hovisimo

any experience with Mack engines? old or new? I deal with some old school truckers who tell some tall tales, but I keep consistently hearing that old Macks from the 1980s would outrun trucks with bigger Cummins and Cats. for example a 300 Mack would outpull a 400 Cummins even if the Cummins had a lighter load. also heard they used to shoot flames out the exhaust under full load.

any truth to this? I drove a 1970 something B model with a 300 and a 2005 Vision with a 460 and neither one of them pulled that great.

MikeyB

I drove a '78 RS600 with a 285hp Maxidyne and a 10spd Maxitorque transmission. No speed demon but a very reliable workhorse. No way it could keep up with our Marmons with 400hp Cummins and 435hp Detroits.

MikeyB

bumpytruck

I just purchased a 80 Mack with a 300 in it. I have not used it under a load as of yet (got it home tonight ) but it sure ran nice empty. (E.W. 27600) I'm cautsiously optimistic. My research showed that they run forever and they hold their value quite well also.I've heard many stories of 1 million plus miles.I guess we'll see. I will post some pictures when its relettered.I will watch this thread,so post more input.

cumminsdriver635

I always liked the mack trucks, but I have never driven one. The boss man has an 85 GMC Brigadier with a 275 or 300hp cummins L10 in it, and a 9 speed Eaton, and it is a pretty stout old truck. It has just over 700k miles on it. She misses a little, and smokes a lot till she warms up, but man i love that truck.

Eric

pind

Ok, mack engines are not necessarily the stuff that legends are made of.

Mack isn't all about the engine, it is all about how they put the power to the ground. Comparing a 400 mack, with a 400 cummins in a kenworth, is literally comparing apples to oranges, and coming up with grapefruit.

Engine builders, CAT, Cummins, Detriot, they build engines, and rate them at the flywheel, so a 400 in any of those, is 400HP at the flywheel.

Mack rated theirs at the ground, where it counts, because their engine, their tranny, their diffs, their truck, allowed them to do that. This is the biggest reason why, number for number, a mack will outpull a competitor's engine.

They are not a speed demon engine either, happy to rumble along between 1400 - 1800 rpm, they had a tendency to drop valve seats if over-revved. Good power down low, where you needed it. Not always fuel efficient, but strong engines, and strong trucks.

I work on one in particular, a 1973 R700 which is now a dump truck, but put the first 1,630,000 MILES on hauling fuel up the alaska highway, and hauling end dumps and belly dumps on various construction sites in between highway trips. This was when the alaska highway was the road to hell, all gravel, and more twists than stephen king's imagination. That particular truck has had several compressors, 2 starters, a couple clutches, but no major engine work at all.

All in all, bulldogs might be ugly, but they serve their purpose

Russ Roth

I don't know how many different rigs I have driven but in the late 70's I could count more than 50. Probably in the hundreds by now. A great many of them were Macks with the earlier ones (60's-late 70's) Cummins powered. Reason so many is that I have only driven part time since 1972 so I get whatever is sitting in the yard. That could range from the newest to the oldest pile the company had. Almost all the new rigs the company bought were Macks and the later ones ('80's and newer) were Mack powered. The power house ones were a couple Truck/trailer combos with the E9 V8. Ran circles around my brothers 80,000 lb '79 Superliner with Cummins 400/15 speed and it ran pretty well. To add insult to injury the T/T grossed 105,000! I can't recall what the E9's were rated at but I know it was not the full on 500 horse job. There were a couple E6 285 HP Mack that were grossly underpowered but I never drove either of those although I ran with one once so I knew how sick they were. Those were 6 axle jobs @ about 86,000 gross. They did not last long and were replaced with a # of 4 axle '87 R models with the E6 350 HP engine. First time I popped the hood on one of those I about died laughing. The engine was soooo small. 7 axles, loaded and I was not at all impressed going down the road until I ran across the scale. 52,000 plus on the tractor and about 43,000 on the trailer. Didn't think they ran so bad after seeing those #'s. That was the first time I had pulled 7 axles. Later the company bought CH models with E7 400 HP engines. The first ones ran pretty well. Not sure what they did with the later ones rated @ 400 but most do not seem to pull as well as some of the older ones long gone from the fleet now. We are also mostly pulling 8 axles @ 102,500 with semis and 105,500 with doubles. Once in a while I would get one that ran really well but mostly not so good. For some reason the powers that be (that would be the Ole Man) think less power equates to more fuel mileage and you cannot convince him otherwise. One of the best powered rigs I can recall driving was an ant eater KW with a 425 Cat. It's a good thing he never knew how well that one ran.

