Mack vs. Volvo 11, 13, 16 L

[mackdaddy]

I have always thought that it was too bad that CAT didn't take over Mack.

[kscarbel]

ive said this 1000 times . mack is better now than it was 10 yrs ago hands down. the mp series engines are the best engines avasilable today. cummins is having tons of problems and so is volvo and international. lets see who would rather have a ac 460p mack engine or a mp8 505 hp. its not even close. its been 12 yrs since volvo took over mack . gmc white and autocar all were eaten by volvo. mack still remains. volvo even lets mack have the most powerful trucks .

My friend, let's be clear once and for all. Mack Trucks no longer exists. The legendary company was acquired by Volvo Group on January 2, 2001. The brand "Mack" is marketed by Volvo Trucks North America. Sadly, Mack is little more than a nameplate now.

It's no different than the Cub Cadet product by MTD sold at Home Depot. It's not the Cub Cadet product produced by International Harvester. MTD is marketing a once respected nameplate for as long as it works.

In our great country, in which trucking, industrial might and design innovation figure so prominently in our history, it is unbelievable that the majority of trucks on the roads of America today are produced by the Germans and Swedes.

It is utterly humiliating that America no longer has the ability to compete and lead in our own domestic truck market.

We could save our carmakers despite their self-inflicted woes, but we couldn't save the most prominent and respected truckmaker in American history?

If you feel Volvo engines (rebadged as Mack MPs) are the best available today, that's great. I'm glad you're getting good service from them. I agree with you that Volvo engines are solid performers. DAF, Iveco, MAN and Scania engines are as well.

But arguably the most advanced and impressive truck engines right now are the Mercedes-Benz OM470 (DD11), OM471 (DD13), OM472 (DD15) and OM473 (DD16).

I think Cummins gets a bad rap whenever they have an issue, simply because Cummins has such a broad market share. Cummins remains a respected American engine manufacturer with an incredibly diverse product range.

Navistar's Maxxforce 11 (MAN D20) and Maxxforce 13 (MAN D26) should perform superbly now with SCR at EPA2010. MAN used Massive EGR to meet Euro-5 without any issues, but never intended these engines to run Massive EGR at Euro-6 (the near equivalent of EPA2010). MAN switched to SCR to meet Euro-6. Navistar was basically trying to do the impossible.

[Red Horse]

My friend, let's be clear once and for all. Mack Trucks no longer exists. The legendary company was acquired by Volvo Group on January 2, 2001. The brand "Mack" is marketed by Volvo Trucks North America. Sadly, Mack is little more than a nameplate now.

It's no different than the Cub Cadet product by MTD sold at Home Depot. It's not the Cub Cadet product produced by International Harvester. MTD is marketing a once respected nameplate for as long as it works.

In our great country, in which trucking, industrial might and design innovation figure so prominently in our history, it is unbelievable that the majority of trucks on the roads of America today are produced by the Germans and Swedes.

It is utterly humiliating that America no longer has the ability to compete and lead in our own domestic truck market.

We could save our carmakers despite their self-inflicted woes, but we couldn't save the most prominent and respected truckmaker in American history?

If you feel Volvo engines (rebadged as Mack MPs) are the best available today, that's great. I'm glad you're getting good service from them. I agree with you that Volvo engines are solid performers. DAF, Iveco, MAN and Scania engines are as well.

But arguably the most advanced and impressive truck engines right now are the Mercedes-Benz OM470 (DD11), OM471 (DD13), OM472 (DD15) and OM473 (DD16).

I think Cummins gets a bad rap whenever they have an issue, simply because Cummins has such a broad market share. Cummins remains a respected American engine manufacturer with an incredibly diverse product range.

Navistar's Maxxforce 11 (MAN D20) and Maxxforce 13 (MAN D26) should perform superbly now with SCR at EPA2010. MAN used Massive EGR to meet Euro-5 without any issues, but never intended these engines to run Massive EGR at Euro-6 (the near equivalent of EPA2010). MAN switched to SCR to meet Euro-6. Navistar was basically trying to do the impossible.

You seem to have a very broad knowledge of the world scene. Off topic but could you answer this. Ford still builds the Cargo, including one that looks very similar to the clss 7 Cargo that was last built at Louisville before they gve the biusiness away to Daimler. But they also build a bigger version-in Brazil and Turkey. The Brazil built truck has an 8.3 Cummins but the Turk built truck has what they call a 9 liter "Duratorque". What or should I say, who builds that? Ford also just announced they would build a new "world" heavy truck combining the Brazilian version and the Turkish version but that it would be bigger rated for 56 tons with a new fuel efficient engine.

