Mack vs. Volvo 11, 13, 16 L

[farmer52]

Mack was working on a 6 cylinder version of the E9. There is a prototype on display at the museum.

[2stacksuperdog]

My question is why the need for all this big horsepower? You get to the top of a hill doing 80mph and then you cant stop the truck. The brakes are not any bigger than they were 40yrs ago so next thing you know your going down an hill and cant stop and you kill someone then what.

[slpwlker]

My question is why the need for all this big horsepower? You get to the top of a hill doing 80mph and then you cant stop the truck. The brakes are not any bigger than they were 40yrs ago so next thing you know your going down an hill and cant stop and you kill someone then what.

With great power comes great responsibility. Nice to get up the mountain quicker. You burn less fuel with the bigger engines as they do not work as hard. Braking well that falls under the catergory of responsibility

[daveigou]

I agree we used to do alot more with alot less. (it just took longer) The new engines also have much better retarding horsepower, with many the retarding horsepower is nearly the same as pulling horsepower. I remember when Cummins came out with the Signaure 600, they advertised 600 hp to go, 600 hp to slow. Size does matter, even downhill!!

The old rule that you go down the hill in the same gear you go up still has merit.

[2stacksuperdog]

I can see if you pull a lowbed all the time at most 450-500 but if in a tri-axle all you need is 400 because you really cant stop those anyway

[mack mhe9]

i understand going up and down hills, and to me my job and my trucks job is to do it a fast and as efficient as posable, and a truck's a tool and i want the best, just like any other tool for a job do you buy snap-on or a hong kong wrench. just went across I-68 at 80,000 with an e-7 400 and it did the job but i was alot more refreshed when i did it with a hot e9,

[kscarbel]

Our government saw fit to save Chrysler twice, and GM, on the grounds that these carmakers were too important to America to fail. It was an arguable point. Our government should have taken that thought process one step further and orchestrated some form of "assistance", to prevent Mack from falling into foreign ownership.

Yes, the E6 4VH with a mechanical AMBAC (American Bosch) pump was a superb and reliable engine. The E6 went metric with the E7. Then Mack joined all the other U.S. and global truck engine makers in adding EGR to meet the next round of higher emissions requirements. The result was average at best. Yes, the Mack engine sunk in stature at that moment. But is it fair to compare the Volvo engine of today to that Mack EGR engine of yesterday? Of course not. And let's be fair and ask ourselves, how many truck and/or engine manufacturers have never missed the mark for a period of time. I can't think of any.

The EGR E7 wasn't the result of a cash shortage. The entire industry was going the EGR route to meet the emissions requirements of that time, and this widely accepted technology solution worked for most.

We can't really mention the Mack 855 cu.in. (14L) "Big 6" because that V-8-based engine concept was way back in 1978-1982.

There was nothing at all wrong with Mack continuing to offer a 728 cu.in. (11.93 liter) engine. The most popular engine sizes today, both in the U.S. and worldwide, are 11 to 13 liters. One could argue the displacement increase from 672 cu.in. (E6) to 728 cu.in. (E7), that is 11.01 liters to 11.93 liters, essentially from 11 to 12 liters, was a logical progression. I certainly think so.

While 11, 13 and 15/16 liters have now become industry standard engine sizes, that future development trend remained an unknown years ago. Again, I can't think of a U.S. or global truck maker that has never stumbled, (i.e. mistakenly forecasted future trends). I would like to have seen Mack continue building an 11-liter engine (672 cu.in.), and also introduce a 13 engine (around 793-795 cu.in.).

Mack could absolutely have developed an EPA2010 compliant E9 V-8 with a combination of SCR and EGR. But Volvo cancelled the V-8 program.

If Mack still offered a V-8, the company would be the envy of the competition, having the U.S. V-8 market all to themselves.And certainly, Mack customer demand for a pedigreed V-8 powerplant both in North America, Australia, New Zealand and other global markets would remain favorable.

For Euro-6 (essentially EPA2010), Benz did cancel their OM502 V-8 in favor of the new OM473 (DD16) inline-6. However, MAN successfully upgraded their 16.2 liter D2868 V-8 to Euro-6 (360-540hp), and Scania also updated their popular 15.6/16.4 liter DC16 V-8 (520-730hp) to Euro-6 spec (a V-8 which has mysterious and interesting connections to the Mack V-8).

