Is Volvo Good Or Bad For Mack Trucks?

[mack4ever]

Renault was a good partner that worked......TOGETHER WITH.... Mack.

If it wasnt for them,,,,, Mack would still be running a E6 2-valve 350.

The 4-valve head, the E7 and the E9 (that you love) are all here with major help from Renault.

thank you cl96.

i`m sorry that we don`t have mack or renault engens anymore.

here in europe we have the same vulva crap as you in the states.

the main engene is`t so bad but all the electronic stuf around it is.

but we have to get used to it.

renault had its owne v8 but stopped whit it when the got together whit mack and then used their e9 in their big trucks.

a little later thy only used mack engines in their big magnums.

now they have no own engens.

in the big range they have the vulva and in the smaller range they have deuts (a german engene.)

[kscarbel]

Have you looked at a (US-built) Mack truck.......lately.

Let's ask ourselves, what is a Mack truck today?

Is a truck with Volvo engines and a Volvo chassis still a Mack truck?

Yes, it still has a cab and hood unique to the brand. But that in fact is all Mack is now, thanks to Volvo - Mack has been reduced to being nothing more than a brand.

There was a time when Mack was a company, a powerful force in the trucking industry that made such revolutionary products such as the Maxidyne high torque rise engine, the Maxitorque transmission and the E-9 V-8 engine.

But look at a new Mack truck today at your local dealer. First you'll notice the "new" truck is rusting everywhere because Mack and its suppliers are too busy fighting over who should be responsible (pay for) primer painting that it isn't applied. There's just a thin coat of paint on much of the chassis that yields to rust before the truck is sold.

Then look at the shoddy way the wiring and air piping is mounted along the chassis. It's a rude awakening to see that the leading Chinese truck brands now have equal or better "quality of assembly" than a Mack truck.

I know old Mack employees are amused at the news that Mack production which was taken away from Macungie is now returning. But I wonder now, since Mack closed its famous Plant 5C and sent highway truck production away from Macungie, how many proud and skilled "Mack people" are left in Allentown (the Macungie plant is located outside Allentown).

The company went downhill after former Mack President Curcio tried to break the union and opened the failed non-union plant in Winnsboro, South Carolina for the highway models, from which production was later shifted to New River Valley in southwest Virginia (a horrible location for a truck plant) where Mack trucks have been assembled by Volvo workers. The union in Allentown had actually voted to take concessions so as to keep all production at Macungie, but the UAW ignored the voting results and Curcio was set on his South Carolina plan.

Many people don't know that the first year of production in South Carolina was a disaster owing to the incompetent workforce there. It was so bad that over 1,000 incomplete trucks had to be lifted onto low-boy trailers and carried from South Carolina up to Macungie, Pennsylvania to be completed properly.

Mack was once an undisputed leader in the fire truck industry, and a long-time manufacturer of massive M-Series off-highway mining trucks up to 120-tons. Mack produced electric trolley buses and diesel municipal buses (Scania was licensed to produce Mack city buses in Europe). Far ahead of their time, Mack's ingenious and cost-effective "rail cars" (rail bus) were the forerunner of what light rail is today in the US.

Mack engineering has been snubbed by Volvo Group. Mack trucks now use Volvo truck chassis and Volvo D11, D13 and D16 6-cylinder engines (renamed MP7, MP8 and MP10 respectively). Mack no longer actively promotes its legendary dual-reduction drive axles and incomparable triple-countershaft transmissions.

In a another disappointing development last month, Mack, deceptively announcing their new "mDrive" AMT as a Mack-designed product, when in fact it is none other than a Volvo I-Shift 12-speed AMT transmission. This is indeed an embarrassing and sad state of affairs for a company that was once legendary for its drivetrain engineering.

The fact is, Mack engineers wanted to design an AMT version of Mack's signature triple-countershaft Maxitorque ES 300 transmission, but Volvo said no. This decision continues a trend of Mack engineering being snubbed by Volvo Group. Mack trucks now use Volvo truck chassis and Volvo D11, D13 and D16 6-cylinder engines (renamed MP7, MP8 and MP10 respectively).

With this latest development we can ask once again, is a truck with a Volvo engine, Volvo transmission, Volvo chassis and Meritor axles still a Mack truck? Despite the remaining Mack unique cab and hood, it certainly is not. The "Mack truck" no longer exists. The Mack name is now merely a brand emblem on a North American market Volvo heavy truck.

When Renault purchased Mack in 1981, Renault understood the immense value of the Mack brand, and under the superb leadership of Elios Pascual, brought Mack Trucks back into greatness. However Volvo has demonstrated they do not comprehend the value of the Mack brand with their closure of Mack's headquarters in Allentown. All functions have been transferred to Volvo Truck headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina (inefficiently putting Mack's Macungie factory and Volvo's headquarters hundreds of miles apart).

Volvo has transformed Mack into a brand without a heart or identity, a brand that now makes mediocre disposable trucks at a quality level we 15 years ago associated with Ford and GMC heavy trucks, rather than the impressively engineered trucks that once made the company a legend and major force in the truck industry.

