Who designed/styled the Superliner?

[kscarbel2]

27 minutes ago, daveigou said:

You mean Jerry Warmkessel?

No I don't.

Jerry C. Warmkessel and Terry L. Warmkessel are two different people. Jerry is younger.

[Timmyb]

Did they perhaps model the superliner on the cruiseliner?

Take the F and R models, they share a similar style. And I've noticed the superliner and cruiseliner have a similar grill. 

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, Timmyb said:

Did they perhaps model the superliner on the cruiseliner?

Take the F and R models, they share a similar style. And I've noticed the superliner and cruiseliner have a similar grill. 

While the first generation RWL/RWS Super-Liner and WL/WS Cruise-Liner share the same Red Dot 210RD59301 grilledensor, they were two different design programs.

FYI: We also offered it as a grille only without the condensor (still supplied by Red Dot), for customers who didn't spec air conditioning.....210RD59301P2.

[fifth wheel]

I have posted this before, I have and read and article about Brockway and its development of the Brockway Superliner. I will find it soon and report back, I do remember a person from Brockway had many drawings and renderings and went to Mack to reveal them and Mack retained them. all for now until I find the article.

 

FW

[Doug Maney]

I was involved in a discussion last week with a retiree from Hayward regarding the design of the RW.  The design was done in Hayward by their people.  I have seen photos of prototypes of the RW and have several in my collection.  The early versions had a contoured cowl much like the standard R-model and the hood was contoured to fit.  The outcome of our discussion was that the Brockway cowl which were being used on the 700 series influenced the cowl for the RW and ultimately the Facelift RD.

Images from the 70"s and 80's were captured on slides.  Those images are being reviewed and digitized for archiving when time permits.  Other than the slides, there are very few photos available of models and model development through this period. 

[Whiskymack]

16 hours ago, sodly said:

Good point, Dave.  There are only so many ways to skin a cat.  But I've somehow always been skeptical of that "Missing Link" article.  It feels to me like someone trying to manufacture a controversy/mystery when one doesn't really exist. Even if Mack took the inspiration for the Superliner from Brockway, so what?  They owned Brockway.  Why would they go to such lengths to cover that up?  As the article says, "Mack representatives, to this day, deny any connection to the Brockway design."  Looking at the two trucks I tend to believe them.  I see little in common except, as Dave pointed out, the big square hood that lots of trucks began to sprout in the late 70s.  We know Mack tweaked the R model to fit larger and larger engines about as much as they could.  So it doesn't seem at all surprising that they eventually were forced to come up with something along the lines of the Superliner to better fit and cool the larger engines of the 80s. What would be surprising would be to learn that this truck's development is some big corporate secret, especially after all these years.  Someone at Mack must know how it really went down and who's responsible for the design work and how it all evolved. Surely multiple design proposals and prototypes were made or drawn before being approved/rejected by management.  New flagship models like that don't just pop up out of thin air.  Lots of design work goes into them... even if maybe to us it just appears that they stuck a big square hood on an R model.  Anyway, I just find the whole thing curious and have always wondered about it.  Thought maybe someone here might know more than what's in that Missing Link article.     

I agree with you and Dave. I've never swallowed the missing link theory either.

If you really want to see the origins of the Super-Liner you need to look at the Cruise-Liner. The first generation Super-Liner is essentially a Cruise-Liner frame with an R model cab and a new hood. The key feature of this frame was the bolt on drop frame at the front which enabled the mounting of big wide radiators and the high hp motors which needed the cooling. Apart from that, the rest of the frame looks like it was pretty much carried over from the RL/RS models. Fittings such as cab mounts, fuel tanks, battery boxes and their brackets all look the same as those on late production RS/RL models and I believe the frame rail section dimensions were the same. I think this makes the Super-Liner the logical evolution of the Mack Western product line and any similarity with the Brockway designs is largely down to the use of the same cab shell. I guess to find out who designed it you would have to look at who was in key design roles at Hayward in the mid 70's.

