bbigrig

Sounds like an excessive load on the high beam circuit in your R-dog. Check for a short in the high beam circuit (floor dimmer switch, dash High beam flash switch, wiring or connections corroded etc.....)

I popped the hood on some of the Export setback axle Granite's with small sleepers at the factory last year. My Father and I were drooling at the idea of how much more powerful and reliable those MP8 powered non EGR etc. trucks would be.

I've never seen a truck manufacturer re-launch without a new product to drum up interest and sales to potential or current customers. Non Mack customers have already turned their nose up at the current product line for whatever reason........ But come to the show and see the trucks we have been offering for the last 5 years. While you are here get a bulldog tattoo engraved on your ass! Pat on the back to the marketing Dept. Geeezzzzz. I'm holding my breath till the new Highway truck comes. That will change things, not talk and crappy videos with 5 seconds of product. If and when I pass out due to a lack of oxygen, someone use a bulldog to jump on my chest and huff into my airway. P.S. Al Pelletier was the man!

Cause an ABS fault and it all goes away. unplug a wheel end sensor or something. The light on the dash will be on and your braking system will return to before ABS. Your traction control will also no longer function until you plug the sensor back in and spin the wheels over 4mph. I would only do this if you are REALLY stuck somewhere then put it back to normal.

I'm glad to see you kept the E-tech/Mack engineering defense to a minimum. There are only 2 engines I know of in North American use that tried EUP's in the late 90's Mack E-Tech and MBE (Series 55 Detroit shouldn't count LOL) CAT, Cummins Volvo and Detroit went overhead cam and unit injectors and lasted for almost 2 decades. I am very familiar with todays Bosch common rail with CP3-4 Bosch fuel pump systems on Cummins power plants. They have lots of issues of there own with injectors, feed nozzles, pump control solenoids, cracked rails etc. The common rail has more components then unit injector design which makes it more costly to service and more components to test when fuel issues arise. At this point most unit injector fuel systems are running at almost the same injector tip outlet pressures as common rail counter parts. Both with pros and Cons. Pick your poison.

I work in a fleet that is full of Allison's these days.............(Ugh) They aren't bad until you have to pay to fix them or overhaul them. The option is quite an upcharge and my dog salesman tells me auto shifts and Allison's have the same resale issues here. I would love to spec them for my city tractors but cant justify the upfront cost and the loss in resale. Clutches are cheaper in the life span of my trucks.

WOW! Nice work.

I would never even dream of having KS admit to Mack making errors in judgment before Volvo rule..... The 60 series was a great engine (till EGR, lol.) and it was a shame how Mack made the CL so expensive when you wanted to spec Detroit power. I know of about 8 CL's with 60's that made it up to the Toronto area with a few still going. I will admit we have all asked a lot of Mack's 12 liter engines hauling gross weights over 120,000lbs. When I was wrenching at John Grant We also had the casting sand problem in half a dozen trucks before the service bulletin was released. (the plastic airline to the compressor head for the Gov. would melt first) We also had 2 E-tech blocks that had oversized bores for the EUP's. They wouldn't seal the fuel rail bore to EUP.(Mack attempted multiple o-ring sizes) Mack had to replace 2 blocks on a 15 truck order before the trucks would fill the pans with fuel within a week of delivery. We always had at least 120 Macks in the fleet at one time. When we had E7's and E-techs it was clear which ones were on the road every day and which ones were at the dealer for more warranty work. The Freightliners with Series 60 made our Mack's look bad for a while.

2 things ruin Allisons......heat and lack of maintenance. Don't use anything except Transynd oil in an Allison. You don't need big MP power twisting up that Allison either.

I see the ASET has been thrown under the bus here, (rightly so) but I seem to have missed any slagging of the E-Tech that was designed under the Mack/Renault partnership for the 1998 emissions regs. Assuming the E-Junk was under development for a few years before roll out........ Who's watch was that disappointing Mack product under? Those damn Renault Frenchmen this time......Tabernac!

I am going to stick my neck out as a fleet owner and mechanic to point out something I noticed in Canada that had to do with a huge loss in Mack market share up in the great white north..... MACK ENGINES of the 90's and on..... The original E7 did very well here and sales of CH and others climbed where fleets that would not normally look at Mack had to start to admit that E7 was a good motor. Although there is no comparison to the E6 R-model days of market share there was a glimmer of hope in sales here as Mack was offering a fairly reliable unit that companies and owner operators could rely and profit from. The E9 has been beaten to death here in this thread, so onward...... I can remember between 1998-2000 and on where the E-Tech was rolled out, many Canadian customers were still buying and ordering under the reliability and reputation of the E7. The crossover to E-tech would see their brand new trucks go down within 100,000kms for camshafts, oil coolers etc. Some with multiple cams being installed. Even KS's stats for market gain runs with E7 production and shares fall 1.5 years after E-tech roll out. (Imagine that!) Reliability went out the window and so did customer satisfaction up here. I was Lead hand tech at a company that has close ties to Mack Canada since the 60's and couldn't believe having to send 1 to 2 trucks a week back to the dealer for the squeak from Cam issues etc. We would order and trade in 25 Macks every year. I then moved on to Bison Transport in 2001 where we had over 800 Volvos (VE powered) with a mix of Kenworth and Freightliners to round out the fleet. To my excitement, Bison ordered 30 Mack Visions and I watched every one of them fall flat on there face in fuel economy, pulling power, and reliability.(Most needing Cam's in the first 2 years of operation) Those 30 Visions were all flogged off in the first 3 years of operation as the worst test order I've ever witnessed and Bison ever took delivery of. They still run Volvo with Volvo power today. The ASET was another disappointment I would rather not get into. Sure Volvo poured more into there own powertrain R and D in that time period. I would love to see what other engine designs that Mack engineers were working on that Volvo may have forced them to pass on during the transition. Until I get to see these ideas or designs, I will be left with the factual crap that Mack put out for all those years since the E7. Basically add ons to the E-Tech block design that Mack unveiled years before Volvo. I'm glad Volvo installed the D series engine design into the Mack chassis. MP has its issues but in economy, reliability and resale it already has surpassed my ex ASET and E-tech powered Mack's in every category except not being of a Mack design. The ASET's I had almost lost me as a customer looking to run my fleet in the black. But due to a degenerative Mack gene in my family, I stuck it out. I'm still glad I did and proved to myself the rewards of being loyal to a product and people that has had a HUGE impact on my past and now my future. Today with my Macks OLD and NEW, things are looking up and forward. Not down and backwards.........

