Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am new to the Mack world and im trying to find a manual to understand my truck better, I have a 1989 cm422. I haven't seen any service manuals online but I have seen CS200/250/300 literature. Would  CS or MS info from around the same year help me ANY or are they totally different and therefore useless?

Link to comment
https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/52260-cm422-related-to-the-mscs-models/
Share on other sites

yes I've read that ALOT lol parts are nowhere to be found but for $800 I couldn't pass up a running truck in great shape. But still thanks though you saved me on buying a unusable manual. I did find a custom CM422 manual, although serial range my VIN doesn't fall in. I think it'll get me further then where I stand.

  • Like 1

It was a truck the market wanted.

Mack killed it pretty quick with a lack of options such as rear suspensions etc. Considering Mack had control of the product unlike Midliners, they let the model expire.

There were city pick and delivery that needed a smaller then R model truck that was also cheaper. The CM422/423 was ok but the CM432/33 was a better idea with the Cummins 8.3l engine.

It wasn't marketed very well. The CS/MS300T series was doing fine on the market then for class 7.  The "baby 8" market did well when Freightliner produced FL80 to 106 in the same market with better options.

In the end entering into the 90s withe the CM, The fleets seemed fine with paying a little extra when the CH came along.

22 minutes ago, bbigrig said:

It was a truck the market wanted.

Mack killed it pretty quick with a lack of options such as rear suspensions etc. Considering Mack had control of the product unlike Midliners, they let the model expire.

There were city pick and delivery that needed a smaller then R model truck that was also cheaper. The CM422/423 was ok but the CM432/33 was a better idea with the Cummins 8.3l engine.

It wasn't marketed very well. The CS/MS300T series was doing fine on the market then for class 7.  The "baby 8" market did well when Freightliner produced FL80 to 106 in the same market with better options.

In the end entering into the 90s withe the CM, The fleets seemed fine with paying a little extra when the CH came along.

I have to respectfully disagree. The distributor council never asked for it, nor did our fleet customers (Overnite, ect.). It was more Renault's idea. Good intentions, but...... And as you said, it was poorly launched. Frankly, the dealers, who'd never asked for it, didn't know what to do with it.

The MS250P, with full air brakes, was the best MId-Liner. I did enjoy the MS300T with the 10-speed splitted transmission but the big fleets wouldn't buy it.

The market bares the proof on this one. Not opinion.

The Baby 8 CM was for the in between of the 300 series Midliner and expensive R or CH.

The CS/MS 300 product line lacked the in between power and larger the 34000lb gvwr. All you have to do is look at the success of the FL80 and 106 product line.

Also the International 4900 series Kenworth T300 or 450, Sterling Acterra. All available in early to mid 90s and sold fairly well. Mack didn't offer a tandem lighter and better priced unit likes it's competitors.

The CM was actually slightly ahead of the market need.

 

There was no market for a Mack baby 8. The distributor council was not asking for this product. It was, so to speak, dumped on them.

Fast forward to recent years, you're right, we've seen Paccar, for example, capitalize on the baby 8 vocational market. People want a low price truck with heavy truck specs. You see them everywhere. (Volvo is the exception, having failed to gain any traction with its Mack brand Granite MHD offering).

The CM never stood a chance because it was bizarre looking to American baby 8 customers. Unlike medium truck customers, they don't buy class 8 Mack trucks with French cabs and engines, and a convoluted appearance.

14 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

There was no market for a Mack baby 8. The distributor council was not asking for this product. It was, so to speak, dumped on them.

Fast forward to recent years, you're right, we've seen Paccar, for example, capitalize on the baby 8 vocational market. People want a low price truck with heavy truck specs. You see them everywhere. (Volvo is the exception, having failed to gain any traction with its Mack brand Granite MHD offering).

The CM never stood a chance because it was bizarre looking to American baby 8 customers. Unlike medium truck customers, they don't buy class 8 Mack trucks with French cabs and engines, and a convoluted appearance.

Customers buying any FL50 to FL106 were buying a European designed MB cab. It's how you disguise things that scare uninformed customers that sells. Ask any Mack customer from 2007 on with a Volvo engine and frame. Oh Wait, that's me...lol

There are a few CMs still on the road today here. Best part, almost everything chassis related is still available for parts replacement.

Edited by bbigrig
12 hours ago, Maxidyne said:

Had a rental one once, it drove bizarre too- The 5 by 2 transmission with the weird shift pattern put off many drivers, but fortunately we didn't have to drive it much because it was usually broke down.

If I remember correctly, anything above a  6speed transmission was a fuller trans on a CM.

CS and MS had strange 9 and 10speed Renault transmissions as options. We had 9 speeds RVIs in some CS trucks. They did well.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...