Any clue? I have seen videos of the Turk trucks and they are heavy looking cab overs. In some footage they show quad axles with what look like 15/18 yard dump bodies. in very severe service-can't imagine the road network in that part of the world is hardly "Interstate" spec. Wonder if any of those components could end up in US Fords when Bluediamond is dissolved and class6/7 and maybe baby 8 goes to Ohio.

[BC Mack]

Not sure if this is mentioned in Volvo US history but they did make an attempt to enter the US market in the early 60's with their prototype "Tip Top" but it was no match for the market.... similar looks to the Crackerbox?? only 240hp...

They quickly dropped any aspirations and concentrated on the EU and UK markets and the Tip Top evolved into the very successful F88, the lineage still seen in the current F16.

BC Mack

[kscarbel]

After building heavy trucks for 40 years, I was disappointed to see Ford sell its heavy truck division to Freightliner in 1997.

Freightliner (Daimler) purchased Ford's technology, tooling, and assembly equipment for the all-new "Louisville" and "AeroMax" models (known as the HN80 series) for an estimated US$200 million. Daimler picked up the enormous investment Ford had in the HN80 program at a bargain price (Ford is said to have invested US$500 million).

Combining Freightliner and Ford’s heavy truck unit gave Daimler nearly 40% of the US truck market.

The real irony here is from the HN80’s introduction in 1996 until production ended in Louisville in December 1997, Ford saw strong heavy truck sales.

After Ford agreed to sell its truck unit to Freightliner, though being a lame duck, Ford's heavy truck unit with the cutting edge new HN80 showed it still packed some punch. Although Ford had a modest 9% market share in 1996, the HN80 allowed Ford dealers to rally in the first quarter of 1997.

Ford sold 3,777 Class 8 trucks in the first 3 months of 1997, up 8.2% over the first quarter a year before. Ford sales rose 50.2 percent in March 1997, compared to the same month a year before.

Overall, 1997 first quarter Class 8 sales of 39,102 trucks were off 5.7% from the previous year. But Ford's 1997 first quarter Class 8 market share rose to 9.7%, placing Ford ahead of Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp. which held a 9.1%. Peterbilt was the only other truckmaker that saw first-quarter sales rise.


By the way, all the Ford Transit Connect vans being sold here now (the smaller Transit van) are imported from Ford Otosan (they’re imported with rear seats to evade the high truck import tax, then the seats are removed and shipped back to Turkey)


The “Ecotorq” engine range in the Ford Otosan Cargo consists of four engines. They’ve been producing a Ford 7.3 liter 260hp powerplant (24-valve in-line 6-cylinder – not a Powerstroke) since 2003 (called the 7300 Series from 2003, and 7400 Series from 2008 with the introduction of a CGI cylinder block and head.).

The Ford Otosan 9.0 liter 9400 Series Ecotorq is a mysterious engine. Though claimed to be a proprietary design, it has the exact 8.974 liter displacement as the Cummins ISL. The Ecotorq's bore/stroke at 115x144 is nearly the same as the ISL at 114x144.5. But while the ISL has replaceable wet liners, the Ecotorq has a parent bore (sleeveless) design like an ISB and a compacted graphite iron (CGI) cylinder block and head. This engine has been offered from 2008 rated at 320, 360 and 380 horsepower (380hp is asking too much of a 9-liter engine aside from fire and emergency vehicle applications). It appears Ford designed this engine in cooperation with Cummins based on the ISL, but taking advantage of CGI technology. Recalling Ford Truck in the U.S. and Europe, and Ford Truck Brazil today, Cummins has a long-time relationship with Ford. The arrangement may be no different than the Cummins V6 (VAL) and V8 (VALE) engines that were rebadged as Chrysler engines for European market Dodge heavy trucks.

The engine sizes have Bosch electronically controlled common rail. With SCR, they can reach Euro 5 (roughly EPA2007).

Ford Brazil and Ford Otosan (Turkey) seemed to be following different paths for many years. Now there’s an effort within Ford for the two units to work more closely together. Ford Otosan has been pushing Ford corporate for funding, and convinced Bill Ford in 2011 to allow them to take the lead in Ford commercial truck production and become responsible for global sales (Ford Otosan wants to grow with more int’l sales). Now, Ford Otosan is responsible for developing models for all world markets. They’ll share R&D efforts with Ford Brazil but Ford Otosan is in charge.

