Opinions on Mack CXU613

I'm currently looking to purchase a 2016 Mack pinnacle cxu613 with a automatic 12 transmission. Does anyone have any feedback on this model and year?

 

I have a mack 2013 cxu 613 12 speed cxu . After 651,000 miles number 6 exhaust valve sheared. Number 6 intake v chipped . Towed to shop $29,679.00 and 3 weeks later rolled out of shop.total rebuild . New head.so far so good. New egr cooler new air cooler New turbo the most important thing is the regen system I send my particular filter on passenger side to get cleaned $250.00 A lot cheap then paying. 2,700.00 to 5,000.00 at a shop Changed dose valve and 7th injector. Knox sensors around 735,000 get oil changed every 20,000 miles.. never found out what caused valve to chip off. Over all the truck makes money and fixes it self and pays all the Bill's what can I say for a truck that I paid 38,000 for and the puppy dog wants to just keep going. Yes I would buy a mack again. But wearing this one out might take some time. After rebuilding it.

 

Best engine mack ever made was the PLN E-7s. The E-tech not so much. The E-7 Etech doesn't even sound like a mack

@6wheeler you must have a sick one.

 

I drove a few of them around 2008.

I can't tell you anything about the engines, but the truck itself was quiet and it rode nice over long distances.

The cab was comfortable even though I seem to remember from the door to the seat to the steering wheel seemed a little tight space wise. Now that I think of it, the cab seemed a little small compared to other trucks.

The ones that I drove seemed like their turning radius was not tight enough. It had a setback front axle, but it just seemed like the wheels would not turn sharply enough like they should. It took more distance that it should have to turn around and you couldn't really jack it when you back in. They had a few of them that were all the same like that.

The other thing is that the tilt wheel I seem to remember didn't have a whole lot of range.

With all of that being said though the truck was comfortable and quiet and rode nicely.

 

The 93 ch i drive is a set back and has the turning radius of a cruise ship. W9s and the FL classic has more wheel cut. It rides like a baby carriage tho. The other truck is a 99 set forward axle and it turns sharper.




Op imo get an older mack with the e7. You'll be better off

 

It makes you wonder why that is that those trucks do not turn as sharply.

I was a lease driver for a couple of years and I drove pretty much every kind of truck there is.

Of all of them, the FLD with the set-back axle turns the absolute sharpest.

When I first drove one of them, I could not believe how big that truck was and how easily I could back in.

Not to mention that the tilt wheel on the FLD has the absolute most range of any truck I've ever been in.

As far as Mack trucks go, I looked at a 99 dump truck one time.

The truck was at the Mack Dealership because they said every so often the computer had problems because of where it was on the engine and they said it would get wet and I think the computer had to be replaced.

But I was really impressed with how well that engine ran. I think it was a 400.

Ironically I looked at another truck while I was at the dealership and that one had a 460 around the same year.

At a certain RPM it had a miss- only at that one exact RPM- and whether they were yanking my chain or not they said that all the 460s were that way.

 

Now I remember. Took me some pretty pictures.

445 HP is marginal today. I would not take her into some of the really big mountains that I have taken larger horse engines into since the Mack similar to that I had.

Nothing really bad, cab is smallish. Sleeps well without hot spots in the bunk. cooling is debatable. It did have short legs in the trans which eh... it's typical mack. Front end? Eh.

Its NOT a bad truck IMHO, just a little runt. Ive spent a awful lot of time in macks dating to the early 60's and some of those earned a place in my heart. I could go off road with them when I needed to and be assured I can get back out. But those cabs. The interior space is a little small today for me. Ive gotten accustomed to full condos where everything has a spot and snug for bad mountain roads and the horsies to do it. (Minimum 500+) and that is what made me what I am today.

 

The 93 has the bosch P7100 EDC pump and the 460 was an Etech with unit pump injectors ran off the cam. With the XT file they put out 487hp/1760tq not bad for only 11.9L

Coming up the hill on 80 to 380 i pull it 58mph with 43k in the box. The large cars prob think im MT.

@x1Heavy our 93 came with rockwell up against the dash 9 w/.73od and almost all of em had 3.73 3.91 or 4.11 if they were rockwells. The old 454s had 1660tq 10 more than the bk 500 60 series. The XT file in the electronic unit pump etech had 487/1760 out of a 11.9 you cant ask for much more than that.

 

No that's nice numbers. I had a day cab that was only a 350 but she was a ice goat in the Altoona many days on that run.

 

I love the 93 in the snow. It really inspires confidence because it does what i want and doesnt fight back. I'll get flack for this but besides me a lot of other ppl will say its one of the best riding trucks. FL Classic 275wb, 379 t800 crapcadia all dont have the plushness. Its a shame what volvo did.

 

I liked my tractors overall in good condition as in solid and capable in the snow or ice. Might be a bag of tricks to work with them. I remember one ice storm event that left I-78 essentially closed through Allentown one day Im near Summit on a 3 mile westbound drop that was ALL ice. She slid near the top. Trailer slid. Erm not a good idea to go that way but Im already there.

Picked 4th, both axles locked and started off at dead idle. By the time I got to the bottom the trailer wanted to one side. So I picked up two and added power gently not to whip it. And let her go. I was able to tame it fast once I was back flat near the Strohs but needed a good stiff drink or two after. That would had to wait a while.