Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hauled 140,000 gross every day with my old 2000 CH with an E7 460, 18 speed, and if I remember correctly 4.11 gears. (46,000 pound Eaton's) And we're all hills up here. I also scaled the second heaviest load of hog fuel into our local flakeboard mill at 167,551 pounds gross.

I couldn't pass the 475 Cat's in our fleet but I could just about stay with them. So I would say you shouldn't have a problem.

ch2.jpg

I don't have any real knowledge on how to properly spec. out a truck for specific jobs and work loads, but what i can tell you is that where I came from in Maine,  Many guys who didnt have superliners for logging, construction, and moving oversized loads, had CL's..  460 HP and 460 XT'x, 18 speed tranny/ 4:14 and 4:42 rears.. camel back rears, #44+ lbs.  The CL replaced the RW. Those were big shoes to fill... I say the CL did it!!  Of course this is my opinion,  Jojo

CL frame was the same as the RW for the most part, except the set back axle part.  I sometimes wondered why they never made an axle forward CL 🤔

Mack was on their kick then that if it was over 400 HP it had to have 200 series carriers E7s and E9s in the beginning then Cummins and E Techs were the popular power. Don't see many in service anymore, but they were pretty good trucks.  Never quite had the appeal of the Superliner though.

I have repaired CL's with 92/93 rears..  We were Taught that you had to have 200 series carriers for the high torque applications, as well as the 2130/2180 tranny..  the difference in the rears was the spur shaft housing.. now if i'm wrong,???  teach me...  jojo

IDK about wrong, but the carrier was bigger and the ratios were off a few tenths of a turn from 92/93s .....oh, and if you were lucky enough to have one with the cam and wedges instead of spiders ?  in 1999 they were over five grand to get rebuilt (lol)  I thought I remembered something about the HP dictating you had to have them.  I had a '97 with a 454. Had to have them. My 2000 with the 460 ?  92/93s .  And the one that was destroyed was in a cutoff I swapped into the truck in my avatar (E9) and that was destroyed when the guy got it stuck dumping in a sand mound .  

cam and peanuts was in the input housing/power divider... the bull gear houses the spiders/differential.  they were the same..  the spur shaft housing in the 200 series, had partially enclosed assembly the required removal of the bull gear before removing the spurshaft and the housing,  in the case that you had to do a top reduction repair. this required a full re-build/ re-check of all pre-loads and tooth patterns.  yes, the 200 is tough, but in my opinion, the 92/93 was good enough...  The driver broke the truck, not poor build quality..  jojo

Trust me on this one....there was an option for cam and wedges instead of spiders. Maybe it was only the back rear, but they made it. I'd have to agree, 92/93 ?  they had to be abused beyond God only knows what or worn out from years of use.  And yes , that one that was grenaded was total driver stupidity.   

On that rear end,,, I have no clue..  with all the rears I built, I never did build a full locker..  so on that, i'm out.  sorry i dont have the knowledge,  jojo

Speaking of Mack rears. I have heard lots of complaints about them and I have also seen some fail on local log trucks (mostly when only chaining up tires of one axle.)

But we have some Western Star glider dump trucks in the mine that have 65,000 Mack rears on solid walking beams with 6.13 gears, running highly overloaded 24 hours a day 475/550 Cat powered and I have yet to see a single failure. Lots and lots of transmission's and driveshafts and yokes replaced but not one rear axle failure.

speaking of Mack Banjo housing's.. This is one of my current job's. 2005 CXN-613..  I tried to find a housing at salvage and DEX, but, no luck....  Had to buy from Mack...   $5200.00,  and the axle for that side was $635.00..    Volvo is doing a great job at trying to destroy small trucking companies..  I should have the parts by friday..  Slow to ship these High dollar parts for some reason..   Jojo

KIMG1117.JPG

  • Like 1
32 minutes ago, Joey Mack said:

speaking of Mack Banjo housing's.. This is one of my current job's. 2005 CXN-613..  I tried to find a housing at salvage and DEX, but, no luck....  Had to buy from Mack...   $5200.00,  and the axle for that side was $635.00..    Volvo is doing a great job at trying to destroy small trucking companies..  I should have the parts by friday..  Slow to ship these High dollar parts for some reason..   Jojo

KIMG1117.JPG

I have one of those, like new.

I was told they cracked because of the air ride. Because with air ride, your weight sits on top of the axle, with camelback, the weight is hanging from the axle. And they weren't reinforced correctly til around 2007. Not sure how true that is. 

  • Like 1

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...