Hows A E9 500 Hp Stack Up To A C16, 600 Cat

[bad1989gt1]

Just wondering if anyone has expierence with the two, I have been driveing a freinds 2002 heavy haul pete with the c16 600hp, 4:10 rears 18 sp, and dont get me wrong it has tons of power but its just not what i expected , i do realize im comparing to totally different animals because 1 being electronic and one being mech. , but how does the e9 500 stack up a late model c15 , or c16 , i am hunting for a e9 heavy haul superliner just hopeing it goes better than late model electronic cat ?

[Superdog]

There's no comparison between the 2,the E9 will out pull a Cat.But here's the downside.Since the E9 went out of production,parts are starting to get scarce and it's probably more expensive of the 2 to work on now,because of that.

Another little bit of advice.You really shouldn't admit in public that you drive a Cat powered truck,especially a Pete.

[Lmackattack]

if I remember correctly the 600hp cat has the same tq output as the 550 cat. last time I checked I think thats what I read

I drive an over the road 1997 internationa eagle at work and it has a 550 cat with an 18 speed. not shure about the rears. I also work part time at a construction company that has a superliner with a 440 E9,and a 18 speed. I have never had "go" between both at the same time, but i can say they do feel simmilar in power. The mack E9 has the traditional low down tq and the cat is happy in the higher rpms. also the E9 does not have any of the problems most people say they do.

I do know with a mech E9 you cold get lots more from it than an electronic 600 cat.

[bad1989gt1]

There's no comparison between the 2,the E9 will out pull a Cat.But here's the downside.Since the E9 went out of production,parts are starting to get scarce and it's probably more expensive of the 2 to work on now,because of that.

Another little bit of advice.You really shouldn't admit in public that you drive a Cat powered truck,especially a Pete.

←

i dont drive the truck everyday i just drove it a few times to get used to running a triaxle tractor 4 axle lowbed combo , if i was to ever buy a truck it would be a e9 Superliner no dout in my mind

[roadusercharges]

If you were to compare the e9 500 with a new Volvo 600, then there is quite a difference, if Kiwi trucker adds his 5 cents worth, it could be enlightening.

I know which motor has the get up and go.

nigel

[BKrois]

Just wondering if anyone has expierence with the two, I have been driveing a freinds 2002 heavy haul pete with the c16 600hp, 4:10 rears 18 sp, and dont get me wrong it has tons of power but its just not what i expected , i do realize im comparing to totally different animals because 1 being electronic and one being mech. , but how does the e9 500 stack up a late model c15 , or c16 , i am hunting for a e9 heavy haul superliner just hopeing it goes better than late model electronic cat ?

←

That Pete wouldn't be HoleShot Haulings truck would it?

[twostickmutt]

there's not a doubt that that old dog will out pull that pussy cat in that "rattle car", i mean peter car. as i've said before the only thing that went by my ol' black cabover was a better runnin' E-9. and that was on I-81 from the TN./VA. border to the new york state thruway.

[TimFBsucker]

there's not a doubt that that old dog will out pull that pussy cat in that "rattle car", i mean peter car. as i've said before the only thing that went by my ol' black cabover was a better runnin' E-9. and that was on I-81 from the TN./VA. border to the new york state thruway.  

←

The Cat C-16 put out 2050 ft/lbs of torque.The new C-15 625 HP I think puts out less torque,but I have not paid that much attention.My work truck is a 2000 Peterbilt 4 axle tractor with a C-15 550 Hp,18-speed,3.70's in a 46,000 air trac,Hooked to a 35'Mate tri-axle trailer,Does a good job hauling 45 to 50 ton loads. Tim Green

[papimack]

if I remember correctly the 600hp cat has the same tq output as the 550 cat. last time I checked I think thats what I read

I drive an over the road 1997 internationa eagle at work and it has a 550 cat with an 18 speed. not shure about the rears. I also work part time at a construction company that has a superliner with a 440 E9,and a 18 speed.  I have never had "go" between both at the same time, but i can say they do feel simmilar in power. The mack E9 has the traditional low down tq and the cat is happy in the higher rpms. also the E9 does not have any of the problems most people say they do.

I do know with a mech E9  you cold get lots more from it than an electronic 600 cat.

←

Ya know, a few years ago I would have said the same thing, but when you got guys like Pittsburgh Power making computer boxes that can give an electronic motor up to 210 extra hp at the twist of a knob, I'm not too sure. 2500 bucks and 3 hours worth of work and the next thing you know you got a rocket ship. No joke, makes the motor feel like an old school mechanical job. But for my money I'll still take the E9 just on principle.

[ThaddeusW]

The Cat C-16 put out 2050 ft/lbs of torque.The new C-15 625 HP I think puts out less torque,but I have not paid that much attention.My work truck is a 2000 Peterbilt 4 axle tractor with a C-15 550 Hp,18-speed,3.70's in a 46,000 air trac,Hooked to a 35'Mate tri-axle trailer,Does a good job hauling 45 to 50 ton loads.                      Tim Green

←

Yea the new 625 HP c15 Cats have 2050 ft/lbs. The Volvo 625HP 16liter can put out 2250 ft/lbs, quite a bit of power if you ask me. As for todays engines, Mack vs. Cat is very close. But Mack has nothing to compeat with the C15 today which is kinda sad (Mack today is sad enough as it is under Volvo). The Cummins ISX tops out at 565HP at 1850ft/lbs offerd in the CL. After the new emissions laws went into effect Cat discontinued the C16 and cummins did the same with there signature 600. Cat managed to get 625HP and 2050ft/lbs using there new acert technology. Maybe Cummins could reintroduce the signature 600.