All the talk about Ford Otosan’s “all new” Cargo left me with high expectations. However it’s just a tweaked version of the same old cab, and the front fascia is not very appealing. The front end appearance of Brazil’s current Cargo is also strange.

The new-for-2012 premium 1846T 4x2 tractor gets a 10.3 liter VGT-equipped 460hp engine with 1,549 ft-lb. of torque. A 322hp engine brake can be paired with a ZF retarder attached to a ZF 16S2220 manual overdrive or 12AS2130 direct drive AMT. Ford’s not saying but this is the Iveco “Cursor 10”. It’s a good engine if you’re not overloading.

It has a 7100kg (15,653lb) front axle and Meritor 11,500kg (25,353lb) rear axle, and a 40,000 (88,185lb) GCW.

To me, without a modern full-width 2300mm cab, the Cargo still isn’t ready for Europe and most global markets.

Here are a few pictures to show others what we're discussing. Thru 2012 at least, the grilles differed between the Ford Otosan Cargos (Turkey) and those produced at Ford Brazil.

[kscarbel]

Not sure if this is mentioned in Volvo US history but they did make an attempt to enter the US market in the early 60's with their prototype "Tip Top" but it was no match for the market.... similar looks to the Crackerbox?? only 240hp...

They quickly dropped any aspirations and concentrated on the EU and UK markets and the Tip Top evolved into the very successful F88, the lineage still seen in the current F16.

BC Mack

In every case from the L4951 Titan Tiptop (pictured) to the conventional Titan to the F86US and the N10US, Volvo consistently demonstrated that they didn't understand the US market. The character flaw at Volvo is they don't like to take advice.

[mackniac]

I have always thought that it was too bad that CAT didn't take over Mack.

eurk , this would have been worst , the truck they make today is not even a Cat at all . my opinion .

[Mackpro]

Does anyone else get tired of the whining and boo-hooing about Volvo/Mack? It might not be the greatest deal that could have been dealt but here were are. Mack is still selling trucks and our dealership sold more new Macks last year than in a long time. We dont all live in the 70's and watch "B.J. and the Bear". However if your gonna bitch this is a good place for it.

[Red Horse]

eurk , this would have been worst , the truck they make today is not even a Cat at all . my opinion .

I agree. With all the bad press they took with their last 3406 highway engines, can't believe they had the nerve to do it. Then again, you could spray paint a pile of horse---- Cat yellow snd a lasrge number of people would say...."that is the best horse---- I ever saw!

How would you like to be a Navistar dealer? Just what they needed- something else to cut into their heavy vocational sales-their csb with Cat logos.

[Red Horse]

After building heavy trucks for 40 years, I was disappointed to see Ford sell its heavy truck division to Freightliner in 1997.

Freightliner (Daimler) purchased Ford's technology, tooling, and assembly equipment for the all-new "Louisville" and "AeroMax" models (known as the HN80 series) for an estimated US$200 million. Daimler picked up the enormous investment Ford had in the HN80 program at a bargain price (Ford is said to have invested US$500 million).

Combining Freightliner and Ford’s heavy truck unit gave Daimler nearly 40% of the US truck market.

The real irony here is from the HN80’s introduction in 1996 until production ended in Louisville in December 1997, Ford saw strong heavy truck sales.

After Ford agreed to sell its truck unit to Freightliner, though being a lame duck, Ford's heavy truck unit with the cutting edge new HN80 showed it still packed some punch. Although Ford had a modest 9% market share in 1996, the HN80 allowed Ford dealers to rally in the first quarter of 1997.

Ford sold 3,777 Class 8 trucks in the first 3 months of 1997, up 8.2% over the first quarter a year before. Ford sales rose 50.2 percent in March 1997, compared to the same month a year before.

Overall, 1997 first quarter Class 8 sales of 39,102 trucks were off 5.7% from the previous year. But Ford's 1997 first quarter Class 8 market share rose to 9.7%, placing Ford ahead of Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp. which held a 9.1%. Peterbilt was the only other truckmaker that saw first-quarter sales rise.

By the way, all the Ford Transit Connect vans being sold here now (the smaller Transit van) are imported from Ford Otosan (they’re imported with rear seats to evade the high truck import tax, then the seats are removed and shipped back to Turkey)

The “Ecotorq” engine range in the Ford Otosan Cargo consists of three engines. They’ve been producing a Ford 7.3 liter 260hp powerplant (24-valve in-line 6-cylinder – not a Powerstroke) since 2003.

The Cummins ISL has been offered from 2008 (Ford calls it a 9 liter Ecotorq) rated at 320, 360 and 380 horsepower (380hp is asking too much of a 9-liter engine outside of fire and emergency vehicle applications).

