Superliner Questions

[sodly]

Hi. First time poster here with (probably) naive questions for you all. I grew up a Mack-crazy kid in the 70s. My Dad's company had a fancy new Superliner in 1977 with a 36" sleeper, custom paint stripes and aluminum wheels all around. That was the first semi I was ever exposed to and I used to go for day-long rides in it as a young kid (either that or in the Western F model we had) and that truck made quite an impression on me. I was hooked. I even used to write to all the truck manufacturers back then asking for literature. All of them responded but the president of Mack, Mr. Curcio, personally sent me all kinds of Mack history books, bulldog ash trays and watch fobs, Mack literature and Mack lithograph packages of historic trucks. Needless to say, I was in 7th heaven and I still think it was a pretty neat thing for him to do for a kid. However, as I grew older I kinda drifted away from my interest in Mack trucks and took more of an interest in Petes and KWs. Years later I even got to drive a Pete for a few years at work. Anyway, lately I've kinda been checking out Macks again and I have some questions that might be basic but I couldn't find the answers in browsing through the old posts here. And most of my old Mack literature is either too old or doesn't go into the level of detail I need. Here are some questions about my first favorite truck, the Superliner:

**Can someone elaborate on the difference between Superliners I vs II? What year did the change happen? What were all the changes/improvements (besides square headlights)?

**Were there different interior trim levels available? What were they and how did they differ?

**What do the various RW model numbers mean? Say an RW613 vs and RW7**? Were there other number combinations? RW8**?? I presume the bigger the number, the heavier the spec, right?

**I've heard of some Superliners referred to as "big frame". Is this the RW7***? Or what is this referring to? One of the things that always bugged me about Superliners was that the frame rails always looked so thin (in profile) compared to other OTR trucks. I've seen a couple with what appear to be beefier frame rails. Are these the big frame models? What years were the big frames available.

**I've seen some Superliner tractors set up with floaters on the front. Was there a 20,000lb. frt. axle option? How heavy could you spec a Superliner (for a heavy haul lowboy setup, for example)?

Finally, I'd love to get my hands on some nice, big Superliner digital pics. I've grabbed several small ones from this site and Hank's already but it seems like nice looking Superliners are tough to find (at least in my opinion). I see a really cool red one on the BMT banner at the top of the page (although you can only see part of the truck). Does anyone have the whole, full-resolution photo? I'd love to see it. Are you listening in, admin?

Sorry for the newbie questions. I enjoy the site. Thanks.

[Doug Maney]

I'll do my best to answer some of your questions, I have both a Superliner and a Superliner II.

The Superliner II was intorduced in 1985, the most visible change was the square headlights. The II was built on an entirely different chassis going away from the separate front frame stub sections that you considered too thin.

Interior levels did vary and could be specified when ordering. From sparse to the Level 4 with steps at every number.

Model numbers do specify howthe truck is spec'd. RW 6 hundreds were the standard spec trucks, RW 7 hundered were the heavier spec'd trucks possibly including double frames and dual steering boxes. The last two numbers in the 6 or 7 hundred specified different powertrain configurations in earlier years and axle configurations in later years. (I'll have to check on these for specific examples)

Macks could be spec'd any way you preferred. Superliners were one of the few models that pulled off being considered a road tractor and a severe duty model.

The Superliners I have are prime examples of that, My 82 is a spec'd with standard tractor components and my 89 is spec'd heavier with 14000# front axle and 44,000# rears, E9 V-8, dual steering boxes, double frame, and external air cleaners.

I hope I have answered some of your questions. To check out the differences in person I suggest you come to the ATCA National Meet June 13 & 14 in Macungie, PA. There will be Superliners there for sure!

Doug

[sodly]

Thanks, Doug. This is very helpful. It would be great to see some detail shots that illustrate these differences. I thought I read somewhere that the Superliner II had its cab mounted higher. I've never noticed any difference, myself. I was looking at a heavy haul Superliner recently and I could tell that the front end of the frame looked very beefy.... not how I remember them at all. This one looked much more substantial all the way to the front bumper, although it only had three leaf springs on each side, so I'm not sure what the front axle rating would've been.

I would love to come to the ATCA show but it's just too far away for me. I have an old video of the show from the early 90s, though. I'll check it for Superliners. Unfortunately, they were still current trucks back then so no one paid much attention to them. Will anyone be posting pics from this year's show online?

Again, any photos would be great. I'm especially interested to see the frame rails under the hood area and other shots that illustrate the differences between the 600 and 700 versions and varioius interior trim levels, etc.

[sodly]

More questions....

