Hendrickson Composolite SCT20 vrs. Watson Chalin Pusher

[leegsr52]

Putting 20k steerable pusher on new Mack Granite. Truck will have 20k front axle and 52k rears. Looking for pros and cons of both axles

Edited December 10, 2013 by Lee G

[rsb502]

I checked out the Hendrickson stuff at mid America and was impressed, probably more expensive but more than likely lighter and longer lasting than Watson Chalin. 20/20/52 is a bunch of axle, never seen a tri axle with 52's I know of. You gonna run 90,000#? What's the cost and weight difference from 46-52 rears?

[kscarbel]

Hendrickson is the best. The company's significant financial resources has made it the global leader in heavy truck suspension design. Hendrickson discretely designs and produces all the front spring assemblies for almost every US and European truckmaker, and many of the rear suspensions.

[leegsr52]

The reason for considering the 52 rears, is that with the weight distribution I'll end up with fully loaded, I'll be at over 47,000 on the bogies. I won't be at full capacity all the time, but enough that I thought the added capacity of the 52's would help with longevity. I gotta get the weight specs for the two rears. I'll post that once I have it

[leegsr52]

Oh, and by the way superdog, the Hendrickson is $300 less than than the Watson

[MACKS]

I checked out the Hendrickson stuff at mid America and was impressed, probably more expensive but more than likely lighter and longer lasting than Watson Chalin. 20/20/52 is a bunch of axle, never seen a tri axle with 52's I know of. You gonna run 90,000#? What's the cost and weight difference from 46-52 rears?

Thinking about putting the sc13 on my cl to meet the new weight regs that take effect Jan 2015 in NY,if I do it will be sitting in front of 58 rears,every truck must have at least four axles,does this make any sense!!

[leegsr52]

Not much of anything government does makes sense Macks!

[RFCDrum]

All of Joe Gulino's tri axles have 52's.

[Joe Ditchkus]

Macks What is the law that says tri-axle dumps,mixers etc are to have a steerable lift axle in 2015? I work in Penna. and rumors are just starting to fly about it. No one I talk to has any confirmation if it is true.Luckily for me I ordered my truck in 2005 with a Hendrickson steerable axle. Some other drivers told me they are always breaking. It is onthere 9 years and no problems so far. Anyone else have any information about this law. Thanks Joe D.

[MACKS]

Macks What is the law that says tri-axle dumps,mixers etc are to have a steerable lift axle in 2015? I work in Penna. and rumors are just starting to fly about it. No one I talk to has any confirmation if it is true.Luckily for me I ordered my truck in 2005 with a Hendrickson steerable axle. Some other drivers told me they are always breaking. It is onthere 9 years and no problems so far. Anyone else have any information about this law. Thanks Joe D.

In NY this is the deal,as of right now any truck 2006 and newer, the drop axle must be steerable with the controls outside the cab also no one axle in a group of two or more axles can support less than 80 percent of any other axle in the group,starting Jan 1-15 any truck 2005 and older must meet the above requirements except the weight distribution provision,after Jan 1 20 all provisions must be met regardless of model year.This is for all state wide permits and all down state permits.Also no more supper singles on the drive axles.I heard there will be a type one permit offered to three axle trucks the formula is something like this,42000 lbs + 1150 per ft of wheel base.For me they will not renew my type two permit starting 2015 unless I add a fourth axle.

[Joe Ditchkus]

Macks Thanks for the information.I am 63 years old and could retire but I always enjoyed my job and not want to retire. With all the new laws and economy not the best maybe its time.In Penna. we were are allowed 73,280 on 4 axles with not too much problems with the scales. That most likely will change now. I wonder how it will affect New Jersey 70,000 on 3 axles Constructor Plate no axle weights just gross.Joe D.