Overall the Mack engines seem to be very good. Many of the trucks have run 750,000+ miles with no tear down and some in excess of 900,000. I can't imagine a 300 HP Mack outpulling a 400 HP of anything. Currently the company runs somewhere between 250 and 300 power units.

http://www.walshtruckingco.com/contact.php

The Tank

300 mack was a good motor, good low end power. We had a 300 in the shop one time, droped a vavle seat repowered it with a 237 bad idea. Old macks dont die they just get turned into dump trucks. Everyone I have drove still has the fifth wheel slide or the trailer air vavle in it.

JKM

We have an 06 mack at work , not sure what size engine it has , but it is a renault <sp Engine , it's in the 500 hp area, It pulls just as hard as our frightliner with a 460hp N14 ( that i swear has to have been turned up to the 500hp mark), and almost as well as our kenworth with a C15.

The driver seems to like the truck , it has been totally trouble free, aside from maintenance. One note i will make , is the truck is very picky about fuel filters, it's not hard to tell when they need changed.

mj007

A good 300 Maxidyne is hard to beat with anything else of the same rating. The wide (1100 to 2100 RPM) operating range and 5-speed transmission means that you're pulling more than shifting on grades .... like our Rams they are all about usable torque.

DmaxEter

Hey, I have seen a few Mack trucks and engines before. I cant remember where but I know I have. They always seemed pretty good to me. I know they got funny lookin rear ends and transmissions!

Formerice

I am a lobsterboat builder and a couple of my boats are powered by the E 9 Mack 900 hp v8's. They were very powerful and easily pumped up for more power. Light weight for the power 3100 lbs. One owner had 1,500hp Mack built with 4 turbos, it pushed a heavy 36' full keel 3' 6" draft work boat that went 59.8 mph. My brother has an 18 wheel dump truck with a pumped up E9 Mack also, very powerful. The sound of a 1500 hp Mack diesel is pretty cool also. They are very powerful but not the most reliable.

1-2-3

I don't know anything about these things, but I remember years ago, my grandfather ran a logging business cutting and hauling trees in east Texas. When we would get to visit him in the summers, he'd take us to the woods. he alwys ran macs. had a Mac buldog sitting on top of the tv for 50 yrears it seems. He would load his trucks to the absolute max and never had issues hauling anything. I remember once when his truck caved in a bridge because it was so heavy.

MikeyB

When I was growing up in the piney woods of east Texas only two types of trucks was used for hauling logs and pulpwood, Macks and Brockways.

MikeyB

Totallyrad

I've got an 85 R688ST with a 300, Mack 9 and Mack rears. It's certainly not a fast truck but I've never not been able to get anywhere I needed to. After Katrina hit I pulled a 23,000 lb excavator to the western Mississippi line. The trip was 850 some odd miles. I refueled when I got back, 101 gallons. I don't complain about it not being fast.

DmaxEter

23,000lbs??????? I cant believe your ole' mack didnt just lay down and roll over as if to get a belly rub and beg for some more weight! That old R model needs about 60,000lbs on a trailer to make it happy! Get your gross up around 110,000 - 120,000lbs and then you can see the true potential! Remember, bulldogs are a short, stout, muscular breed. They need to be kept in shape with a good excersise routine.