bbigrig

We had full air CS250s in the 90s. I believe full air for 250s became standard in the early 90s. Planetary hubs on rears were standard on 300 series.

200 series had air rear brakes and hyd front with light axles 250 had air front and rear brakes with mid weight axles 300 had air front and rear brakes with heavier axles. From what I recall in the 90s models for both MS and CS midliners

The ISX will not fit due to the short hood on an Anthem/pinnacle the MP series barely fits into the doghouse carved into the cab firewall. The ISX engine is wider and longer then an MP. The Volvo hood is longer to accommodate the vendor engine. Granite has the same issue.

With a little help I've found a Mik Mak off an R dog....cool

He speced that Pinnacle wrong from day 1. The guy is a quack and blames everyone and everything for going wrong. Unfortunately, it's like watching a train wreck...so I check in once and a while to see how many more poor choices he has made.

Yes...wont let me upload the same pictures from Kijiji for some weird reason. These are better pictures anyway.

Selling our 2008 Mack CXU Pinnacle with 70" double bunk. MP7395. 13speed fuller 12f 40r 390ratio 22.5 on alum. Front and rear air ride suspension 1.1millionkms Needs rear rubber, exhaust leak at manifold, batteries. Good runner when we took it off the road in fall. $12,000cdn. As is (certifiable with above repairs done) In Ontario Can.

Have seen loose pins at lower solenoid connection

10amp ignition fuse in center dash panel. F7 I think..... Ive seen these fuses blow when the polarity at the mag solenoid on the starter is reversed by mistake or the solenoid is fried. Your dash will light up etc but on key turns the starter won't engage. Check the ign fuse. These trucks usually don't use the starter over heat switch supplied on the starter but as said earlier, time out by ecm. If it won't engage at all this may be your issue. This simple issue surprised the heck out of me and only found it through using the Mack/Volvo online wiring diagrams. Stumbled on this issue after new starter was installed by customer. Let me know if that helps.

No thanks on these ones...

I've worked on lots of 60 series. Great engine. I've actually thought of putting one in an MH if I ever get the chance. I've seen a few in CLs. Pretty good set up.

Had a look there earlier. Nothing period correct Thanks.

I'm exploring all options. Preferably either Can am or Able body either a 60 mid-rise or 42" or bigger flat top. Doesn't have to have cut outs. Thanks.

I will pass on the double eagle offer. Thanks for the offer.

The only electronically controlled engine installed in the RW II chassis to be sold to the public was the E7 with Vmac 1 controls. It was available in late 1990. Cat and Cummins was still mechanical. No Detroit in the last years of RW production. An ex Mack engineering friend of mine tells me there was a test RW fitted with a series 60 Detroit that never made production. The 60 series offering ended up with the release of the CL instead in 93.

Anyone have a decent bunk that can be mounted on an R model? Something period correct would be best. Thanks.

Was that on a CL or something? I thought after 99 they stopped using the V shaped opening on CH/CX. Or your unit was the older (non "keystone") interior.

I wonder where that LR crew cab that Mack built went to? I posted the picture months ago.

If I remember correctly, anything above a 6speed transmission was a fuller trans on a CM. CS and MS had strange 9 and 10speed Renault transmissions as options. We had 9 speeds RVIs in some CS trucks. They did well.

Customers buying any FL50 to FL106 were buying a European designed MB cab. It's how you disguise things that scare uninformed customers that sells. Ask any Mack customer from 2007 on with a Volvo engine and frame. Oh Wait, that's me...lol There are a few CMs still on the road today here. Best part, almost everything chassis related is still available for parts replacement.

The market bares the proof on this one. Not opinion. The Baby 8 CM was for the in between of the 300 series Midliner and expensive R or CH. The CS/MS 300 product line lacked the in between power and larger the 34000lb gvwr. All you have to do is look at the success of the FL80 and 106 product line. Also the International 4900 series Kenworth T300 or 450, Sterling Acterra. All available in early to mid 90s and sold fairly well. Mack didn't offer a tandem lighter and better priced unit likes it's competitors. The CM was actually slightly ahead of the market need.

It was a truck the market wanted. Mack killed it pretty quick with a lack of options such as rear suspensions etc. Considering Mack had control of the product unlike Midliners, they let the model expire. There were city pick and delivery that needed a smaller then R model truck that was also cheaper. The CM422/423 was ok but the CM432/33 was a better idea with the Cummins 8.3l engine. It wasn't marketed very well. The CS/MS300T series was doing fine on the market then for class 7. The "baby 8" market did well when Freightliner produced FL80 to 106 in the same market with better options. In the end entering into the 90s withe the CM, The fleets seemed fine with paying a little extra when the CH came along.

CL643/CL743 Seen a few. Actually a real nice set up. Too heavy for most highway fleets and too expensive of an engine option.

Available between 1998 and 2003

The frame should be too narrow and the space from rad to cab too short on a 2000 Vision I like the 60 series as well, better off trying it in a CHN with the Volvo frame rails. If you get it to fit, send pictures or it didn't happen.