bbigrig

I've run 4" to the muffler and 5" out of the muffler. I never liked having all the newer trucks in the fleeting having an exhaust pipe bigger then the true workhorse in the stable. Maybe it's a ding-a-ling size thingy too. Lol.

4inch for E6 start to finish. 5"E9, CAT, Cummins in RW6-700's. Not sure about V8 Detroit in RWS models.

The M11 was replaced by the ISM when the 1997 emissions regs came out. The base of those 2 engines are very similar. The L10/M11 and ISL are completely different engine platforms. In fact, you would be amazed at how cheap the ISL is when it comes to bottom end strength in comparison to the L or M series. The ISL is a stroked out/reflashed version of the ISC 8.3L engine. Both were still available up until recently. I think the M2 Freightliner still offered both optional engines as of 2013. ISC used in mostly in vocational apps. ISL on city/highway use. I See ISL block, rod and liner failures almost weekly in a municipal fleet. I have seen some documentation call the engine in the CM422 an E5 which was an 8 liter. The engine available in the RD694 was a 10 liter E5. The engines were not produced at the same time and were quite different in design, but used the same engine classification for some reason.

Renault. They also fly under the model name "Premium" smaller then the Magnum and bigger then the Midlum.

Some of the RD800's that NYC had were 3406B powered with Allison. I remember seeing a few for sale years ago.

That's an old picture. It's one of the first "Rawhide" Macks in Canada. It was dressed up and used for Mack Canada promo's on a poster. At one time a lot of guys were sliding the tanks back on set forward CH's to get some weight off of the front axle. That truck is from Western Canada.

Our trucks are governed at 105km/h. Huge savings. 65mph.

Engineering at Macungie sent up warning flags when we discussed shorter then 230" wheelbase. We can order it but Mack has already deemed it as abnormal. LOL. If we go with a CHU in the future we have come down to about a 227" wheelbase for our needs and spreads required.

We haul right to the 80,000lbs gros max and cant even fill the fuel tanks half the time running into the US for our tandem/tandem units. If they are getting those kind of US fuel mileage numbers they are hauling loads of sailboat fuel. (AIR) or something close to it.

I have a few 08's they are doing ok. a few sensors now and then but nothing abnormal for a post '07 truck no matter what the make. There is a big difference in the amount of issues you may have that is relative to the work you are doing with the truck. Highway operation seems to have the least amount of issues as in this application, the operational temperatures needed for re-gens to keep the DPF system cycling come easy hauling steadily along the highway. If you get into Granites and MRU's and LEU's thats were I have seen the issues go through the roof. Excessive idling, short trips, stop and go travel. The engines cant maintain high engine temps long enough to keep the designed DPF system operating properly. The MRU/LEU's is a different beast all together and has its own issues. As long as the engine is running as it is intended ( no issues that will cause over fueling or excessive soot in exhaust) our CXU's run fine. have a leaking/cracked/freted injector tip fro example which seems to be more common as they get older and you get all kinds of issues with the DPF set up. Ours are around or over 1,000,000kms and are still running down the highway very well. No DEF pump or module issues like our post 2010 trucks.

You should ask if the 8mpg is in US Gallons or Imperial Gallons as are used in Canada. We get 8.5Mpg imperial gallons. Keep in mind 1 US gallon is 0.8 imperial gallons so it may be where you see a difference. If our Pinnacles are getting 8mpg (imperial) they are getting roughly 7mpg (US). Maybe that helps?

The article you are quoting is about the E-5 Renault/Mack engine. It was a 10 liter displacement but didn't bare the name "L-10" which Cummins did use that name as it's model.

The L-10 is a Cummins. It is a mechanical PT pump fed 10 liter displacement inline 6. The M11 was it's replacement after the L-10E electronic version of the L-10 that didn't last very long. The M11 is an 11 liter inline 6 with electronicly controlled unit injectors.

