# Mack truck



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm looking at maybe buying a semi truck and was wondering if Mack trucks are any good? I seem to see very few Mack semis on the road and was wondering why that is? Around here you see a lot of Mack dump trucks but very few semis. The place I buy my fertilizer from mentioned to me that he is thinking of selling one of his trucks. I don't know all the specs yet but I know it is a 1998 Mack with a 9 speed transmission with about 300k miles.


----------



## sethd11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Mack's hold their value incredibly well. I was actually bidding on a lot of 4and was going to buy one. Nothing was known about the trucks. All sold for over 9k. 1985,1987,1988,1989 respectively. R models. They are workhorses that can take extreme abuse. That said,. They are rough trucks and there isn't much operator comforts


----------



## Troy Farmer (Jul 31, 2011)

I can only speak for the R Models. They are tough trucks. I own a 1969 R 600 single axle. Bare bones but I can hit the stater and she cranks right up.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

The older Mack anything are built like tanks, also ride like tanks and too much time in one will make you feel like you got run over by a tank. The newer more aerodynamic ones are supposed to be kinder to the driver though.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

The people I deal with in oil,, milk ,,Building Supplies etc..... occasionally sell a semi tractor and I occasionally buy it me personally I'd be a little reluctant to buy a tractor that did 25 years of fertilizer hauling. A Mack truck is a very well-built truck. One thing we have found with truck tractors the very periodic use with periodic drivers , if possible we try to stay away from air ride suspension


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Older Macks built about an hour north of me in Allentown PA were great trucks built for "off road" and severe service. 
Since Renault bought out Mack, they were "modernized" (yeah...right) and updated. 
There's an old Mack shop near me. The owner told me it's getting tough to find parts for the older Macks.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

I have a 97 ch and 02 vision, had a 95 previously. All Mack engine w Rockwell or eaton trans/rears and air ride. Air is the only way to go. Whatever you buy go pre emission (04 or older) or very late model. Heavy trucks are costly to run and costly even sitting still, but when compared to other options to move hay the ability to stop with a semi is hard to overlook.

As others said a fertilizer service Mack wouldn't be my first choice. A '00 era freight liner/Volvo with Detroit power will be cheapest to buy and easy to find parts for.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

endrow said:


> One thing we have found with truck tractors the very periodic use with periodic drivers , if possible we try to stay away from air ride suspension


Why's that? The only beef we have with ours is that it's spring ride, beats the crap out of yah when empty.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

The particular truck I'm looking at wasn't used to haul fertilize. It was mostly used to pull a dump trailer hauling grain and occasionally lime or a feed trailer. I don't remember the exact model but I remember it started with CH. I know it has a Mack engine.

Now I'm a bit concerned about how comfortable this thing will be to drive......I don't have to ride in luxury but the idea of feeling like I have been run over by a tank isn't what I'm looking for. Are most Mack trucks uncomfortable enough that it wouldn't be pleasurable to spend a full day driving one?


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Back in that era there's millions of people that drove CH is on a daily basis I think it would be the ideal truck and keep in mind those that ride better the chassis is probably going to be so long I find those trucks with long-wheelbase that right little bit better very inconvenient to drive around the farm. One thing I did find important when shopping for used truck tractors is the gear ratios in the Rears and if they're too high with a 9-speed you can hardly get a load moving in low gear in the fields and that is something you most likely only encounter with a over road tractor


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

I'm sitting in a 900k mile ch right now. Comfort is just as good as any other similar wheelbase air ride tractor. Now it isn't a 300 inch wheelbase Pete with a set forward axle but I can maneuver better.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

What are the models of Mack trucks that everyone has been saying are lacking in operator comfort? Anything in particular I need to look at when I go look over and drive this truck? I don't know much of anything about a semi truck. What gear ratio would I want?

It's going to be about a month before this truck is actually for sale and I have first choice if I'm interested so I have some time to think about it and look at some other trucks. Maneuverability is important getting in and out of fields so I don't want anything with a super long wheelbase but I do want something that is comfortable to drive as I plan on running this truck on the highway making 6-10 hour trips fairly often.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Gear ratio is also dependent on whether its a L or LL transmission. Think one or two low gears that are next to worthless on actual asphalt. Our thirteen speed is really more like a ten as it could be called a LLL, only ever need the first three if its soft to get her rolling.

For the most part on our semi tractor L is only ever used getting rolling in the field. Barely even need first actually once on asphalt.


----------



## Troy Farmer (Jul 31, 2011)

FarmerCline: 
Mainly the R models lack the comfort. Mine is a 1969 single axle leaf spring suspension with bias ply tires. Running bob tail can be rough. When pulling a trailer better and a loaded trailer even better. The CH model should be like riding in a caddy compared to my old dog. One thing people tend to forget is that they are trucks built to haul and stop heavy loads. But once you use a road tractor you will appreciate the power and stopping ability.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

How many miles per year?


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

SVFHAY said:


> How many miles per year?


 Kind of hard to say at this point.....all depends on how much hay I end up delivering and need to buy. Will also make a lot of short trips around here but that won't accumulate many miles.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

Fuel is a truckers biggest expense so you have to spec for efficiency. At $2.50 a gallon it's not near the concern as it was at $4.50. That put a lot of guys out of business when it spiked.

At your low miles you can compromise. That truck is likely a decent fit if it suits you.

I think I would want $15 k for it if it was mine and miles were correct. There has been a move to pre emissions trucks and Macks have always been popular for export so it may be worth a bit more than it was 5 years ago.


----------



## 1oldphart (Aug 20, 2014)

If your tall or big spend some time in it. I'm 6-3 321 and I don't think they ever made a mack I could drive. I own 2 R models mack engines mack 2 stick trans spring suspensions. I drove them from the auction cause they were cheap, but put employees in them ever since...paul


----------



## Three44s (May 21, 2016)

We have three Macks.

One is an off highway end dump ......... it's a carbon copy of the old Euchlid end dumps ........ a '53 model with a straight 220 Cummins for power and fuels with the common PT system.

The others are on road trucks but one of those is a cross over ........... it's also a '53 ........ tandem with the set back front axle. It has Mack spring rear with ......... 60,000 # axles and springs. THREE sticks the front boxes are Mack and the rear is a three speed Brownie .... one combo you are not supposed to use so it's effectively 27 speeds forward. Top speed is right around 52 mph!

A straight Cummins 220 powers this truck as well and it has the rare double disk fuel system ........ a fuel pincher as a matter of fact.

The third Mack is a '79 Superliner .... the real long nose ....... it and the '53 "highway" truck are both logging length. For power the '79 has a 350 small cam Cummins and a 13 speed trans.

We haul cattle with the '79 using a fifth wheel and a double deck trailer. It has the rubber pad Hendrix and tandem rears. Pad hendrix ain't for the faint of heart!

We can fifth wheel about anything but do not deliver hay. We might haul big bales to us but we have no interest to haul our small bales to someone else.

Best regards

Three 44s


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Three44s said:


> We haul cattle with the '79 using a fifth wheel and a double deck trailer. It has the rubber pad Hendrix and tandem rears. Pad hendrix ain't for the faint of heart!


We have a 73 International that had the rubber block suspension, pretty decent ride when full, will beat the kidneys right out of you when empty. Cut it in half and just welded in the rear frame from a 50's era International, rear frame was getting pretty ate up anyways where it was three layers thick.


----------