The second generation Super-Liner was a different beast. It had an entirely different frame which it shared with the earlier MH cabover. I think that Mack Western had ceased to exist by the time it came out so the Super-Liner 2 was an Eastern product. By all accounts, the Mk 2 was a much better truck than it's predecessor but, from a layman's  view, I still prefer the look of the original with it's round headlights.

 

[Brocky]

Red Horse

Yes Brockway built many 361 and 761 trucks with the 12V-71 Detroit. Mainly for the big Long Island sand buckets. There are always a few at the Cortland show and parade in August. Search brockwaytrucks.org and there are several topics on the restoration of 12V-71 units.  

Mack bought Brockway in 1956, but apparently did not combine much of the engineering/design departments until the early 70's when Brockway introduced the Sheller Globe R model cab in 1975 as the 700 series.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Brocky

[kscarbel2]

On 8/26/2016 at 8:26 PM, Whiskymack said:

I agree with you and Dave. I've never swallowed the missing link theory either.

If you really want to see the origins of the Super-Liner you need to look at the Cruise-Liner. The first generation Super-Liner is essentially a Cruise-Liner frame with an R model cab and a new hood. The key feature of this frame was the bolt on drop frame at the front which enabled the mounting of big wide radiators and the high hp motors which needed the cooling. Apart from that, the rest of the frame looks like it was pretty much carried over from the RL/RS models. Fittings such as cab mounts, fuel tanks, battery boxes and their brackets all look the same as those on late production RS/RL models and I believe the frame rail section dimensions were the same. I think this makes the Super-Liner the logical evolution of the Mack Western product line and any similarity with the Brockway designs is largely down to the use of the same cab shell. I guess to find out who designed it you would have to look at who was in key design roles at Hayward in the mid 70's.

The second generation Super-Liner was a different beast. It had an entirely different frame which it shared with the earlier MH cabover. I think that Mack Western had ceased to exist by the time it came out so the Super-Liner 2 was an Eastern product. By all accounts, the Mk 2 was a much better truck than it's predecessor but, from a layman's  view, I still prefer the look of the original with it's round headlights.

 

I'm pressed for time just now, but I'm going to quickly tell you, the first generation frame that, yes, shared with the RWL/RWS and WL/WS, was NOT a good design.

I've mentioned before, the axle-mounted steering gear was a disaster, as was the disconnect shift linkage design (WL/WS). And, it didn't use Mack's superb "body-bound bolts" which led to the same fastener headaches of the "assembled trucks". We gave the west coast engineers some leeway......and it didn't work out.

When we fired many of them and brought the Cruise-Liner to Macungie, we "fixed it" as much as we could, to get by until the MH was launched. It still had those flaws, but it was a much better truck.

On the other hand, the state-of-the-art Allentown-designed frame used on the MH and RWI, and the cutting edge break-away shifter design (MH), were as advanced as any truck today. And of course, the frame-mounted steering was trouble-free. Frankly speaking, the MH Ultra-Liner was the "best" truck we ever designed.

[sodly]

1 hour ago, Doug Maney said:

Images from the 70"s and 80's were captured on slides.  Those images are being reviewed and digitized for archiving when time permits.  Other than the slides, there are very few photos available of models and model development through this period. 

Thanks for chiming in, Doug.  I figured some kind of images must exist somewhere.  I would love to see these images when they become available.  Is there any way to make that happen?  

 

1 hour ago, kscarbel2 said:

I'm pressed for time just now, but I'm going to quickly tell you, the first generation frame that was, yes, shared with the RWL/RWS and WL/WS, as NOT a good design. I've mentioned before, the axle-mounted steering gear was a disaster, as was the disconnect shift linkage design. And, it didn't use Mack's superb "body-bound bolts" which led to fastener headaches. We gave some west coast engineers some leeway......and it didn't work out.

When we fired all of them and brought the Cruise-Liner to Macungie, we "fixed it" as much as we could, to get by until the MH was launched. It still had those flaws, but it was a much better truck.

On the other hand, the state-of-the-art Allentown-designed frame used on the MH and RWI, and the cutting edge break-away shifter design, were as advanced as any truck today. And of course the frame-mounted steering was trouble-free. Frankly speaking, the MH Ultra-Liner was the "best" truck we ever designed.