We currently run MP8 Econodyne. We ran some Maxicruise in some of the ASET's we had and were impressed with power of the 355/380hp for hauling 80,000 gross into the states. They pulled as good as the pig 460xt's we had. Our trucks usually run along side of Freightliner Cascadias with DD15 power in the 515hp range or Volvo's with D13's. You can guess how the Volvo's fair (LOL) but the Cascadia's have the same issues our Macks do. They get the 7-8mpg we get on our 445 MP8 grossing 80K in the same lanes etc. The Cascadia is a lot roomier then our dogs and I face that complaint from half of my drivers on a daily basis. I'm still happy with the Mack product and the support I get from the dealer network. There is no such thing as a perfect product or support network behind it so why change if the bills are being paid and the pride hasn't faded in your vehicular investment. I'm still Mack and will remain that way for the foreseeable future with the hopes of highway product improvements coming down the pipe.

Canada has been Metric for a long time....Would this truck happen to be an Oakville build?

Most new Mack's and Volvo's use the CB antennas for AM/FM as well. there is a junction box in the dash and the antenna's have a copper wire wrap going up the entire stalk. They shouldn't be substituted.

I have yet to see an Allison last over 500,000kms in the vocational side without an overhaul. The Allison has only seen a major influx in the construction market since the MP engine came onto the market here in Canada. If its used you have your eyes on, be cautious of the Allison's condition.

No power difference at all. At approx. 40,000kms on the truck we de-rated the 505 to a 445 after dynoing the 505. Its been sucking on the teet since we got her. Mack wouldn't take it back and had no fix for the power issues. Stick with the 445.

Which basically equates to feeding more horses for the same pull.......I have already de-rated our 505 to 445 for that reason. Its about a half a mile per gallon saving and I'm hearing its a common complaint of the less then impressive 505 rating. Initially our 505 with 370 gears was hauling equal loads/lanes to our 445 with 355 gears. Running together the 445 would outpull the 505. They put cups and injectors on the 505, (20,000kms) did 3 live downloads on both trucks, dyno'ed the 505 on Mack's dime and still can't to this day explain why the 505 was such a dud. We just derated it and ran it. Mack/Volvo washed their hands of it The Tech's at Volvo head office admitted through the downloads that the 505 was using more "energy" to produce the 505 power but had no explanation as to why it was sucking fuel to the tune of 6mpg compared to the 8mpg (445)(taking gears etc into consideration.) Reminds me of the 454 E7 that had a crappier torque rise then the 427 E7.

Myself and my drivers can't tell the difference between our 505 and 445 when it comes to pulling power.....

Our 445 was getting better mileage then our 505 hauling 80,000 gross. My salesman had been getting some negative feedback on the 505's fuel mileage from customers and had de-rated a few to 445 with favorable results for a few hundred bucks. There are so many factors to consider between each of the trucks specs, drivers loads etc. My 2 have mainly a rear end difference of 355 in the 445 to 370 in the 505. These trucks are almost 1.7 MPG apart with similar loads and drivers. After de-rating our 505 to a 445 we have gained back almost half of the original loss with no noticeable power loss according to the driver. Over the life of that truck the de-rate is $$$$$ in the bank.

If I am not mistaken, the Husband and wife couple with the Superliner hauling for ATS bought a CL Limited edition with an E9500, 60" highrise with a tri axle and full tank fairings . It was in a bulldog magazine in the early 90's. They even put a heavier front axle and large steer tires on that CL. Looked huge.

The Updated LE cab was displayed at the test center when I was there years ago before it became the museum. I think it was 2007-08. All I can say is my Highway drivers are starting to complain about cab and sleeper space. Most of the complaints are from my new hires that came out of Cascadia`s and Volvo`s that have larger cabs and sleepers available. Hope they don`t screw it up and keep the Macks different from the Volvo product.

I Love the French Canadian Trash talk and cussing! (It funnier if you speak French) I saw the video a few weeks ago but couldn't figure out how to post it. Its a father (Titan) and son (CL) racing up the road. The CL driver states that the CL chassis has over 1 million KM's and 18,000 engine hours. Didn't say if the engine was original. Tabernac!

The MP10's and D16 have slight differences as well. EGR cooler mounting, color, valve cover, intakes are different. I'm sure there is more but those are the obvious like those Challenger has mentioned.

My bad...I was thinking set back CH......whoops.