90's Macks??? Info Pls

At my dump company we run mid-late 90's Ch's as well as some 2000+ CH's. I run a E7-460 and it is a very powerful motor that can be turned up, but we've also had quite a few problems out of them. We've had 2 460's rebuilt with under 300,000 miles and getting the jakes to stay working is a pain in rear. We have 3 427's but 2 of them are in brand new automatics and the other is in an '01. It's about the junkiest motor I've ever seen and is ALWAYS broke down with around 330,000 miles. We only have one 350 left and you cannot kill that dang motor. It's in a '96 CH with about 550,000 miles . It's a little sluggish from a stop and isn't quite as refined as the others but it'll run with the rest. It's our starter truck and I've seen drivers run it 3 gallons low on oil and not have a lick of water in the tank but the bad boy keeps on truckin. As far as power and reliability go, our two 97' CH's with E7-454's are the best we got. They have almost as much power as the 460's and are just as reliable as the 350. So if I could get my hands on an E7-454 I'd jump at it. Anything in the 90's should have a Eaton-Fuller tranny in it because Mack didn't start putting Mack trannies in until 2002 or around there. I know alot of companies that run 400's and 370's but they are almost always automatics so I can't comment. We have trucks with E-F rear ends and trucks with Mack rear ends and there both great and can take a beating.Shop around good though because almost every Mack we have has all kinds of electrical problems including the 3 07's. I can't comment on fuel mileage because there all dumps. I'm not a mechanic by any means but I have driven alot of bulldogs, so there' my two cents. Good luck.

 

my co. has 4-5 ch 613's around 2000 model years. my truck has been rebuilt 2 times in litle over 400,000, e-7 427. they have rebuilt all of them at least once. dropped sleeves. have a few r models, non computer. can't kill them. geared right they drive and run with the ch's. not as comfortable, but bullet proof.

 

I worked for Beelman for a little while and out of over 400 power units most were E7-427 with super10 in CH613's at the time...They had tons of trouble out of them to the point of switching to Pete 378 and Freightshakers.You could pass our local Mack dealer,Mcbride Mack,any time of day or night and there would be 8 to 10 Beelman trucks sitting and waiting on repairs in addition to what Beelman's shops were working on at any given time.I was assigned a less than year old low milage truck and had trouble with starter relays and odds and ends in a period of about 9 weeks(Couldn't get paid from Beelman on time or the right amount so thats as long as I lasted with them).As far as a truck is concerned,out of the many different trucks I've owned or driven I was least impressed with the ch613 as far as handling,power or comfort was concerned and driving it was a chore.The upside to them is they appeared simple to work on without a lot of complicated electrical crap and would turn on a dime.Before the Mack fans mob me I'd like to say I've ran a Superliner and an R model,both winch trucks and I thought they were great trucks for the job and I'm looking at trading a guy out a B model to restore and put a western hauler bed on to pull a horse trailer and antique tractors with so I'm not downing Macks.I just feel like the CH is a piece of disposable junk...check their resale prices against same year and equipped trucks and that should be an indicator.

 

There were some problems with the turbos once the EPA-mandated EGR system was added...raised the under-hood temps and components had shortened life spans. I wouldn't touch a 2003 or later E-7...although some have had success blocking off the EGR system to get better longevity out of the associated (now unused) emissions components.

The real problem with a lot of Mack trucks is that people don't spec them as Mack trucks. They get the Fuller transmissions and rears...and they just don't hold up to the abuse of a real work truck. If you are going to spec vendor transmissions and rear ends, you may as well buy a petercar, freightshaker, kenwhopper, corn binder, or any OTHER make of truck. Heck, you can even get a cummins under the hood if you want to spec it that way. I don't know WHY someone would want to do that, but they can.

I happen to like my CH. It pulls any load I need it to pull, across any terrain I need to cross, and I never worry about whether it will make it out or not. It's got the E7-460 which gives me all the power I NEED, even though I doubt I could EVER have as much as I'd WANT....is there such a thing as "too much" power?...and plenty of gears to choose from. It is enough that I can drive across Southern IN on I-64 to Louisville grossing 80,000 pounds and never have to move the shifter. I don't even have to split, but it lugs more than I care to lug an engine if I do that...that's where the "more power" would come in handy. Once it is paid off, I'll look into turning it up a little.

About the ONLY thing I don't like about my CH is the air ride. If I could change anything, I'd pull the Hendrickson HAS off and swap it out for the AR2. In a perfect world, I'd just get the camelback...but I need the air to gauge my load. I've got the Mack 2180B transmission, which does everything I need it to (including run 2 PTO's), and 38K Mack rears geared at 4.17...which I wouldn't mind swapping out for some 46K or 58K rears geared at either 4.35 or 4.42. It's an '01...pre-EPA and pre-volvo. Like I said, it does anything and everything I need it to do and doesn't even break a sweat.

I carry a chain in my side box for those sticky situations, but more often than not, it gets used to pull a Petercar out of the way so I can get in and dump.

 

Your best bet is to stay with the E6 4valve 350 mack motor and mack 12 or10spd ,the 350 was a very reliable motor and will pull just as good or better than a 400 Cummins or 400 Cat depending on were you will run if alot of off road Mack camelback suspension will do fine but rides like a tank i would finded air ride if it was me most of the newer Mack motors have all had issues with them .

 

Air ride sucks off road. If he's looking for a mid-90's Mack, I doubt he's going to take it OTR.

The camelback can't be beat off road. Walking beam comes in a close second. If you need a way to gauge your load, there are a few manufacturers which replaced the steel spring on the walking beam with air ride...Hendrickson AR2 is the biggest one, with Raydan also offering their own version with the Air Link suspension. I haven't had the opportunity to drive a truck with either, but it looks to be a decent compromise between on-road comfort and off-road competence.

As far as longevity, go to ANY work site that is rough on equipment...construction, oilfields, mines, quarries, etc. You will see more 20-30 year old Mack's still running strong, where other makes are looking ratty and falling apart after only 5-10 years.

 

The original post was made in February 2008,....

5mouths has long since bought the truck in his avatar,...........

I don't think he's looking at Macks anymore,....