightliner had made in their whole history in the process. DCX continues to persevere in trying to make Sterling a cheap vocational truck, Freightliner an over the road truck, and Western Star a premium vocational truck... But the customers keep ordering Sterlings with sleepers, Freighliner dump chassis, and Western Stars that would make a custom Pete look homely. Navistar despite doing a lot of stuff wrong is still here, and like Paccar has survived without a major carmaker to bail them out of their boondoggles. As they used to say... "The customer is always right". Perhaps we need to translate that into Swedish?

I think a lot of the problem is the limited experiences of Volvo's Euro executives. Speccing a truck for EC roads is pretty simple- with harmonization most of Europe has the same weight and dimension limits, with the exception of the Nordic countries. So Volvo can get away with offering variations on the F cab (FE,FL,FM.FH) with 4 different size Volvo engines. Sleepers are simple too- none, flat top, or high rise "Globetrotter" is pretty much it. Here in the US the typical Mack customer is a small business that is making a major investment in a construction truck that will have to last a decade or more. With so much capital tied up in a truck, they have to be conservative- they can't afford to dump a lemon truck like a big corporation can. Is it no wonder that these customers were suspicious of the CH and kept buying Rs and DMs? A "one size fits all" truck won't work here either. In my home state, Minnesota, weight is determined by bridge formula so you want lots of pusher and tag axles and a long wheelbase on your dump truck. But across the border in Wisconsin, you can carry about the same weight on 4 axles with a shorter wheelbase. Iowa is about identical to Minnesota. But South Dakota is more like the Austrailian outback, with no maximum weight limit, bridge formula, and as many axles as you can squeeze under the 81'-6" allowed length of the trailers. For South Dakota, something from Mack's OZ catalog would make sense- a tridem with a B train set would kick butt there! North Dakota is bridge formula capped at 105,500 pounds GCW, so the MP10 won't be needed. Michigan allows almost as much weight, but limits the axles to 11 and doesn't use bridge formula. Thusly the need for a lot of options so operators can spec their truck for the conditions they drive in instead of a few Swede executives's trucking fantasy world. Which brings us back to cab design- consider the needs of, for example, a manufacturer of prefab housing sections that needs a sleeper cab tractor with enough beef to go off road to make deliveries. With proper cab design the same basic cab could serve that customer as well as the french florist who needs a 7.5 tonner from the local Renault dealer to deliver his wares. But sticking a Volvo FH cab with a hood carrying a "Mack" emblem on a Cornerstone chassis ain't gonna cut it!

Well, I realize that to reach economies of scale Volvo has to build at least 100,000 cabs a year, and Mack sells only a third of that volume in a good year. None the less, within the same basic cab architechure, it should be possible to build a variant for Mack with features like heavier guage metal, divided instead of one piece windshield, etc. It might even make sense to give Mack a narrow, FL width cab and Volvo the wide cab. And given that typical Mack drivers climb in and out of their cabs a lot more often than Volvo drivers, a low mount cab would be preferred- every time I climb into a Mayflower cab I'm reminded how right the R model's design was! Or better yet, why not let Mack have both wide and narrow cab variants, with sleepers ranging from a modestly extended cab to condo? And of course, incorporate traditional Mack features like the inward sloping steps for safety with the cutouts in the bottom of the doors, etc.. Oops... hit "poset" before I was done! That said, with all the tooling costs amortized, the Mayflower cab may be cheaper and if Volvo's latest and greatest is no better we may as well stick with it. And if the R model tooling is still aroound...

I'll agree that some of the Oz trucks look kind ugly... But in trucks, ugly can be beautiful! The heavy loads and heat of Australia require huge radiators, which means the cab and hood has to be jacked up to make room. That throws the proportion off, and explains why those Oz monster Macks look homely compared to a handsome Vision/Pinnacle with the chrome bumper or a Rawhide.

Well, up until recently twin front axles were available from the factory on the DM, and Mack also cataloged a factory live tridem. There were also DM800 and RD800 models available, and one sees these truly awesome beasts advertized for sale from time to time. As for the sleeper, I don't think Mack ever offered an integral sleeper with the R/U/DM/etc. cab. Then again, I believe I once saw pictures of integral sleeper R models built back in the mid 60s. As a Volvo stockholder, I'm ticked off because while the market for oil field trucks has gone nuts, Volvo/Mack have been pretty much ignoring that market. You'd think with all the expertise at Mack and Volvo, plus affiliates Sisu and Terberg, Volvo could let Mack build a real kick-ass oilfield truck. But nooo...