The engine sizes have Bosch electronically controlled common rail. With SCR, they can reach Euro 5 (roughly EPA2007).

Ford Brazil and Ford Otosan (Turkey) seemed to be following different paths for many years. Now there’s an effort within Ford for the two units to work more closely together. Ford Otosan has been pushing Ford corporate for funding, and convinced Bill Ford in 2011 to allow them to take the lead in Ford commercial truck production and become responsible for global sales (Ford Otosan wants to grow with more int’l sales). Now, Ford Otosan is responsible for developing models for all world markets. They’ll share R&D efforts with Ford Brazil but Ford Otosan is in charge.

All the talk about Ford Otosan’s “all new” Cargo left me with high expectations. However it’s just a tweaked version of the same old cab, and the front fascia is not very appealing. The front end appearance of Brazil’s current Cargo is also strange.

The new-for-2012 premium 1846T 4x2 tractor gets a 10.3 liter VGT-equipped 460hp engine with 1,549 ft-lb. of torque. A 322hp engine brake can be paired with a ZF retarder attached to a ZF 16S2220 manual overdrive or 12AS2130 direct drive AMT. Ford’s not saying but this is the Iveco “Cursor 10”. It’s a good engine if you’re not overloading.

It has a 7100kg (15,653lb) front axle and Meritor 11,500kg (25,353lb) rear axle, and a 40,000 (88,185lb) GCW.

To me, without a modern full-width 2300mm cab, the Cargo still isn’t ready for Europe and most global markets.

Thx-great amount of info- I post a lot on the Blueoval website and there are a couple of other "heavy truck" guys as well But no one seems to have a clue as to where it is all going.

Bought my share of Louisvilles in the old days-as well as Macks- the Fords were in my book great value. Did the arm rests fall off?

Yes. did the frames break? Never!

[kscarbel]

Does anyone else get tired of the whining and boo-hooing about Volvo/Mack? It might not be the greatest deal that could have been dealt but here were are. Mack is still selling trucks and our dealership sold more new Macks last year than in a long time. We dont all live in the 70's and watch "B.J. and the Bear". However if your gonna bitch this is a good place for it.

There's no whining here, just constructive dialogue amongst some Americans that are concerned about our country, whose health depends on the strength of our critical business sectors including the American truck industry.

I regret the derision I sense in your post. However you have the freedom to pass over my posts, and any others that don't interest you.

Mack Trucks is not still selling Mack trucks. Volvo Trucks North America is selling Mack-branded trucks which have a Volvo content (by component value) of 50 to 80 percent. And when the US version of the new Volvo global cab arrives, that figure will rise to 70-100 percent. But of course as a dealer, you already know all that.

Speaking of dealers, Volvo Trucks North America is trying to get all the dealers to sign new contracts that would allow Volvo to cancel the dealer in 60 days. Needless to say, there haven't been any takers. The new dealer agreement speaks volumes about how the Swedes do business (and you're sticking up for them?). Most Mack dealers are currently operating under the fair-minded contracts they had signed with Mack Trucks Incorporated (Mack Trucks valued its dealers). Because of dealer protection laws (and thank goodness we have them), Volvo can't force the dealers to rip up their grandfathered Mack contracts and sign the new outrageous Volvo Trucks North America dealer contract.

[james j neiweem]

As has been said volvos and Macks share many common parts. With that in mind I see very few fleets that use both volvos and Macks. You would think there would be more of them. I remember in a Bulldog magazine they featured Duie Pyle and were hoping for a long relationship in the future. Ever since that article Duie has gone freightliner and volvo. Volvo must have pulled the rug out from under Mack in this instance. I see a few big fleets that have newer volvos will have Macks but they are usually second hand CH 600's (yellow/New Penn for instance)

[Chadro]

I don't think Volvo will ever kill off Mack but they may sell them which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Best case scenario is Mack falls back into American hands while the worse case is that a Chinese company buys them.

[GearheadGrrrl]

A lot of the problem is that most American investors expect immediate profits and won't invest for the long term like the European and Japanese do. Thus with no American investors willing to buy White, Mack, and Freightliner in the 1980s recession Daimler and Volvo, and Renault were able to buy up half the American truck builders.

