dexter860 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Was looking at a 95' 613 with an E7 350 in it. Truck has 22.5s 9 SPD tranny mack 4.17 rears, will be pulling flats are these trucks capable of 7 to 7.5 mpg? Will be second truck, have a t600 with C 15 accert , gets mid to upper 6s. I had a mack just like it some years back , think I was getting mid 6s?, it was kinda weak though.tired of emmision engines, like how simple old mack is , run pretty local anyways. Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 If you are getting 6.5 with a CAT, you should be able to do as good or better with the Mack. The 4.17s will pull good, but may affect MPGs. The CAT most likely has faster axles.Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-317676 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexter860 Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Yeah, 336 in cat, but I usually run 60 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-317677 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtymilkman Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 If you run 60 theres no reason you wont get 7. I had a '94 ch E7 350 with 9spd fuller and 4.11. Pulling a tanker at 80,000 we'd consistently get 7+ running 65mph 1 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-317685 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexter860 Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) The truck is my dads truck, been sitting for a couple years, 850k miles, he'd sell it to me for 4k, if I could get over 7mpg I'd probably sell the T600, and run the mack, hate to in a way, but could sell T 6 and get out of debt, divorce has kinda squeezed me (she got the bigger half). Edited December 29, 2015 by dexter860 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-317758 Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbigrig Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 You be hard pressed to beat (besides E6 R series combo) the reliability, fuel mileage and comfort of a CH with an E7PLN engine. I'm starting to wish we just refurbed all of those up to 1997 trucks we had. Even if you sink so money into paint and engine rebuild, you will get it all back 10 fold. 1 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-318323 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexter860 Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 I hope your right, I think I'm gonna give her a try! 1 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-318384 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmyb Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I can give you a bit of a comparison. We have a 6nz c15 and one one job we were doing coming home empty I would get 3km per litre. My dads Mack with a e7, and 12sp and 4.17's got 3.5km per litre. It's about the only time the two trucks were loaded the same (empty, single trailer) and the Mack was far more economical. Just our own experience... 1 Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43299-95-ch-613-e7-350-7-mpg/#findComment-318405 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.