[RFCDrum]

In NY this is the deal,as of right now any truck 2006 and newer, the drop axle must be steerable with the controls outside the cab also no one axle in a group of two or more axles can support less than 80 percent of any other axle in the group,starting Jan 1-15 any truck 2005 and older must meet the above requirements except the weight distribution provision,after Jan 1 20 all provisions must be met regardless of model year.This is for all state wide permits and all down state permits.Also no more supper singles on the drive axles.I heard there will be a type one permit offered to three axle trucks the formula is something like this,42000 lbs + 1150 per ft of wheel base.For me they will not renew my type two permit starting 2015 unless I add a fourth axle.

MACKS isn't it just the pressure controls on the outside? I heard this too no overweigght permit unless it is steerable.

[RFCDrum]

Macks Thanks for the information.I am 63 years old and could retire but I always enjoyed my job and not want to retire. With all the new laws and economy not the best maybe its time.In Penna. we were are allowed 73,280 on 4 axles with not too much problems with the scales. That most likely will change now. I wonder how it will affect New Jersey 70,000 on 3 axles Constructor Plate no axle weights just gross.Joe D.

Jersey hasn't changed the law yet for tandems and triaxles. Just for lowboys.

Rob

[rsb502]

The Hendrickson is cheaper? decision made! I have never tried to figure weight distribution on a dump truck because every time you load it the load is distributed differently and in TN we put 74,000 on 18-20k steer, 16-20k tag and 44-46 rears, I have scaled out axle by axle before and it was always close but if the tag is up your gonna be over on your steer and drives anyway, and itll be up off road where its rougher and would help more. I think I was 22-24,000 on the steer and 48-50,000 on the rears with the tag up on a 16' body tri axle Granite, like I said it was different every time, even with the same loader and same material.

[maxidyne237]

Put the 52's under that truck. We run 80,000 and I have 58's under mine. I know 46's will take it but I have always liked to have the truck able to carry the weight with the lift off the ground.

I checked out the Hendrickson stuff at mid America and was impressed, probably more expensive but more than likely lighter and longer lasting than Watson Chalin. 20/20/52 is a bunch of axle, never seen a tri axle with 52's I know of. You gonna run 90,000#? What's the cost and weight difference from 46-52 rears?

[MACKS]

MACKS isn't it just the pressure controls on the outside? I heard this too no overweigght permit unless it is steerable.

They don't want you to be able to pick up the axle or adjust the pressure from inside the cab.

[MACKS]

The Hendrickson is cheaper? decision made! I have never tried to figure weight distribution on a dump truck because every time you load it the load is distributed differently and in TN we put 74,000 on 18-20k steer, 16-20k tag and 44-46 rears, I have scaled out axle by axle before and it was always close but if the tag is up your gonna be over on your steer and drives anyway, and itll be up off road where its rougher and would help more. I think I was 22-24,000 on the steer and 48-50,000 on the rears with the tag up on a 16' body tri axle Granite, like I said it was different every time, even with the same loader and same material.

It all depends on the axle spacing,here in NY all the new trucks I see on the lots and on the road look the same.20 front 20 drop and 44 or 46 rears,18' beds,there spec for 79,000 state permits,trucks are friggin huge..

[rsb502]

What are the differences and in the new trucks from 44-52 rears? Are the 52 rears still on the same style trunnion or are they on the wide trunnion like the old 58's with the brackets on the outside of the frame? Do you know what the weight difference is from 44-46-52? I ask because I'm curious nobody here goes heavier than 46, most Macks are 44's on Camelback, most other trucks are Eatons with 46 Hendrickson.

[leegsr52]

Just got the spec sheet for the 52s. It doesn't give weight of suspension. You'd think that would be an obvious bit of information you'd want in your spec sheet for a customer making a decision. Have to contact the dealer to see if I can get that info. Keep you posted

[rsb502]

Ha, didn't we talk about dealers not knowing weights somewhere recently. I don't get it, what do they tech these guys, if I'm buying a truck to haul by the ton I'm gonna want to know what it weighs.