The former Mack Trucks had always set itself apart from other US truckmakers as an integrated truckmaker, designing and producing its drivetrain components; engines, transmissions, axles and suspensions carefully engineered to compliment each other resulting in Mack's "balanced design" that yielded efficient and economical performance.

One of Mack's earliest slogans, "Performance Counts", spoke volumes about what kind of a company Mack was. The phrase "Built like a Mack Truck" was so well earned and respected that it became a part of the common language without being advertised.

Volvo wasted their money in purchasing Mack, because they don't understand as Renault did the true value of Mack. It's well known that Mack customers have historically been fiercely loyal. But they're not ignorant. When a Mack truck ceases to be a Mack truck, you have lost all that this unique and iconic brand has until now represented.

It has been painful for Mack's dedicated customers to watch the brand become a cheap truck. Mack used to stand above many other brands, noted for its durability and resale value. However under Volvo, Mack customers have experienced chronic problems that have all but destroyed the intense loyalty that Mack once enjoyed. The modern Mack has become a cheap "throwaway truck" like yesterday's Freightliner, worn out at 400,000 miles. Mack's used to roar into their "second life" while flimsy Freightliners and other lesser trucks roared into the junkyard to be parted out.

Mack's build quality has reached low levels. It's perhaps shocking to note that the leading Chinese truck brands now have equal build quality. The Mack truck today is not the Mack product of 15 years ago, which is why Mack is no longer an industry leader. And one can only blame that on Volvo, as they have been pulling the strings.

Why doesn't Mack have a V-8 engine today? Because Volvo told Mack to terminate V-8 engine development and use the Volvo in-line D16 instead. Many Mack customers, like Scania, MAN and Benz customers, appreciate V-8 engines. But Volvo's personal desires are more important than those of Mack's customers. Volvo arrogantly lectures Mack on how things are going to be, and consistently has displayed little interest in "listening" to Mack dealers and customers (why would you want to do that?).

There indeed was a time when Mack was a powerful force in the trucking industry, standing on its on two feet, setting its own agenda, setting industry trends with revolutionary products such as the Maxidyne high-torque-rise engine, the Maxitorque transmission, Dynamax wet clutch, CF fire chassis, MH Ultra-Liner with Maxi-Glas cab construction, MR Series refuse truck, and the E-9 V-8 engine.

Mack's V-8 range could have continued under development to meet EPA2010 emissions standards (similar to Euro-6 that Scania, MAN and Benz are set to meet), to meet customer demand. But Volvo Group killed Mack's popular V-8 offerings because Volvo wanted to use the Volvo in-line D16 instead, totally disregarding the V-8 preference of Mack customers both in the U.S. market and Australia.

Unlike Volvo, Renault realized the value of Mack and invested huge sums of money after the 1981 purchase to rebuild the company. Mack employees were at first very concerned, needless to say, about what would transpire under Renault. But Mack people quickly realized that Renault was dedicated to rebuilding the Mack Company, and thus, Renault and acting Mack President Elios Pascual quickly earned the respect of Mack employees. Elios Pascual revived the Mack team spirit originally inspired by the legendary Zenon C.R. Hansen. If you look at the numbers, Mack performed extremely well under Renault. Only after Mack was solidly back on its feet again did Renault slowly begin to repay itself the money it had invested in Mack's recovery - a completely reasonably business action.

For a company like Mack, with a long unique history of being America's only vertically integrated truckmaker, I think it is a problem for Mack trucks to use Volvo engines (and chassis), particularly because Mack for decades designed and produced cutting edge components. Every part of the Mack truck from the engine to the axles to the frame and suspensions earned a legendary status so great that the truck's reputation for strength became common knowledge in the American household. Every housewife knew what "Built like a Mack Truck" meant. Such respect in the market can only be justly earned. But sadly today under Volvo, Mack has lost all of that respect and become merely one on the crowd.

Now Volvo Group's North American truck operations of "Mack Trucks" and "Volvo Trucks North America" will be merged into a single organization called "North American Trucks" (NAT).

In my humble opinion, a bland and generic name like "North American Trucks" has as much depth and personality as a piece of drywall. On one hand, I realize they don't want to call the company "Mack-Volvo Trucks North America", because that would be politically incorrect, stating the obvious that Mack is no longer Mack, which would arouse customer questions leading to the realization that Mack trucks are now essentially Volvos, with engines and chassis as a strong example. This would further disillusion what little Mack brand loyalty there is left. It would also beg the question, why buy a Mack truck that's realistically a Volvo........when one can just as well buy a Volvo? And if the customer is not a fan of Volvo product, than "NAT" has lost out altogether due to the Mack-Volvo link as the customer will purchase a competitor truck. I'm no fan of Navistar, but at least the name "Navistar International" does denote the truck brand, the central pillar around which the company exists.

Mack for years has had an extremely effective and yet ingeniously simple part numbering system. The beginning of the part number (prefix) told you what kind of part it was, with P-number suffixes that told you what variation it was.