Given Mack's long-time relationship with Scania, dating back to 1950, Mack could have begun offering a Scania engine again in the form of the Scania DC16 V-8 to meet the high horsepower customer requirement, while manufacturing its own 11 and 13 liter engines for the high volume segments (another Mack-Scania win-win business arrangement).

In 1925, America had over 300 truckmakers. At the time Mack Trucks was absorbed into Volvo, America had but three major truckmakers - Mack, International and Paccar (Freightliner, Ford and Canada's Western Star had been absorbed by Germany's Daimler).

Mack should have received government support, and in turn a review of the competence of Mack management (rightfully so to the taxpayer, as Chrysler and GM were subjected to). But make no mistake about it, our government should never have allowed another foreign entity to acquire another one of our few remaining truckmakers.

Now as a result, the majority of heavy trucks on America's roads today are produced by foreign companies (from Germany and Sweden). If the United States was a small country with a minimal industrial base, it would be understandable for us to have few if any domestic truckmakers. But, we are the United States of America, a vast country and global pillar. Our ability to carry the torch and lead our country as well as the free world depends on the health of our industrial base and our truck industry.

It was in the best interest of the United States to "keep Mack Trucks American". But let's not forget the dirty pool that Volvo likes to play. Volvo met with Marc Gustafson, Mack’s vice president of sales and marketing from 1992, and convinced him into being nothing less than a traitor for the Volvo cause. Gustafson plotted with the ruthless Swedes at Volvo to conspire against Mack (the Swedes later double-crossed him – traitors usually get what they deserve in the end).

Gustafson abruptly left Mack in 1996 to become CEO of Volvo Trucks of North America. He betrayed Mack and used his privileged insider knowledge against Mack Trucks to help orchestrate Volvo’s takeover. Unlike the thousands of career Mack veterans across America, Gustafson only cared about his own personal advancement. He was no team player.

Note the time period, 1996. This is when Mack lost momentum and direction. At Volvo, Gustafson convinced Volvo Group that with his insider knowledge, he could deliver Mack Trucks into Volvo’s hands.

Renault-appointed Mack President Pierre Jocou responded quickly and took a hard stand against Gustafson’s defection (see news article below). But Volvo then used its relationship with Renault (the result of their merger negotiations) to ease the legal battle against Gustafson. Volvo succeeded in replacing the pro-Mack President Pierre Jocou with the pro-Volvo takeover Mack President Michel Gigou.

This is why Pierre Jocou's tenure as Mack president, which began in March 1995, ended prematurely in November 1996. From December 1996 thru July 2001, Gigou was merely minding store while the Volvo takeover of “the greatest name in trucks” was being negotiated behind closed European doors.

Ironically, after Gustafson used his 4 years at Mack to stab the company in the back, he only lasted 4 years as CEO at Volvo Trucks of North America. And then just one year heading Freightliner subsidiary American LaFrance. Perhaps his inability to be a trustworthy long-term team player caught up with him. If he’d been a 100% committed Mack man in the same way as Zenon C.R. Hansen, rather than a callous individual willing to stab Mack in the back for his Volvo masters, Mack Trucks might very well still be operating today, as they had been under Renault with generous independence.

_____________________________________________________________

Mack Trucks Sues Former Executive, Says Marc Gustafson Took Company Secrets With Him To His New Job.
October 01, 1996 | by ELLIOT GROSSMAN, The Morning Call

Mack Trucks Inc. has sued the new president of rival truck manufacturer, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., accusing him of taking company secrets when he left Mack two weeks ago.

And Mack has won at least a partial victory in Round 1 of the legal battle involving Marc Gustafson, a former Mack executive vice president.

Chief Judge Edward Cahn of the U.S. District Court in Allentown issued a temporary restraining order Friday, forbidding Gustafson from participating in any Volvo sales and marketing activities or from disclosing any Mack sales and marketing information at Volvo.

But Mack wanted Gustafson blocked from working for Volvo -- or any Mack competitors -- for at least a year. Mack also asked for damages to be awarded at a trial.

At a hearing next Tuesday, Cahn will more deeply delve into the case so he can issue a permanent order.

Gustafson served as Mack's executive vice president for sales and marketing for four years until he resigned Sept. 19, effective that day. He then went to work at Volvo GM Heavy Truck headquarters in Greensboro, N.C.

Mack sued him last week in Lehigh County Court. But he asked that the case be heard in federal court, and Mack did not object.

Mack claims that Gustafson is violating his contract with Mack. In the contract, according to Mack, Gustafson promised to not disclose any confidential Mack information outside Mack.