[nops]

Maybe I'm a glass half full guy, but I think Volvo really does know and respect Mack to a certain extent. I mean here we are some 12 years into this and Mack is still here. A guy can still spec a "Mack" truck that has a Mack hood, cab, interior, transmission, axles, and a motor tuned and programmed by Mack engineers. No one in this global economy can go it alone anymore and this marriage has gone better than many others. In fact, if Volvo owning Mack "is a crime" than what GM did to Saab should be considered man-slaughter! Remember the "Trollblazer"? Simply a re-badged Trailblazer for the SUV shopping Saab faithful. No wonder Saab is dead!

Could Mack have been better without Volvo? Who knows? Maybe, but it could also have been worse than it is now, a lot worse.

A lot of the 'old Mack' engineers are still there teaching the youngins what it means to produce a Mack engine to be proud of.

[2stacksuperdog]

A lot of the 'old Mack' engineers are still there teaching the youngins what it means to produce a Mack engine to be proud of.

It is still nothing like the good old mechanicals.

[farmer52]

A lot of the 'old Mack' engineers are still there teaching the youngins what it means to produce a Mack engine to be proud of.

But they are likely being "told" what to do by upper management. Then there is David McK...he will keep them on the straight and narrow.

[staxx]

So when is this global cab suppose to arrive or be put into production how about a pic?

[mack mhe9]

i ask with out trying to sound like im bashing mack, if they are the greatest why couldnt they stand alone? after the R cab was gone along with the v8 what were your opptions for big power? 728 cubic inches and not the greatest design, who ever thought that running the injecter lines on top of the exhaust manifold was a good idea? the nice dashes in the the CH cab with no vents were a big hit, i love the old mack pre 1992-93 ish, just there gone, and as much i dont like that it all volvo at least i can still buy a truck with the MACK name on it, just my opp.

[jzack]

I love my 94 CH w/E-7. Has 992,000mi and still running with the original motor, including the turbo and injectors. Still gets 6-7 MPG too. The motors built today would have a real hard time matching that kind of reliability/longevity. Where's the progress?

[daveigou]

Even if Mack were a "stand alone" company, who knows what it would look like today. We only assume it would look like the "old" Mack. Things change, it's a very different and very competative world out there. There were many years Mack owned over 50% of the heavy truck market. Look what happened - who's fault was that? Can't blame that on Volvo.

[jzack]

Even if Mack were a "stand alone" company, who knows what it would look like today. We only assume it would look like the "old" Mack. Things change, it's a very different and very competative world out there. There were many years Mack owned over 50% of the heavy truck market. Look what happened - who's fault was that? Can't blame that on Volvo.

I agree. You can't blame Volvo for tougher EPA regulations or the more competitive global market either. Both of which played a part IMO. Mack's management probably could have done better.

[farmer52]

Even if Mack were a "stand alone" company, who knows what it would look like today. We only assume it would look like the "old" Mack. Things change, it's a very different and very competative world out there. There were many years Mack owned over 50% of the heavy truck market. Look what happened - who's fault was that? Can't blame that on Volvo.

David - true words. I previously mentioned that a good friend of mine works at Hagerstown Powetrain and told me they did not have enough money to develop a new engine (prior to V). Hence they "bandaided" the E7 with EGR, etc. Not the most popular and reliable engine. When I worked at Mack in the mid-80s they were on their "last leg" then. I took some pics of new company Superliners in 1986 and everyone kiddingly said, "these will be the last Macks". Glad we were all wrong. Also, the MH was the best COE truck made but it was also the MOST expensive. The MH was not price competitive at the time. Too bad we can't turn back the hands of time and do things differently.

Do I like what is happening today to the USA and home grown companies and products?...NO! I just hope the MACK brand and integrity survives.

P.S. And I hope they continue to support the legacy iron.

[41180]

how i feel is mack made tons of mistakes in the late 80s and 90s. first was when thney made the e7 it should have been atleast 800 cubic inches . maybe 850. the 728 was good up until the mid to late 90s when cat and cummins powered trucks with 475 thru 550 hp became common . mack was stuck with 427 and 460 and weak engine brakes . then they discontinued the superliner and replaced it with the cl wich looked just like a ch setback axle with a longer hood. no chrome and polished aluminum grill surround no setforward axle. it was just stupidity. then they wouldnt modernize the v8 and just stopped making it and started putting cummins isx motors in the cl. they stopped making the rd800 and didnt make a ch cab based truck replacement for it so they handed western star and kenworth more sales. all of these things happened pre volvo.

[bts-4120]

E-7 is basically a stroked E6 with wet style liners. that should tell you they didn't have the sales volume or cash to start casting a bigger inline 6 block back in the late 80's . I agree with above poster LTL Ford had on heck of a frame but i dare say sorriest cab and ride, we maybe freight shaker had as worse cab but not by much