For example: Prefixes
1AX - fine thread bolt
4AX - course thread bolt
36AX - lock washer
37AX - flat washer
62GB - engine bearing
1MR - electrical switch
11MR - circuit breaker
2QK - front spring
4QK - rear spring
301SQ - king pin set

The part numbers were very easy to remember, because Mack engineers years ago created a brilliant and yet straightforward part numbering system. This is why veteran Mack parts people IMHO were significantly better than their peers in the industry. With the Mack part numbers already in their head, veteran Mack parts people were faster than a New York deli (Did anyone out there ever have the nightmare of buying parts from a Ford heavy truck dealer?)

But now, Volvo has begun replacing Mack part numbers with Volvo global part numbers, randomly selected part numbers that have no meaning whatsoever. For Volvo to throw away a proven, efficient parts numbering system far superior to their own and replace it with meaningless numbers to meet the demands of their arrogant bureaucracy, I'm totally disgusted. Volvo would have been better off to adopt Mack's part numbering system rather than force their often criticized system upon Mack.

Volvo performs particularly well in its home western European market. Volvo builds a good truck in Western Europe and manages that market well in terms of sales and after-sales. But beyond that market, you can see a path of hopes and dreams in the global market that have yielded anything but solid results.

Volvo is not adept at selling outside of Western Europe and their track record in country markets like China and the US is a good example. In fact, Volvo has a history of deep spending that brought little or no results. (On the other hand, Swedish truckmaker and long-time Mack partner Scania has a history of rational decision making that supports "smart" growth and profitability).

Volvo spent millions on an ill-planned and fruitless 6-year journey in China. Volvo signed a 50-50 joint venture with CNHTC in March 2004 and proclaimed they'd produce 2,500 units in 2005 and 10,000 units in 2008. But Volvo didn't do their China homework and learn the unique metrics of this important global region, and finally dissolved the relationship in 2010 after only building 1,000 (CKD) trucks, which were all sold at a loss.

Volvo's track record in the US market speaks for itself. They've been in the U.S. market 36 years, since they introduced the F86(US) in 1974. The fact they've accomplished so little in that long time period supports my opinion that Volvo doesn't understand the US market. They've tried many avenues over the years and yet have never been able to get their U.S. market into gear. The F86US cab-over was a flop, as was the underpowered 253hp N10(US) conventional.

Volvo tried a new tact buying the assets of White and forming Volvo White Truck Corp. in 1981.

Still making no headway (or profit), Volvo purchased General Motor's heavy truck division in 1987 to form the WHITEGMC brand as Volvo GM Heavy Truck and continue their unprofitable trek forward. Volvo for years followed the failed money-losing strategy of buying market share, selling to the fleets at a loss and committing to unrealistic buy-back amounts (you couldn't give away a used Volvo White truck because its was a cheap throwaway truck as a Mack has become today under Volvo). And finally in one more vain attempt to establish itself in the US market, Volvo exchanged 15% of their shares for 100% of the shares of Renault Vehicles Industries, taking control of Renault's heavy truck division which included Mack Trucks. Observe how Volvo has purchased three competitors in the US market and yet has benefited so little.

Under the stewardship of such fine leaders as Alfred Brosseau, Zenon C.R. Hansen and Elios Pascual, Mack soared to unprecedented heights. With a long history of legendary engineers including Alfred Masury, Walter May and Win Pelizzoni, Mack's cutting edge design achievements put the world on notice that Mack was at the forefront of heavy truck development.

But under the incompetent management of former president Ralph E. Reins and Volvo Group, Mack has lost all of its stature it attained over the last 100 years. The contrast between Renault's excellent management of Mack and the sad state of affairs today at Mack under Volvo ownership is staggering. Renault realized the incredible value of Mack, and had foresight that paid off with solid profitability. Mack flourished under Renault with revolutionary new products such as the MH Ultra-Liner, a breakthrough in technology and design featuring cutting edge chassis design and a cab with safety cage and fireproof Maxi-Glas composite construction.

Mack Trucks, unlike any other truckmaker throughout U.S. history, has a soul. Mack is not a brand. Mack is a legend. Mack is a family, of employees and customers.

For customers, Mack is a feeling. For Mack employees everywhere, Mack is "a way of life". Nobody ever said "Built like a Freightliner, or International". No other U.S. truck brand ever became a household word.

Volvo remains clueless of the unique and invaluable asset they now hold. The closure of Mack World Headquarters in Allentown, transferring all functions to Volvo Truck Headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina, is a mortal wound to the Mack brand. Mack is now no more than a nameplate on a low-end disposable US-market Volvo truck. Volvo has step-by-step destroyed the very soul that made Mack Trucks an American icon. Any remark to the contrary is a distortion of the fact.

Mack Truck's Engineering, Development and Test Center (EDTC) in Allentown is truly a world class facility. Given that Macungie will once again become the sole location of Mack Truck production, it makes no logical sense for Volvo Group to close Mack's Allentown EDTC and relocate those functions to an inferior facility nearly 400 miles away in Greensboro, North Carolina. There's a need for R&D and production to work hand-in-hand in adjacent facilities to refine product design, quality and performance (in Mack speak, that's called "Pedigreed Performance").