"It would be impossible for him to ignore his knowledge of Mack's business plans as he considers Volvo's business plans and its competitive strategies," according to Mack's lawsuit.

For example, the suit claims, Gustafson has knowledge of Mack secrets about its costs and pricing structures. This information, which Mack uses when bidding on large orders of trucks, is known only to select individuals at Mack.

Since Mack and Volvo often compete for such orders, Volvo will have an unfair advantage, according to Mack.

Also, Gustafson's knowledge about products being developed by Mack will enable Volvo to take steps to respond to Mack's new products before the products are announced publicly, Mack claims.

Before filing the suit, Mack President Pierre Jocou sent a letter to Volvo's chairman, asking him to not employ Gustafson, at least until the two sides resolve Mack's concerns.

[MackMann85]

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

Just curious on the answer to the above. I'm just not seeing it.

Also, the comments on updating the E9 seem off base using simple business logic. When you are selling barely 1-200 of them a year, spending many millions on updating it would be a big money loser, or a massive payback period.

[Svin]

Mack could absolutely have developed an EPA2010 compliant E9 V-8 with a combination of SCR and EGR. But Volvo cancelled the V-8 program.

Yes,off course.why put millions in developments when they have a big banger already.

MAN successfully upgraded their 16.2 liter D2868 V-8 to Euro-6 (360-540hp),

That's a line 6,the V8 680hp euro 5 is no longer available,it will be replaced by a line 6 15,2L(maxxforce or Cat block).

Scania also updated their popular 15.6/16.4 liter DC16 V-8 (520-730hp) to Euro-6 spec (a V-8 which has mysterious and interesting connections to the Mack V-8).

The 15,6L are euro 5 only,the 16,4L is euro 6.Long long time ago there was a connection with Mack,but not with these engines.

Given Mack's long-time relationship with Scania, dating back to 1950, Mack could have begun offering a Scania engine again in the form of the Scania DC16 V-8 to meet the high horsepower customer requirement, while manufacturing its own 11 and 13 liter engines for the high volume segments (another Mack-Scania win-win business arrangement).

So after all,you want a foreign (swedish) engine in a Mack truck..........LOL.

.

I see a lot of mistakes about euro trucks in your post's,your research is not very well.

[kscarbel]

Just curious on the answer to the above. I'm just not seeing it.

Also, the comments on updating the E9 seem off base using simple business logic. When you are selling barely 1-200 of them a year, spending many millions on updating it would be a big money loser, or a massive payback period.

For an idea of the launch date and artist's rendering of the upcoming cab, I suggest you ask Volvo. However, you can view the new Volvo FH (introduced Sept. 2012) and get an idea of the styling direction.

About the upcoming cab, there are two points worth mentioning.

The Volvo-owned tooling for the CH cab at Volvo's cab manufacturer CVG (Commercial Vehicle Group) is in rough shape after 26 years (projected service life was probably 30 years). Volvo hasn't invested any money other than to keep it going day-to-day, because the new cab is on the horizon and the close-to-worn-out CH tooling will suffice for service replacement parts.

Another reason for the new global cab has more to do with the evolving global market requirement, where there's an expectation for "something new" every 3-4 years (not unlike the car industry).

For example, we recently saw most of the European truckmakers basically reintroduce their vocational model ranges, creating a customer perception of a more intensive purpose-designed truck for the construction industry.

Examples include the Volvo FMX, Iveco Trakker Hi-Land, Mercedes-Benz Arocs and Scania off-road construction series. They all have new tough-looking cab aesthetics, complimented by meaningful drivetrain and chassis refinements.

The aging Volvo FM and Renault Premium are likely benefactors of the upcoming global cab. The new DAF XF and Iveco Stralis HI-WAY put additional pressure on Volvo to keep up with the pace.

The new Volvo FH, with its "like it or hate it" front fascia was targeted at the German market, where Volvo hopes to take market share away from Mercedes-Benz and MAN (good luck with that). The extremely tired Renault Magnum will finally be replaced with a derivative of the new Volvo FH.

About the feasibility of E9 V-8 production. Those with vision and sales marketing expertise can understand that the V-8 was a halo product for Mack Trucks (not unlike the Corvette since 1953 for Chevrolet). Does MAN and Scania make money on their V-8 production, much lower in volume than their 11 and 13 liter engines? While they don't make a profit on V-8 production alone, they DO make a profit on overall engine production. And the V-8 gives them a unique halo product. The customer image of high horsepower has always been the V-8, never an inline-6. So, the V-8 is a nice marketing item to have in one's portfolio. We know it was they way for Mack Trucks, and as for MAN and Scania, just ask them while observing their happy grin (Scania truck operators are thrilled with their 730hp V-8s).

