on line mack muster

Hi, no not enough power. looking for a marine E9 or a marine 3408. gotta have the big hp for triples

www.stlouisdumptrucks.com/ConvoyMackTruck/RDs_Macks.html

cat 3408 420 hp@1900. torque 1460@1200 450@ 2100 torque1350@1500. mack e9 400@1700, torque1500@1200. e9 440 440@1800, torque 1495@1350 . e9 450 @1800. torque1545@1250 .e9 500 @1900, torque 1603@1350. these ratings are on mechanical pumps. the engine that uses the least fuel is the e9 450 @.328 lbs bph hr . torque is the answer not hp. thats why 237 maxidynes were more suited to roadtrain work than 335 /350 cummins and 871gm's, some one will beg to differ.................steve

...although i'd give the guernsey to a well tuned 335 over a 350 anytime

cheers

and the marine version 3408 is 540 hp, no torque info tho. and a marine E9 is around a 1000hp so torque should be more than enough and I know someone running a marine C15 thats been derated to 700 hp from 1200

Grant

Just put a Signature in there and be done with it

580/1850 or 600/2050

Hi, no way. they are just horrible. maybe its just me, but I find they dont match to the gearbox well. I all ways have trouble trying to find a gear with the 600 cummins, be it a a mack 18 or a road ranger, there is a few of these in the fleet and all are the same, yet if I hop in the mack with the C15 cat and road ranger I have not a problem in the world.

Grant

Putting a marine engine in a truck is asking for trouble. A Marine engine is built with substantial extra HP output, because a marine engine is not subject to the same stresses and operating conditions as a truck engine.

A marine engine does not have to cope with dust .. it does not have to cope with temperature extremes .. water provides a constant cushion to any drive train shockloading .. and a marine engine does not have to cope with massive engine loadings that a truck engine has to cope with.

A truck engine dragging a couple or three trailers up a long gradient is subjected to massive stress, as the engine loading reaches extreme levels after 10 or 15 minutes of climbing, working at it's limit.

Consider the difference between you walking along a flat footpath alongside a river, as against climbing a mountain. Flat footpath = marine work .. mountain climbing = trucking work.
With flat footpath walking, little exertion is required. With mountain climbing, your bodys muscles are straining at their limit, your heart and circulatory system are working overtime, your lungs are gasping for as much air as they can pump into your system.

A truck engine is doing the equivalent of mountain-climbing on heavy tonnage, on-highway hauling. It's having to cope with ambient temperature extremes, EGT's that are at valve-melting levels, oil temperatures that are at levels where lubrication boundaries are being tested.
A truck engine crankshaft is subject to shock loading that a marine engine never encounters .. and it has to cope with massive loads from low RPM to high RPM.

There's a reason why Cat and other engine manufacturers build engines to a useage specification. That specification takes into account the conditions encountered in that useage, the HP requirements, and the stresses involved.
Taking an engine built for a high HP, low stress specification, and putting it into a high stress application, is asking for trouble in the long term.

There's only one application that is harder on engines than truck engine application, and that is loco engine application, where the tonnage is vastly higher than a trucking application.

When the first Oshkoshes appeared in Australia, the 1673 engines had a disastrous run, with broken crankshafts and numerous other major problems, that Cat had to address to save their truck engine reputation.
It was simply the fact that the 1673's working in Australia were encountering more severe extremes in their operating environment (higher ambient temps, grades & tonnages), than they encountered in the States.

Our gross allowable tonnages are substantially higher than the anywhere in the U.S. I expressed surprise at the low load limits in the U.S. with a mate who was trying to ship big earthmoving equipment out of AZ.
He was restricted to a gross of 55 tons, full stop, no matter what the route. I said, "I thought the U.S. had the finest highway system in the world?".
His answer? - "They have - and they intend to keep it that way! - with low gross loadings!". :

The maximum gradient of any U.S. Interstate is engineered at 3%. In Australia, we have long steady gradients on country highways (even in W.A.) that are much more than 3% .. and which extend for lengthy distances .. and which test engines past any stress levels ever encountered in long-distance trucking on U.S. Interstates.

Hi, no way. they are just horrible. maybe its just me, but I find they dont match to the gearbox well. I all ways have trouble trying to find a gear with the 600 cummins, be it a a mack 18 or a road ranger, there is a few of these in the fleet and all are the same, yet if I hop in the mack with the C15 cat and road ranger I have not a problem in the world.

Grant

I'd agree, they come back in the revs quicker than a GM on up changes, or the one I drove did anyway, it's like a jake change, but you can"t hear the Jake.

Hi, well the 700 hp Cat is doing just fine out there with the 8 and 9% grades we have. and the only nasty hill out there that will truly upset a triple is that big horrible thing going into Tom Price. I cant produce alot out of the 866 I have found out the bottom ends are not to strong, where the E9 is much better. at this stage I am still looking for an engine so all in time. there is some massive hills in the USA, but there only pulling one trailer or 2 pups. they do pull 2 x 53s in Michigen but its only straight flat ground from one end to the other.

Grant

it's not you ducky the cummins are horrible to drive after series 60 or a cat,the cummins electronics just don't have the nice gentle smoothness about the throttle pedal they are just to snappy,the first one i drove i was shocked and frustrated at how suddenly after all these years and being old school proud about the smoothness of the gearchange i was jerky on the take off and couldn't get the feel for a nice little blip on the throttle to pluck a gear change so for that reason alone after driving quite a few signature and isx engines i would never buy one ,they seem to suit the auto box better than the other 2 i think because they drop the revs off very quick.....