Maxitorque transmission input numbers

One for Mrs, but anyone please feel free to jump in.
Looking back over some old posts both here and on Big Rigs, was trying to find out just how much torque could be shovelled into the old 5 speed triple countershaft Maxitorque transmissions?
If I have this right, the same box was used behind the 237/285 sixes, as well as the 375 V8, but the V8 may have had a larger input shaft diameter?
I couldnt find any exact figures for torque inputs, but recall the V8 Maxidyne was at the time one of the highest available.
Wasnt all that unusual to see an
auxillary box behind the 5 speeds, especially Spicer 4 speeds for heavy haulage and I think they were rated around 1200 ft/lbs ( given that aux boxes were rated differently than the main trans, had to be multiplied by the first gear ratio, something like that, used to know but forgotten now).
Going by what I read both here and on the Big Rigs site, the Maxitorques were phased out in favour of 13 and even 18 speeds, looks like both Eaton and Macks own multispeeds??
Dave_64

Dave, have a good trawl through Here.. or join Up & ask..!!

www.bigmacktrucks.com/

There's some Knowledgeable Mack Guru's on there...

Edit, get yourself a copy of this book.... The answer will be in there & It's a Great Read Too..
www.outbackbooks.info/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=9

Do believe the transmission is the same for all motors Mack fitted (V8 or inline) and feel off the top of my is 2100 ft lb was the number across the board


Paul

Mrs,
That figure you quoted rings a bell as I think at the time the 5 speed Maxitorque was about the highest input for a road going trans.
Which throws my 1200 ft/lbs for the Spicer auxilliary out the window!
I recall seeing in the old Truck and Bus mags, about once a year they used to publish a pretty comprehensive list on both engine and transmission specs.
What was the old "four and a quarter" Cat, 1693? 1694? 425hp pre 3406's?
Also knocking out big mobs of torque.
Barry Cullen from Harden had one in a cab over KW from memory.
Dave_64

Dave I couldn't advise on the Cat figures, I do know they had bucket loads of torque and I feel were unequaled in torque except that big Cummins KTA
It was only in recent years that any motors in trucks began exceeding the Maxitorques ratings

The old Maxi troque was a truely remarkable transmission, a bit agricultural to drive but tough and dependable

Paul

Dave the the "four and a quarters" that I had experience with were 3406Bs from memory BUT, IDSTBC!!!

wee-allis wrote:

Dave the the "four and a quarters" that I had experience with were 3406Bs from memory BUT, IDSTBC!!!

Up here the "four and a quarter" was the 425 HP 3406. I drove one for 5 years, RTO 15 speed, and it was an excellent combo!! I could NOT talk the owner out of swapping it for a newer 435HP 3406E which was a piece of junk!!

Done a bit more digging on the "four and a quarter" on another forum seems to be dedicated to "pussy power".
Seems like we were both right inasmuch as the 1693TA was a pre combustion chambered engine superceded by the direct injection first of the 3406's.
Although sharing the same bore and stroke, seems that was about all they had in common, other than the nickname "four and a quarter".
Forums are only as good as the person who enters the info, as we all know.
Has been suggested that the earlier 1693 truck engine was developed from the earthmoving/ industrial side of the company, no worries about weight or fuel economy, it boasted a 24 volt starter motor and could be had with both a brakesaver hydraulic retarder and or a 16 speed semi-auto "Power -shift" transmission as well as conventional boxes.
Just see the weight adding up there!
I'm only filling in the blanks here, seems when Cat decided an all out bid for on highway truck engine supremacy, mainly against GM and Cummins they both had to get the weight of the engine down as well as better economy and get output HP up.
Someone will correct me but I have an inkling that at one stage Cat had something like 40% of the class 8 engine power market.
Just why they stopped supplying engines to mainline manufacturers is well documented if you want to Youtube or Google it.

Of course this has led us away from the original topic (Maxitorque numbers) which the original posting asked, Guilty yer honour!
Get so sidetracked sometimes!
What bought it to mind was seeing a couple of old photos of Macks, R models, with the big square bonnets and as the 375 Maxidyne( at the time their largest engine offering) blokes were ordering them with 400+ HP specs, mostly Cummins or Cats, not only on float work as in Brambles, but in/on general linehaul work.
FBT had a subby, Lionel, with an R700 and a Cat 400 in it, used to pull like a train.
Of course it didnt take long before Mack started playing catch up footy their big V8 ending up pumping out something like 610 HP in the Shell B-doubles , what happened there anyway?
No longer meet ever more stringent pollution regulations?
Same as Cat?
Yet you can still order a gas guzzling, smoke belching industrial engine!
For how much longer though?
What are we up to now, Euro 5 or 6?
And other than Cummins is anyone other than the Europeans making a fair dinkum attempt at compliance?
Going on their (Europeans) latest offerings, 700-750 Hp is just about the benchmark these days, and seem to be attaining it as well as economy!
Rant for today!
Dave_64

The ones I drove were in Louies and both on local semi tipper work and interstate and had 13 speed R/Rs and we never had to touch them. On the Melbourne to Sydney trip, even though they were set at 103km/hour, we would do the same times for the trip as the 4x4s, (4 ton and 400hp), They would call you up as "the mobile road block", fly past in a row about 10 feet apart, then pull up at a truck stop and talk crap as you went by, This would happen some times 3 times in a trip, but we all got to Sydney at the same time.

Yes, I thought they were a good bit of gear.

So I dunno much about much

The Maxitorque was and still is a good box, the reason I think that people dont like them as much as a Road Ranger is that you cant just slam them thru gears

This isnt a issue for most but can make it a challenge trying to grab the next gear climbing a hill

I think the reason for this is that the rotating mass is huge compared to a RoadRanger and it can make it more challenging to race changes

The E9 finished out at 675 HP in Australia were the government was more understanding

Cats move to get away from highway trucks and get into making their own brand was badly timed with world events

To take it further off topic, I had a chance to go thru the Yatala warehouse once, well worth a visit if you ever get a chance


Paul