Mr. Zenon C.R. Hansen legitimately made Allentown, Pennsylvania "The Truck Capital of the World", and inspired an incredible spirit and pride within Mack people that, I feel, remains unmatched to this day. For employees of other U.S. truckmakers, their work was just a job. But particularly under President Zenon C.R. Hansen and acting President Elios Pascual (under Renault), Mack employees were a special breed. Employment at Mack Trucks was a unique career and rewarding way of life. You knew that you belonged to something really great, and it showed in your confidence. As they say, "Mack means a lot of things to a lot of people". No matter where a Mack employee went, whether it be World Headquarters, Macungie, a PDC, factory branch or dealer, he or she always felt at home within a special family. You were never allowed to feel like a stranger. Anyone that ever entered Mack World Headquarters knows what I mean, when the receptionist (the legendary Pat Hutchins) would warmly greet you with a Mack Bulldog lapel pin. You immediately knew Mack was like no other truckmaker.

Volvo has demonstrated again and again since 2001 that they are completely oblivious to the very meaning of Mack Trucks and the immense value it represents when allowed to flourish in its own right. I had no problem with Volvo reducing White and GMC to nothing, because those two brands realistically were already nothing. But Mack Trucks is a totally different situation entirely. The strength of the Mack brand, its incredible employees, and the company's legendary engineering is immeasurable. It is nothing less than amazing how ignorant Volvo Group's business strategy is relating to Mack Trucks.

Like any company, Mack is only as good as its management. Like any company, Mack reached lows in its history under poor management and reached unprecedented highs under good management. My point to Volvo Group is, if you place Mack under good and independent management, Mack Trucks will benefit Volvo Group far more than a decapitated Mack brand which now is no more than a Mack emblem on a disposable low-quality truck built around Volvo components. Mack customers are alienated by this product and the sales figures reflect this reality better than Volvo's Mack marketing hype. Simply speaking, most Mack customers want to purchase a "real" Mack truck, with genuine Mack components that incorporate the engineering that Mack Trucks is legendary for. Based on Volvo's poor 36 year track record in the U.S. market, it would be prudent for the company to reconsider their strategy for Mack Trucks before the brand's recovery potential is completely lost. After six demoralizing years for both customers and employees in a net-negative spiral that has achieved no mentionable results, admitting their error by relocating Mack World Headquarters back to Allentown, Pennsylvania would be a critical first move towards getting the Mack Truck organization back on track and in the right direction.

[fjh]

I agree with a lot of what you have said here !

Althou I beleive the v8 died long before Sven and Ollie took over,Blaming volvo for that is not the right thing, the EPA killed the v8.

[bullhusk]

I agree with just about everything you have said here but why pick on Freightliner? We stopped buying Macks in the late 1980's (WE HAVE ONE CH 613) at one time you could not give me brand X 100% MackTruck then---- Am Bosch inj. pumps started to fail,water pumps started to leak,fan clutches started to stop working,our T2090 9speeds started to explode because of shifting fork failure then Mack later came out with a new modf. cover. Mack never stepped to the plate to help us!! a 100% Mack customer why??? So we bought 1 Pete and 1 F/liner series 60 detroit diesels 1993 we still have those trucks today over 800,000 mi.we have gone over them sure today we are 100 % Freightliner why you say? Benz bought Freightliner Western Star And then Detroit diesel also Sterling They have kept these companys alive except for Sterling not like Volvo who destroyed White Motors and put Volvo on the lots I don't see any Merc's on Freightliner lots ? Benz shifted some assem. to mexico but keep Detroit Diesel assem and production in Detroit USA were all there world engines are made.In closing I only wish Benz had taken over Mack and I'll bet you wouldn't see a Merc. motor under the hood.Look at a heavy Western Star today tell me it's not a Old Mack Acar combo ? again just my personal opinion BULLHUSK PS we still love and own the older Macks

[kscarbel]

The news of Scania's new Euro-6 ready V-8 engines raises another question for Mack customers. Why isn't Mack offering an EPA2010 V-8 powerplant, a long-time signature Mack product? Surely a combination of SCR and EGR with a DPF would allow Mack to offer an EPA2010 V-8 engine. Given the positive experience I had with Mack/Scania E4-210 powered R487Ps, I've kept an eye on Scania. Scania has launched a new range of V-8 engines in 500, 560, 620 and 730 horsepower ratings, with max. torque up to 2,581 ft.lb (3,500 N.m), that are designed to meet Euro-6 (close to EPA2010) EEV standards (enhanced environmentally-friendly vehicle). Scania is using a revised version of their XPI common rail injection system with higher pressures, with 3 supply pumps (Scania's 9- and 13-liter engines use 2 pumps). Note: XPI (Xtra-High Pressure Injection) is jointly developed and manufactured by Scania and Cummins.