I can't agree with your suggestion that Volvo would have to have spent millions on the V-8 specifically. The "many millions" spent on developing the technology to meet EPA2010 (and Euro-6) emissions standards is utilized over the entire engine range. Engine model specific expenses are significantly less.

[kscarbel]

Svin, sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Scania also updated their popular 15.6/16.4 liter DC16 V-8 (520-730hp) to Euro-6" because at Euro-5, the 500, 560 and 620 were 15.6 liters while the 730 showcased the then-new 16.4 liter block. In Euro-6 spec, the Scania DC16 V-8 in 520, 580 and 730 horsepower indeed all share the new 16.4 liter displacement.

The 15.2 liter MAN R6 inline-six was introduced last year as a replacement for the 16.2 liter D28 V-8 for Euro-6 for ratings over 500hp. However, MAN is now stating the 16.2 liter D2868 V-8 is available in Euro-6 rated from 360 to 540hp.

The now cancelled 15.2 liter Maxxforce 15 was derived from the Caterpillar C15. MAN claims their 15.2 liter R6 is "MAN designed and built" (not to be confused with the 730-800hp 12.8 liter MAN R6 marine engine). The 15.2 liter coincidence is interesting.

As for the Mack connection, one can certainly say the 15.6 liter Scania V-8 has a family history connection to the Mack E9 V-8.

[MackMann85]

As i suspected. The factual comments of a new volvo cab for mack are based on expectations and market assumptions. I will simply believe it when i see it, at which point please call me wrong.

[kscarbel]

As i suspected. The factual comments of a new volvo cab for mack are based on expectations and market assumptions. I will simply believe it when i see it, at which point please call me wrong.

The upcoming replacement cab is a fact that has been shared by Volvo with the dealers, easing their concerns as the aging CH cab becomes less competitive over time (showing them "a light is at the end of the tunnel"), and also mentally preparing them for a Mack-branded truck that uses a Volvo global market cab derivative.

[Svin]

The 15.2 liter MAN R6 inline-six was introduced last year as a replacement for the 16.2 liter D28 V-8 for Euro-6 for ratings over 500hp. However, MAN is now stating the 16.2 liter D2868 V-8 is available in Euro-6 rated from 360 to 540hp.

This is a mistake on the website of MAN,euro 6 are only inline 6. 10,5L 12,4 and 15,2l

The now cancelled 15.2 liter Maxxforce 15 was derived from the Caterpillar C15. MAN claims their 15.2 liter R6 is "MAN designed and built" (not to be confused with the 730-800hp 12.8 liter MAN R6 marine engine). The 15.2 liter coincidence is interesting.

What i heard is that the cilinderblock is Cat (rumors).

As for the Mack connection, one can certainly say the 15.6 liter Scania V-8 has a family history connection to the Mack E9 V-8.

It was the 14L not the 15.6L

[kscarbel]

The 15.2 liter MAN R6 inline-six was introduced last year as a replacement for the 16.2 liter D28 V-8 for Euro-6 for ratings over 500hp. However, MAN is now stating the 16.2 liter D2868 V-8 is available in Euro-6 rated from 360 to 540hp.

This is a mistake on the website of MAN,euro 6 are only inline 6. 10,5L 12,4 and 15,2l

The now cancelled 15.2 liter Maxxforce 15 was derived from the Caterpillar C15. MAN claims their 15.2 liter R6 is "MAN designed and built" (not to be confused with the 730-800hp 12.8 liter MAN R6 marine engine). The 15.2 liter coincidence is interesting.

What i heard is that the cilinderblock is Cat (rumors).

As for the Mack connection, one can certainly say the 15.6 liter Scania V-8 has a family history connection to the Mack E9 V-8.

It was the 14L not the 15.6L

You say the MAN website is mistaken, but I was told differently at IAA Hannover. In any event, Scania's 730hp Euro-6 V-8 certainly impresses. Drive one when you get a chance.

As for the Mack V-8 / Scania V-8 relationship, I realize you're talking about the early V-8s on both sides. But even the displacements of the later V-8s interestingly coincide. When I have time, I'll outline that for you.