Why the Multi-Fuel and not the Mack?

[m139h2otruck]

Anyone know why, in their infinite wisdom, the Army decided to use the slightly tuned-up multi in the 5 tons instead of the ENDT-673 Mack, which had already proven itself in the early '60s? From what I've read, and what others have added through this site, the multi was hard pressed running a fully loaded 5 ton on convey duty in Vietnam, while the Macks were just doing their duty like they were doing in the States at the time. Could it have been a problem with engine supply? Was it an attempt to "standardize" on engines (like a deuce engine and a 5 ton are the same!)? Was it a fuel issue? Now it seems, that the Macks are kind of rare, and most all of the multis have been rebuilt or replaced at least once.

 

[ken]

It was back in the days on mister mac and the wiz kids. You know, everybody will wear the same shoes and will have the same rifle. Mabye those bean counters thought they could streamline truck production also. They would be able to keep less spare parts on the shelf that way. If they really cared how things worked when the troops got their hands on something the M14 rifle would have hung around a lot longer.

 

[jimk]

conjecture - Mack costs more.Today as well, partly because the labor is union-UAW,partly because they are over-built (stronger). JimK

 

[citizensoldier]

Its my understanding they put Macks in them for three years. The Army wanted Mack to make changes to the engine and Mack told them to piss off.. Not changing there stuff! = contract termenation.This is the story I recieved from a very credable soarce... Dont have any hard facts to back it up... Just what I was told..

 

[BKubu]

The story I heard was that there was a big push in the early 60s to go to a motor that could burn "multiple" fuels. Perhaps, to echo CITIZENSOLDIER's comment, Mack refused to redesign their motor to be a mult-fuel. I will also add that I've spoken to several NG guys and no one had anything nice to say about the Mack motors. Personally, I've owned both Mack-powered truck (M52A1) and a multifuel-powered truck (M543A2). I have no real preference other than the multifuel powered trucks tend to be a bit newer.

 

[jimk]

Mack told them to piss off..

They would never get away using words like that today. Now it'd be something in French, with Renault cast into the side of the blocks.

The change(s) asked for would likely have been multifuel. Being a business I think Mack would have considered it. I'll sure they felt it was not profitable, Perhaps the volume was too low or they were already running full capacity. Or maybe the were just under bid.JimK

 

[citizensoldier]

Well it was put in the light that the owner of the company was not going to change anything to do with the design of their motor. They had plenty of work and was of the mind set that there desighn was superior and would not bend to the armys requests? Yes P off is a bit harsh but thats the way it was put to me.
I have never even driven one with a Mack in it but, our head DNR mechanic here in Michigan swears by them. He gets rid of anything with multigfuel and has a nice collection of Mack fire/brush trucks. He has worked on them all and is a master mechanic. He says they are tough and more powerful. Cant hardely brake them??I did raz him about not having to buy parts for them out of his own pocket... Anything with the words Mack on it seem to be double or more...

 

[citizensoldier]

This one sold for a good price last week. Anybody here get it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...RK:MEWA:IT&viewitem=&item=150111688427&rd=1,1

 

[m139h2otruck]

I am the high bidder on the truck on e-bay, this is what generated the questions.

I too agree that Mac and the wiz kids could have had an influence on the "standard" use of the multi, but I also can see Mack saying no way to a change to their engine for multi fuel use (would have required an agreement with MANN).

If you look at the diesel engines available at the time (1960), the Mack is really the only engine that fits well in place of the R6602. A 6-71 DD is too tall (and loud), a 220/250/270 (855) Cummins is too long and the Cats had not yet broken into the truck market. Not sure about IHC.

 

[citizensoldier]

congrats on that tractor !! I watched it but to far for me to haul 19 thousand pounds.. Not in bad shape and with a Mack engine you got a good price IMHO.. Keep us posted on her progress. Are you going to restore it? I thought maybe someone on the site picked up that rare gem..heheheh