Scania's V-8 developments catch my attention because Mack Truck's legendary E-9 V-8 had a very loyal customer following (actually still has), not unlike Scania's 16.4-liter V-8, Mercedes-Benz's 15.9-liter V-8 and MAN's 16.2-liter V-8 engines sold today. Although the V-8 might be called a niche market, Scania, Benz and MAN have continued to profitably meet customer demand for V-8 powerplants while also meeting evolving emissions standards. Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-6 and I'm confident that Benz and MAN will as well. Why doesn't Mack take advantage of its decades of V-8 engineering expertise and introduce a "pedigreed" Mack-designed EPA-2010 V-8 engine? I was told that stricter EPA emissions standards killed Mack's E-9 V-8, and yet, Scania, Benz and MAN have continually been able to upgrade their V-8 engines to meet tightening emissions standards. Why does Mack refuse to invest forward? Certainly Mack customer demand for a pedigreed V-8 powerplant both in the North American market and Australia would be very favorable. In the U.S. market, Mack would be the envy of the competition, having the market all to themselves.

[mackcl96]

Will someone please get this kscarbel a chair and a cold beer^^^^

I follow what you are preaching (even tho you are preaching to the choir)

All we can do is remember what it was ,,,,,,and hope for new owners, but the damage is done.

My Dad has had Macks for years.

My first paying job was washing Macks at the dealer.

Turned 18 bought Mack Trucks and Mack had my back for years (now they are all gone).

I know nothing but Mack but volvo is destroying,,,, MANY,,,,,, Loyal customers and employees.

Kscarbal Did you work for Mack???

[Lmackattack]

Someone send this to Mack HQ or the local news paper!! bravo!

[ThaddeusW]

Amazing post, makes you both sad and mad at the same time. Thanks for taking the time to post. The Mack brand should either be laid to rest or put back on top. There should be no compromises.

The V8 was headed to the chopping block in the early 90's. I found and posed a link to an archived article that explained Mack's emission woes in the early 90's and they were close to not complying. The V8 never passed 500HP in the US even though it was probably the most powerful on-highway engine in the word during the mid 80's. Meanwhile it was cranked up to 560HP in Europe and 610HP in Australia matching CAT and Cummins 2050 ft/lb 600HP monsters.

The Mack V8's were known to be weak on the bottom end when turned up past 550 or so HP. A Little engineering (you need the right people) and I bet you could fix the bottom end problem, design a new fuel system with EGR, DPF and SCR and be able to blow the competition away. Its not easy but with the right minds who are dedicated you can make things work, almost like magic. There is no limit to HP and torque, even with 2010 emissions. We just have to improve the emissions and/or design new emission technologies. Remember SCR and DPF arent the only two things being developed for diesel emissions, they just happen to be the ones that work at the moment.

Oh and one mor ething: Scania just introduced a 730 HP 16.4 liter V8. Peak torque is 2580 ftlbs! But one interesting thing of note is they do not offer a manual gear box with the 730.

[kscarbel]

I've submitted what I felt was an interesting question several times to Mack's "Talking SCR", asking why Mack doesn't offer an EPA2010 SCR V8 engine, never get a response. I thought that I'd share it here.

To Mack's "Talking SCR":

When I mentioned my intrigue that Scania planned to reach reaching Euro-6 (extremely close to EPA2010) using ultra high pressure injection in excess of 2400bar with EGR/SCR and a VGT, but without the need of a DPF, you in fairness hesitated to call Scania's Euro-6 developments a success with over 3 years before its commercial launch (Euro-6 begins in 2013). My thoughts were about Scania being able to reach that emissions level without requiring a DPF, amounting to a significant savings in the purchase price of the truck, weight savings and simplification of the truck design.

I learned recently that Scania is currently test running new Euro-6 ready 5 and 6-cylinder inline and V8 engines – heavily modified, but derived from its current Euro-5 models – in Sweden for its recently-launched new R-series trucks.

In addition to testing in engine test bays and endurance rigs – the latter designed to prove compliance with the requirement for 700,000 km (435,000 miles) and 7 years within Euro-6 specifications, pre-production Euro-6 engines are also being used to power some of the company's own Transport Laboratory mixed brand haulage fleet, which tests developments while hauling major truck components from its Södertälje factory in Sweden to the Zwolle production plant in the Netherlands – with tractor units racking up 340,000km (211,000 miles) per year.

For Euro-6, Scania has employed several major enhancements. For example, unlike the current Euro-5 V8, which uses SCR alone to control engine-out NOx, the new Euro-6 engine uses a combination of SCR, EGR and a closed diesel particulate filter to meet the stringent Euro-6 PM requirements.

It also features a single variable geometry turbocharger and XPI (high pressure, digitally-controlled, multiple injection common rail fuel injection jointly developed by Scania and Cummins).

Scania's Euro-6 V8 also takes advantage of technology developed for the new 730hp Euro-5 SCR V8. For example, cylinder combustion pressures have been raised from 165bar on the earlier 15.6-liter V8 to 200bar on the new 16.4-liter engine – necessitating a change to compacted graphite iron in the cylinder block.

