looking at buying a ch613. looking for info.

Discussion in 'Mack Forum' started by dustinbrock, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. dustinbrock

    dustinbrock Road Train Member

    1,274
    843
    Apr 19, 2012
    saskatoon,sk
    0
    Thinking about buying a 2001 ch613 with a e7 460 engine that I know very little about, only dealt with Cummins Detroit and cat , I am wondering how the e7 compares, if there's any known issues and more importantly any performance upgrades as 460 isn't very much power for what I do.... I heard something about putting a Detroit 60 turbo on??? Has anyone done this and do you know which turbo specifically???

    Thank you very much for your input
     
  2. chalupa

    chalupa Road Train Member

    3,757
    1,629
    Jul 22, 2010
    Houston,Texas
    0
    It's a 12L engine, 460 is about all your going to get and that's determined by the ECM and the build of the injector pump. Shoving more air won't help, you have to have the fuel and timing to use the it, which you won't have. Your charge air cooler, oil cooler and radiator will all be wrong too.

    It's a metric engine designed by Mack and mfg by Renault. It's very proprietary too. Lots of parts must come from Mack. My E7 has design issues with the oil pump and the water pump. I upgraded them both. The 427 has or had cam issues. SFSG for me.

    If you must have more horsepower then you need more cubes, there is no substitute for CID so you need a 14 or a 15L platform.

    JMO with experience.....
     
  3. alaga

    alaga Light Load Member

    195
    62
    Jan 9, 2012
    Fayetteville, GA
    0
    I have an '03 CH ('02-spec E-7 w/o EGR) with the engine they call a 460-P. It peaks at 487 or so hp, so it is pretty strong for a 12-litre when it is wound-up on the big road, but is slow off the line until you get to the high-side. Currently has 640k on it; has averaged about 6 mpg pulling a flatbed. Lots of them here in the north/central part of GA and a couple of my customers that have fleets of their own were using them, so I thought I would try one.

    Mack engine: I have heard that for a couple of years (was still a Mack motor at that time) that turbos, camshafts, and some crankshaft issues were the order of the day ; my turbo went out at 280k (about a $5,000 hit!), but otherwise I guess it has been a reasonably decent motor; it does have some blow-by and a pesky leak that needs fixing. A Mack district service rep told me to never run it below 1400rpm regardless what the manual might say to the contrary and I have adhered to that advice, and my hp rating is somewhat dead until you get to about 1600 anyhow. I have the 18-speed and need/use it!

    Mack powertrain: trans had to have some repairs to the back box and the axles have had to be re-sealed and the power divider rebuilt ("peanuts went bad" - Mack's words!); and when it was rebuilt, I believe they left too much play in the rear, but that's another chapter.

    As to the rest of the truck: the cab paint has been coming off since about '07 all the way to the metal and makes the truck look bad; and my National Seat has hurt my back from day one; could benefit from some insulation/heat shielding beneath the floor; interior could have been better done as to fit and appearance; aero mirror backs won't stay on without zip-ties; had to replace one plastic radiator overflow tank. Overall, I suppose I don't have too many out-of-the-ordinary complaints for its age/mileage.

    However, I am soon to put a KW on the road (had 2 of them before) with an ISX and send the dog on to a new home, and I am looking forward to getting more cubic inches at work! Now I will have to retrain myself to not wind it up like a 2-stroke Detroit; wonder if I'll get better or worse mpg?
     
  4. durallymax

    durallymax Medium Load Member

    318
    96
    Jan 30, 2011
    0
    The guys ive talked to running 460 Macks think they are pretty weak.

    Mack motors aren't much fun to drive for me you really gotta get them screaming to get anywhere, then sit an wait for the sun to go down before you can catch the next gear. A real PITA to get out of soft spots with if you do a lot of off road work.

    The ride and comfort and nothing to write home about but our CH is tight quiet and smooth. The one thing they lack is legroom. Ours is a 95 with the square dash so things may have changed, but compared to our KW's its pretty tight in there. Compared to our FLD freightliner or the volvo we had, its not too bad though.

    I can't say stay away or jump on it. They're decent trucks, but nothing that really jumps out as yay or nay.

    The biggest turnoff is dealing with Mack. Expensive parts, they have to come from Mack and they are never in stock. With both our KW's and Freightliner I know I can drive to the dealer without calling ahead and they will have what I need or the pete or sterling dealer down the road will because more parts cross. The Mack dealer I usually call ahead and order the parts for the next day.
     
  5. striker

    striker Road Train Member

    4,892
    4,041
    Aug 8, 2009
    Denver, Co
    0
    Put 978K on my '01 CH613, E7 355 hp, Eaton/Fuller 10 spd autoshift, Mack rears. Cam was replaced at 225K, first turbo went at 175K, second one went sometime after 500K. Off the line, you could walk faster, once it got moving, it moved. Most of it's life it was goverened at 76 mph, but for two years we ran 82 mph, on the flats unless they were much bigger than mine, I could hang with anything.
     
  6. peak

    peak Bobtail Member

    36
    11
    Nov 5, 2012
    0
    I have an 02 613, 18 speed with the 460HP E7, 865,xxx miles. What everyone else is saying about them being slow off the line is very true. You arent going to win any drag races. But, once it gets going, it is smooth sailing. I pull my 48K lb excavator with it regularly and have no issues at any speed.

    Ride is fairly smooth, but not as nice as a KW.

    You mentioned that you dont think the 460 will be enough power. Mack is different in the way they state their HP. They state it at the wheels. There 460's have between 450-480 at the wheels. KW, Pete, FL, and Volvo all use the same engines and the HP ratings are from the manufacturers (cummins, detroit, etc.). The average loss is 25% from the engine to the wheels. So, if you had a 550hp KW with a cummins engine, your power on the ground is going to be around 425-450. You are at a wash with the 460 mack.

    I have pulled (only once because I was so illegal) a 90K pound scraper about 300 miles. Again, once I got up to speed, which did take a few miles, I was flying at 75mph without any issues.

    If you ever see the trucks owned by sand and gravel or concrete companies, they are often macks, because they can pull the heaviest of loads with ease.
     
    jimbo47 Thanks this.
  • Draft saved Draft deleted