[RFCDrum]

Remember at one time Mack never had a 46 camelback that is a fairly new thing. The 44's were all cracking the housings when triaxles became popular in NJ. I was still working for Mack back then. The guys were going to 50's and 52's and not having anymore problems. Then Mack came out with the 46 and most guys are running that now. Even the 52's are wearing out fast and Joe Gulino had to do work on his suspensions. The 58's on the RD tandems you never had a problem with.

Rob

[leegsr52]

Hey Superdog. I agree.

So, I got the printouts from my dealer, showing the chassis axle weight distribution, using both 46's and 52's. Although they don't give you the actual numbers, when you subtract the two total weights of both chassis, everything else being the same, you get an added 171 lbs for the 52 rears. That's not much a weight difference, to get the beefier rears.

Just as a little more added info, my body company gave me the weight distributions for my truck, with the body included, fully loaded to capacity, both with pusher up, and pusher down.

Pusher down: Pusher up:
Front axle - 15449 Front axle - 22047

Pusher - 20000 Pusher - 0

Rears - 47849 Rears - 61251

The 46k rears creep ratings are:

Axles - 70,000 lbs

Suspension - 73,200

The 52k rears creep ratings are:

Axles - 70,000 lbs (yes, same as 46's)

Suspension - 102,000 lbs

It was interesting that the axle creep ratings are the same. As you can see, my fully loaded, pusher up rear axle loading is only 61,251, well under the creep rating of both axles.

Some spec comparisons:

The bearing sizes of both axles are the same. Inner bearing - 3.75" Outer bearing - 3.25"

The spline diameters on axles are the same - 2.2"

The spring leaf specs, with both axle ratings at at 55" load centers:

46k 52k

Standard spring (# of leafs) 11 11

The brake specs (seems to be only difference between axle ratings):

46k 52k

Lining diameter 16.5" 16.5"

Width 7" 7"

Lining area 880 sq in 1012 sq in (though it doesn't say it specifically in specs, shoes must be longer)

Putting this all together, getting a little more carrying capacity and more braking capacity (cause you can never have enough of that), my thoughts are that for 171 extra pounds, and about $1600 more in cost, it might not be a bad choice to move up to the 52k rears. I wouldn't be overloading the axles at my fully loaded capacity, and would get better braking and longer brake life.

Another quick note. It seems they offer an Anti-Sway option on the spring package. I don't know at what cost. Anyone shed light on anti-sway springs, if there is a reason or not to upgrade to them?

[leegsr52]

CORRECTION! Just heard from salesman at Mack. He called engineering, and they actually gave him the exact weights of the two rears.

The 46k rears weigh 571 lbs

The 52k rears weigh 869 lbs

Difference of 298 lbs.

The only caveat to that is that the standard axle spread on the 46k rears is 50", and on the 52k rears its 55". But we had already changed the spread on the 46K package to 55" anyways to accommodate the tall rubber. I'm trying the verify this with the salesman now. In which case, the weight difference would not be as much, because we would have had the longer, heavier springs already figured into the 46k rears.

Hey. Long as I don't carry around some heifer in the passenger seat, I should be ok. I don't work by weight anyways, so no big deal.

[leegsr52]

Remember at one time Mack never had a 46 camelback that is a fairly new thing. The 44's were all cracking the housings when triaxles became popular in NJ. I was still working for Mack back then. The guys were going to 50's and 52's and not having anymore problems. Then Mack came out with the 46 and most guys are running that now. Even the 52's are wearing out fast and Joe Gulino had to do work on his suspensions. The 58's on the RD tandems you never had a problem with.

Rob

So Rob,

Are you saying that the newer 46k rears are standing up better than the 52k rears are?

[rsb502]

I like the axle loading weights you got there, just remember, that is a perfectly evenly distributed load and getting exactly 20,000 on the tag, it wont happen, ever. For 300# I dont know the 52's may not be that bad of an upgrade. The brake doesn't make sense, it should be a 16.5 x7 or a 16.5 x8.6" shoe, there isn't really enough room for a longer 7" shoes that I can see but I have had the 8.6" wide shoes before and that would cover the difference in friction area.