Also, the XPI technology now takes injection pressures up to 2,400bar, and Scania has developed multiple variations for its injection profiles, based on an HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition).

With Scania's apparent success in reaching Euro-6 with 6-cylinder inline and V8 engines, I'd very much like to know why Mack doesn't offer a ClearTech SCR-equipped EPA2010 V-8 engine? Mack Truck's legendary V-8 powerplants have been a long-time signature Mack product. Wouldn't an SCR/EGR/particulate filter combination (or SCR/EGR/DPF) combination) allow Mack to offer an EPA2010 V-8 engine?

I'm a Mack man thru-and-thru, but given the positive experience I had with Scania-powered Mack R-487Ps, I've kept an eye on Scania, who recently launched a new V8 range with 500, 560, 620 and 730 horsepower ratings, with max. torque up to 2,581 ft.lb (3,500 N.m), that are designed to meet Euro-6 EEV standards (enhanced environmentally-friendly vehicle), which is very close to EPA2010. S

Scania's V-8 developments catch my attention because Mack Truck's legendary E-9 V-8 had a very loyal customer following (actually still has), not unlike Scania's 16.4-liter V-8, Mercedes-Benz's 15.9-liter V-8 and MAN's 16.2-liter V-8 engines sold today. Although the V-8 might be called a niche market, Scania, Benz and MAN have continued to profitably meet customer demand for V-8 powertrains while also meeting evolving emissions standards. Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-6 and I'm confident that Benz and MAN will as well.

Why doesn't Mack take advantage of its decades of V-8 engineering expertise and introduce a "pedigreed" Mack-designed EPA-2010 V-8 engine? If stricter EPA emissions standards indeed killed Mack's E-9 V-8, how have Scania, Benz and MAN been continually able to upgrade their V-8 engines to meet tightening emissions standards?

I'm extremely confident that Mack customer demand for a pedigreed V-8 powerplant both in the North American market and Australia would be very favorable. In the U.S. market, Mack would be the envy of the competition, having the market all to themselves.

[rhasler]

I've submitted what I felt was an interesting question several times to Mack's "Talking SCR", asking why Mack doesn't offer an EPA2010 SCR V8 engine, never get a response. I thought that I'd share it here.

To Mack's "Talking SCR":

When I mentioned my intrigue that Scania planned to reach reaching Euro-6 (extremely close to EPA2010) using ultra high pressure injection in excess of 2400bar with EGR/SCR and a VGT, but without the need of a DPF, you in fairness hesitated to call Scania's Euro-6 developments a success with over 3 years before its commercial launch (Euro-6 begins in 2013). My thoughts were about Scania being able to reach that emissions level without requiring a DPF, amounting to a significant savings in the purchase price of the truck, weight savings and simplification of the truck design.

I learned recently that Scania is currently test running new Euro-6 ready 5 and 6-cylinder inline and V8 engines – heavily modified, but derived from its current Euro-5 models – in Sweden for its recently-launched new R-series trucks.

In addition to testing in engine test bays and endurance rigs – the latter designed to prove compliance with the requirement for 700,000 km (435,000 miles) and 7 years within Euro-6 specifications, pre-production Euro-6 engines are also being used to power some of the company's own Transport Laboratory mixed brand haulage fleet, which tests developments while hauling major truck components from its Södertälje factory in Sweden to the Zwolle production plant in the Netherlands – with tractor units racking up 340,000km (211,000 miles) per year.

For Euro-6, Scania has employed several major enhancements. For example, unlike the current Euro-5 V8, which uses SCR alone to control engine-out NOx, the new Euro-6 engine uses a combination of SCR, EGR and a closed diesel particulate filter to meet the stringent Euro-6 PM requirements.

It also features a single variable geometry turbocharger and XPI (high pressure, digitally-controlled, multiple injection common rail fuel injection jointly developed by Scania and Cummins).

Scania's Euro-6 V8 also takes advantage of technology developed for the new 730hp Euro-5 SCR V8. For example, cylinder combustion pressures have been raised from 165bar on the earlier 15.6-liter V8 to 200bar on the new 16.4-liter engine – necessitating a change to compacted graphite iron in the cylinder block.

Also, the XPI technology now takes injection pressures up to 2,400bar, and Scania has developed multiple variations for its injection profiles, based on an HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition).

With Scania's apparent success in reaching Euro-6 with 6-cylinder inline and V8 engines, I'd very much like to know why Mack doesn't offer a ClearTech SCR-equipped EPA2010 V-8 engine? Mack Truck's legendary V-8 powerplants have been a long-time signature Mack product. Wouldn't an SCR/EGR/particulate filter combination (or SCR/EGR/DPF) combination) allow Mack to offer an EPA2010 V-8 engine?