Does anyone know production figures on Superliners? Did they make them in very large quantities or were they more of a niche item for Mack? I'm sure they were more popular out east. Here in the midwest they were (and are) a rather rare sight.

What is the BBC on a Superliner? I'd guess they had about as long a hood as a Mack ever got... maybe with the exception of an LT, or something like that.

Thanks!

[rd866sx]

I work Michigan gravel trains grossing 150k dbl frame mich specials, 20k frt 44k rears all mack. we have two 95 cl 713 and thre late 80's early 90's superliners that you cant beat. one has three million on her pulling trains one driver since new,can show on weekends that tuff. no electronics just reliability i buy every clean superliner i can you cant beat them

[brutus998]

The interior packages definately differed. You could have just a basic ruber mat, to carpet the whole nine. My dad has a Superliner with the level 4 Blue interior. It has carpet flooring. The Mack Magnum series had that real nice red interior. My uncle is currently re-doing an original Magnum from head to toe. One of the major changes inside the cab from the Superliner I to the Superliner II was the heater. The Superliner I had more of a flat heater/ac panel, there were very nice for leg room compared to the Superliner II models. I have no idea why they made that change. Oh well I have gotten used to my knee resting on the corner of the heater panel. They didnt macks for luxury

The RW713s were a heavier speced truck from factory. I believe most of them had the double frame. Some of the RW613s had aluminum frames.

Some of the cosmetic differences were with the Superliner I had twin air tanks below the battery boxes, circle headlights, and the sloped portion of the front part of the frame w/ an external sterring box. The Superliner I's were hard to keep on the road with the ext. steering boxes.

As Doug said Mack made the transition from Superliner I to Superliner II in 1985. They upgraded the E9 from 440 hp to 500 and 450.

My dad and uncle have quite a few superliners still. They are a class of their own.

[brutus998]

here is a pic of my dad's old Superliner called "Brutus"

And another couple of pics

[bulldog man]

Doug & Brutus : i couldnt had answered any better yall hit the nail opn the head

Chip, Brutus & Sodly if i had said it already to BMT Yall glad yall are here w/ the rest of us that bleed

Brutus that 1 good looking Superdog & Dumpwagon (Looks like a belly dump somthing we dont see much of here in West , Tn ) whats the spec on him i bet he will growl w/ a good load of Rock , sand , dirt or Ag lime on his back

Bulldog (aka ya i was named after a bulldog )

[sodly]

Would anyone care to post some Superliner brochure scans... or better yet, email them to me at full resolution? I know I've seen a few online but I never thought to save them. I've got the early brochures for Superliner I but nothing for Superliner II. Can anyone help a brother out? Still hoping someone will come through with loads of great pics at some point, too.

[Doug Maney]

Check out my gallery for photos. I'll get some frame pics and stuff when I get some time. Most of my spare time is being spent getting ready for the ATCA National Meet and gathering stuff for "Double Clutch"(the official publication of the ATCA). I have brochures on both RW's and RW gliders, I should be scanning this weekend and should be able to help with those as well.

I urge you all to fill in your member info page so we can find out where you are from and other interests!

Doug

[sodly]

Well, since this forum's been quiet lately, I guess I'll post more ignorant questions. Can you spot an RW600 Superliner vs. an RW700 just by the height of the frame profile? In other words, do the 700s have a taller frame rail and the 600s a shorter, or narrower, frame rail (when viewed from the side)? Or is it just that the 700s have double frames or heavier guage frames maybe with more crossmembers? I'm just wondering if there's any way to ascertain if a Superliner's a 600 or a 700 by looks alone. Are there any visual cues? Anyone know?

[David]

The RW6__ had a 1/4" frame. The RW7__ had a 3/8" frame. Either model could be doubled.

[sodly]

The RW6__ had a 1/4" frame. The RW7__ had a 3/8" frame. Either model could be doubled.

That's the thickness of the rails, right? Were the rails the same size otherwise (aside from caliper thickness)? If you measured from the bottom of the rails to the top (the vertical face of the rails) would they be the same? Or were they all the same height, just thicker... or doubled... on the RW700s?

Sorry for the confusion.

[cable cat]

For some reason I am thinking that 9 inches is the magic number for RW7 frames, but could be I am all confuzzled.

Not sure what depth the RW6 had.

[sodly]

For some reason I am thinking that 9 inches is the magic number for RW7 frames, but could be I am all confuzzled.

Not sure what depth the RW6 had.