This is fascinating stuff.  Would love to hear more.  When did Mack "fire all of them"?  Was that when Hayward was shut down?  Did Macungie "fix" both the Superliner and Cruiseliner at that point?  How so.  

Thanks for this "insider info"!

[DailyDiesel]

Sounds like we have the making for a good book here!

[Doug Maney]

I have several images at home in my photo collection.  I'll share them over the weekend.  As the slides are reviewed and images discovered in the archives, I will be sure to share what is available.

[fjh]

On 8/26/2016 at 8:39 PM, kscarbel2 said:

I'm pressed for time just now, but I'm going to quickly tell you, the first generation frame that was, yes, shared with the RWL/RWS and WL/WS, as NOT a good design. I've mentioned before, the axle-mounted steering gear was a disaster, as was the disconnect shift linkage design. And, it didn't use Mack's superb "body-bound bolts" which led to fastener headaches. We gave some west coast engineers some leeway......and it didn't work out.

When we fired all of them and brought the Cruise-Liner to Macungie, we "fixed it" as much as we could, to get by until the MH was launched. It still had those flaws, but it was a much better truck.

On the other hand, the state-of-the-art Allentown-designed frame used on the MH and RWI, and the cutting edge break-away shifter design, were as advanced as any truck today. And of course the frame-mounted steering was trouble-free. Frankly speaking, the MH Ultra-Liner was the "best" truck we ever designed.

In my opinion (and I DON'T like COEs cause I had to work on the stuff! ), the MH IS the best cab over built by ANYONE Period! Then and now!

[kscarbel2]

On 8/26/2016 at 8:39 AM, kscarbel2 said:

I'm pressed for time just now, but I'm going to quickly tell you, the first generation frame that, yes, shared with the RWL/RWS and WL/WS, was NOT a good design.

I've mentioned before, the axle-mounted steering gear was a disaster, as was the disconnect shift linkage design. And, it didn't use Mack's superb "body-bound bolts" which led to fastener headaches. We gave some west coast engineers we hired leeway......and it didn't work out.

When we fired all of them and brought the Cruise-Liner to Macungie, we "fixed it" as much as we could, to get by until the MH was launched. It still had those flaws, but it was a much better truck.

On the other hand, the state-of-the-art Allentown-designed frame used on the MH and RWI, and the cutting edge break-away shifter design, were as advanced as any truck today. And of course the frame-mounted steering was trouble-free. Frankly speaking, the MH Ultra-Liner was the "best" truck we ever designed.

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/43658-21977-over-drive-cruiseliner-report/#comment-321468

The Cruise-Liner was a big step forward for Mack Western. It was the result of west coast truck engineers that Mack had hired. In theory, they could give us a leap forward with a true west coast design.

In the eyes of many in headquarters, the original Hayward designed/produced Cruise-Liner was an engineering disaster. The freedom given the west coast engineers was revoked, and the 2nd gen Cruise-Liner was created in Allentown (fixing many of the shortcomings). The MH Ultra-Liner restored Mack's reputation as a designer of well-engineered COEs.

The axle-mounted steering arrangement was a huge mistake. The telescoping steering shaft wore out prematurely (we sold thousands of replacements, averaging 2-3 over the life of a truck), as did the steering gears and pitman arms, becoming strong sellers in the parts department. (the output shaft splines and pitman arm splines were constantly wallowed out owing to the nature of the stupid design).

The disconnecting (ball and socket) shift linkage, specifically the gears, rails, bushings and seals in the tower, also had unacceptably short life (the average truck's shift tower was rebuilt at least 3 times over its life). It was a terrible design, whereas the shift linkage on the MH Ultra-Liner was superb.

I did prefer the original first generation Cruise-Liner instrument panel over the simplified second generation, however the center console had all the aesthetics of a plastic box. It was excessively large and the top (with the vents) frequently cracked and required replacement, a problem resolved with the second generation (It's pretty embarrassing when west coast Mack dealers have console covers hanging in their show room because they're such strong sellers).