I'm a Mack man thru-and-thru, but given the positive experience I had with Scania-powered Mack R-487Ps, I've kept an eye on Scania, who recently launched a new V8 range with 500, 560, 620 and 730 horsepower ratings, with max. torque up to 2,581 ft.lb (3,500 N.m), that are designed to meet Euro-6 EEV standards (enhanced environmentally-friendly vehicle), which is very close to EPA2010. S

Scania's V-8 developments catch my attention because Mack Truck's legendary E-9 V-8 had a very loyal customer following (actually still has), not unlike Scania's 16.4-liter V-8, Mercedes-Benz's 15.9-liter V-8 and MAN's 16.2-liter V-8 engines sold today. Although the V-8 might be called a niche market, Scania, Benz and MAN have continued to profitably meet customer demand for V-8 powertrains while also meeting evolving emissions standards. Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-6 and I'm confident that Benz and MAN will as well.

Why doesn't Mack take advantage of its decades of V-8 engineering expertise and introduce a "pedigreed" Mack-designed EPA-2010 V-8 engine? If stricter EPA emissions standards indeed killed Mack's E-9 V-8, how have Scania, Benz and MAN been continually able to upgrade their V-8 engines to meet tightening emissions standards?

I'm extremely confident that Mack customer demand for a pedigreed V-8 powerplant both in the North American market and Australia would be very favorable. In the U.S. market, Mack would be the envy of the competition, having the market all to themselves.

Maybe they're afraid it would make too much sense to own a whole market segment.

[ducky698]

Maybe they're afraid it would make too much sense to own a whole market segment.

Hi, well i just got a glove box lid for my R model and the part number has been changed to a VO I bet they will can all parts for mack older models when they legaly can and slowly shut the trucks down to try push people to the volvo. Mack made a big mistake going to them.

Grant

[Svin]

Benz and MAN have continued to profitably meet customer demand for V-8 powertrains while also meeting evolving emissions standards. Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-6 and I'm confident that Benz and MAN will as well.

Why doesn't Mack take advantage of its decades of V-8 engineering expertise and introduce a "pedigreed" Mack-designed EPA-2010 V-8 engine? If stricter EPA emissions standards indeed killed Mack's E-9 V-8, how have Scania, Benz and MAN been continually able to upgrade their V-8 engines to meet tightening emissions standards?

Scania's new V-8 reaches Euro-5 and not euro-6 on this moment.

Mercedes euro-6 engines (next year) are only six in line (DD world engine) just like Volvo.

Greets Svin.

[41chevy]

On 2/7/2007 at 2:33 AM, GearheadGrrrl said:

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Volvo is making a fatal error if they turn Mack into a "badge engineered" Volvo.

When they sold of the car division, Volvo pretty much lost control of the Volvo brand. Granted, Volvo has a long and honorable history, attested to by those 2,000,000+ mile 1960s Volvo cars still running around. But when people think of Mack today they think of the boxy badge engineered Fords, VWs, and Mitsubushi that Ford is now pimping off. Given a chance, and pretty likely given their current financial state, Volvo cars will end up being another Mercury division. That's not the kind of brand you want on a premium truck.

Mack is a billion dollar brand. Literally, they could quit building trucks entirely and make billions just peddling Mack clothing, etc.. Heck, they could end of looking like a Harley dealership. The Mack brand has worldwide equity that the Volvo brand can't match, and Volvo controls the Mack brand. Thusly trying to build up the Volvo brand is a lost cause, and Volvo management should let Volvo trucks be cheap and cheerful mass produced integral sleepers and day cabs that do battle in the price wars with International, Sterling, and Freightliner. Heck, maybe they should even rename it White, the standard color of big fleets that buy on low bid and specify white paint so they only have to change the decals after their next Wall Street merger/acquistition/divestiture.

Mack should be a premium truck in every sense of the word, built to be the best and never built down to a price. Mack should have a full model line, including over the road trucks as well as conventionals and cabovers. In every measure, Mack should put Kenworthless, Peterbull, and Wasted Star to shame. Macks should be custom built to the customer's taste, not the fantasies of some Swedish engineers. And should push come to shove, the Volvo brand should disappear and Mack survive.

My partner and I have been rebuilding and upgrading our older Macks and purchasing purebreds rather than Volvo / Macks. Gabrielli Mack/Volvo/Peterbilt on Long Island rarely has any Volvos on its lot....that says a lot. As for the Volvo name......Ford recently sold Volvo cars to Geely which is a Chinese based corp.for $200 mil, The association with the Volvo auto and the Chinese (whether associated truck/ heavy equipment or not) can't help. Papa always said "It's a long way to Sweden if it's a part you'll be needin"

[BakerSmith]

Looking to increase its brand identity with the American public and augment a now-small revenue stream. As of March, Ward's Automotive reported Volvo had 8.6 percent of the North American Class 8 market. That's down from a historic high of 15.4 percent in January 2008. For 2009, Volvo Trucks North America had retail sales of 7,066 trucks, representing 7.5 percent of the Class 8 market. Volvo's Class 8 market share has hovered around 10 percent. so my opinion is Volvo is good for Mack trucks.

