MP7 Engine

[Big Mack Truck]

I would like to know if anyone here has experience working with this engine. I have a question centered around updating a 2006 MP7.

This article boasts about some improvements in the overall efficiency of the engine.

https://www.macktrucks.com/powertrain-and-suspensions/engines/mp7/

Is there anything that you have seen being done with these engines during rebuilds where I could incorporate the best parts of the new improvements?

[Big Mack Truck]

The MP7 is an 11-liter engine available in the three Mack engine families — Econodyne, Maxidyne and MaxiCruise — in six horsepower ratings between 325 and 405 hp, with torque ranging from 1260 to 1560 ft/lb. In 2006, the MP7 will be offered in the company's new Pinnacle and Granite models in an EPA'04-compliant configuration. Additionally, the base design has the key elements to bring it into compliance with the 2007 standards.

[Big Mack Truck]

I feel that the improvements in fuel efficiency and low end torque over the e tech make it a good candidate. I feel as an owner operator the downtime would be minimal with just an egr failure to worry about compared dpf and scr in addition to the growing cost of def. 

[Big Mack Truck]

Does anyone have real world numbers that they can throw in with comparison between it and the old engines? Mpg averages and weight that they haul at typically with said mpg?

[Joey Mack]

just get a volvo D-11..  its a better version.. or a D-12..

[Big Mack Truck]

You say the d12 is better than the mp7? Im gonna have to check into it. I never weighed that option. 

[Joey Mack]

I say it because they always ran good and I don recall the amount of issues compared to an MP..  I am not a wizard on these, just tossing out another Engine model..  I will always be a Mack Guy..   Wonder why no one wants to use a 12.7 Series 60 Detroit.??  I think they are great engines..   jojo

[Mark T]

'04 MP7 was an excelent engine. About the biggest issue was injector cups, and there's no update on them (like going to conicals) also, wirinharnesses were no where near life of chassis. Power wise, they were way more driveable than the last of the grey engines. Very good throttle responce and off idle torque.  Remember, compared to the ASETs and AMIs.... a good running Briggs and Straton seemed powerfull.  They aren't a powerhouse , like an old E7 427 or a Etech 460 would smoke them on a grade.  Fuel wise, came down mostly to the right foot. At @ 73000/75000 pounds in the 6 to 6.25 MPG was realistic.  I had 2, they both had a long life with minimal needs. I actually have a brand new one sitting here in my shop too. (yes, brand new Remack on the skid).  All and all, by no means the worst engine choice I ever made.  

[Big Mack Truck]

1 hour ago, Mark T said:

'04 MP7 was an excelent engine. About the biggest issue was injector cups, and there's no update on them (like going to conicals) also, wirinharnesses were no where near life of chassis. Power wise, they were way more driveable than the last of the grey engines. Very good throttle responce and off idle torque.  Remember, compared to the ASETs and AMIs.... a good running Briggs and Straton seemed powerfull.  They aren't a powerhouse , like an old E7 427 or a Etech 460 would smoke them on a grade.  Fuel wise, came down mostly to the right foot. At @ 73000/75000 pounds in the 6 to 6.25 MPG was realistic.  I had 2, they both had a long life with minimal needs. I actually have a brand new one sitting here in my shop too. (yes, brand new Remack on the skid).  All and all, by no means the worst engine choice I ever made.  

Mark this is extremely relevant. Thank you so much for your input. I would like to add that I had an e tech 460 which I really loved but I got it at the end of its life expectancy. Did you run with 460 e techs? My ultimate goal is overall owner operators ease of use. I want to take the truck and run it at around 65 mph typically. Down time has been my most expensive factor during my time as an owner operators. I once spent a month in a hotel in Tulsa awaiting repair and I learned to fear the emissions equipment. Which engine is more economical? E tech vs mp7? I just assumed the mp7 was going to be the next piece in the puzzle therefore more economical. But I do understand it has some limitations, I dont mind being slower up the hill, which is more economical? My engine brake was the most useless thing with the E tech and that is a very big deal to me. Is the mp7 better with Jake braking?

I would be interested in your mp7 are you entertaining selling it?

[Big Mack Truck]

6 to 6.25 is a very agreeable economy, I am a huge numbers guy. I calculate my fuel costs by 100,000 miles annually and average the price at $4 per gallon. Thats an achievable goal of 65,000 dollars fuel cost if everything else is reliable with the motor. I would rather have the ability to keep trucking than save 7 to 8 mpg

[Mark T]

I've had them all. The Etech 460 was a very good engine. It has several updates on the overhead, and luckily I dodged any issues there. That one had a J Tech engine brake and it worked very good. I had strong E7s too. The MP's engine brake worked fairly well, compared to the displacement of the engine.  All of them made it past at least 700,000 miles. ( some were sold at that point and never had the oil pan or head(s) off )  Maintenance is everything, and doing your best to keep them from overheating. In my opinion, as long as it's not an AMI or ASET they were all pretty good engines without enough power to destroy the rest of the truck. Enough power to do the job though and long life to overhaul.  And yes, the MP on the skid is for sale.

[dexter860]

I am currently running both a 2014 Mp7 and a 95 E7 350 pulling flatbed. The mp7 is a 6x2 with 3:21 rears wide base singles small sleeper averaging 7.8mpg . The odometer has been changed and not accurate in 95 , I made the same run 370 mile round trip with both trucks and the 95 twin screw 4:17 rears small sleeper only burned 3.5 gallons more fuel. I personally like the simplicity of the 95 better.