rigchaser Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Who in their right mind would switch from this...or this...to this...??????I guess that's what happens when corporate America takes over... Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackboy Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 that guy had lost its mind you dont take pictures of that thing Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9569 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslut28 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Nothing like buying a cheap piece of junk to do a hard job and then wondering why its strung all over the hills after 2 years... Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9570 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Maybe because Wasted Star would build them an on/off road truck with a sleeper... The marketing clowns at Volvo can't seem to get it in their heads that oil float drivers need a sleeper so they can grab 40 winks when they can, given that oil rigs are often far from the nearest motel.Now obviously Mack's integral sleeper will bolt right onto a Granite, so why not make it a factory option instead of chasing those customers to Wasted Star, Kenworthless, etc.? Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9579 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Trucking Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Just more proof that common sense is uncommon these days.Nowadays trucks are being spec'ed and ordered by white collar office "beancounter" types, most of whom have never even sat behind the wheel of a big truck, much less driven one.These "beancounters" are dazzled by the allure of saving money, but the sweetness of the savings is quickly forgotten when it costs the company much more in premature repairs to keep the cheap P.O.S. on the job. Quote "If You Can't Shift It Smoothly, You Shouldn't Be Driving It" Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9581 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option. That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9582 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslut28 Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 BTW.. That CL is a gorgeous ride! I likey!! Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9585 Share on other sites More sharing options...
granitefan713 Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Making the Intergral Sleepr an option on the Granite would mean changing the assembly plant(s). The assembly plant in Macungie does not produce any trucks with sleepers so the cab lines would need adjustment, and the New River Valley plant does not produce any Granites, so both the chassis and cab lines would need modification. = $$$ Quote http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitefan713/-Dave Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9596 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 New River Valley plant does not produce any Granites, so both the chassis and cab lines would need modification. = $$$ Isnt that the Volvo plant? Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9600 Share on other sites More sharing options...
granitefan713 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 New River Valley is the Volvo plant, but it is also the home of Mack highway products(Vision, Pinnacle, and CH). Here's the link: http://macktrucks.com/default.aspx?pageid=7 Quote http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitefan713/-Dave Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9602 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 My understanding is that a few years back Volvo/Mack set up both plants so they could build either highway or construction/refuse trucks. This was done to balance plant workloads due to the seasonal nature of both types of trucks. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9603 Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainyday128 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option. That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.Maybe I missed something. Before Volvo, what Mack model was the twin steer, tridem, 300" wb sleeper winch truck that they sold to all their traditional oilfield customers?Mack's previous owners -- Renault, Wheelabrator Frye, and before that the Signal companies - mainly milked Mack for its cash flow and never invested much into it. Volvo is investing more money into Mack facilities and Mack product than all the ones before did put together. What's the problem with that? Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9628 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 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... Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9630 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 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... Seriously, Kenworth and Western Star both offer oild field trucks with twin steer and tandem/tridem 70k SISU planetary axles. Heck Fabco Automotive the North American distributor for SISU axles, offers a 105K tridrive axle arrangement. Volvo has planetary axles and big engines that mack could offer to the oil field companies. Twin steer Granite MP8/10 engine with an 18 speed, eaton brownie, and Volvo or SISU planetary axles in tridrive and you would have a winning combination. Heck Mack Australia has a Renault planetary axle option for the Titan, tridrive option too: (I think this beast is E9 powered, 200 metric tonne (220 imperial) GCW ) All the good stuff is down under! Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9632 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Maikshilo Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Hey Thad...great picture from down under. The Aussies and Kiwi's know their trucks and have their own signature that has stood for years. I've got alot of great pictures on my office wall (thanks Nigel) of what in my opinion are real trucks, Tim Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9634 Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog man Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 looks like 525 Komatsu that is pulling good looking heavy hauler Bulldog (or aka ) Quote You Cant Fix Stupid. But You Can Numb It With A Sledgehammer. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9647 Share on other sites More sharing options...
granitefan713 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Please do not be mad, but I do NOT like the looks of the Macks from "down under"(except the Vision/CXU look-alike). I would probably take a Volvo over a "down-under" Mack. That's just my opinion though, I like all of the American Macks (CTP713/GU7 being my favorite). Quote http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitefan713/-Dave Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9648 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Please do not be mad, but I do NOT like the looks of the Macks from "down under"(except the Vision/CXU look-alike). I would probably take a Volvo over a "down-under" Mack. That's just my opinion though, I like all of the American Macks (CTP713/GU7 being my favorite). Blasphemy! j/kThats a pretty strong statement considering the "down under" Macks are the same thing as the Macks we have here. Their other specialized models are built by Mack to tackle the toughest requirements for hauling up to 220 tons off road. The Quantum is kinda silly but its their to fill the need for a short tractor for B train operation. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9652 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Blasphemy! j/kThats a pretty strong statement considering the "down under" Macks are the same thing as the Macks we have here. Their other specialized models are built by Mack to tackle the toughest requirements for hauling up to 220 tons off road. The Quantum is kinda silly but its their to fill the need for a short tractor for B train operation.I kinda admire the look of the "Aussie" trucks. I'm sure most are an adaptation of ideas to get the job done as efficiently as possible. High horsepower ratings and heavy spec(s) seem to be the normal, (from what we always see in print) for all of the "road train" trucks. Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9653 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9657 Share on other sites More sharing options...
granitefan713 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 The only "down-under" Macks that I like are the Vision and Value-Liner. The rest look too foreign for me. Quote http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitefan713/-Dave Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9661 Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris88 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I cant think of any new mack that i like the look of, I like RDs but theyre not around anymore. The granites dont look terrible but the older trucks look better in my opinion. Those aussie trucks look real heavy duty. Wish i could read that brochure thing but the print is too small. What suspension would they use for a tri drive setup? Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9669 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack 3P Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Volvo's bean counters are part of the problem too- if you look at Volvo's offerings in international markets they offer very few options, and the truck is pretty much a take it or leave it option. That philosophy won't cut it with Mack's traditional customers. Consider, for example, a serious oilfield service truck- the spec would call for twin steering axles of at lest 20,000 pounds each, tridem drive axles rated for at least 75,000 pounds total, a wheel base of over 300 inches, a full power take off for the winches, AND a sleeper cab. Mack currently offers nothing like that in the US, but Kenworthless and Wasted Star can fill the bill.Good things come to those who wait. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9670 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearheadGrrrl Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 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... Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9673 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertrucker Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Of course trucks, like anything else are always evolving. This will be especially true as the EPA steps in and forces tighter restrictions on emissions and the like. I don't think they'll go back to R model style cabs, but I do think that we are going away from companies listening to their customers. I think they can borrow some ideas from the Volvo truck lines, but I think they need to be careful in how they do that. They can use some interior ideas to make their cabs a little more comfortable. I do like the recessed steps, and the openness of the cabs that Mack has always had, except the early R's, those were kinda tight. Quote Mack- Built Tough to Ride Rough!Driver and operator for Bertils Gravel and Excavation Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/1999-what-were-they-thinking/#findComment-9679 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.