[Gr8oldies]

This is strictly my observation. I'm seeing a few of the heavy haulers here in Michigan going back to Mack ,case in point: There is a gravel hauling outfit here locally that pulls the Michigan "Gravel trains" grossing right at 150,000 pounds per load and I was talking to one of the owners a while back and he told me when his dad started the company in the late 50's all they owned were Macks and they ran Macks up until Renault bought em out . According to him Renault seem to focus on low profile OTR trucks and seem lag behind in the heavy haul sector at that time they switched to Kenworth but now that Volvo has taken over that has seemed to change they just purchased two Titan's and are very pleased with them, He even went to Allentown and watched them being built. They just ordered two more and to put it in his words "Mack Is Back" So it could be a good thing although I agree with a lot of the posts here I hope they keep it all Mack instead of making it some kind of a Hybrid truck. Personally I'm a brand loyal person I'll probably always stick with em .

Edited August 31, 2010 by Gr8oldies

[greendog32]

Cross off one more Mack customer. I have a 09 GU713 and its been nothing but trouble. Replaced more on this truck already then I did on my 1999 the entire time i had it. Mack doesn't want to stand behind anything. Just had it to dealer where it sat for 3 days before they even looked at it. Then they say they clipped a zip tie off the wiring harness for the trans to fix it. Didnt put a new harness on "because I'd have to buy that". But if it happens again, crawl under and shake the wires and it should be fixed. Now, this harness has never been touched since the factory. Truck doesn't even have 50,000 miles on it and this wasn't covered by warranty. Cost me $480.00 to have them cut a zip tie after it sat for 3 days. Needless the say, I wont be dealing with Mack anymore or this dealer whom i have been buying everything from (tires,fuel,parts even my pickup trucks). So count this ex-Mack fan as a bad for Mack trucks, because I think they already ruined the name.

[snorky36]

I just bought a 2011 Granite to be built in September. I was down to Mack or Kenworth becouse of the motors Paccar vs Volvo, cab size , frame, front axle to back of cab, and empty weight.

The mack wrenches were much more informative about their motors and able to answer any questions I had about the DEF

Mack has added 4 in. to the back of the cab and changed the door hinges so they will last and are easy to service. the cab is also quieter then my t800 Kenworth with the sound package

The frame is 1/3 stronger then Kw

I was able to keep the wheelbase 10 in shorter on the Mack

The empty weight was the same.

This truck is going to be used as a 6 axle logging truck in Wisconsin at 98000lb and Michigan at 104000lb to 110000lb. Michigan allows 1000 lb axle tolerance.

I chose the Mack Granite SBA because Ill be able to axle out in Mich and utilize the tolerance

[B61TENDT711]

I'm guessing by the date this was started the buy out was way back in 2007 and thsi tread made it right up to 8/2010 so i'm guessing there was lots to be said ? . . . Mack is entering 2011, so that's 4 model years so far with volvo and they are still around . . .

Can i ask what might be a stupid question ? . . . why did Mack sell out ?

Mike

[rhasler]

Can i ask what might be a stupid question ? . . . why did Mack sell out ?

Mike

Back in the 1980's Renault obtained majority stock ownership in Mack Trucks, which it allowed to operate semi-autonomously. In 2000, Renault was purchased by volvo, which effectively gave volvo ownership of Mack.

[rhasler]

I'm guessing by the date this was started the buy out was way back in 2007 and thsi tread made it right up to 8/2010 so i'm guessing there was lots to be said ? . . . Mack is entering 2011, so that's 4 model years so far with volvo and they are still around . . .

Mike

I've noticed that this thread seems to pop up by itself every now and then.

[B61TENDT711]

thanks

Mike

[mackdaddy1911a1]

rhasler..It keeps popping up because we the customer do not like to be lied to. We the customer want REAL MACK TRUCKS not a generic pile of scrap. I have been to a few dealers in 2010 and after every visit Mack sends me a survey to fill out about customer satisfaction. I fill it out and I tell the truth. If the dealer put the screws to me I tell'em, if the dealer took care of my problem and do so in a timely manner I tell'em. Because I own an 01 Vision I don't have warranty issues so I can not attest to that but some dealers do a great job and some suck. I went to a dealer out in Kansas for an oil change and they didn't have Mack filters and didn't have ALL the required filters. I let MACK know..but I also told them that the service department at the dealer bent over backwards to find the correct filter...however they had no luck so I had to pick one up and install it later. If they will Listen to the customer about our needs and wants and Honor their commitments with warranty issues Mack will survive and thrive, But the use of JUNK PARTS gonna lose alot of life long customers. Mack to me and most other MACK customers defines quality....volvo does not.

[David]

I've noticed that this thread seems to pop up by itself every now and then.

Maybe it pops up whenever someone votes.

[Rob]

There really seems to be no reason. I've seen several threads come from nowhere as fresh posts several times since the server was changed a couple of years ago.

Rob

[Mackpro]

Back in the 1980's Renault obtained majority stock ownership in Mack Trucks, which it allowed to operate semi-autonomously. In 2000, Renault was purchased by volvo, which effectively gave volvo ownership of Mack.

Speaking of Renault, I heard that Volvo is painting the MP engine black and putting it in Renault trucks. My boss man was at some Mack/Volvo meeting and saw the same enine painted red, green and black for all 3 truck Brands.