And then you had those expensive rubber riv-nuts that retained the grille constantly falling out. Here it is year 2016 and I couldn't possibly forget the part number, 68RU29301P5, because it was a hot issue.

The Trico pantograph windshield wiper arms and their transmissions didn't hold up.

All of these issues were covered in Mack Service Bulletins.............there were more service bulletins on the WS/WL Cruise-Liner than any other single model in the history of Mack Trucks.

I found the cab was "beat" less with the 10,500lb front suspension. But dealers were accustomed to ordering the 12,000 front suspension, as they had for years with the heavier steel-cabbed F-model.

The work ethic of the employees at the Hayward plant was terrible. They were "California casual" about showing up for work......one never knew how many people were coming in. The Allentown people sent out there were in constant frustration. The workers would install cab screws with their power tools until the threads were stripped. They didn't care.

The idea of setting up a west coast plant for west coast truck production was logical. However, there was a people problem. This is all why the plant was closed, and the 2nd gen Cruise-Liner was built at Macungie.......with significantly better quality.

I believe Peterbilt closed its plant at nearby Newark, California plant in 1986 for the same reason, issues with assembly quality. Caterpillar, Ford, GM and International Harvester abandoned the Bay Area as well.

[Mike]

WOW! interesting read here. Thanks for taking your time to share that story with us.  

[TeamsterGrrrl]

As long as the thread has drifted off to include the MH, I seem to remember a picture in Truck magazine of an MH prototype with a setback front axle, story said it was intended for Australia. Did the set back front axle MH ever make it into production?

[kscarbel2]

On August 30, 2016 at 7:05 AM, TeamsterGrrrl said:

As long as the thread has drifted off to include the MH, I seem to remember a picture in Truck magazine of an MH prototype with a setback front axle, story said it was intended for Australia. Did the set back front axle MH ever make it into production?

I'm unfamiliar with that for Oz.

[Whiskymack]

13 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

As long as the thread has drifted off to include the MH, I seem to remember a picture in Truck magazine of an MH prototype with a setback front axle, story said it was intended for Australia. Did the set back front axle MH ever make it into production?

Here's one. I guess it did make it into production. Mack Trucks Australia generally did things their own way.

Perhaps the US experience with the shortcomings of the early Cruise-Liners and Super-Liner led them to adopt the tried and tested R model frame for their Cruise Liner, Superliner 1 and 2 and later, the MH Ultraliner. The Australian Value-Liner was also a completely different beast from the US one, again being based on the R model frame. Perhaps the set back axle MH is a kind of COE equivalent of the Aussie Value-Liner which also had a set back front axle.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Thanks for the photo! Looks like they only set the front axle back a foot or so, maybe because their would have been too much weight on the front tires otherwise? I'll have to dig through my old copies of "Truck" and see if I can find the article on Mack with the picture.

[Red Horse]

Again, great info and a great thread.  Bottom line is there a quick way to ID a "good" Superliner from an "also ran"?  Vin cutoff no????

[41chevy]

5 minutes ago, Doug Maney said:

This is a photo from my collection.  It shows the hood to cowl joint following the contour of the R-model style cowl.  

No image shows

[Doug Maney]

I had trouble with the computer.  I'll have to load it from work.

 

[Doug Maney]

This is a photo from my collection.  It shows the hood to cowl joint following the contour of the R-model style cowl.

[Doug Maney]

This is a photo from my collection.  It shows the set-back MH chassis with RH drive at the ED&TC.

 

[Whiskymack]

12 hours ago, Doug Maney said:

I had trouble with the computer.  I'll have to load it from work.

 

Is this it?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mexican+mack&safe=active&bih=855&biw=1280&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwillfjO8JPPAhXMKsAKHX1BCeIQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=CEHOE08f7S1lYM%3A

It's my understanding that these were basically R Models with a Superliner hood that were assembled in Mexico, possibly by Transomex?

You can see it's got R model style tanks with the integral step as well. A bit like the Australian Superliner.

[Doug Maney]

That could very well be.  The visor looks like something from another world...