Not sure if most know this but there were some CH's built with L-10's for CF I believe as test units. (10 units built) If you run CH633 in the parts system you will find them. Never heard of RD's with Cummins.

Not sure if most know this but there were some CH's built with L-10's for CF I believe as test units. (10 units built) If you run CH633 in the parts system you will find them. Never heard of RD's with Cummins.

Looking for any decent Blue interior panels for the RWII I am currently restoring. Also the plastic overhead console preferably in gray. I am in special need of a good ceiling panel. Thanks in advance.

Forgot to add 2 things... 1- the CHU is $4500 (CDN) more then the standard spec CXU. This could be because the standard engine in the CHU is an MP8 and the CXU is an MP7. 2- the 22" of set forward wheelbase means 22" more frame needed to accomodate the set forward axle. Which is more Tare weight then a CXU. Just thought I would add these points to the debate. I'm still torn over which one we would order next. We like to keep our cross border trucks at about 222" wheelbase. The CHU can't be any shorter then a 230". Which means more weight. With twin 142 gallon tanks on our CXU's and being already maxed on our tare with full tanks, I suspect a CHU would push us over.

If you were pulling the same load, on the same terrain, in the same climate..... The difference would be in the decimals of fuel mileage loss. CHU would be less efficient by design but barely noticeable in the grand scheme of things. The CXU and CHU have a slightly different Tare weight and the sleekness of the CXU gives it a slight advantage in cutting through the wind. I will throw a bullshit number out there of .2 to.3 mpg loss on a CHU. We were actually looking into the same thing months ago as we like the classic look of the CHN and so do our drivers. It's a small difference you may not even notice. An inexperienced driver can cost you more then that in fuel mileage just shifting wrong or idling too much.

The ASET-AC motors we had (from 2003-2007) were terrible. Even the CHN Rawhide which I loved had to go. Terrible on fuel and unreliable as heck. We got rid of all the ASET engines and kept the older E6,E7's,E-techs and traded up for MP series engines. Our MP's have been doing far better.

*disclaimer* I was told this by a Canadian Mack bigwig and with all large corporations, you shouldn't believe much until you see it....... I've been told there wont be any huge changes to the width of the cab as large customers like UPS, ABF etc. have adopted this cab as there preferred size. Not to big, not to small. He commented that some fleets find Volvo's cab too big as an example. I was told you will finally see the roof portion of the cab removed on a highrise sleeper. The interior of the sleeper will be changed as well as body lines to better cover the trailers front end. (instead of adding ugly fairing add ons like the current highrise sleeper. That was less then a year ago I was told this but you never know, he could have only been in on early design changes. There could be more since then..

I cant speak for the highest torque rating Eatons. Don't have any. I know that the 1800 series I have have been slightly noisier then older ones but no issues on my 13's. I still wouldn't buy a Mack trans. You could always pick up the latest M-Drive about to be dropped for the Granite in a few weeks.(Nahhhhhh) It suppose to be a heavier version. lol.

I have yet to give Mack's new axle a chance yet. I can't say if its good or bad yet. I've seen very few in highway use up here. Having heavy Meritor rears with lockers on one truck I can tell you they have a lot of drag on them. We had some gear quality issues with 200 series Mack carriers back in the early 2000's and never went back to them. The Mack dual reduction carrier does present more parasitic loss then a light Eaton,Spicer or Meritor would by design. All I can say for sure is that our trucks with Eatons have not had ANY issues to make us need to change to another product.

That is as close to an M-drive spec I would ever get. That is a good spec if you are that hell bent on an M-Drive. Me....Meh, and that goes for any Mack Highway transmission.

Let's try this again......how many gears (including splits) which are considered usable gears and are counted when describing the transmission to customers etc....are above a 1:1 gear ratio????? every gear counts when we are taking about fuel mileage and not every transmission has 2 usable steps/gears that are faster then 1:1 an FRO15210C is a fine example. "Double over" has become a sales term among dealers in most cases describing what you are buying.