[roadusercharges]

At last , someone has heard of the Volvo engine, the latest one in the fleet has been on the road a month and is just starting to free up,trouble is , that it is not running at full 44 tonnes yet, fuel figures look good so far , but as a comparison to the c15 Cat in the kenworth doing the same sort of work , and its currently rated at 470hp, the cat is using quite a lot more fuel.

As for the e95oo, well it just keeps on keeping on.

nigel

[ThaddeusW]

This reminds me, who here has the actual specks for the E9? At 500HP it would be nice to know the peak torque at which RPM, bore/stroke, governed RPMs, weight dry etc. If anyone has the numbers for the E9 500 HP or the Australian 610 HP please put them up to give a better idea of what she can do.

[ThaddeusW]

At last , someone has heard of the Volvo engine, the latest one in the fleet has been on the road a month and is just starting to free up,trouble is , that it is not running at full 44 tonnes yet, fuel figures look good so far , but as a comparison to the c15 Cat in the kenworth doing the same sort of work , and its currently rated at 470hp, the cat is using quite a lot more fuel.

As for the e95oo, well it just keeps on keeping on.

nigel

←

At first I realised an engine that powerful existed because on the roadranger website. Eaton had an 18speed that comes with the ability to handle 2250 ft/lbs of torque(Link). I was wondering what engine could do that so I went on google to do a search and found it. Here is the link to there page for Volvo North America Volvo VT 880. The 16 liter monster only comes in the VT 880 which is strictly an over the road tractor, no vocational offerings.

[b61mack]

I have a 1988 Mack engine tune-up specifications manaual, the torque on the E9-500 is 1660 @ 1300 RPM, the 400 is 1325 @ 1300 RPM, the 450 is 1495 @ 1300 RPM, operating RPM range is 1300-1900, i did not know you could lug them down that low, i dont know if the later 500hp had any more torque or not. Ron

[tornado427]

I have a 1988 Mack engine tune-up specifications manaual, the torque on the E9-500 is 1660 @ 1300 RPM, the 400 is 1325 @ 1300 RPM, the 450 is 1495 @ 1300 RPM, operating RPM range is 1300-1900, i did not know you could lug them down that low, i dont know if the later 500hp had any more torque or not.            Ron

←

Boy howdy! all this talk about the E9, I thought it must be the biggest baddest motor ever made!......... till you posted the specs, heck my little DDEC IV makes that much horse power & torque , I have allready up graded to the bigger turbo, now just need to scrape up the $$$ for Bruce's little black box! ( Pittsburg Power )

[Lmackattack]

dont forget that the e9 is comparibly small for a V8 at 998ci and is also 15 some years old. The marine E9 engines were 600+ HP and some milatary engines were tested to 900HP.

I think the reason the E9 is not availible state side is that it is heavy, and most current 6cyl are making the same hp/tq as the older v8s. also less things to fail on a 6cyl

dont get me wrong. a V8 under my hood would put a big smile on my face

[ThaddeusW]

I have a 1988 Mack engine tune-up specifications manaual, the torque on the E9-500 is 1660 @ 1300 RPM, the 400 is 1325 @ 1300 RPM, the 450 is 1495 @ 1300 RPM, operating RPM range is 1300-1900, i did not know you could lug them down that low, i dont know if the later 500hp had any more torque or not.            Ron

←

Hmmmm....

After a little math The I found that the ratio fo torque to horse power for the E9 was about 3.32:1. That means that the 610 HP Australian E9 would output about 2025 ft/lbs at 1300 RPM. And as for why the E9 was discontinued I think it was because of Volvo. Just before Volvo bought out Renault/Mack Mack started there Mack power program to provide their engines for marine and industrial applications. After Volvo purcahed them they shutdown the Mack Power division because it would compeat with there own engine production. Renault even used Mack engines as well because for a while the Renault Magnum came with the Mack E-tech engine and the E9. The new 2005 Magnum model was replaced with an angine based on the Volvo D12 block. I think Volvo wants to kill the Mack engine line and replace it with there own. That or I am paranoid .

[David]

Discontinuing the E9 freeded up production capacity at the Hagerstown, Md plant for the production of the new Volvo engine.

[b61mack]

I heard they discontinued the E9 because it wouldnt pass emissions, i was wondering if anyone knows what the cubic inch of the 3408 Cat, just wondering compared the E9. Ron

[David]

3408 is 1099 cu in. The E9 didn't meet EPA-02 because Mack(Volvo) didn't want to invest the money in it. Or maybe there just wasn't ebough time, money, and space to do both the E9 and the new Volvo at the same time.

[quadbox]

You are pretty close ThaddeusW, the Australian 610 was 2050 ft. lb.and I also think Volvo will kill off the engine line.

Old mates little DDEC IV might have the same figures as an E9, But one thing it and all the other electronic engines don't have is,how would I put it? Character?

Nothing beats the sound of a V8 Mack.