For some reason I've always had the impression that Superliners (at least the earlier ones) had relatively thin-looking frame rails when they're parked side-by-side next to a KW or Peterbilt. I always thought this made them look less substantial. Is this my imagination or do other manufacturers use deeper profile rails? Maybe I was only seeing RW600 rails. Or maybe Mack frames are simply thicker guage... or doubled... to account for the difference. At any rate, it's always bugged me. Just wondered what the real scoop is.

Edited June 6, 2008 by sodly

[David]

I don't have any numbers for the Superliner 1 frames. The Superliner II (RW600) and the MH600 had the same frame. These frames had various heights. They were highest under the cab and had a drop at the engine for the E9 exhaust manifold. Under the cab they are 13.15" high. Behind the cab they are 9.37" high. The inter rail is 8.82" high and starts 73.0" from the center of the front axle. Both are .24" thick. The RW700 is 13.5" under the cab, 10.8" behind the cab, and .39" thick. The inter rail is 9.9" high and also .24" thick but starts 20.0" from the center of the front axle. PPbuilt and Kworthless have never had a frame that was compairable to a Mack. The quality of the steel is more important than the thickness and height.

[sodly]

I don't have any numbers for the Superliner 1 frames. The Superliner II (RW600) and the MH600 had the same frame. These frames had various heights. They were highest under the cab and had a drop at the engine for the E9 exhaust manifold. Under the cab they are 13.15" high. Behind the cab they are 9.37" high. The inter rail is 8.82" high and starts 73.0" from the center of the front axle. Both are .24" thick. The RW700 is 13.5" under the cab, 10.8" behind the cab, and .39" thick. The inter rail is 9.9" high and also .24" thick but starts 20.0" from the center of the front axle. PPbuilt and Kworthless have never had a frame that was compairable to a Mack. The quality of the steel is more important than the thickness and height.

Dimensions! This is helpful. Thanks. When you say "inner rail" does that mean that both RW600 and 700s are double framed? And I guess the double frame rails don't run the full length of the frame, from what you're saying.

[David]

They are not full length double frames. The double frame was an option.

[roadusercharges]

MY Super liner was built up in 1986 with sq lights and is designated R722RST. The chasis is double skinned under the turntable through to the gearbox area.It has the original E9 500 engine and the 12 speed, the original Camel back end has been biffed and a set of Eaton SSHDs fitted to kenworth Airglide 100 air suspension is now fitted, which gives a much better ride, although the speedo has been reset to try and give a more accurate indication of true road speed. The gearing is higher than the original mack diffs which sees 1200 RPM at 60 mph. It is Right Hand drive and the factory fit has red carpet through out with velvet type red hoodlining. I now treat her as a hobby truck , shows etc, but she can still put in a goods days work. at 39 tonnes. As there is not many left here in Nz, they have become a collectors item and still gets waves and toots , whenever Im out on the road. If you look in my Album - kiwi Macks, there is a photo of the Right hand side steering to give you an idea of how it is done. and in the other album-1986 Superliner, you can see more. they are old photos now and quite a lot more dresssing up has taken place.

Nigel

[cable cat]

my superliner is a double framed truck, both the inner and outer rail are the 1/4" variety.

The old cruiseliner that we had had a thick single steel frame, as I recall it was in the 1/2"

range or so. for sure not a 3/8" or 1/4" frame. Bitchin' stout cabover, only thing I despised was

no power steering. Would have made life easier. It was a 186" wheelbase, bought the 235"

KW900L, could put it in a tighter hole easier than fightin' the old cruiseliner. Probly oughto of just

put power steering on it, instead. its okay, there is PS on the superdog.

[cable cat]

pics of my superliner...

[MACKTRUCKS4]

My 1987, V-8, pushing 600 HP, 12 spd. Also just bought a 1988 superliner tractor to restore with a 3200 gallon water tank for filling swimming pools, pictures will soon be added of the 88.

[cable cat]

pretty sexy dog! lots shinier than my old oilfield toter. Maybe someday... first step is the rear end, then tires. Not a big problem. Then its the little stuff, and a paint job. At that point I have to figure if I want to keep it a 5th wheeler, a flatbed, a sleeper truck, or keep it as a lowboy/oilfield truck. If it goes back to oilfield work, then its getting the floaters put back on the front.

Paint will be the mint green and black fenders, black top and dull silver frames. lots of plans, so little time with good weather!

cc

[cable cat]

try this again, maybe a better picture?

cc

[sodly]

Another question.....

Were there standard paint colors for Macks (and Superliners in particular)?  Or could they be any color you wanted from the factory?  Surely there must've been a standard catalog of colors, right?  I presume any colors outside of that list were extra..... as were custom paint schemes.  Is this correct?