Should I buy a mack?

I love the mp8 mack engine when set up correctly is a beast even with an automatic transmission

 

I agree. The mp8 set at 505 paired with a Mack 13 speed is an awesome combination.

 

The RD's are work horses and will take a beating. Mine had a E7 400 and it had good power, wasn't a race horse but worked like a mule.

 

I'll just have to stick with the v8 format Mack Engine.

 

The Ch's don't have steel cabs. The older R and supers did. Look for one that's been down south most of its life. Both of ours came from Texas. They ride really smooth with Hendrickson air ride. Like a baby carriage lol. 91-97 imo is the best years in terms of reliability. Simple design. Uses a Bosch P pump with an electronic gov. (P7100 same as 5.9 Cummins except EDC Gov instead of mechanical Rqv Gov.) Million mile + motors doing just basic maintenance, comparable power to the 60 series and easy on fuel. The 454 has 1660tq and you used to be able to get the newer E-7 Etech 98-03 with xt package 487/1760. Top of the line for 12.7 60 was 1650...

The etech were good motors also. Some had cam issues due to it being a new design (98-00) it used an extra lobe on the cam for unit injectors replacing the injection pump. (Imo the old e7 was silky smooth compared to etech) both will pull right down to 1250-1300 but i don't take em that low. Really they like 1400-1800 with 1550 being the sweet spot for cruising. They start real easy in cold weather. We've had sit all weekend not plugged in at 10 degrees and they still fire.

Throw some fuel to em and they'll run right with the big boys. Surprised more than a few large cars. Antrims dyno has had a few E-7s throw down over 700 to the wheels, daily runners too. We run a 171702 (s475) turbo with bigger injectors and pump turned up. No idea what hp but it's pretty mean. Take a look at the side of the wagon LOL. Rolls coal like you wouldn't believe if you mash her between shifts

 

If you want heavier spec go with all mack components. Top load rears and t2180. The 99 is all mack. 4.42 rears t2180 18sp 44k rears and 14.7k front. Not that we needed that spec to drag a van lol. Only 550k original miles on it

One of the reasons they have a lot of low end grunt is because of the big 6.5 inch stroke for its small 11.9L. Same amount of stroke as a 3406.

 

You know a lot more about them than I do lol I had the pleasure of running a CL713 with a 454 and a 13 spd. I still haven't driven a truck that ran as good as that one did

 

You should get out more......lol

 

Only been driving for 7 months but I'll try

 

Some more info on the E-7s

They're based off of the E-6s, same 4.875 bore and they increased the stroke from 6in to 6.5 inch. The E-7 also has buttress bolts going into the side of the block to keep the crank from walking along with a beefier bottom end. E-6 was a dry liner while E-7 is wet liner, actually the top 1/4 is dry and the rest is wet.

The marine E-7s were rated up to 750hp and ran something like 2300-2400rpm

The E-7s I would shy away from are 04-07 egr engines. You can "fix" them though and it's not too awful costly to do it. There's a thread on big mack trucks step by step. The aset AC in the road tractors had traditional egr while the AI had an extra lobe on the cam to recycle exhaust gasses. Both were severely under powered and were pigs on fuel. But just the bolt on parts were the problem. Can easily be "fixed"