What were the great Mack engines?

[Oso2]

I'd like to know a bit about the Mack engines. If you were to build a glider, I know that for many the pre-2004 Detroit 12.7 s60, Cummins N-14 and Cat C-15 6nz would be among the top choices. So if Mack ever offered a glider again, what would you put in it for a line-haul application? What were the good Macks for power, reliability and most importantly, fuel economy? (I don't mean historical engines. No one's going to seek out a 237hp engine in a 450hp world.)

Didn't they have problems with the E series? or was it the ASET?

[2stacksuperdog]

I would put anything from a E6, E7 mech, E9 V8. Mechanical is the way to go if you ask me. I believe the ASET is the problem engine.

[Oso2]

Thanks. I guess everyone else agrees with you.

I've done some digging around. Have you found that the lower torque e454 pulls better than the larger e460?

[storkmack]

I personally would not use an E-6. E-7 mechanical/electronic would be my choice. I would also stay away from the E-tec series. Just my opinion. -Brad

[Bigdogtrucker]

I've had nothing but bad luck with electronic engines from "98-"04 I've driven and been around.

[41180]

deffinately e7 any yr from 90 to 97 or e techs from 98 t0 02 are good too. probably the 460 xt etech wich had 487hp and 1760 torque is the most powerful mack 6 cyl engine . they are pretty reliable too. i run one in a 04 mack CL700 glider kit i got it turned up put out about 525 hp will run with 550 cats no problem

[Td713001033]

the best engine in my opinion is the e7 454 we have several with one million plus miles they just run and run

[2stacksuperdog]

I still would go with mechanical. I dont like the thought of having a computer that could screw up driving a truck.

[bbigrig]

My E7 454 in a 97' CH was probably the best engine we ever ran. We have had good E6's and great E7's. Our E-techs were pretty good except the cams we went through.

The E9 was a friggen stump puller but wasn't so great on fuel.

The worst batch of engines were the ASET engines (02-07) it was such a shame having a beutiful CHN Rawhide with that 460xt (487hp) She looked great but couldn't cook. Everyone of the ASET's we owned needed a turbo and EGR valve by 900,000kms.

The MP8's have only had injector cup issues, even after the stainless conical cups were installed. Except for one of our 2013's being down right now waiting for injector's I love the grunt and fuel mileage of our MP8's

Edited March 13, 2013 by bbigrig

[rsb502]

For a modern day reliable mileage getter glider I would have to go with an ETECH. The 427's had some can issues however the updated can solves that one, the 460's and XT's had turbo reliability issues, also solved with updated parts. I would say for my personal use an Etech 460xt, matched with a Mack 13 or 18spd and 3.65 or 3.86 rears with low pro 24.5's and then leave it STOCK. You have no idea how hard it would be for me to do, but for reliability you have it licked with that setup. I would run it in a set forward pinnacle about a 260-270" wb but for mileage id say a setback pinnacle with full fairings and about a 226-236"wb. I would bet on averaging 7.0-7.4 MPG with the setback probably 6.5-6.8 set forward. Well you asked there's my glider idea. I would go with an E9 about 800hp like I have now if it would fit but that wouldn't fit your parameters and it won't fit in a pinnacle either.

[rsb502]

Damn phone...cam not can I swear this thing is pushing its luck.

[Oso2]

I would say for my personal use an Etech 460xt, matched with a Mack 13 or 18spd and 3.65 or 3.86 rears with low pro 24.5's and then leave it STOCK. You have no idea how hard it would be for me to do, but for reliability you have it licked with that setup.

Mack rear ends?

I recently talked to a dealer about a new heavier-spec Pinnacle. I suggested Mack rears for fuel efficiency; he said that he preferred Meritors - longer lifespan than the Macks and about $3000 cheaper to boot. And he was a 15-20 year Mack-man to boot.

BTW, I've never used a Mack transmission; I hear they behave differently than a Roadranger... Can anyone explain?

Edited March 15, 2013 by ajoso

[rsb502]

Mack rears and transmission have more parasitic power Loss than eaton therefore for fuel mileage Eaton would be the winner. I would spec Mack trans rears due the ratios being tailored to Mack engines power band and torque rise making the gear steps fit the power band. About Eaton/meritor lasting longer, I have seen quite the opposite most Mack rears run forever unless you kill em. I have only had one issue with a Mack trans and it was covered under warranty and I would say they hold power better than a double counter shaft Eaton. As far as shifting ease an Eaton does shift easier, a Mack trans is a triple counter shaft transmission making them inherently stronger with more torque holding ability but also tighter than a double counter shaft Eaton. Hope that helps!

[mack mhe9]

84 superdog, yes i think made great truck but i have the same problems, v8's are great, but hard to fit in a new chassie and talk about parts, i know people are suspect of pittsburgh power but who can argue, they can take a 13 14 15 16liter anything and get over 600hp and good fuel mpg if driven smart, knowing what i know now i would have looked for a cl700's with isx and in it, mack 6cyl. are great but there was a reason mack made a 16.4-998 eng they wanted to be the big dog against 3406b's and 444 cummins, just some of my thought.

[BAD DOG]

My first choice for power would be an E9 but you guys are right it would'nt fit in these new trucks so I probably would do up (and pardon my french) a 3406C Caterpillar to get about 600 hp 13 or 18 spd fuller behind it and a modern hendrickson style air ride like the new macks use and eatons for rears. I prefer mechanical engines but I would take any of the earlier E7's or an earlier DDC II or III Detroit series 60's too. I'm not keen on Cummins ISX's we have a bunch where I work the one I drive is a lemmon too many electronic issues.